Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Cool Mod
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: 18nm N of LGW
Posts: 6,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was drawn to an article in todays MoS written, by he who must be admired, Col Tim Collins. It is well worth a read, if only to realise how the MoD seems to works against anything, or anyone, that does not please them.
It relates to himself, Cmdr. Axon and Wing Cmdr. Gorman. The hints at cover up or of drip fed leaks leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. Just as finding an answer to this campaign does.
The point he makes very lucidly is that the doors to finding out what really happened have been very firmly closed - again!
It relates to himself, Cmdr. Axon and Wing Cmdr. Gorman. The hints at cover up or of drip fed leaks leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. Just as finding an answer to this campaign does.
The point he makes very lucidly is that the doors to finding out what really happened have been very firmly closed - again!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
I agree that, on the face of it, the Campaign would have nothing to lose by agreeing to an acceptance of the finding by a High Court judge. However, given that suitable independent judges have already ruled that there were no grounds for the finding of gross negligence against the pilots, it also seems an unnecessary step and precedents like the Hutton Inquiry, which found no Government Minister or Govt Department to blame, make me uneasy about promising to accept the verdict of one more judge.
Who would select the judge? How certain could we and (more importantly) the parents be that he would not be influenced by a loyalty, unknown to us, to the MoD as an entity (which might not wish it to be revealed that the procurement of the aircraft was rushed or that tests on it were incomplete) or to one or both of the Air Marshals (old school, golf club, lodge, society or whatever) who stand to lose face if the findings of the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the Commons' Public Audit Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee were to be duplicated by a new judge? Why not simply acknowledge that this has, in the form of the 3 processes listed, already taken place and that, with hindsight, the finding was wrong? There is no reason why this should not occur now, without the further delay of another inquiry, except that perhaps the establishment does not yet have the answer that it wants (ie 'Yes, they were negligent' and their Airships, knights of the realm that we selected for their outstanding qualities, were right all along).
I agree that, on the face of it, the Campaign would have nothing to lose by agreeing to an acceptance of the finding by a High Court judge. However, given that suitable independent judges have already ruled that there were no grounds for the finding of gross negligence against the pilots, it also seems an unnecessary step and precedents like the Hutton Inquiry, which found no Government Minister or Govt Department to blame, make me uneasy about promising to accept the verdict of one more judge.
Who would select the judge? How certain could we and (more importantly) the parents be that he would not be influenced by a loyalty, unknown to us, to the MoD as an entity (which might not wish it to be revealed that the procurement of the aircraft was rushed or that tests on it were incomplete) or to one or both of the Air Marshals (old school, golf club, lodge, society or whatever) who stand to lose face if the findings of the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the Commons' Public Audit Committee and the House of Lords Select Committee were to be duplicated by a new judge? Why not simply acknowledge that this has, in the form of the 3 processes listed, already taken place and that, with hindsight, the finding was wrong? There is no reason why this should not occur now, without the further delay of another inquiry, except that perhaps the establishment does not yet have the answer that it wants (ie 'Yes, they were negligent' and their Airships, knights of the realm that we selected for their outstanding qualities, were right all along).
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
meadowbank
I know we 'bat on the same side' so to speak!
I think all I really meant to say was, I genuinely cannot see where the campaign could go, if an independent judge were to declare that the allegation of negligence - in the terms of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' - could be justified!
I simply cannot conceive that any properly independent arbiter, would be prepared to flush their entire reputation down the toilet by such a perverse finding!
You know as well as anyone, that the standard of proof is (in this case!) impossible to satisfy! 'Gentlemen' of Her Majesty's Air Force designed it that way, for EXACTLY this scenario!!
We have officers being accused of the most serious misconduct, who are, tragically, unable to defend themselves!
I know, possibly I am being naive. That is what this government, and politicians in general rely upon.
I just hope that high court judges would have a little more respect for their reputations, and Justice with a capital 'J'!!
I know we 'bat on the same side' so to speak!
I think all I really meant to say was, I genuinely cannot see where the campaign could go, if an independent judge were to declare that the allegation of negligence - in the terms of 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' - could be justified!
I simply cannot conceive that any properly independent arbiter, would be prepared to flush their entire reputation down the toilet by such a perverse finding!
You know as well as anyone, that the standard of proof is (in this case!) impossible to satisfy! 'Gentlemen' of Her Majesty's Air Force designed it that way, for EXACTLY this scenario!!
We have officers being accused of the most serious misconduct, who are, tragically, unable to defend themselves!
I know, possibly I am being naive. That is what this government, and politicians in general rely upon.
I just hope that high court judges would have a little more respect for their reputations, and Justice with a capital 'J'!!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Pop
Any chance of a link or paste for those of us who dwell beyond Betty's home domains?
I was drawn to an article in todays MoS written, by he who must be admired, Col Tim Collins.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
Tony Blair
Geoff Hoon
Adam Ingram
Bill Wratten
John Day
Several other Air-ranking RAF officers with whom I have spoken
All of the above have, they say, considered all the facts and still consider the last pilots of ZD576 to be negligent. It is not just an examination of the facts that must take place - that's already happened - there is something more sinister here than protecting a couple of old duffers.
I simply cannot conceive that any properly independent arbiter, would be prepared to flush their entire reputation down the toilet by such a perverse finding!
Geoff Hoon
Adam Ingram
Bill Wratten
John Day
Several other Air-ranking RAF officers with whom I have spoken
All of the above have, they say, considered all the facts and still consider the last pilots of ZD576 to be negligent. It is not just an examination of the facts that must take place - that's already happened - there is something more sinister here than protecting a couple of old duffers.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
There is nothing sinister - except perhaps the MOD is being protectionary and protected because very serious errors were made regarding the way the Mk2 Chinook was ordered into service without a proper Controller Aircraft Release to Service and when the test pilots responsible for bringing it into service refused to fly it on safety grounds. They grounded it the day before the accident and refused to fly it even 10 minutes up the road so that servicing could be carried out.
This is the equivalent of an airline being sanctioned by the CAA to allow a new airliner to be put into use without a Certificate of Airworthiness.
The difference is that of course it would be the equivalent of the CAA also being the purseholder for the airline......
I formed this opinion in 1994 and have not seen, read or heard anything to suggest anything else.
There was certainly negligence involved. Go figure for yourself where most of the blame for this really lies.
This is the equivalent of an airline being sanctioned by the CAA to allow a new airliner to be put into use without a Certificate of Airworthiness.
The difference is that of course it would be the equivalent of the CAA also being the purseholder for the airline......
I formed this opinion in 1994 and have not seen, read or heard anything to suggest anything else.
There was certainly negligence involved. Go figure for yourself where most of the blame for this really lies.
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
Hi everyone.
May I pick up on the question raised by Mr Purdey regarding would the campaign accept the findings of an independent judge?
I recall at the start of the House of Lords Select Committee sessions, the very same question being asked. Lord Chalfont the then Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Group replied that the campaign would, indeed, accept the fondings of such an eminent body and challenged the MoD to say the same. There was no reply.
With regard an independent judge, I would have to say that my involvement is down to the wishes of both fathers. If the finding is one of support for negligence and they wish to continue, I will be proud to stand with them. If it supports the view of the Campaign (and many others), I hope that the MoD will review the verdict and remove it from the record. We shall have to wait and see.
One must wonder why, if the Conservatives can say that they will request such a review, Mr Hoon cannot do so now.
Mr Purdey, it would be a shame if you were to leave the debate and I would ask that you reconsider. Your views are always courteous and serve to keep us checking and rechecking our facts prior to posting.
To all who contribute and to our many supporters, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a very merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
May I pick up on the question raised by Mr Purdey regarding would the campaign accept the findings of an independent judge?
I recall at the start of the House of Lords Select Committee sessions, the very same question being asked. Lord Chalfont the then Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Group replied that the campaign would, indeed, accept the fondings of such an eminent body and challenged the MoD to say the same. There was no reply.
With regard an independent judge, I would have to say that my involvement is down to the wishes of both fathers. If the finding is one of support for negligence and they wish to continue, I will be proud to stand with them. If it supports the view of the Campaign (and many others), I hope that the MoD will review the verdict and remove it from the record. We shall have to wait and see.
One must wonder why, if the Conservatives can say that they will request such a review, Mr Hoon cannot do so now.
Mr Purdey, it would be a shame if you were to leave the debate and I would ask that you reconsider. Your views are always courteous and serve to keep us checking and rechecking our facts prior to posting.
To all who contribute and to our many supporters, may I take this opportunity to wish you all a very merry Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THAT CODE – A XMAS GIFT
Here’s a gift to the “Campaign” – the chance to put the final piece in the puzzle:
One of the few facts we have that could lead to a conclusion is that the code 7760 was found to be set.
It was said at one of the inquiries that this was “meaningless”, that the normal setting for such a flight would have been 7000, and it was suggested that this setting may have arisen from the crew attempting to change it to, say, 7700 or the dials were disturbed by impact alone; now, it is not recommended to change the code in a sudden emergency so I suggest that we can discount the former; so either the setting was disturbed from 7000 to 7760 (just the middle 2 wheels, one by 1 place and the other by 2!) by impact by some object(s) that left no mark or 7760 was already set.
The latter case could easily be confirmed (or otherwise) by the Campaign group (as an interested party) asking for the code as seen on radar recordings from earlier in the flight – however, no one has taken this up yet.
So what can the average person interested in this case do to follow this line of inquiry to closure?
I suggest as an exercise working out what code could have been given by a controller of the time assuming a particular scenario:
Just for argument’s sake, let us try to determine a possible code for a military helicopter testing or evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid;
Some background: the new mode “s” system has been under development for several reasons, one of the principal ones being the shortage of codes available from 4 octal digits (7777 gives only 4096) so don’t take old lists as gospel (eg 7760 = Domestic to Ch Isles) and realize that ATC would only have a narrow range from which to allocate for a particular purpose – of relevance in this case is that if you do this exercise for a particular region under the guidelines relevant at that time you should get a unique code or a very small range.
The “guidelines”? – well controllers would not pull something out of the air each time they are requested for a code; I do not know what the guidelines actually were for Scottish Military (or whoever it was) but there seems to be broad consistency across the various authorities – let us look at part of a request form for mode s (‘cause it was easily available) to see how specific a controller would be in his/her choice:
(Taken from “Operation of IFF/SSR Interrogators in the UK Planning Principles & Procedures”, Annex E)
NATIONAL IFF/SSR POLICY BOARD
Application for Mode S Interrogator Codes
Sensor information
Family
A: Fixed surveillance sensors used for ATC
B: Fixed surveillance sensors used for air defence
C: Deployable sensors
D: Mobile military sensors
E: Airborne early warning systems
F: Active multi-lateration system (All Calls Only)
Use
I: Operational/Hot stand-by
II: Research/Development
III: Testing/Re-commissioning
IV: Maintenance
I would suggest D in the family choices and III in the use list.
If you use the above wording in the hypothetical (ie a military helicopter testing or evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid) to an AT controller using the guidelines of the time of the crash, you may get a surprising answer.
Then you have a stiff drink and ask why was this was not mentioned at the inquiries.
Happy Christmas.
Here’s a gift to the “Campaign” – the chance to put the final piece in the puzzle:
One of the few facts we have that could lead to a conclusion is that the code 7760 was found to be set.
It was said at one of the inquiries that this was “meaningless”, that the normal setting for such a flight would have been 7000, and it was suggested that this setting may have arisen from the crew attempting to change it to, say, 7700 or the dials were disturbed by impact alone; now, it is not recommended to change the code in a sudden emergency so I suggest that we can discount the former; so either the setting was disturbed from 7000 to 7760 (just the middle 2 wheels, one by 1 place and the other by 2!) by impact by some object(s) that left no mark or 7760 was already set.
The latter case could easily be confirmed (or otherwise) by the Campaign group (as an interested party) asking for the code as seen on radar recordings from earlier in the flight – however, no one has taken this up yet.
So what can the average person interested in this case do to follow this line of inquiry to closure?
I suggest as an exercise working out what code could have been given by a controller of the time assuming a particular scenario:
Just for argument’s sake, let us try to determine a possible code for a military helicopter testing or evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid;
Some background: the new mode “s” system has been under development for several reasons, one of the principal ones being the shortage of codes available from 4 octal digits (7777 gives only 4096) so don’t take old lists as gospel (eg 7760 = Domestic to Ch Isles) and realize that ATC would only have a narrow range from which to allocate for a particular purpose – of relevance in this case is that if you do this exercise for a particular region under the guidelines relevant at that time you should get a unique code or a very small range.
The “guidelines”? – well controllers would not pull something out of the air each time they are requested for a code; I do not know what the guidelines actually were for Scottish Military (or whoever it was) but there seems to be broad consistency across the various authorities – let us look at part of a request form for mode s (‘cause it was easily available) to see how specific a controller would be in his/her choice:
(Taken from “Operation of IFF/SSR Interrogators in the UK Planning Principles & Procedures”, Annex E)
NATIONAL IFF/SSR POLICY BOARD
Application for Mode S Interrogator Codes
Sensor information
Family
A: Fixed surveillance sensors used for ATC
B: Fixed surveillance sensors used for air defence
C: Deployable sensors
D: Mobile military sensors
E: Airborne early warning systems
F: Active multi-lateration system (All Calls Only)
Use
I: Operational/Hot stand-by
II: Research/Development
III: Testing/Re-commissioning
IV: Maintenance
I would suggest D in the family choices and III in the use list.
If you use the above wording in the hypothetical (ie a military helicopter testing or evaluating a new/temporary navigation aid) to an AT controller using the guidelines of the time of the crash, you may get a surprising answer.
Then you have a stiff drink and ask why was this was not mentioned at the inquiries.
Happy Christmas.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Walter
Please put a sock in it. You've made your point many times, and so have I (under a different name), as have we all. You are entitled to express your views at length of course, but really, you're sounding like my wife!
A Happy New Year to you.
Please put a sock in it. You've made your point many times, and so have I (under a different name), as have we all. You are entitled to express your views at length of course, but really, you're sounding like my wife!
A Happy New Year to you.
Last edited by jindabyne; 26th Dec 2004 at 18:51.
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
Hi everyone.
Seasons Greetings.
Polyglory, a very interesting point and one the Campaign Group has been aware of for some time. The MoD has given an assurance that nothing will be disposed of. In fact, in a letter to myself, dated 9 Dec 04, the following was written:
"It is not our intention to dispose of any information relating to this crash in the run up to the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, or beyond."
I am grateful to the MoD for their assurance - even if I have been a pain in seeking this clarification.
I have a list of documents that I will be seeking access to following the 1st Jan 05 when the FOIA comes into force, but would welcome any suggestions as to which documents I should add to my list (PM me if you don't want to go public).
The accident even featured in This Observer article.
I'll keep you all updated as to how things progress.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Seasons Greetings.
Polyglory, a very interesting point and one the Campaign Group has been aware of for some time. The MoD has given an assurance that nothing will be disposed of. In fact, in a letter to myself, dated 9 Dec 04, the following was written:
"It is not our intention to dispose of any information relating to this crash in the run up to the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, or beyond."
I am grateful to the MoD for their assurance - even if I have been a pain in seeking this clarification.
I have a list of documents that I will be seeking access to following the 1st Jan 05 when the FOIA comes into force, but would welcome any suggestions as to which documents I should add to my list (PM me if you don't want to go public).
The accident even featured in This Observer article.
I'll keep you all updated as to how things progress.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
What kind of argument is that?!?
It isn't recommended to exceed a posted speed limit in a car, but that is no grounds for assuming that it doesn't happen!
There are many precedents of aircrew carrying out seemingly illogical, though well-intentioned acts whilst their aircraft is crashing (eg making a Mayday call instead of ejecting in time).
I recommend that you drop this bizarre (and already discredited) IFF-homing theory and, if you still want to contribute something useful, concentrate on why the crew was or was not negligent prior to the waypoint change. Happy New Year!
it is not recommended to change the code in a sudden emergency so I suggest that we can discount the former
It isn't recommended to exceed a posted speed limit in a car, but that is no grounds for assuming that it doesn't happen!
There are many precedents of aircrew carrying out seemingly illogical, though well-intentioned acts whilst their aircraft is crashing (eg making a Mayday call instead of ejecting in time).
I recommend that you drop this bizarre (and already discredited) IFF-homing theory and, if you still want to contribute something useful, concentrate on why the crew was or was not negligent prior to the waypoint change. Happy New Year!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I repeat, one of the few facts we have is that the squawk code as set in the wreckage was 7760.
It is possible to state what was set before problems, earlier in the flight, as should be on the radar recordings, which were witnessed by more than one person as far as I am aware - so not only should they have existed but they did exist.
So what is so wrong about asking (officially) for this information?
Why not use your energy/contacts/influence to clear up this one, simple point?
With all the discussion that has taken place over the years, is it not worthwhile addressing the known anomaly of the squawk code?
It is possible to state what was set before problems, earlier in the flight, as should be on the radar recordings, which were witnessed by more than one person as far as I am aware - so not only should they have existed but they did exist.
So what is so wrong about asking (officially) for this information?
Why not use your energy/contacts/influence to clear up this one, simple point?
With all the discussion that has taken place over the years, is it not worthwhile addressing the known anomaly of the squawk code?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mode S
At the risk of winding Walter up ......... Did they even have Mode S? I'm pretty sure I didn't on my state of the art aluminum pursuit ship at the time - we only fitted it for overseas operations.
Or am I confusing it with Mode IV - too much claret methinks!
Anyway if I wanted to set an emergency code I'd rotate the switch to emergency and not faff about changing individual dial numbers - thats how some clever bu&&er designed it to be used.
Or am I confusing it with Mode IV - too much claret methinks!
Anyway if I wanted to set an emergency code I'd rotate the switch to emergency and not faff about changing individual dial numbers - thats how some clever bu&&er designed it to be used.
You were indeed confusing it with Mode 4, old bean!
State of the art aluminium pursuit ship indeed
I'm afraid that Walter's theory of little green men, USMC or USN Seals from Macrihanish scuttling about the Mull planting IFF beacons is clouding the issue somewhat.
But perhaps there'll be something released under the FoI which may give support to Brian's unrelenting efforts for justice.
Personally, my suspicions are that any 'Not Positively Determined' finding would have resulted in the next of kin of the deceased suing the MoD for very considerable sums. Whereas the grotesquely offensive 'Gross Negligence' finding would have laid all liability with the deceased aircrew.
Keep at it, Brian!
State of the art aluminium pursuit ship indeed
I'm afraid that Walter's theory of little green men, USMC or USN Seals from Macrihanish scuttling about the Mull planting IFF beacons is clouding the issue somewhat.
But perhaps there'll be something released under the FoI which may give support to Brian's unrelenting efforts for justice.
Personally, my suspicions are that any 'Not Positively Determined' finding would have resulted in the next of kin of the deceased suing the MoD for very considerable sums. Whereas the grotesquely offensive 'Gross Negligence' finding would have laid all liability with the deceased aircrew.
Keep at it, Brian!
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
Hi everyone.
Happy New Year.
Thanks Beags. Letter already gone to the MoD requesting FoIA disclosure. Apologies for not saying what I've requested at the moment, as the letter won't have arrived yet.
I promise I'll let you all know what arrives back in the post.
Let's hope that 2005 brings justice for Jon and Rick.
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for typos!
Happy New Year.
Thanks Beags. Letter already gone to the MoD requesting FoIA disclosure. Apologies for not saying what I've requested at the moment, as the letter won't have arrived yet.
I promise I'll let you all know what arrives back in the post.
Let's hope that 2005 brings justice for Jon and Rick.
My best to you all, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Edited for typos!
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 5th Jan 2005 at 18:36.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impiger
If you look at the posting again, I think you’ll notice I said that I gave the Mode S request form as an example because it was readily available/to hand – the point being that ATC do not pluck numbers out of the air and that the meaning of a particular code could be got by applying the process used by the relevant controllers at the time for a given situation (just put a couple of scenarios through the process and you’ll see what I mean – you can get the meaning of the code iteratively as opposed to looking for it on a list). I believe it is the case that Mode S is backwards compatible with Modes a/c and so particular/special codes can be retained if required and the methodology for assigning such should be similar if not the same.
There was a chronic shortage of SSR codes in the old system with only 4 octal digits available – and this was one of the main drivers for developing the new Mode S system.
I have it from an authoritative source on the subject that, for the specific example I put to him of a military helicopter on a particular local route being asked to evaluate the performance of a temporary NavAid, it would be normal for ATC to nominate a code from their domestic allocation (remember the shortage of such codes) for conspicuity (eg to let other aircraft in the area (not just ATC) know why it may be stooging around in an odd way in a particular area); now the route from the UK to the Channel Islands is so far removed geographically that there would be no ambiguity in using its code (7760), say, in the NW of Scotland – it is also right next to the transponder testing set of codes – without knowing the detailed process used by the military, it intuitively seems a perfectly reasonable choice.
So, I say again, why not find out whether 7760 was set earlier in the flight?
Other items I suggest for an FOI wish list:
As the system was adopted by the RAF only a year later, at what locations were evaluation trials held? (The Mull crossing point would have been an obvious choice.)
Will the original recording of the radio comms be made available for expert analysis? (The “last” call from ZD576 was recorded but no reply and no further transmissions are said to be present – I’ll bet yachties and fishermen at sea level would be surprised if there was no VHF coverage in that area let alone at 500 feet – and I reckon in a sudden emergency it would be the PTT I’d go for rather than juggling for the emergency squawk code.)
BEagle
<<I'm afraid that Walter's theory of little green men, USMC or USN Seals from Macrihanish scuttling about the Mull planting IFF beacons is clouding the issue somewhat.>>
The facts are that:
SEALS were all over the crash site and were familiar with the equipment I have described before;
They responded that they were looking for their equipment when challenged;
They only had to mess with the one portable set that was being used, if this was the case.
Further to the above, I have read from one source (but not supported elsewhere as yet) that CIA personnel were at Macrihanish at the time.
For those of you who discount sabotage so lightly, look at the following sequence of events, bearing in mind that this team were against making concessions to the IRA and believed in a military solution and indeed were in the process of upping the effort:
Nov 1993 British Government enters into secret talks with the IRA
December 1993 Downing Street Declaration
June 1994 Chinook crash
August 1994 IRA ceasefire; then Loyalist ceasefire
And look at the comments by political leaders of the time, talking about a region of our country where decent people have held onto traditional British values longer than those on the mainland (extracted from The Importance of Being Ulster: or Northern Ireland has no Future. By Robert K Campbell. Ulster Society Publications. Lurgan 1995):
Mayhew's remark to a reporter for the German Zeit in April 1993, `Many people think that we won't let Northern Ireland out of the kingdom. If I'm honest - with pleasure.'
One of John Major's advisors is quoted by The Economist in November 1993 as saying, `If the Northern Irish voted 51-49 to join the republic, we'd be the first to cheer. So would practically every sane Englishman. Good riddance.'
Funny how we accept the military solution of the war on pseudo terror waged by America yet so easily capitulate to real terror at home, so betraying the people of Northern Ireland.
If you look at the posting again, I think you’ll notice I said that I gave the Mode S request form as an example because it was readily available/to hand – the point being that ATC do not pluck numbers out of the air and that the meaning of a particular code could be got by applying the process used by the relevant controllers at the time for a given situation (just put a couple of scenarios through the process and you’ll see what I mean – you can get the meaning of the code iteratively as opposed to looking for it on a list). I believe it is the case that Mode S is backwards compatible with Modes a/c and so particular/special codes can be retained if required and the methodology for assigning such should be similar if not the same.
There was a chronic shortage of SSR codes in the old system with only 4 octal digits available – and this was one of the main drivers for developing the new Mode S system.
I have it from an authoritative source on the subject that, for the specific example I put to him of a military helicopter on a particular local route being asked to evaluate the performance of a temporary NavAid, it would be normal for ATC to nominate a code from their domestic allocation (remember the shortage of such codes) for conspicuity (eg to let other aircraft in the area (not just ATC) know why it may be stooging around in an odd way in a particular area); now the route from the UK to the Channel Islands is so far removed geographically that there would be no ambiguity in using its code (7760), say, in the NW of Scotland – it is also right next to the transponder testing set of codes – without knowing the detailed process used by the military, it intuitively seems a perfectly reasonable choice.
So, I say again, why not find out whether 7760 was set earlier in the flight?
Other items I suggest for an FOI wish list:
As the system was adopted by the RAF only a year later, at what locations were evaluation trials held? (The Mull crossing point would have been an obvious choice.)
Will the original recording of the radio comms be made available for expert analysis? (The “last” call from ZD576 was recorded but no reply and no further transmissions are said to be present – I’ll bet yachties and fishermen at sea level would be surprised if there was no VHF coverage in that area let alone at 500 feet – and I reckon in a sudden emergency it would be the PTT I’d go for rather than juggling for the emergency squawk code.)
BEagle
<<I'm afraid that Walter's theory of little green men, USMC or USN Seals from Macrihanish scuttling about the Mull planting IFF beacons is clouding the issue somewhat.>>
The facts are that:
SEALS were all over the crash site and were familiar with the equipment I have described before;
They responded that they were looking for their equipment when challenged;
They only had to mess with the one portable set that was being used, if this was the case.
Further to the above, I have read from one source (but not supported elsewhere as yet) that CIA personnel were at Macrihanish at the time.
For those of you who discount sabotage so lightly, look at the following sequence of events, bearing in mind that this team were against making concessions to the IRA and believed in a military solution and indeed were in the process of upping the effort:
Nov 1993 British Government enters into secret talks with the IRA
December 1993 Downing Street Declaration
June 1994 Chinook crash
August 1994 IRA ceasefire; then Loyalist ceasefire
And look at the comments by political leaders of the time, talking about a region of our country where decent people have held onto traditional British values longer than those on the mainland (extracted from The Importance of Being Ulster: or Northern Ireland has no Future. By Robert K Campbell. Ulster Society Publications. Lurgan 1995):
Mayhew's remark to a reporter for the German Zeit in April 1993, `Many people think that we won't let Northern Ireland out of the kingdom. If I'm honest - with pleasure.'
One of John Major's advisors is quoted by The Economist in November 1993 as saying, `If the Northern Irish voted 51-49 to join the republic, we'd be the first to cheer. So would practically every sane Englishman. Good riddance.'
Funny how we accept the military solution of the war on pseudo terror waged by America yet so easily capitulate to real terror at home, so betraying the people of Northern Ireland.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy,
I have both sailed and flown in that area. I would not be in the least surprised if there were large holes in the marine VHF coverage. It is common to hear yachts acting as relays, especially for distress calls- in fact, the most common craft involved in rescuing yachts in distress is other yachts.
However, marine and aeronautical VHF operate on discrete frequencies, and with differing coverage specifications. Marine VHF works on the basis that most antennae will be at less than 100' above sea level, and many will be less than 20'. The Coastguard and coastal radio stations are located to deal with this. Furthermore, the shape of the coastline means that an antennae mounted on Islay can provide surface coverage a surprising distance up any number of the sea lochs.
Aeronautical VHF, on the other hand, assumes that any aircraft other than circuit traffic will be at an altitude measured in thousands of feet, instead of a few dozen.
Your closing comment,
is revealing. At last your motivation for pursuing the sabotage theory so doggedly becomes clear. It seems you have more interest in discrediting the peace process in Northern Ireland, than in clearing the names of the crew of ZD576.
I’ll bet yachties and fishermen at sea level would be surprised if there was no VHF coverage in that area let alone at 500 feet
However, marine and aeronautical VHF operate on discrete frequencies, and with differing coverage specifications. Marine VHF works on the basis that most antennae will be at less than 100' above sea level, and many will be less than 20'. The Coastguard and coastal radio stations are located to deal with this. Furthermore, the shape of the coastline means that an antennae mounted on Islay can provide surface coverage a surprising distance up any number of the sea lochs.
Aeronautical VHF, on the other hand, assumes that any aircraft other than circuit traffic will be at an altitude measured in thousands of feet, instead of a few dozen.
Your closing comment,
so betraying the people of Northern Ireland
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CarltonBrowne the FO
I think we have a chicken and egg analogy here -
it is my opinion that if these men were removed to facilitate the peace process, then it is deservedly discredited;
you are suggesting the other way around, that I am pushing sabotage to discredit it - not so.
I was drawn into this because of my perception (from a navigation viewpoint) that they may have been using a particular system in that situation and (from my systems knowledge) the vulnerability of it.
My first actions were to alert the authorities of this possibility so that they could gather evidence before it was lost - and I made every effort to do so in a timely fashion to the RAF and the government.
The realization of the full impact of the crash on the anti-terrorism effort came later - as did my cynicism for the authorities.
As time has passed and inquiries have been held I came to realize that many fundamental aspects of the flight were not clarified when they could so easily have been - apparently (to me at least) the authorities seemed not to want any relevant detail to come out. When you add the premature dismissal of sabotage, given who was on board and the timing of the crash, you really start to wonder.
What I need, the families need, the British people need, is the truth - analysis of the available information suggests that they were using a reference which misled them in the prevailing conditions; one such candidate reference is the one that I have described which, to date, has not been explored fully as a possibility – in view of who was on board and the impact on the anti-terrorism effort, every possibility should have been explored - and I have done my best to encourage interested parties to request certain information that could finally bring to closure this line of thought – or perhaps really start the investigation into what actually happened.
I think we have a chicken and egg analogy here -
it is my opinion that if these men were removed to facilitate the peace process, then it is deservedly discredited;
you are suggesting the other way around, that I am pushing sabotage to discredit it - not so.
I was drawn into this because of my perception (from a navigation viewpoint) that they may have been using a particular system in that situation and (from my systems knowledge) the vulnerability of it.
My first actions were to alert the authorities of this possibility so that they could gather evidence before it was lost - and I made every effort to do so in a timely fashion to the RAF and the government.
The realization of the full impact of the crash on the anti-terrorism effort came later - as did my cynicism for the authorities.
As time has passed and inquiries have been held I came to realize that many fundamental aspects of the flight were not clarified when they could so easily have been - apparently (to me at least) the authorities seemed not to want any relevant detail to come out. When you add the premature dismissal of sabotage, given who was on board and the timing of the crash, you really start to wonder.
What I need, the families need, the British people need, is the truth - analysis of the available information suggests that they were using a reference which misled them in the prevailing conditions; one such candidate reference is the one that I have described which, to date, has not been explored fully as a possibility – in view of who was on board and the impact on the anti-terrorism effort, every possibility should have been explored - and I have done my best to encourage interested parties to request certain information that could finally bring to closure this line of thought – or perhaps really start the investigation into what actually happened.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iv'e followed this thread since imception, and have not seen ( or may have missed) whether SCATC or SCATCMiil were holding secondary contact and/or VHF comms, immediately prior to the incident. irrespective of any settings or selections found on the D band transponder by the BOI.