Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

Old 23rd Feb 2005, 11:59
  #1481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: somewhere quite near Brize Norton
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just for information, an alternative perspective :

http://www.black-triangle.co.uk/zd576.htm
elderforest is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2005, 05:54
  #1482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DarkStar

Collision with a UAV ? Let's not go there; it would make Walter look inspired ! The only redeeming feature is that there is about as much evidence for it as there is for the pilots of 576 being grossly negligent.
astazou is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2005, 15:54
  #1483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Walter, we spoke by PM last year and I assured you that this kit was not used on this flight. To all of you conspiracy theorists out there....... PLEASE PLEASE..... Our good friends died on this day. You spoil their memories and dilute their legitimate claims for justice. You do not help by speculation that is actually total rubbish.... and I mean TOTAL.
I have stated before that I was with JT right up to walking to the aircraft. This was a ROUTINE flight that happened to carry some very very important people. The weather was poor but was within limits to fly. It actually doesn't matter if you think the crew were even negligent or not. I think not. The fight is because the system did not have proof of guilt or innocence, therefore the only result should be..... INNOCENT
jayteeto is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2005, 14:18
  #1484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Concur totally with Jayteeto. They may have been foolish and unprofessional but they were definitely not negligent and the "Gross negligent" charge should be removed immediately
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2005, 23:47
  #1485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
vecvechookattack

On the basis of so little evidence, how can you suggest; "They may have been foolish and unprofessional"?
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2005, 21:52
  #1486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jayteeto
I am waiting patiently for the simple piece of information that is the SSR code as observed earlier in the flight.
If there was nothing unusual, then what is the problem in this being released if only for completion of the known parameters?
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2005, 13:16
  #1487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
walter

From your silence over the past few weeks, I thought you'd got the message. Be a good chap, please re-read the past 9 posts: and then SOD OFF - once and for all!!
jindabyne is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2005, 18:35
  #1488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On the basis of so little evidence, how can you suggest; "They may have been foolish and unprofessional"?
Cos they flew the aircraft into the ground perhaps?
totalwar is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2005, 19:57
  #1489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
totalwar, your ignorant and inane posts have been the source of much irritation throughout PPRuNe's Military Aircrew forum and are as out of place here as elsewhere. Perhaps even more so, given the history of this thread.

So please follow the advice offered by the good jindabyne to Walter Kennedy - and SOD OFF!
BEagle is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2005, 06:37
  #1490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
agree with Beagle.... the fact that they flew the aircraft into the ground is irrelevant in this matter. The point of this forum is to remove the unwarranted "gross negligence" charge, so please stick to the thread
rafloo is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2005, 09:50
  #1491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mark 3s

Seen the latest Committee of Public Accounts report on Battlefield Helicopters? (http://www.publications.parliament.u...cc/386/386.pdf) The report states that: "The acquisition of the Chinook Mk3 is one of the worst examples of equipment procurement that the Committee has seen." The MoD said that without access to the manufacturers' software codes, the aircraft couldn't be tested for airworthiness, and MoD failed to specify at contract what its requirements were for independently validating the software. Was Boscombe missed out of the loop somehow? They certainly took a lot of MoD flack after ZD576. Any comments?
janet walker is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2005, 17:05
  #1492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Janet,

Suggest you look at the current HC3 thread. From a safety assessment perspective, the different marks of Chinnok are very different, too different to relate to the aims of this thread.

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2005, 10:49
  #1493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
totalwar
Cos they flew the aircraft into the ground perhaps?
It is true that they were at the controls when the aircraft struck the ground, but your statement ignores the possibility that they were placed in a position from which a safe recovery was unlikely or even impossible. There is circumstantial evidence that supports that possibility, either for a DECU fault or for a UFCM. As neither of these possibilities nor a flight control restriction can be ruled out, the finding of gross negligence, whether you use the RAF or civilian definition of the word 'negligence' is unsafe. That is all we are fighting for here.
meadowbank is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2005, 07:11
  #1494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
totally concur......
totalwar is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2005, 11:01
  #1495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Although I don't agree with all totalwars views, just look at what he said before you crucify him. They MAY have been foolish and unprofessional. That is the whole point of the argument!! That could be true!! But we don't know, do we?? Those of us who knew the crew will stand by our knowledge of their professionalism, but we don't know!! That means unproven, which is a start for the justice campaign.
PS. We can't tell the conspiracy people to go away. We can reason with them and hope they listen, but sadly, we fight for the right for free speech
Walter talks about SSR codes etc, if it was a digital box it would have had a memory function but the code could have been moved at any time by impact or rescue teams. Talk to a policeman, that would be inadmissable evidence even if the theories had any substance.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2005, 10:31
  #1496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jindabyne

I say again, I am waiting for that straightforward answer - every available piece of information should have been presented and in this case where a navigation problem was an obvious possibility any possible nav practice they may have been undertaking should have been explored to closure - the code may have been a direct clue as explained in detail in previous posts.
Why not use your energy to push for that simple answer?
To remind you all, an SSR code was found set which was dismissed as meaningless - however, had they been trying out a system that was adapted in Chinooks only a year later, that code could have been entirely appropriate - as I have explained previously, what was actually set earlier in the flight (before possibly being disturbed by impact, etc) can be established - so why not? At the very least, if the code turned out to have been as set earlier - and not disturbed - there is a case for a fresh inquiry as the previous inquiries would have been misled on this issue.
And don't get personal - next time I'm in the UK I will be most happy to let you know where we can meet so you can appologise to my face.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2005, 11:40
  #1497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Walter, which bit of 'they were not using any special kit on that flight' do you not understand mate?? I will gladly talk to you the next time you are in the UK!! Let it rest for goodness sake. I was there!! It was a routine flight with V-VIP passengers, a meeting in scotland followed by some quality golf for a group of men with the world on their shoulders. One of them had been shot and blown up in his time, he couldnt go through metal detectors! In other words, a thinly diguised jolly for people who deserved a month in paradise for the jobs they did! I even looked over their maps in flight planning to see what I was missing. The reason I am getting personal (trying hard not to) is because I know you are wrong and as I said before, you are diluting a legitimate case with theories that make this thread look like a UFO spotters convention. If you want to keep up with this theory, fine!! But start a new thread so that we can fight for justice on the important stuff, not wild theories.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2005, 15:46
  #1498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
jayteeto

Just about every aspect of this flight has been kept confused, even the importance of the team and the significance of their intended meeting, the latter apparently getting further treatment in your last posting.
I believe that they were planning a significant step up in the military effort which was at odds with the path MI6 were following.

You say you were there and looked over their maps in flight planning – did you notice anyone unusual at the pre flight briefing or hanging around where you were looking at those maps?

Just for the record, whether you think it a good idea or not, for any persons interested in this crash for technical reasons or whatever the exploration of the navigation aspect as I have endeavored to do has brought awareness of (and hopefully clarity to) several pertinent factors, some of which are:
The actual, common local weather conditions;
The intended path;
The regular turning point on that leg;
The flight rules applicable to a helo in those circumstances;
The limitations of the SuperTANS and the crew’s awareness of this;
The possible alternative navigation system that may have been made available;
The allocation of SSR codes in those circumstances;
The timing of the crash with respect to political events.

All rather worthwhile, I would have thought.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2005, 19:16
  #1499 (permalink)  
Tuba Mirum
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Though non-military, and indeed, not a flyer, I ask your indulgence in permitting me to post for a second time on this thread. I have a legitimate interest in the subject, based on my concerns about the reliability and auditability of software-based control mechanisms, but I do not propose to raise any of those concerns in detail.

Walter Kennedy: you claim credit for establishing certain “pertinent factors” about this accident. As a non-military non-pilot, I am unable to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of those points. They may be accurate; they may indeed, for all I know, have a bearing on the actual cause of the crash.

All this, however, is quite irrelevant and unnecessary to the actual purpose of this thread, which, it seems generally agreed, is to pursue the point that there has been insufficient evidence presented to find Flt Lts Tapper and Cook guilty of gross negligence. Worse, it threatens to distract attention from that point; and by doing so, to offer an opportunity to those who have an interest in obfuscating matters and thus tending to maintain the status quo. I presume there is no disagreement that such individuals exist.

Like others, I have wondered why you should do this, when your obvious intelligence would suggest that you must see the possible consequences of your continued hammering at obscure technical points. I note the following point, which may or may not be relevant: you share with “John Purdey” and with “Mike Hegland” a handle which appears to be an actual name (as opposed to an obvious pseudonym), but which is apparently not your real name. In this, the three of you differ both from Brian Dixon (who posts, as far as I can tell, under his real name), and from the majority of PPRuNers, who post, as I do, under pseudonyms. A little thought will show that you also share with those two individuals a tendency to try to disrupt the purpose of the thread, as outlined above.

You also keep strange hours for Western Australia. Do you work shifts?

I join with others in wishing you would go away from this thread. If you have significant points to make, it is open to you to start another thread in which you can make them, and engender such interest as you can in them. You are doing less than no good here.
 
Old 29th Mar 2005, 20:50
  #1500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
Now here we go walter, it was a political assassination.......
Well, flight planning is a small room and any aldergrove aircrew will confirm that any 'strangers' in planning or briefing is not possible. Please other PPruners, back me up on this.
Was it sabotage because of their plans?? It could be, but do you believe anything we discuss here about that would EVER be resolved?? Blimey, spys killing our own??
jayteeto is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.