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 29th Mar 2005, 20:51
  #1501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Walter, listen to Jayteetoo. It was the annual golf trip.
psyclic is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2005, 22:31
  #1502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Guys

From what you are saying, I guess walter is up to his old tricks again. I have to make that assumption, because I can no longer see what he writes. I have no interest, since I along with others, have serious reservations about his motives!

If you click on his user profile you will find some script saying "Add walter kennedy to Your Ignore List" Do yourselves a favour. You know it makes sense!
Tandemrotor is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2005, 05:16
  #1503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The best plan is not to reply to his posts. When he has gone some months without a reaction he might get bored and go away. I wish I was a MOD, where I would force him to start his own thread and leave this one alone, but the MOD's policy on this forum is correct not to do that - so let's not reply, just ignore.
FJJP is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2005, 14:33
  #1504 (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
OK, its a deal, I got a bit carried away, it was a cruddy time and even now it gets frustrating when people say these things.
jayteeto is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2005, 10:20
  #1505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Agree FJJP. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but on a site such as this it can so easily be 'abused'; but, then, censorship can be sometimes equally perverse. So let's stick to your ploy, and hope that in time he and his distractive ramblings will wither. I fear though that it may not be in the nature of the beast for him to do that - and, at the risk of being cast as overly personal again, I imagine he will probably continue to be a nuisance from time to time. That said, I'll sign up and resist further temptation.
jindabyne is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2005, 13:02
  #1506 (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
That ignore list function is fabulous.... Thanks!!
jayteeto is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2005, 05:52
  #1507 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tuba Mirum

I used my real name so that people shy of going through the site could (with a little effort) get in touch with me directly. I have also offered my home phone number to apparently genuine contributors.
I have no connection whatsoever to the others you, for whatever reason, have associated me with.
I have been pursuing this line since a few weeks after the crash through all possible channels – it was the inappropriate, indeed irrational, responses I got that raised my suspicions.
I came to this site to air this view to those who could contribute constructively to either closing off this unpleasant possibility or corroborating it and taking the issue further with professional support.
It is with great distaste I found that the forum, while spending a great deal of time on other aspects, did not want to touch on that of basic navigation in those local conditions: apart from the list I put in my last posting (of issues I think were clarified on this site by discussion on this nav theme) there is one glaring addition: while I was initially asking about transportable nav beacons no one came up with a description of the system adopted by the RAF in Chinooks only a year later; they could have qualified such a description with something like a statement that they were not available before such-and-such a date, for example, but nothing at all was said – I had to get the information from other sources (it’s no great secret in other NATO countries).
I don’t know why you are all getting so wound up just now anyway – I was patiently waiting for the SSR code from the FOI questions – I did not intend posting anything further here until I heard the response – however, if you all keep placing posts which I think may mislead recent readers, you are forcing rebuttals – so get on with your usual banter in your comfort zone and take your own advice – ignore this theme and it will consequently remain lean – it will end naturally when this simple navigation system question has been put to bed.
walter kennedy is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2005, 10:07
  #1508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Tuppence worth.

I think Walter is perfectly entitled to ask whatever question he wishes. Better that than some of the flippant comments that are posted elsewhere on some quite serious issues. He is especially entitled to be suspicious of “inappropriate or irrational responses” from the MoD, or others. He is correct that navigation error, for whatever reason, is a fairly obvious candidate for investigation. If a simple question which, if answered honestly, helps eliminate such a cause, then that can only be good. If it raises even more doubt as to the cause, or competence of the decision to blame the crew, then even better. Sometimes you go down rabbit holes, but that is the lot of an inquisitive mind.

Personally, the only conspiracy I see is one of MoD silence, procrastination and deceit. My experience of the MoD tells me this behaviour is the norm when they have something to hide or an embarrassing question to answer. They especially don’t like people who understand detail, because that is where the Devil lies. I imagine quite a few officials are quaking at the thought of a FOI query and I, for one, await with interest Walter’s post on the outcome of his request. Then he will either pursue the issue, or declare himself satisfied having eliminated something which has obviously been bothering him.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2005, 19:22
  #1509 (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
tucumseh, I now have set all his posts to ignore. Before I do the same with you, I want to ask a question. Why would they be quaking in their boots at a FOI request?
jayteeto is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2005, 19:23
  #1510 (permalink)  
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,
apologies for the apparent silence - although I can assure you that the campaign remains busy. Parliamentary Questions are going in on an almost daily basis, further requests under the FOIA are being drafted as I type.

You may recall my original request for certain documents under the FOIA, in particular a fatal accident a few months after the Chinook crash. The Reviewing Officers, I believe, were the same for both accidents. Having read the Station Commander's comments, and those of the Reviewing Officers for this particular Board, I have to say that I have serious concerns regarding the differences between the conclusions reached, based upon the evidence available.

I'll try to explain what I'm on about...
Both crashes are 3 months apart. The chinook has no cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or accident data recorder (ADR). The other aircraft has both.

There is a lack of hard evidence as to what caused the Chinook crash, but in the case of the other crash, the Board lists exactly the final manoeuvre of the aircraft and comments that the control input from the pilot led ultimately to the loss of the aircraft.

The AOC discounted medical incapacitation for the pilots of the Chinook, yet could not discount it for the second crash (although acknowledges that it was statistically unlikely). Surely a problem such as this would have been captured on the second aircraft's CVR? The AOC also notes the limited flying hours (on type) of the pilot of the second crash. He had over 100 hours. Rick Cook had 15hrs 40 minutes on the Mk2, whilst Jon Tapper had 5hrs 15 mins. What worries me more than anything else in the AOC's comments on the second accident is this statement: Regardless of the circumstances of this particular accident, I agree that [XXXXXXX] should be absolved from blame.

Moving onto the AOCinC. In the BoI for the second accident he states ... I find the hypothetical reconstruction offered by the Board of limited usefulness. What about the information from the ADR and CVR then?? That luxury was not available to the Chinook crew, but the reconstruction in that accident appears to have been acceptable. He goes on to say ... that I find any consideration of human failings to be academic and fruitless. Why? Human failings featured rather prominently in the Chinook accident.

I could go on, but I shall refrain. Interestingly, the Reviewing Officers' remarks on each accident were written two to three weeks apart (Chinook first then the second accident). About two months prior to writing the Chinook review, the AOCinC had issued a directive instructing that a consistant approach is taken when dealing with aircraft accidents.

I have written a five page letter to the Secretary of State for Defence detailing my concerns over the apparent different approach applied to both accidents. I'll keep you all updated as to what response I get.

So why have I done this? Well, let me make it perfectly clear that I have no interest in the second accident other than the different approach in conclusions and findings. Nor am I saying that anyone involved in the BoI process has acted improperly. I am merely puzzled that so much appears to be known as 'fact' on a helicopter with no ADR or CVR, and yet, on an aircraft with such equipment fitted, the same 'facts' can be discounted with apparent ease. That is where my interest lies.

I would respectfully remind individuals that the second accident was, tragically, also a fatal accident, and there is no desire to drag other families into the Chinook debate. Please do not speculate or comment on which accident you know/think it was as it will serve no purpose and possibly cause distress to others.

If anyone feels that this post, itself, may cause problems, please let me know and I will remove it without delay.

As always, my best to you all.
Brian

"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Brian Dixon is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2005, 20:15
  #1511 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, Brian - as you present it, there is a glaring inconsistency which must cause someone to make a long-overdue review.

As always, good luck to you in this campaign.
BOAC is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2005, 05:57
  #1512 (permalink)  
Tuba Mirum
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Walter, your post indicates that you remain either unable or unwilling to see my - and others' - point. The only sensible solution seems to be to add you to my ignore list, which I have now done.
 
Old 4th Apr 2005, 07:24
  #1513 (permalink)  
polyglory
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanks for the update Brian,

As always you have my support , good luck and keep at them.
 
Old 4th Apr 2005, 17:34
  #1514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wish you good luck, Brian, as always.

Broomstick.
BroomstickPilot is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2005, 18:02
  #1515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done Brian - as always you have the overwhelming support of the vast majority of members of this forum.

Keep up the good work; success will be ours, however long the quest takes.

FJJP
FJJP is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2005, 16:00
  #1516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
"Please do not speculate or comment on which accident you know/think it was as it will serve no purpose and possibly cause distress to others."

We have corresponded on that accident before. However, I will respect your wishes.

My feeling is still that Wratten knew that anything other than his obscene 'gross negligence' finding following the Chinook accident would have landed MoD with vast compensation claims resulting from what might have been considered to be corporate manslaughter. As a result, perhaps he sacrificed the reputations of 2 fine pilots?

Last edited by BEagle; 7th Apr 2005 at 21:30.
BEagle is online now  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 08:36
  #1517 (permalink)  
Just a numbered other
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth
Age: 72
Posts: 1,169
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
fish

Beags has it in a nutshell.

If the Chinook had carried only its crew, 'cause unknown' would have put this to bed in no time, and Jon and Rick would be resting in peace with their reputations intact.

Well researched, Brian. How will Hoon dig his way out of this one.........

Of course, 5/5/5 may usher in a Sec of Defence with a fairer outlook!
Arkroyal is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2005, 16:41
  #1518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nice one Beags - that's a dimension that had not crossed my trusting mind. Now that you mention it, it makes complete sense, especially since those 2 at the top were connected with the intro of the [defective] ac...

I don't suppose for one single solitary moment there will be anything in writing alluding to this aspect connected with these 2 fine upstanding and honourable gentlemen.

But it no doubt gives Brian pause for thought...?
FJJP is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 21:11
  #1519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
FJJP

especially since those 2 at the top were connected with the intro of the [defective] ac...
Crash 2 June 1994

Wratten took over HQ STC 14 July 1994

If the aircraft were defective what has been done to fix them? Are they still flying around defective?
Twinact is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2005, 21:24
  #1520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
When Wratten was at RR, their employees were allegedly told not to discuss the Chinook accident.

Who makes the Chinook? Boeing
And which company were RR negotiating with over their FSTA pitch at the time?

Let me think........
BEagle is online now  

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.