Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It was established that the a/c had been in cruise climb in the latter part of its approach to the Mull"
NO IT WASN'T!!!!
It was ARGUED by some, using incomplete evidence, NOT a RECORDING which WOULD have ESTABLISHED the aircraft's flight path!!!
It was PRECISELY this lack of RELIABLE evidence that prevented the President of the BOI, from finding any human failings. He said this was due to the fact that it was impossible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the accident with any reliability!!
Are you getting it yet?
NO IT WASN'T!!!!
It was ARGUED by some, using incomplete evidence, NOT a RECORDING which WOULD have ESTABLISHED the aircraft's flight path!!!
It was PRECISELY this lack of RELIABLE evidence that prevented the President of the BOI, from finding any human failings. He said this was due to the fact that it was impossible to recreate the sequence of events leading up to the accident with any reliability!!
Are you getting it yet?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
I am glad you raised an objection to the cruise climb scenario because it reminded me of a piece of obfuscation in one of the inquiries that went something like this (as I recall without delving back through it):
Boeing for one estimated a rate of climb of 1000ft/min and a “speed” of about 150kts over the last period of flight to get where it ended up; an RAF man made the point that only about 400ft/min was possible at that speed thus confusing the inquiry; you do not have to be Einstein to realize that the 150kts was made up of the normal 135kts cruising air speed and the strong tail wind – while its ground speed could have been 150 it could still have been climbing at 1000 – so why the obfuscation? Why not help clarify the situation to the legal types?
There are many such examples throughout the inquiries – and sometimes on this site.
But pardon the digression – bluntly, the argument for the a/c being in cruise climb is strong and certainly strong enough to use as a parameter in a “what if” scenario.
Now I appreciate where you are coming from – that there is nothing certain enough to justify that (appalling, in my view) verdict – and this uncertainty would also, I suspect, appeal to many of you as it would neither leave a case for blame on the RAF as a body, to which many of you would have (justifiably) proud association. However, the consequences of this crash to a significant section of the British people were so severe that all effort should have been made to establish the whole truth. Besides, after 11 years the tactic has not yet born fruit – but if it could be established that they had been given an extraordinary task which could have impacted on their flight safety then the revelation of this at this stage would surely exonerate them in the clearest way.
I have been exploring the possibility of them being misled (intentionally or accidentally) in their estimation of their range to their intended turning point. Regarding my previous post on “cruise climb”: however well you argue against this scenario, it is not only possible and entirely reasonable BUT also it is one of so many aspects that CORRELATE - let me give you an analogy:
Say, we are all given a box containing the same jigsaw puzzle;
someone has mischievously put the wrong picture on the boxes;
I plod away and get all the pieces to fit and get a meaningful picture;
without getting many of your pieces together, you complain that my picture does not match that on your box!
I am glad you raised an objection to the cruise climb scenario because it reminded me of a piece of obfuscation in one of the inquiries that went something like this (as I recall without delving back through it):
Boeing for one estimated a rate of climb of 1000ft/min and a “speed” of about 150kts over the last period of flight to get where it ended up; an RAF man made the point that only about 400ft/min was possible at that speed thus confusing the inquiry; you do not have to be Einstein to realize that the 150kts was made up of the normal 135kts cruising air speed and the strong tail wind – while its ground speed could have been 150 it could still have been climbing at 1000 – so why the obfuscation? Why not help clarify the situation to the legal types?
There are many such examples throughout the inquiries – and sometimes on this site.
But pardon the digression – bluntly, the argument for the a/c being in cruise climb is strong and certainly strong enough to use as a parameter in a “what if” scenario.
Now I appreciate where you are coming from – that there is nothing certain enough to justify that (appalling, in my view) verdict – and this uncertainty would also, I suspect, appeal to many of you as it would neither leave a case for blame on the RAF as a body, to which many of you would have (justifiably) proud association. However, the consequences of this crash to a significant section of the British people were so severe that all effort should have been made to establish the whole truth. Besides, after 11 years the tactic has not yet born fruit – but if it could be established that they had been given an extraordinary task which could have impacted on their flight safety then the revelation of this at this stage would surely exonerate them in the clearest way.
I have been exploring the possibility of them being misled (intentionally or accidentally) in their estimation of their range to their intended turning point. Regarding my previous post on “cruise climb”: however well you argue against this scenario, it is not only possible and entirely reasonable BUT also it is one of so many aspects that CORRELATE - let me give you an analogy:
Say, we are all given a box containing the same jigsaw puzzle;
someone has mischievously put the wrong picture on the boxes;
I plod away and get all the pieces to fit and get a meaningful picture;
without getting many of your pieces together, you complain that my picture does not match that on your box!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
Can I have a reality check here please? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was impossible to determine just what happened in the final few minutes of the flight. Is that right?
What is to be gained by endless speculation? I mean, even if one's theories hit the nail on the head and are 100% correct, how will one know?
Are you as weary as me reading meaningless posts that do nothing except waste PPrune server disk space?
Just thought I'd check, in view of the odd posts that appear here from time to time...
FJJP
Can I have a reality check here please? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that it was impossible to determine just what happened in the final few minutes of the flight. Is that right?
What is to be gained by endless speculation? I mean, even if one's theories hit the nail on the head and are 100% correct, how will one know?
Are you as weary as me reading meaningless posts that do nothing except waste PPrune server disk space?
Just thought I'd check, in view of the odd posts that appear here from time to time...
FJJP
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP
I agree entirely. Particularly in respect to the 6th and 7th lines of your post.
A certain individual is on my 'ignore' list. (Look on HIS profile to select this option!) Unfortunately if you are not logged in, your selection is obviously not activated. Which is how I came, by accident, to read a certain posting.
Others, perhaps new to this thread, MAY in their ignorance (nothing personal!) be influenced by this 'odd' poster! I felt obliged to respond. It wont happen again I promise (not least because I will endeavour to continuing ignoring him!)
Just to emphasise:
1) Physical evidence is available from the moment of impact, which the AAIB have used to produce a 'snap shot' of THAT instant.
2) The aircraft manufacturer (independent???) has produced more than one computer model (earlier ones being discredited) to 'simulate' the final 2.8 secs of flight, in order to determine a 'possible' profile for that brief period.
3) Two snippets of information, recovered from the aircraft's navigation system, and used only in it's ongoing calculations, were employed in an attempt to recreate a 3 dimensional profile of the aircraft's final 40 secs or so. This from a piece of equipment described by it's manufacturer as "never being designed to provide historical data!
This is the ONLY information upon which 2 air marshalls are able to state with "ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER" that they know what caused this tragic accident.
And presumably the ONLY information upon which anybody can base the assertion that:
"It was 'ESTABLISHED' that the a/c had been in cruise climb in the latter part of its approach to the Mull"
Forgive me for being 'picky'!!!!
I agree entirely. Particularly in respect to the 6th and 7th lines of your post.
A certain individual is on my 'ignore' list. (Look on HIS profile to select this option!) Unfortunately if you are not logged in, your selection is obviously not activated. Which is how I came, by accident, to read a certain posting.
Others, perhaps new to this thread, MAY in their ignorance (nothing personal!) be influenced by this 'odd' poster! I felt obliged to respond. It wont happen again I promise (not least because I will endeavour to continuing ignoring him!)
Just to emphasise:
1) Physical evidence is available from the moment of impact, which the AAIB have used to produce a 'snap shot' of THAT instant.
2) The aircraft manufacturer (independent???) has produced more than one computer model (earlier ones being discredited) to 'simulate' the final 2.8 secs of flight, in order to determine a 'possible' profile for that brief period.
3) Two snippets of information, recovered from the aircraft's navigation system, and used only in it's ongoing calculations, were employed in an attempt to recreate a 3 dimensional profile of the aircraft's final 40 secs or so. This from a piece of equipment described by it's manufacturer as "never being designed to provide historical data!
This is the ONLY information upon which 2 air marshalls are able to state with "ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER" that they know what caused this tragic accident.
And presumably the ONLY information upon which anybody can base the assertion that:
"It was 'ESTABLISHED' that the a/c had been in cruise climb in the latter part of its approach to the Mull"
Forgive me for being 'picky'!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BDiONU
You are not the first to question this article – previously, I had drawn the attention of the journalist to this site and the comments relevant to his article – similarly, I have taken the liberty of sending him the text of your recent post and asking for him to make a comment.
The problem is that the article was written a long time ago and his source did not want to be named – all I can say is that the journalist appears to be of some standing in his profession and his source (he has convinced me at least) was a man who was in a position to know what he was talking about.
Let us not forget why I referred to this article at all: I had asked the question, one way or another, what was the ACTUAL observed or otherwise known SSR code being used by ZD576 - as opposed to what it SHOULD have been – in the period before it was in trouble; a sensible starting point for discussing how it came to be 7760, I would have thought.
I asked, in various ways, if anyone could recall it being referred to anywhere or if recordings of the radar track could be checked (secondary, obviously).
While all replies so far have been negative the early ones were strangely simplistic, for example referring to facilities at Aldergrove or Prestwick aerodrome – no one mentioned early on the control centre at Prestwick (Atlantic House?) where I knew many remote stations fed back to and which is where I thought it was most likely that ZD576 may have been observed. It was then that I recalled the article in question and tracked down the author who confirmed that his source had indeed been at the Prestwick center – and that the source had not observed real time but saw a recording.
What a strange impasse.
All we want to know is what the SSR code ACTUALLY was before the a/c got into trouble – what was it observed to be transponding anywhere along that route or was anything written down anywhere.
You are not the first to question this article – previously, I had drawn the attention of the journalist to this site and the comments relevant to his article – similarly, I have taken the liberty of sending him the text of your recent post and asking for him to make a comment.
The problem is that the article was written a long time ago and his source did not want to be named – all I can say is that the journalist appears to be of some standing in his profession and his source (he has convinced me at least) was a man who was in a position to know what he was talking about.
Let us not forget why I referred to this article at all: I had asked the question, one way or another, what was the ACTUAL observed or otherwise known SSR code being used by ZD576 - as opposed to what it SHOULD have been – in the period before it was in trouble; a sensible starting point for discussing how it came to be 7760, I would have thought.
I asked, in various ways, if anyone could recall it being referred to anywhere or if recordings of the radar track could be checked (secondary, obviously).
While all replies so far have been negative the early ones were strangely simplistic, for example referring to facilities at Aldergrove or Prestwick aerodrome – no one mentioned early on the control centre at Prestwick (Atlantic House?) where I knew many remote stations fed back to and which is where I thought it was most likely that ZD576 may have been observed. It was then that I recalled the article in question and tracked down the author who confirmed that his source had indeed been at the Prestwick center – and that the source had not observed real time but saw a recording.
What a strange impasse.
All we want to know is what the SSR code ACTUALLY was before the a/c got into trouble – what was it observed to be transponding anywhere along that route or was anything written down anywhere.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to make a comment on the reaction to any further discussion on this event.
I am disappointed with the group's apparent strategy of stating that nothing can be certain enough to uphold this decision - thus making interested parties reluctant (indeed intolerant) of further analysis in case it turns up something adverse to that aim.
You that knew them know that they were the best of their type - they would not have made an unforced error - if you have the courage of your convictions, you would not fear any adverse findings from a thorough analysis of this crash.
It's been 11 years and justice delayed is justice denied - it is time to use all your resources to try and find out if there was anything unusual with regard to additional tasks or procedures in this flight.
I sincerely believe that finding the full details of that flight would not only exonerate the pilots but lead to full justice for them.
I am disappointed with the group's apparent strategy of stating that nothing can be certain enough to uphold this decision - thus making interested parties reluctant (indeed intolerant) of further analysis in case it turns up something adverse to that aim.
You that knew them know that they were the best of their type - they would not have made an unforced error - if you have the courage of your convictions, you would not fear any adverse findings from a thorough analysis of this crash.
It's been 11 years and justice delayed is justice denied - it is time to use all your resources to try and find out if there was anything unusual with regard to additional tasks or procedures in this flight.
I sincerely believe that finding the full details of that flight would not only exonerate the pilots but lead to full justice for them.
Walter,
There are people who read and post here who are far more knowledgeable and eloquent than me when it comes to debate. However, I'll try and answer your last point.
The Government has, I believe, stated that the enquiry is complete. On the basis of the evidence, 2 senior officers found the 2 pilots to be guilty of gross negligence. The point the campaign is seeking to make is that, even without the need to carry out a further enquiry, the evidence woefully fails to meet the standards or criteria required - at the time or in the light of later changes to policy - to allow such a verdict to be reached. No need for further expense - the evidence already in existence is sufficient to overturn the verdict.
You are seeking to make a different point; you wish to explore a unique line of thought requiring further enquiry and public expenditure. In an ideal world with unlimited access to forensic science, finance and possibly time-travel to review the scene of the incident, this would indeed be desirable. However, the planet I live on is far from ideal.
I won't discuss the nature of your thoughts here - although I have very strong opinions on them, based not least on my 4 years with the unit involved. However, as you have frequently, repeatedly shown yourself completely and mind-numbingly unable to grasp the nature of this thread I have a request:
Please would you open a separate thread, give it a suitable title (I have several suggestions I would willingly share) and carry on your highly-individual quest there? This thread is clear in its aim - to show that even using existing evidence there are insufficient grounds to find John and Rick guilty of gross negligence. If need be - to perhaps encourage you to open your discussion elsewhere - I will contact Brian with a view to changing the title of this topic to reflect the aim with even greater precision.
I look forward to seeing you move your contributions to somewhere appropriate. Thankyou.
There are people who read and post here who are far more knowledgeable and eloquent than me when it comes to debate. However, I'll try and answer your last point.
The Government has, I believe, stated that the enquiry is complete. On the basis of the evidence, 2 senior officers found the 2 pilots to be guilty of gross negligence. The point the campaign is seeking to make is that, even without the need to carry out a further enquiry, the evidence woefully fails to meet the standards or criteria required - at the time or in the light of later changes to policy - to allow such a verdict to be reached. No need for further expense - the evidence already in existence is sufficient to overturn the verdict.
You are seeking to make a different point; you wish to explore a unique line of thought requiring further enquiry and public expenditure. In an ideal world with unlimited access to forensic science, finance and possibly time-travel to review the scene of the incident, this would indeed be desirable. However, the planet I live on is far from ideal.
I won't discuss the nature of your thoughts here - although I have very strong opinions on them, based not least on my 4 years with the unit involved. However, as you have frequently, repeatedly shown yourself completely and mind-numbingly unable to grasp the nature of this thread I have a request:
Please would you open a separate thread, give it a suitable title (I have several suggestions I would willingly share) and carry on your highly-individual quest there? This thread is clear in its aim - to show that even using existing evidence there are insufficient grounds to find John and Rick guilty of gross negligence. If need be - to perhaps encourage you to open your discussion elsewhere - I will contact Brian with a view to changing the title of this topic to reflect the aim with even greater precision.
I look forward to seeing you move your contributions to somewhere appropriate. Thankyou.
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
I wholeheartedly agree.
Walter, please do this - you HAVE been asked before. Your ongoing insistence that "we" investigate this has become little more than a cracked record. "We" don't feel that any further investigation is necessary; Thud has again quite adequately explained why.
I agree with him that a separate thread would be more appropriate for your line of thought.
Thanks.
Walter, please do this - you HAVE been asked before. Your ongoing insistence that "we" investigate this has become little more than a cracked record. "We" don't feel that any further investigation is necessary; Thud has again quite adequately explained why.
I agree with him that a separate thread would be more appropriate for your line of thought.
Thanks.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Back in the Black Country
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter
I have to strongly agree with Thud and Blunder, I knew Rick and John as friends and very proffessional operators. Whilst I believe the most probable cause of the accident was the lack of situational awareness, it is certainly not the only possibility.
The rules in place at the time clearly stated that aircrew who had died in an accident could only be found negligent if there was absaloutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident. In this accident their certainly are many possibilities that, whilst perhaps not probable, are certainly possible, hence the criteria of "no doubt" is not achieved and they should not be found negligent.
Why this has gone on for so long, without a satisfactory solution is beyond me, and as yet no-one has been able to explain to me how, or why, the air marshal's involved, came to the concusion they did.
I have not found a single pilot, who familiar with the events of this accident, can argue that air marshalls made a reasonable decision.
The bottom line remains an injustice has been done, and whilst it is easy to ignore it, it is better to correct it. Even if that is not the path of least resistance.
SiClick
I have to strongly agree with Thud and Blunder, I knew Rick and John as friends and very proffessional operators. Whilst I believe the most probable cause of the accident was the lack of situational awareness, it is certainly not the only possibility.
The rules in place at the time clearly stated that aircrew who had died in an accident could only be found negligent if there was absaloutely no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the accident. In this accident their certainly are many possibilities that, whilst perhaps not probable, are certainly possible, hence the criteria of "no doubt" is not achieved and they should not be found negligent.
Why this has gone on for so long, without a satisfactory solution is beyond me, and as yet no-one has been able to explain to me how, or why, the air marshal's involved, came to the concusion they did.
I have not found a single pilot, who familiar with the events of this accident, can argue that air marshalls made a reasonable decision.
The bottom line remains an injustice has been done, and whilst it is easy to ignore it, it is better to correct it. Even if that is not the path of least resistance.
SiClick
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SiClick.....the reason that it has gone on for so long is because the airships involved refuse to back down and admit that they used our friends as scapegoats. But I ask myself "why?".....were/are their strings being pulled by someone even higher up the evolutionary chain of command? I am beginning to get the impression that Government is refusing to yield to our demands for more sinister reasons.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed - why would the do that? Are they under pressure from the familes of those who were killed? Are they under pressure from the Conservative party? Or are they just remaining stubborn in whilst accepting that the aircraft was IMC below the Safety Altitude, the crew were not grossly negligent in doing so.
Last edited by vecvechookattack; 9th Nov 2005 at 14:58.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IIRC,
Didnt John Nicol raise the issue of the SSR code in his documentary on the loss of ZD576...???
I hope that a satisfactory outcome will prevail over this tragic loss..
The powers that be, should bring about a speedy conclusion to alleviate the pain and suffering of those left behind...
Didnt John Nicol raise the issue of the SSR code in his documentary on the loss of ZD576...???
I hope that a satisfactory outcome will prevail over this tragic loss..
The powers that be, should bring about a speedy conclusion to alleviate the pain and suffering of those left behind...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vecvechookattack
No. Indeed some, notably Susan Phoenix, have been active members of the campaign to overturn this unjust finding.
No. In fact some notable Tories have voiced their unease at the verdict and have called for it to be overturned, including John Major (PM at the time), Malcolm Rifkind (Def Sec at the time) and David Davies.
The sole reason I can see for the current obtuseness of the MoD is that they see it as a willy-waving contest. Why, I don't know. It's not as if the entire edifice of military discipline will come crashing down if they acknowledge that an Air Chief Minstrel made a mistake. In fact, respect for the chain of command would probably be greatly bolstered.
Are they under pressure from the familes of those who were killed?
Are they under pressure from the Conservative party?
The sole reason I can see for the current obtuseness of the MoD is that they see it as a willy-waving contest. Why, I don't know. It's not as if the entire edifice of military discipline will come crashing down if they acknowledge that an Air Chief Minstrel made a mistake. In fact, respect for the chain of command would probably be greatly bolstered.
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
Don't forget James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative). He was junior Procurement Minister who, originally, came out in favour of the verdict of negligence.
He was later to acknowledge that he was wrong in this decision. He is the current Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Campaign Group and works tirelessly to get the verdict removed.
Don't forget, if the MoD removed the blame from the pilots everyone will then start to look a bit closer at the aircraft - and that could be a bit embarassing.
Great work from everyone too. The Early Day Motion (651), calling for the verdict to be overturned currently stands at 151 signatures! (Hmmm, did my MP sign it?)
Thanks, as always for your support.
My best.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
He was later to acknowledge that he was wrong in this decision. He is the current Chair of the Mull of Kintyre Campaign Group and works tirelessly to get the verdict removed.
Don't forget, if the MoD removed the blame from the pilots everyone will then start to look a bit closer at the aircraft - and that could be a bit embarassing.
Great work from everyone too. The Early Day Motion (651), calling for the verdict to be overturned currently stands at 151 signatures! (Hmmm, did my MP sign it?)
Thanks, as always for your support.
My best.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Tandemrotor & Shy Torque are being unkind about Walter Kennedy. You must remember Gentlemen that he is the ONE person who "knows" what happened.
His problem is quite simple. What he "knows" requires that there was a modification to the aircrafts navigation system that was not recorded in the F700 and the aircraft crashed whilst the Crew were trialling this equipment.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that this equipment was fitted to the aircraft; no authorisation would have been given to carry out such a trial on a passenger carrying sortie - particularly when some of the Pax were civilians.
What he seems unable to realise is, that for him to be correct, the Pilots would have to have been carrying out an unauthorised trial on an unofficial modification to the aircraft and crashed whilst doing so.
There could only be one finding if he is correct.
Incidentally, where did the story about US Navy SEALS come from?
His problem is quite simple. What he "knows" requires that there was a modification to the aircrafts navigation system that was not recorded in the F700 and the aircraft crashed whilst the Crew were trialling this equipment.
Leaving aside the fact that there is no evidence that this equipment was fitted to the aircraft; no authorisation would have been given to carry out such a trial on a passenger carrying sortie - particularly when some of the Pax were civilians.
What he seems unable to realise is, that for him to be correct, the Pilots would have to have been carrying out an unauthorised trial on an unofficial modification to the aircraft and crashed whilst doing so.
There could only be one finding if he is correct.
Incidentally, where did the story about US Navy SEALS come from?
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
Please please please people. Do not react to Walters posts!! Just set him to ignore and you never have to read the utter rubbish he writes. Those of us who were there actually know his conspiracy theories are incorrect but if we give him our attention he will not go away....
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
You make an important point when you say that this theory “… requires that there was a modification to the aircrafts navigation system that was not recorded in the F700 and the aircraft crashed whilst the Crew were trialling this equipment.”
The onboard equipment needed would have been an ARS6 module in the avionics racks and no such thing was ever mentioned in the inquiries to my knowledge – while it was a module designed to be easily removable and transferable between 47Ds/HC2s, presumably if it had been removed at the crash site there could still have been evidence for this (eg one could hardly expect anyone other than an avionics tech to have a blank panel with him to fill the hole or stow the connector correctly or do up the retaining screws, etc).
UNFORTUNATELY such anomalies, had they been noticed, may have been put down to techs not following procedure in that last minute work on the avionics racks as investigators were perhaps unfamiliar with what went in that spot as the system was not fitted to HC2s until a year later and so missed the significance.
As you yourself would know,
<<… on return from the first sortie Flt Lt Tapper informed the avionics specialists that they had had been getting spurious indications on the Super Tans BUT he did not place the equipment unservicable. In an effort to trace the fault the Groundcrew removed the avionics boxes and did a quick functional check (which failed to show any faults) and then replaced the boxes. No paperwork was raised which resulted in the Grouncrew concerned having a one sided interview with OCEng.>> (sic)
And there was that Sunday Express article <<… that arrests were expected following a SIB investigation that showed that the aircrafts flight instrumentation had been tampered with by disaffected technicians.>> wasn’t there? – however ridiculous in its entirety surely no smoke without fire?
<<Incidentally, where did the story about US Navy SEALS come from?>>
Several references actually and comment from locals I spoke to when I visited the area.
One article specifically mentioned that the US personnel were “challenged” by authorities as to what they were doing there to which the reply came that they were looking for their equipment.
How about a little human interest story on this subject? Here goes: it would appear that, if psychological trauma counts, the Americans suffered that day too; I was told by locals that some of the US personnel had digs in Cambeltown; a landlady showed me the room where a young member of the SEALS (as she believed) had been staying over a period around the crash date; she told me that for several nights after the crash the young man had woken up the entire house with his screams and that she had had to dump his mattress after he left as it was saturated (her word) in sweat.
You make an important point when you say that this theory “… requires that there was a modification to the aircrafts navigation system that was not recorded in the F700 and the aircraft crashed whilst the Crew were trialling this equipment.”
The onboard equipment needed would have been an ARS6 module in the avionics racks and no such thing was ever mentioned in the inquiries to my knowledge – while it was a module designed to be easily removable and transferable between 47Ds/HC2s, presumably if it had been removed at the crash site there could still have been evidence for this (eg one could hardly expect anyone other than an avionics tech to have a blank panel with him to fill the hole or stow the connector correctly or do up the retaining screws, etc).
UNFORTUNATELY such anomalies, had they been noticed, may have been put down to techs not following procedure in that last minute work on the avionics racks as investigators were perhaps unfamiliar with what went in that spot as the system was not fitted to HC2s until a year later and so missed the significance.
As you yourself would know,
<<… on return from the first sortie Flt Lt Tapper informed the avionics specialists that they had had been getting spurious indications on the Super Tans BUT he did not place the equipment unservicable. In an effort to trace the fault the Groundcrew removed the avionics boxes and did a quick functional check (which failed to show any faults) and then replaced the boxes. No paperwork was raised which resulted in the Grouncrew concerned having a one sided interview with OCEng.>> (sic)
And there was that Sunday Express article <<… that arrests were expected following a SIB investigation that showed that the aircrafts flight instrumentation had been tampered with by disaffected technicians.>> wasn’t there? – however ridiculous in its entirety surely no smoke without fire?
<<Incidentally, where did the story about US Navy SEALS come from?>>
Several references actually and comment from locals I spoke to when I visited the area.
One article specifically mentioned that the US personnel were “challenged” by authorities as to what they were doing there to which the reply came that they were looking for their equipment.
How about a little human interest story on this subject? Here goes: it would appear that, if psychological trauma counts, the Americans suffered that day too; I was told by locals that some of the US personnel had digs in Cambeltown; a landlady showed me the room where a young member of the SEALS (as she believed) had been staying over a period around the crash date; she told me that for several nights after the crash the young man had woken up the entire house with his screams and that she had had to dump his mattress after he left as it was saturated (her word) in sweat.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Odiham
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SH Memorial
A small parade of Odiham based personnel will honour the 2 minutes silence at the SH memorial at Odiham today. I will be there and my/our thoughts will go to all who perished in this tragedy. To all concerned with this campaign I hope it is a small comfort that those of us still serving have n't forgotten those who made the ultimate sacrifice.