Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I see.
A work of pure fiction. Pure fantasy.
I thought we had just got rid of ONE fantasist. Now another one turns up.
I sometimes have wondered why those people with a little knowledge on this subject, have such a morbid fascination with; FACTS, FACTS, FACTS!
We could have this whole business completely sewn up, if only THEY would just go away!
A work of pure fiction. Pure fantasy.
I thought we had just got rid of ONE fantasist. Now another one turns up.
I sometimes have wondered why those people with a little knowledge on this subject, have such a morbid fascination with; FACTS, FACTS, FACTS!
We could have this whole business completely sewn up, if only THEY would just go away!
Guest
Posts: n/a
xx
We could have this whole business completely sewn up, if only THEY would just go away!
Do you honestly think this will ever go away?
How long has this been going on?
If this campaign is going to go anywhere then surely it must move on.
If you want justice you must fight for it, its not going to come to you.
If you really do want this to come to a succesful conclusion then you have to do the same as these guys and do something about it.
Dont wait for justice - grab it !
Do you honestly think this will ever go away?
How long has this been going on?
If this campaign is going to go anywhere then surely it must move on.
If you want justice you must fight for it, its not going to come to you.
If you really do want this to come to a succesful conclusion then you have to do the same as these guys and do something about it.
Dont wait for justice - grab it !
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
ArkRoyal
Questioning my credentials ..'if you ever did any (ie low flying)', is no answer. If you recall our earlier exchanges, much if not most of my 4000 hrs was at LL or VLL.
You seem to think that the 'lines on maps' are of little relevance, but that is the evidence we have and that you choose to ignore (because of course it is inconvenient).
It is of course quite posible that the crew might have intended to cut the corner, but in that case the aircraft would have been even further to the left and thus even further displaced from where it actually inpacted. How do you explain that? The only explanation that fits the facts is that the crew mistook the fog signal compound for the lighthouse compound; this would have led them to believe that they were over 500 yds to the left of where they actually were.
As for your questions, you asked me to challenge anything you had said, and I say again that Holbrook's evidence was contradictory as to just what he could make out and when, and whether you were present or not when he gave it is yet another red herring.
JP
Questioning my credentials ..'if you ever did any (ie low flying)', is no answer. If you recall our earlier exchanges, much if not most of my 4000 hrs was at LL or VLL.
You seem to think that the 'lines on maps' are of little relevance, but that is the evidence we have and that you choose to ignore (because of course it is inconvenient).
It is of course quite posible that the crew might have intended to cut the corner, but in that case the aircraft would have been even further to the left and thus even further displaced from where it actually inpacted. How do you explain that? The only explanation that fits the facts is that the crew mistook the fog signal compound for the lighthouse compound; this would have led them to believe that they were over 500 yds to the left of where they actually were.
As for your questions, you asked me to challenge anything you had said, and I say again that Holbrook's evidence was contradictory as to just what he could make out and when, and whether you were present or not when he gave it is yet another red herring.
JP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
Why SO reluctant to answer any questions?
Mikehegland
My suggestion;
"We could have this whole business completely sewn up, if only THEY would just go away!"
Should be read along with the PREVIOUS paragraph!
It's known as 'irony'!
If you don't mind me saying, you have been very busy on your first day on Pprune. If you are in the US, you were also up very early. Well done.
As an aside: How long have AA been operating B747-400s?
Why SO reluctant to answer any questions?
Mikehegland
My suggestion;
"We could have this whole business completely sewn up, if only THEY would just go away!"
Should be read along with the PREVIOUS paragraph!
It's known as 'irony'!
If you don't mind me saying, you have been very busy on your first day on Pprune. If you are in the US, you were also up very early. Well done.
As an aside: How long have AA been operating B747-400s?
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, been away for a few days, but delighted to see that the thread continues to draw interest.
I'll go through points raised since my last visit and give you my opinion on the comments since 29 November, so apologies if I rake over old posts.
Invertron - I think the point of how far out the cloud extended is a valid point. If it's orographic cloud then it's fair to offer that the coast could be established from the cockpit. If it wasn't and the cloud did, in fact, extend further out then you may have a point. Unfortunately, none of us know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots saw from the cockpit, and the only evidence we have is conflicting. The weather information, therefore, has to be treated with extreme caution when offering it as fact. If Jon and Rick did see the Mull, I have no idea why they flew into it.
Mr Purdey, we do know what the weather was like at sea-level because Mr Holbrook gave evidence as such. As none of us were stood with him I respectfully suggest none of us are qualified to challenge his statement with absolute surety.
Tuckunder, welcome to the thread. Kind words, and thank you for your support.
Tucumseh, your concerns and points raised are the very same raised by Air Commodore Blakeley.
Invertron, you make the point of the statement "had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?" I would suggest that as an isolated statement, it is, indeed, a factual statement. However, You are making the assumption that, with regards this subject, the pilots definately intended to overfly the Mull. We don't know that they intended to do so. Perhaps they intended to fly to the west of the landmass. Again we don't know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Speculation, assumption and even 'most probably' do not satisfy the burden of proof laws in place at the time.
I know that you have said that you are playing Devil's Advocate with your questions and I am also grateful that you have publically stated that you feel the negligence verdict should be removed from the pilots. May I ask what it is about the evidence (or lack of) that makes you feel the verdict to be unsafe? I assure you that this is not a trick question - just want to know what it is that you're not happy with.
rafloo, I would have turned back too. Wonder why they didn't?
Thud, Hope you are keeping well. Good point about the removal of Crown Immunity. Do you recall if there was anything in writing sent to Squadrons?
Invertron, (sorry, I'm not having a go. You've just been rather busy!). The use of the word 'Deliberately' by Mr Wratten indicates that he knows with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots were thinking, what they were saying, and what their control input(s) were. He doesn't. Therefore it's not of factual evidential value.
mikehegland, I think it (the campaign) will go away, once justice has seen to be done. We try to move it on in a dignified way because we are aware that what we are doing affects the families of 29 people. Direct action is not something we feel, at this time is appropriate for the campaign, although I'm not saying it has never been discussed!
To everyone, I'm sorry if I've backtracked a bit too far, but wished to comment on what I'd missed. I have to admit to wondering why we all seem to go over the same old issues, both entirely convinced on our own perspective and interpretation of the small amount of factual evidence.
Would it be fair to say that the only thing any of us who contribute here can say is that the pilots may well have been negligent, but then again they may not have been. We will never know what really did happen, to cause such a tragic accident, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'll go through points raised since my last visit and give you my opinion on the comments since 29 November, so apologies if I rake over old posts.
Invertron - I think the point of how far out the cloud extended is a valid point. If it's orographic cloud then it's fair to offer that the coast could be established from the cockpit. If it wasn't and the cloud did, in fact, extend further out then you may have a point. Unfortunately, none of us know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots saw from the cockpit, and the only evidence we have is conflicting. The weather information, therefore, has to be treated with extreme caution when offering it as fact. If Jon and Rick did see the Mull, I have no idea why they flew into it.
Mr Purdey, we do know what the weather was like at sea-level because Mr Holbrook gave evidence as such. As none of us were stood with him I respectfully suggest none of us are qualified to challenge his statement with absolute surety.
Tuckunder, welcome to the thread. Kind words, and thank you for your support.
Tucumseh, your concerns and points raised are the very same raised by Air Commodore Blakeley.
Invertron, you make the point of the statement "had that Chinook been at safety altitude where it should have been, would they not have hit the ground?" I would suggest that as an isolated statement, it is, indeed, a factual statement. However, You are making the assumption that, with regards this subject, the pilots definately intended to overfly the Mull. We don't know that they intended to do so. Perhaps they intended to fly to the west of the landmass. Again we don't know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Speculation, assumption and even 'most probably' do not satisfy the burden of proof laws in place at the time.
I know that you have said that you are playing Devil's Advocate with your questions and I am also grateful that you have publically stated that you feel the negligence verdict should be removed from the pilots. May I ask what it is about the evidence (or lack of) that makes you feel the verdict to be unsafe? I assure you that this is not a trick question - just want to know what it is that you're not happy with.
rafloo, I would have turned back too. Wonder why they didn't?
Thud, Hope you are keeping well. Good point about the removal of Crown Immunity. Do you recall if there was anything in writing sent to Squadrons?
Invertron, (sorry, I'm not having a go. You've just been rather busy!). The use of the word 'Deliberately' by Mr Wratten indicates that he knows with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the pilots were thinking, what they were saying, and what their control input(s) were. He doesn't. Therefore it's not of factual evidential value.
mikehegland, I think it (the campaign) will go away, once justice has seen to be done. We try to move it on in a dignified way because we are aware that what we are doing affects the families of 29 people. Direct action is not something we feel, at this time is appropriate for the campaign, although I'm not saying it has never been discussed!
To everyone, I'm sorry if I've backtracked a bit too far, but wished to comment on what I'd missed. I have to admit to wondering why we all seem to go over the same old issues, both entirely convinced on our own perspective and interpretation of the small amount of factual evidence.
Would it be fair to say that the only thing any of us who contribute here can say is that the pilots may well have been negligent, but then again they may not have been. We will never know what really did happen, to cause such a tragic accident, with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
JP,
I asume some of your post is directed at Tandemrotor. Maybe if you answerred his questions, we might move on.
Not inconvenient at all. As TR and myself, and any other SH pilot you care to drag up, will agree, they are just lines on a map. Tactical low level flying rarely tramlines the lines drawn on the chart.
NO NO NO! That is not THE ONLY explanation left. It's one, granted, but just a theory like any other.
Answer one question then: Why do you wish to see the finding stand, when there are no facts to support it?
I asume some of your post is directed at Tandemrotor. Maybe if you answerred his questions, we might move on.
You seem to think that the 'lines on maps' are of little relevance, but that is the evidence we have and that you choose to ignore (because of course it is inconvenient).
The only explanation that fits the facts is that the crew mistook the fog signal compound for the lighthouse compound; this would have led them to believe that they were over 500 yds to the left of where they actually were.
Answer one question then: Why do you wish to see the finding stand, when there are no facts to support it?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
Sorry to disappoint - havn't gone away - just waiting for some technical info - am preparing a detailed post.
Didn't want to "waste bandwidth" responding to you on a point by point basis.
Gentlemen - please do not be put off from commenting by those on this site who seem to want to keep even the most basic assumptions "foggy"; the authorities could have made a much clearer starting point for debate 10 years ago but apparently did not want to - presumably, serving members who could clear points up are officially gagged - obviously this is a sensitive issue but the consequences for the British people of this disaster have been so serious that a fuller picture of what happened is required - this is only going to be achieved by reasoned debate between those interested people who can comment independently - errors are going to be made but with a more positive attitude much can be made of the available information to properly explore possibilities.
Sorry to disappoint - havn't gone away - just waiting for some technical info - am preparing a detailed post.
Didn't want to "waste bandwidth" responding to you on a point by point basis.
Gentlemen - please do not be put off from commenting by those on this site who seem to want to keep even the most basic assumptions "foggy"; the authorities could have made a much clearer starting point for debate 10 years ago but apparently did not want to - presumably, serving members who could clear points up are officially gagged - obviously this is a sensitive issue but the consequences for the British people of this disaster have been so serious that a fuller picture of what happened is required - this is only going to be achieved by reasoned debate between those interested people who can comment independently - errors are going to be made but with a more positive attitude much can be made of the available information to properly explore possibilities.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
ArkRoyal.
Like you and just about everyone else, I devoutly wish that the finding did not stand. But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence - high speed, low level, in cloud, aircraft under control and so on. Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction.
I first took an objective interest in this tragedy because, as an experienced aviator myself, I could not believe that some of the explanations being floated were serious ones (sabotage; controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact ,are two of them. Now we quibble about lines on maps, saying in effect that they mean nothing).
Yes, we have been here before, and I appreciate that the game-plan of the Mull Group is to keep the balls in the air, but we are not only going round in circles, but going round in the same circles! Regards, as always. JP
Like you and just about everyone else, I devoutly wish that the finding did not stand. But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence - high speed, low level, in cloud, aircraft under control and so on. Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction.
I first took an objective interest in this tragedy because, as an experienced aviator myself, I could not believe that some of the explanations being floated were serious ones (sabotage; controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact ,are two of them. Now we quibble about lines on maps, saying in effect that they mean nothing).
Yes, we have been here before, and I appreciate that the game-plan of the Mull Group is to keep the balls in the air, but we are not only going round in circles, but going round in the same circles! Regards, as always. JP
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Weather - More Contemporary evidence
Dear All,
A great deal of the debate recently has concerned the weather at the time. The HoL report contains further detailed contemporaneous evidence from the SAR crew. The report can be read at:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...n/25/25m04.htm
(Reproduced below)
Seems to corroborate Mr Holbrooke to me.
"ENTRY IN LOG BOOK OF MEMBER OF THE NAVY SEA KING HELICOPTER CREW
R177
WEBSTER GOODENOUGH BARCLAY CHAMBERS BURNETT
What a horrible one. Scrambled 1810 (local), airborne 1817 with basic details of a helicopter being heard flying over Mull of Kintyre lighthouse followed shortly by loud bang. Heard en route that it was a Chinook—thought initially five or so souls on board. Then heard that 30 persons on board (later confirmed at 29) so ensured that other units (including our standby crew) were also scrambled. Arrived on scene approximately 1845 having made visual-with-surface transit (down to 100' on rad alt with min quarter nm vis) assisted by Steve's excellent radar assistance. Closed accident scene from the south of the Mull, found four or five lines of fire in the heather on the hill side but cloud and smoke prohibited any cliff transit to the crash site. Made several attempts to do this in the suckers gaps but wx changing so rapidly that we had to abort each time. Landed on at landing pad near lighthouse to assist with casevac if required (we weren't!) . . .
PAY: 1.45 Night 0.35
WX: W/V 160/15—330/15
CLOUD: 7ST002 at worst
7SC009 at best
8SC015 VIS: ¼nm at worst
3-4nm at best
DZ + SMOKE at scene
9ºC COMMS: Mostly good, Crab Sea Kings
Comms seemed poor, Nimrod comms
fairly good, poor with ground parties.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
"suckers gap"—This is a brief, unreliable clearance in cloud. Sometimes in foggy weather a gap appears, which might be assumed to be a clearance, but which then closes in.
"wx"—weather.
"Crab"—RAF.
"w/v"—wind velocity.
Notes at the foot of the entry:
Weather: Wind velocity—wind from a direction of 160o at a speed of 15 knots, becoming from a direction of 330o still at a speed of 15 knots.
Cloud: At worst seven eighths (almost constant) stratus (flat and layered) fog/cloud at 200 ft.
At best seven eighths stratus cumulus (more vertical form) at 900 ft.
At 1,500 ft solid cloud.
(Eighths measure density of cloud.)
Visibility: one quarter nautical mile at worst, 3 to 4 nautical miles at best.
Drizzle and smoke at scene. 9º Centigrade."
A great deal of the debate recently has concerned the weather at the time. The HoL report contains further detailed contemporaneous evidence from the SAR crew. The report can be read at:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...n/25/25m04.htm
(Reproduced below)
Seems to corroborate Mr Holbrooke to me.
"ENTRY IN LOG BOOK OF MEMBER OF THE NAVY SEA KING HELICOPTER CREW
R177
WEBSTER GOODENOUGH BARCLAY CHAMBERS BURNETT
What a horrible one. Scrambled 1810 (local), airborne 1817 with basic details of a helicopter being heard flying over Mull of Kintyre lighthouse followed shortly by loud bang. Heard en route that it was a Chinook—thought initially five or so souls on board. Then heard that 30 persons on board (later confirmed at 29) so ensured that other units (including our standby crew) were also scrambled. Arrived on scene approximately 1845 having made visual-with-surface transit (down to 100' on rad alt with min quarter nm vis) assisted by Steve's excellent radar assistance. Closed accident scene from the south of the Mull, found four or five lines of fire in the heather on the hill side but cloud and smoke prohibited any cliff transit to the crash site. Made several attempts to do this in the suckers gaps but wx changing so rapidly that we had to abort each time. Landed on at landing pad near lighthouse to assist with casevac if required (we weren't!) . . .
PAY: 1.45 Night 0.35
WX: W/V 160/15—330/15
CLOUD: 7ST002 at worst
7SC009 at best
8SC015 VIS: ¼nm at worst
3-4nm at best
DZ + SMOKE at scene
9ºC COMMS: Mostly good, Crab Sea Kings
Comms seemed poor, Nimrod comms
fairly good, poor with ground parties.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
"suckers gap"—This is a brief, unreliable clearance in cloud. Sometimes in foggy weather a gap appears, which might be assumed to be a clearance, but which then closes in.
"wx"—weather.
"Crab"—RAF.
"w/v"—wind velocity.
Notes at the foot of the entry:
Weather: Wind velocity—wind from a direction of 160o at a speed of 15 knots, becoming from a direction of 330o still at a speed of 15 knots.
Cloud: At worst seven eighths (almost constant) stratus (flat and layered) fog/cloud at 200 ft.
At best seven eighths stratus cumulus (more vertical form) at 900 ft.
At 1,500 ft solid cloud.
(Eighths measure density of cloud.)
Visibility: one quarter nautical mile at worst, 3 to 4 nautical miles at best.
Drizzle and smoke at scene. 9º Centigrade."
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey wrote:
"But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence - high speed, low level, in cloud, aircraft under control and so on."
There are precious few facts in your list of "facts", JP. There is evidence that the aircraft was at high speed, low level & in cloud, but ONLY at the point of impact. The Air Marshals' contention was that the negligence occurred significantly before impact, and of that there is NO evidence whatsoever. Indeed the only eyewitness reported seeing the aircraft travelling slowly and in sunlight. But, of course, you know all this already.
"Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction."
This is the approach that the Air Marshals took - it must be negligence because there is no evidence that it wasn't. Guilty until proven innocent?
"I first took an objective interest in this tragedy because, as an experienced aviator myself, I could not believe that some of the explanations being floated were serious ones (sabotage; controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact ,are two of them."
I accept & agree that sabotage, DME equipment planted by fairies, and all the other nonsense detracts from the whole process. However Sqn Leader Burke and others reported first hand experience of a number of technical issues on HC2's which cleared themselves and left no evidence, but again, you know all this already. How can you discount such a possibility with ZD576?
"I appreciate that the game-plan of the Mull Group is to keep the balls in the air, but we are not only going round in circles, but going round in the same circles!"
Not quite sure what you're implying about the work of the Mull of Kintyre Group here, however are you not one of the people who persists in leading us round in these very circles?
"But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence - high speed, low level, in cloud, aircraft under control and so on."
There are precious few facts in your list of "facts", JP. There is evidence that the aircraft was at high speed, low level & in cloud, but ONLY at the point of impact. The Air Marshals' contention was that the negligence occurred significantly before impact, and of that there is NO evidence whatsoever. Indeed the only eyewitness reported seeing the aircraft travelling slowly and in sunlight. But, of course, you know all this already.
"Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction."
This is the approach that the Air Marshals took - it must be negligence because there is no evidence that it wasn't. Guilty until proven innocent?
"I first took an objective interest in this tragedy because, as an experienced aviator myself, I could not believe that some of the explanations being floated were serious ones (sabotage; controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact ,are two of them."
I accept & agree that sabotage, DME equipment planted by fairies, and all the other nonsense detracts from the whole process. However Sqn Leader Burke and others reported first hand experience of a number of technical issues on HC2's which cleared themselves and left no evidence, but again, you know all this already. How can you discount such a possibility with ZD576?
"I appreciate that the game-plan of the Mull Group is to keep the balls in the air, but we are not only going round in circles, but going round in the same circles!"
Not quite sure what you're implying about the work of the Mull of Kintyre Group here, however are you not one of the people who persists in leading us round in these very circles?
Just a numbered other
JP, interesting post.
Again, I ask you to brush up on the meaning of the word 'fact'. Even if what you say is true; that the evidence points to a conclusion, is not proof beyond any doubt is it?
I can't. I don't need to, as the onus of proof is on those who have to produce evidence beyond any doubt whatsoever that they were negligent.
Chocks has said the rest.
As I pointed out way back two years ago:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found
Now JP, if we are to avoid these circles answer some of the questions put to you, like the one I posed recently:
Answer one question then: Why do you wish to see the finding stand, when there are no facts to support it?
But the unpleasant fact is that all the evidence we have points to the conclusion of negligence
Please show us the facts, I said facts, that point conclusively in any other direction.
Chocks has said the rest.
As I pointed out way back two years ago:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found
Now JP, if we are to avoid these circles answer some of the questions put to you, like the one I posed recently:
Answer one question then: Why do you wish to see the finding stand, when there are no facts to support it?
controls suddenly jam and the magically free themselves just before impact (sic)
Have you ever read the account (originally in their Flight Safety periodical) of the US Army Chinook on a post-maintenance delivery flight which went into an Uncommanded Flight Control Manoeuvre from something like 5000 ft agl? The one where the aircraft inverted, went into a Vne+ dive then recovered just above the trees, while not responding to aircrew control inputs? If not, you might find it enlightening. You might then not be so quick to dismiss this as a possible cause. I have to stress possible, because we'll never know for certain, will we? If you've not read the account, then please acknowledge here and we'll see if there's a contributor out there somewhere who can lay his/her hands on the article.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a military pilot- my only experience of military flying was in the UAS. However, I have spent the last five years flying a largely electronically-controlled aircraft. Glitches that appear, then mysteriously disappear and leave no trace, are a weekly occurrence within our fleet- with earlier versions of the software, they were a weekly ocurrence for most individual pilots. These glitches range from spurious warnings in the EICAS, to lift dump spoilers that did not open on a landing on a short wet runway. (They did, however, open during flight the following sector. No trace was evident in the inbuilt maintainance computer afterward).
In this case it seems likely that the flight was operating relatively smoothly until shortly before the Chinook approached the Mull. Any temporary malfuntion need not have been of the magnitude of Thud's example- even a spurious warning at the wrong time can be a serious distraction. Indeed, warnings suspected to be spurious can be more distracting than genuine warnings.
JP, if we accept your theory that the crew misidentified the fog alarm as the lighthouse, is this level of distraction (perhaps allied with the crew believing they needed to get the aircraft on the ground immediately) a possible explanation?
In this case it seems likely that the flight was operating relatively smoothly until shortly before the Chinook approached the Mull. Any temporary malfuntion need not have been of the magnitude of Thud's example- even a spurious warning at the wrong time can be a serious distraction. Indeed, warnings suspected to be spurious can be more distracting than genuine warnings.
JP, if we accept your theory that the crew misidentified the fog alarm as the lighthouse, is this level of distraction (perhaps allied with the crew believing they needed to get the aircraft on the ground immediately) a possible explanation?
Guest
Posts: n/a
CHINOOK
Thud & Blunder, Yes I have seen a repro of it.
ArkRoyal. I have answered your question, by saying that I regret it as much as you do; perhaps our messages crossed.
CarltonBrown. Yes, a possible explanation of what happened at that stage (of course we cannot be sure), but the theory is not mine, it appears in the book 'Chinook Crash' and is pretty presuasive. The point is that they should not have been so close to the Mull at low level in those conditions. Can someone suggest why they did not turn away up the coast?
Meanwhile, we have all been here so many times before; does anyone have anything new to say??!!
Regards to all JP
ArkRoyal. I have answered your question, by saying that I regret it as much as you do; perhaps our messages crossed.
CarltonBrown. Yes, a possible explanation of what happened at that stage (of course we cannot be sure), but the theory is not mine, it appears in the book 'Chinook Crash' and is pretty presuasive. The point is that they should not have been so close to the Mull at low level in those conditions. Can someone suggest why they did not turn away up the coast?
Meanwhile, we have all been here so many times before; does anyone have anything new to say??!!
Regards to all JP
Just a numbered other
Circles, circles, and largely of your making, JP.
So thats your answer, then? That you wish the finding did not stand, whilst supporting its flimsy 'evidence' as fact.
Why not? We've been over the rules already. The only time we know they were in cloud, is when they crashed. Just before, they were seen in clear air. If you can prove (i.e produce FACTS and EVIDENCE, not suggestion and theory) why they wound up in these desperate straits, pray tell.
That's what we'd all have expected them to do. The suggestions, from the possible, through to the fanciful, have been made elsewhere in this thread. FACT is, nobody knows why not. Therefore the finding MUST be unsafe.
What can't you grasp in:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found
So thats your answer, then? That you wish the finding did not stand, whilst supporting its flimsy 'evidence' as fact.
The point is that they should not have been so close to the Mull at low level in those conditions.
Can someone suggest why they did not turn away up the coast?
What can't you grasp in:
Negligence is something which must be proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, not just used as a convenient cause when no other can be found
Guest
Posts: n/a
Poor weather
WX: W/V 160/15—330/15
CLOUD: 7ST002 at worst
7SC009 at best
8SC015 VIS: ¼nm at worst
3-4nm at best
DZ
to me that seems like failry poor weather.
200' cb and 1/4 nm viz !!!!!!
ALARM - I wouldnt have authorised that and I would be extremely disappointed in any of my Officers if they had authorised that.
CLOUD: 7ST002 at worst
7SC009 at best
8SC015 VIS: ¼nm at worst
3-4nm at best
DZ
to me that seems like failry poor weather.
200' cb and 1/4 nm viz !!!!!!
ALARM - I wouldnt have authorised that and I would be extremely disappointed in any of my Officers if they had authorised that.