Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Quote "Firstly, there is no question that Chinook ZD576 was anything other than a fully serviceable aircraft".
Wow! What a huge statement! Do they have evidence of this? What criteria have they used? Production Acceptance Specifications? Even if this were so, there is no requirement in the MoD to keep them current, so many are meaningless. (A point made during the enquiries).
I also recall reading that the AAIB stated there were known defects in the nav system. Was/is this reflected in the servicing documentation? Define "Fully Serviceable", bearing in mind that in the MoD "Serviceability" does not mean "Safe" except at certain contractors, they have no rules requiring that safety be maintained once the kit is in service and, while something may be serviceable, it may not be fit for the purpose to which it is being put. The DACU connector comes to mind.
I think this addition to the standard rubbish indicates that someone, knowingly or otherwise, has made a telling point that makes them nervous.
Wow! What a huge statement! Do they have evidence of this? What criteria have they used? Production Acceptance Specifications? Even if this were so, there is no requirement in the MoD to keep them current, so many are meaningless. (A point made during the enquiries).
I also recall reading that the AAIB stated there were known defects in the nav system. Was/is this reflected in the servicing documentation? Define "Fully Serviceable", bearing in mind that in the MoD "Serviceability" does not mean "Safe" except at certain contractors, they have no rules requiring that safety be maintained once the kit is in service and, while something may be serviceable, it may not be fit for the purpose to which it is being put. The DACU connector comes to mind.
I think this addition to the standard rubbish indicates that someone, knowingly or otherwise, has made a telling point that makes them nervous.
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Ex grunt,
As tucumseh suggests I should certainly ask Mr Ingram how he can square his statement with the fact that the DECU connector was unreliable and that it was standard practice for a crew member to check this connector every 15 minutes of flight. This evidence was given to the enquiry by Mr Cable of the AAIB.
How anyone in his right mind can consider this practice to be interpreted as "serviceable" is beyond me.
As I understand it, the sort of contact problems that this practice could hide might have led to circumstances which would put the aircraft at risk, leaving no evidence.
To quote Air Commodore Blakely:
He (Mr Cable) also spoke to problems with the multi-point connectors, which went from the engines into the DECU. These were of bad design and liable to be displaced by vibration which then produced a power interruption. Although there was a back-up system this did not always work and on two or three occasions pilots had lost control of the engine condition lever. As a result squadrons introduced a procedure whereby crewmen every quarter of an hour checked that the connections had not been displaced in flight (QQ 677-9).
I am following a similar line with my own MP. It might be worth asking Mr Ingram if he would fly on an aircraft in this condition.
p1
As tucumseh suggests I should certainly ask Mr Ingram how he can square his statement with the fact that the DECU connector was unreliable and that it was standard practice for a crew member to check this connector every 15 minutes of flight. This evidence was given to the enquiry by Mr Cable of the AAIB.
How anyone in his right mind can consider this practice to be interpreted as "serviceable" is beyond me.
As I understand it, the sort of contact problems that this practice could hide might have led to circumstances which would put the aircraft at risk, leaving no evidence.
To quote Air Commodore Blakely:
He (Mr Cable) also spoke to problems with the multi-point connectors, which went from the engines into the DECU. These were of bad design and liable to be displaced by vibration which then produced a power interruption. Although there was a back-up system this did not always work and on two or three occasions pilots had lost control of the engine condition lever. As a result squadrons introduced a procedure whereby crewmen every quarter of an hour checked that the connections had not been displaced in flight (QQ 677-9).
I am following a similar line with my own MP. It might be worth asking Mr Ingram if he would fly on an aircraft in this condition.
p1
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
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi EG,
Many thanks for sharing your letter from Mr Reid. What an interesting comment, “Firstly, there is no question that Chinook ZD576 was anything other than a fully serviceable aircraft. It might be worthwhile writing back to him and asking for a copy of the evidence that he bases that statement on. Does he dismiss the evidence from the acknowledged experts – the AAIB, who state that the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576 could not be determined? Has ‘new evidence’ been produced that supports such a specific statement?
The MoD are very reluctant to provide details of the litigation process brought against manufacturers, despite there being several requests over the years. The only thing I’ve located is on the Parliamentary web site: http://www.publications.parliament.u...75/0030825.htm Hopefully it will give answers, or at least provoke more questions for Mr Reid to avoid answering.
I wonder if Mr Reid feels the need to defend the serviceability of not only ZD576, but also the entire Chinook fleet at that time, because under the guidance of John Blakely, searching questions are being asked specifically with regard to engineering issues and practices. Once my letter of 19 October 2005 is answered, we may be a little more informed with regards engineering practices, opinions and attitudes around the time of the accident. My feeling is that the MoD are none too pleased that we are looking so closely at these issues.
As always, I’ll keep you updated as to progress made.
My thanks, as always, for everyone’s continued support.
Brian
“Justice has no expiry date” – John Cook
Many thanks for sharing your letter from Mr Reid. What an interesting comment, “Firstly, there is no question that Chinook ZD576 was anything other than a fully serviceable aircraft. It might be worthwhile writing back to him and asking for a copy of the evidence that he bases that statement on. Does he dismiss the evidence from the acknowledged experts – the AAIB, who state that the pre-impact serviceability of ZD576 could not be determined? Has ‘new evidence’ been produced that supports such a specific statement?
The MoD are very reluctant to provide details of the litigation process brought against manufacturers, despite there being several requests over the years. The only thing I’ve located is on the Parliamentary web site: http://www.publications.parliament.u...75/0030825.htm Hopefully it will give answers, or at least provoke more questions for Mr Reid to avoid answering.
I wonder if Mr Reid feels the need to defend the serviceability of not only ZD576, but also the entire Chinook fleet at that time, because under the guidance of John Blakely, searching questions are being asked specifically with regard to engineering issues and practices. Once my letter of 19 October 2005 is answered, we may be a little more informed with regards engineering practices, opinions and attitudes around the time of the accident. My feeling is that the MoD are none too pleased that we are looking so closely at these issues.
As always, I’ll keep you updated as to progress made.
My thanks, as always, for everyone’s continued support.
Brian
“Justice has no expiry date” – John Cook
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi
You have not heard from me before on this thread.
Have sent an e mail to my MP Jane Kennedy MP for Liverpool Wavertree asking for her support to both early day motions. She was at one time the NI Security Minister, so therefore have knowledge of the work that the crews do and did over the water.
Unforunatley, she is still a member of the Government as a minister, so I expect will tow the party line as a payroll vote member.
Can the Scotish Parliament hold an investigation as this crash happened on their land ??? or does this come under the powers only held by London in this situation.
Good luck with the campaign. If I can be of any help writing to MPs etc let me know.
You have not heard from me before on this thread.
Have sent an e mail to my MP Jane Kennedy MP for Liverpool Wavertree asking for her support to both early day motions. She was at one time the NI Security Minister, so therefore have knowledge of the work that the crews do and did over the water.
Unforunatley, she is still a member of the Government as a minister, so I expect will tow the party line as a payroll vote member.
Can the Scotish Parliament hold an investigation as this crash happened on their land ??? or does this come under the powers only held by London in this situation.
Good luck with the campaign. If I can be of any help writing to MPs etc let me know.
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
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi Air Pig, and welcome to the debate.
Thank you for contacting your MP. I wish you well with that and wonder if you wouldn't mind keeping us up to date with your progress there. Fortunately, there is a good level of cross-party support, so there should be nothing for her to worry about.
I notice that she has not signed any EDMs at all, so would not be suprised if there is a refusal on this occasion.
The Scottish Parliament can't really look at this issue as it's an MoD matter and that is handled from Westminster. The Scottish Church is, however, very interested and very supportive.
As an aside, I have received an e-mail from Mr Nick Herbert MP, following my e-mail to him (see previous page of the thread). He states,
"Dear Mr Dixon, thank you very much for your e-mail of 19 December about the Chinook Justice campaign. I am grateful to you for drawing my attention to the campaign website, which I have read with interest. I will certainly discuss the matter with James Arbuthnot when I next see him. Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me. Yours sincerely
Now, he's not said he will sign the EDMs, but it has got him interested enough to speak to James Arbuthnot. Who knows what he may do after that?
Still nothing from Arkroyal's MP though!
My thanks, as always, for the support of you all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Thank you for contacting your MP. I wish you well with that and wonder if you wouldn't mind keeping us up to date with your progress there. Fortunately, there is a good level of cross-party support, so there should be nothing for her to worry about.
I notice that she has not signed any EDMs at all, so would not be suprised if there is a refusal on this occasion.
The Scottish Parliament can't really look at this issue as it's an MoD matter and that is handled from Westminster. The Scottish Church is, however, very interested and very supportive.
As an aside, I have received an e-mail from Mr Nick Herbert MP, following my e-mail to him (see previous page of the thread). He states,
"Dear Mr Dixon, thank you very much for your e-mail of 19 December about the Chinook Justice campaign. I am grateful to you for drawing my attention to the campaign website, which I have read with interest. I will certainly discuss the matter with James Arbuthnot when I next see him. Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me. Yours sincerely
Now, he's not said he will sign the EDMs, but it has got him interested enough to speak to James Arbuthnot. Who knows what he may do after that?
Still nothing from Arkroyal's MP though!
My thanks, as always, for the support of you all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi Air Pig and Brian
Don't hold your breath. My MP is also a (very junior) minister. He trips out the mantra that ministers do not sign EDMs.
Don't hold your breath. My MP is also a (very junior) minister. He trips out the mantra that ministers do not sign EDMs.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Brian, perhaps we should follow the anarchist way. Let's all meet up at the Houses of Parliament with placards and picket the MP's as they arrive for business. I feel sickened by the "show me more evidence" attitude of most of the MP's, following the pary line. For Gods sake, how much more evidence do they need???????
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Midlands
Age: 84
Posts: 1,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook Engines Not "Safety Critical"??
The MoD and RAF took advice other than Boscombe Down's and put the Chinook into service. The official justification for over-ruling A&AEE was given to the Defence Committee in 1998. The MoD said it took into account the fact that there had no safety-critical FADEC incidents in the US Army. It also took into account the fact that the FADEC was not safety critical because not even the engines were safety critical. Without its engines the Chinook could glide safely to earth. Indeed the Defence Committee was told in 1998 that Boeing and the MoD did not consider the FADEC to be safety critical. "Boeing did not consider the FADEC to be flight safety critical because the engines on the Chinook are not considered to be safety critical," said an MoD report to the Defence Committee (page 33—fourth report dated 13 May 1998).
This staggers me! When has ANY Chinook carried a real 2 engines out landing?
This staggers me! When has ANY Chinook carried a real 2 engines out landing?
Just a numbered other
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Still nothing from Arkroyal's MP though!
Tee, hee. I think he's at periscope depth, Brian!
I am astounded that anyone can claim that:
“Firstly, there is no question that Chinook ZD576 was anything other than a fully serviceable aircraft.
No FDR No CVR. Utter tosh.
EG, please ask him to justify that statement to the burden of proof required. i.e with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Tee, hee. I think he's at periscope depth, Brian!
I am astounded that anyone can claim that:
“Firstly, there is no question that Chinook ZD576 was anything other than a fully serviceable aircraft.
No FDR No CVR. Utter tosh.
EG, please ask him to justify that statement to the burden of proof required. i.e with absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
A2QFI said:
This staggers me! When has ANY Chinook carried a real 2 engines out landing?
Speak to the boys about fxxxing up the fuel cross-feeding when flying over the desert.
It all goes very quiet. And the Chinook does auto-rotate very nicely...
hey ho..
This staggers me! When has ANY Chinook carried a real 2 engines out landing?
Speak to the boys about fxxxing up the fuel cross-feeding when flying over the desert.
It all goes very quiet. And the Chinook does auto-rotate very nicely... hey ho..
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
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi everyone,
I received a reply from MoD with regards my latest letter requesting disclosure of several documents (thank you). One of them was the Boscombe Down memo, dated 6 June 1994, in which they notified that they were stopping CA Release trials. There is a paragraph, which I'll copy here, that completely undermines the comment made to Ex-Grunt's MP by Mr Adam Ingram (see previous page).
On the page which refers to FADEC, there is a note at the bottom of the page. It is headed with the title 'Spurious Engine Fail caption warnings' and reads:
"Pending manufacturers investigations and a remedial solution, the "Eng Fail" caption may illuminate spuriously on the Caution Advisory Panel (CAP), with a corresponding illumination of the master caution light. The pilot must immediately verify the status of the engine by a scan of engine instruments. If all indications are normal the master caution light may be reset. If engine operation is normal aircrew should expect the "Eng Fail" light to extinguish after a 12 second lapse time."
So, how does this fit with Mr Ingram's guarantee that ZD576 was a fully serviceable aircraft (especially as that particular airframe had such a problematic history since its mid-life upgrade). Perhaps Ex-Grunt may like to consider posing that particular question to Mr Ingram, via their MP.
It's also beyond me that anyone would allow such a potentially serious problem to enter operational service. I mean, how does "Well, give it 12 seconds to see if your engines have packed in" contribute to safety?
I am not saying that a FADEC problem was the cause of the accident, but I think it certainly strengthens the argument that there may have been a problem, which may have caused a distraction in the cockpit. The negligence verdict is, therefore, undermined and should be removed forthwith.
I wonder what it is about this issue that causes Messrs Reid and Ingram a problem?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I received a reply from MoD with regards my latest letter requesting disclosure of several documents (thank you). One of them was the Boscombe Down memo, dated 6 June 1994, in which they notified that they were stopping CA Release trials. There is a paragraph, which I'll copy here, that completely undermines the comment made to Ex-Grunt's MP by Mr Adam Ingram (see previous page).
On the page which refers to FADEC, there is a note at the bottom of the page. It is headed with the title 'Spurious Engine Fail caption warnings' and reads:
"Pending manufacturers investigations and a remedial solution, the "Eng Fail" caption may illuminate spuriously on the Caution Advisory Panel (CAP), with a corresponding illumination of the master caution light. The pilot must immediately verify the status of the engine by a scan of engine instruments. If all indications are normal the master caution light may be reset. If engine operation is normal aircrew should expect the "Eng Fail" light to extinguish after a 12 second lapse time."
So, how does this fit with Mr Ingram's guarantee that ZD576 was a fully serviceable aircraft (especially as that particular airframe had such a problematic history since its mid-life upgrade). Perhaps Ex-Grunt may like to consider posing that particular question to Mr Ingram, via their MP.
It's also beyond me that anyone would allow such a potentially serious problem to enter operational service. I mean, how does "Well, give it 12 seconds to see if your engines have packed in" contribute to safety?
I am not saying that a FADEC problem was the cause of the accident, but I think it certainly strengthens the argument that there may have been a problem, which may have caused a distraction in the cockpit. The negligence verdict is, therefore, undermined and should be removed forthwith.
I wonder what it is about this issue that causes Messrs Reid and Ingram a problem?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Brian,
When taken out of context somethings appear alarmist. Do you know how the Eng Fail caption is triggered? Do you know how they fixed it? The word spurious (not genuine, false) was correctly used to describe the event. The majority who understood the problem were happy to fly the aircraft, although I'm sure you will question that as it adds to the alarm.
When taken out of context somethings appear alarmist. Do you know how the Eng Fail caption is triggered? Do you know how they fixed it? The word spurious (not genuine, false) was correctly used to describe the event. The majority who understood the problem were happy to fly the aircraft, although I'm sure you will question that as it adds to the alarm.
Just a numbered other
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
The point is, Turnbull, that an aircraft with this problem is not 'a fully serviceable aircraft', is it?
And such a distraction requiring a period of heads in checking at a critical phase of flight (The pilot must immediately verify the status of the engine by a scan of engine instruments) might contribute to a subsequent accident even if not its main cause.
In any case, it makes the finding of gross negligence even more of a 'crystal ball' exercise, than the 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' required by the rules at the time.
And such a distraction requiring a period of heads in checking at a critical phase of flight (The pilot must immediately verify the status of the engine by a scan of engine instruments) might contribute to a subsequent accident even if not its main cause.
In any case, it makes the finding of gross negligence even more of a 'crystal ball' exercise, than the 'absolutely no doubt whatsoever' required by the rules at the time.
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Turnbull,
Neither should we forget the FACT that Fl Lt Tapper was definitely not happy to fly this aircraft and had requested that the MkI should be used. p1
Neither should we forget the FACT that Fl Lt Tapper was definitely not happy to fly this aircraft and had requested that the MkI should be used. p1
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
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Hi Turnbull,
as I said, I wasn't offering up FADEC as the cause of the accident. I was pointing out that the problems being encountered at the time of the accident were well known.
I wasn't selectively quoting either. The post above was merely to highlight that not all was well with the newly introduced Chinook Mk2 fleet, and the instructions given to operational aircrew required them to tolerate the possiblilty of an engine failure for a period of up to 12 seconds. Surely you agree that this has the potential to be a distraction in the cockpit.
Also, as Ark rightly points out, it calls into question the statement that ZD576 was fully serviceable. Unfortunately, no-one alive knows whether this is a correct statement or not. It does, however, display the uncompromising, blinkered position of those within the MoD.
I assure you I had no intention to be alarmist, nor selective in my post.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
as I said, I wasn't offering up FADEC as the cause of the accident. I was pointing out that the problems being encountered at the time of the accident were well known.
I wasn't selectively quoting either. The post above was merely to highlight that not all was well with the newly introduced Chinook Mk2 fleet, and the instructions given to operational aircrew required them to tolerate the possiblilty of an engine failure for a period of up to 12 seconds. Surely you agree that this has the potential to be a distraction in the cockpit.
Also, as Ark rightly points out, it calls into question the statement that ZD576 was fully serviceable. Unfortunately, no-one alive knows whether this is a correct statement or not. It does, however, display the uncompromising, blinkered position of those within the MoD.
I assure you I had no intention to be alarmist, nor selective in my post.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Brian
Quote ".....it calls into question the statement that ZD576 was fully serviceable. Unfortunately, no-one alive knows whether this is a correct statement or not".
It is perhaps worth remembering that the AAIB stated, and the MoD accepted, that there were "defects" in the nav system (the Radar Altimeter).
The BD memo you quote, recommending "manufacturers investigations and a remedial solution", is simply further evidence of the aircraft, or an aircraft system, not being fit for purpose. These are accepted facts, rather than inferences or heresay. To me, it follows that the MoD's statement is wrong. This is by no means the first example of MoD digging a hole for themselves through attempts to muddy the water and move the goalposts. What I find interesting is why MoD would offer such a statement when there was no apparent need to. A diversionary tactic? Or simply indicative of the fact they have fewer people now who would understand the implications?
May I suggest that, as neither problem was investigated and remedied before the accident, then both are applicable to all Chinook Mk2; as opposed to random faults which may or may not have been present in 576 on the day. Any questions should centre on when and who initiated invesigations by the Design Authorities, who approved (or rejected?) the investigations, what was the outcome, what subsequent action was taken (e.g. design change) and when, how and by whom was it implemented.
Quote ".....it calls into question the statement that ZD576 was fully serviceable. Unfortunately, no-one alive knows whether this is a correct statement or not".
It is perhaps worth remembering that the AAIB stated, and the MoD accepted, that there were "defects" in the nav system (the Radar Altimeter).
The BD memo you quote, recommending "manufacturers investigations and a remedial solution", is simply further evidence of the aircraft, or an aircraft system, not being fit for purpose. These are accepted facts, rather than inferences or heresay. To me, it follows that the MoD's statement is wrong. This is by no means the first example of MoD digging a hole for themselves through attempts to muddy the water and move the goalposts. What I find interesting is why MoD would offer such a statement when there was no apparent need to. A diversionary tactic? Or simply indicative of the fact they have fewer people now who would understand the implications?
May I suggest that, as neither problem was investigated and remedied before the accident, then both are applicable to all Chinook Mk2; as opposed to random faults which may or may not have been present in 576 on the day. Any questions should centre on when and who initiated invesigations by the Design Authorities, who approved (or rejected?) the investigations, what was the outcome, what subsequent action was taken (e.g. design change) and when, how and by whom was it implemented.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Turnbull,
Yes it may be a spurious indication but until you have made other checks it could also be real - it would be just as dangerous to assume it to be spurious when it was not. I do not know what sensors triggered this warning at that time on the Chinook Mk2 or even whether it was a FADEC software glitch. I do know, from the BoI evidence, that the engines also suffered uncommanded run-downs and run-ups (with what warnings I do not know, but I imagine the symptoms were pretty obvious) and that as well as being incomplete the FRCs were misleading - something that might turn a minor spurious indication problem into a major distraction - definitely not the material of a Gross Negligence verdict. If I can again quote the Stn Cdr Odiham's remarks in his review of the BoI:
Whilst tackling this issue the Board were unable to totally discount the following factors:
a. Spatial disorientation or visual illusion.
b. An unregistered technical malfunction.
c. Human factors.
Any of these, or a combination of them, could, in my view, have sufficiently distracted the crew from the task of turning away from the Mull to cause them both to inadvertently enter cloud and then to fail to take the correct procedure for an emergency climb in a timely manner. The Board consider engine control system malfunctions and it is particularly relevant to note that at this stage of the Chinook Mk 2's service spurious ENG FAIL captions, lasting on average 7-8 seconds, were an increasingly frequent occurrence. These are now well understood but at the time they were not. Had such an indication occurred it would have caused crew considerable concern particularly as they were over the water with no obvious area for an emergency landing. Such a warning would also have required an urgent and very careful check of engine instruments and FRCs.
When I wrote my engineering paper more than 2 years ago I commented that one of my concerns was that the aircrew had become so used to the Mk2's problems, both spurious and real, that they treated them as routine, and hence real emergencies could be slower to be picked up and problems even go unreported. Your comment that: "the majority who understood the problem were happy to fly the aircraft" is not borne out by the Stn Cdr's views of the time. I suggest that aircrew who were "happy" to fly the aircraft in this state, as opposed to those who might have been resigned to doing their duty (as Flt Lt Tapper was) contributed little to flight safety! Even more importantly, as picked up by Arkroyal and pulse 1, Tapper was only too well aware of the issues and was not happy with the Mk2, nor did the Chinook at that time, and this aircraft in particular, in terms of airworthiness meet even the minumum standards that would be applied to a similar non-operational civil flight!
In all of this there are only two indisputable facts:
The aircraft crashed into the Mull
Nobody knows why - and this includes MOD and even the Senior Reviewing Officers who found the pilots Grossly Negligent - something the Senior Reviewing Officer admits is the case.
MOD and the Reviewing Officers rely on conjecture and hypotheses to justify their verdict, but do not acknowledge the issues relating to the airworthiness of the aircraft and its fitness for purpose at all - yet these must have been well known to all involved. If there had been fuller TORs or even a cursory examination of all of the issues raised by the BoI the Reviewing Officers could not have come to a conclusion of pilot error let alone one breaking the rules of AP3207 of Gross Negligence. That it would not suit MOD to open Pandora's Box covering the introduction to service of the Mk2 is now clear - and if you want the next example just look at the Mk3. MOD may continue to ignore the facts, but I imagine there are many people in the system who like us know only too well that this verdict is an unsupportable gross miscarriage of justice which we will continue to fight against.
Yes it may be a spurious indication but until you have made other checks it could also be real - it would be just as dangerous to assume it to be spurious when it was not. I do not know what sensors triggered this warning at that time on the Chinook Mk2 or even whether it was a FADEC software glitch. I do know, from the BoI evidence, that the engines also suffered uncommanded run-downs and run-ups (with what warnings I do not know, but I imagine the symptoms were pretty obvious) and that as well as being incomplete the FRCs were misleading - something that might turn a minor spurious indication problem into a major distraction - definitely not the material of a Gross Negligence verdict. If I can again quote the Stn Cdr Odiham's remarks in his review of the BoI:
Whilst tackling this issue the Board were unable to totally discount the following factors:
a. Spatial disorientation or visual illusion.
b. An unregistered technical malfunction.
c. Human factors.
Any of these, or a combination of them, could, in my view, have sufficiently distracted the crew from the task of turning away from the Mull to cause them both to inadvertently enter cloud and then to fail to take the correct procedure for an emergency climb in a timely manner. The Board consider engine control system malfunctions and it is particularly relevant to note that at this stage of the Chinook Mk 2's service spurious ENG FAIL captions, lasting on average 7-8 seconds, were an increasingly frequent occurrence. These are now well understood but at the time they were not. Had such an indication occurred it would have caused crew considerable concern particularly as they were over the water with no obvious area for an emergency landing. Such a warning would also have required an urgent and very careful check of engine instruments and FRCs.
When I wrote my engineering paper more than 2 years ago I commented that one of my concerns was that the aircrew had become so used to the Mk2's problems, both spurious and real, that they treated them as routine, and hence real emergencies could be slower to be picked up and problems even go unreported. Your comment that: "the majority who understood the problem were happy to fly the aircraft" is not borne out by the Stn Cdr's views of the time. I suggest that aircrew who were "happy" to fly the aircraft in this state, as opposed to those who might have been resigned to doing their duty (as Flt Lt Tapper was) contributed little to flight safety! Even more importantly, as picked up by Arkroyal and pulse 1, Tapper was only too well aware of the issues and was not happy with the Mk2, nor did the Chinook at that time, and this aircraft in particular, in terms of airworthiness meet even the minumum standards that would be applied to a similar non-operational civil flight!
In all of this there are only two indisputable facts:
The aircraft crashed into the Mull
Nobody knows why - and this includes MOD and even the Senior Reviewing Officers who found the pilots Grossly Negligent - something the Senior Reviewing Officer admits is the case.
MOD and the Reviewing Officers rely on conjecture and hypotheses to justify their verdict, but do not acknowledge the issues relating to the airworthiness of the aircraft and its fitness for purpose at all - yet these must have been well known to all involved. If there had been fuller TORs or even a cursory examination of all of the issues raised by the BoI the Reviewing Officers could not have come to a conclusion of pilot error let alone one breaking the rules of AP3207 of Gross Negligence. That it would not suit MOD to open Pandora's Box covering the introduction to service of the Mk2 is now clear - and if you want the next example just look at the Mk3. MOD may continue to ignore the facts, but I imagine there are many people in the system who like us know only too well that this verdict is an unsupportable gross miscarriage of justice which we will continue to fight against.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Brian,
Just received a letter from my ever-supportive MP, Jonathan Djanogly, advising that he would sign EDM1111. I checked the EDM site, and sure enough, he has.
When is a spurious warning not spurious? When the aircrew manual tells you that it is almost impossible for an engine air start valve to open in light (light on). 'If you find the light annoying, unscrew the cover and remove the bulb'... The crew of the Nimrod that went for a swim in the Murray Firth might disagree with the advice - the warning was, in fact, not spurious. The starter motor wound itself to destruction in flight and set fire to an adjacent fuel tank; the wing nearly burned through whilst the courageous pilot ditched the aircraft, saving 11 lives in the process.
FJJP
Just received a letter from my ever-supportive MP, Jonathan Djanogly, advising that he would sign EDM1111. I checked the EDM site, and sure enough, he has.
When is a spurious warning not spurious? When the aircrew manual tells you that it is almost impossible for an engine air start valve to open in light (light on). 'If you find the light annoying, unscrew the cover and remove the bulb'... The crew of the Nimrod that went for a swim in the Murray Firth might disagree with the advice - the warning was, in fact, not spurious. The starter motor wound itself to destruction in flight and set fire to an adjacent fuel tank; the wing nearly burned through whilst the courageous pilot ditched the aircraft, saving 11 lives in the process.
FJJP
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: essex
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
One remembers the accident, then the accusation that the crew were to blame came with indecent haste, after an artcle in "Flight" I asked my MP to add his threepennuff to the demands for a fresh inquiry.
Got told to foxtrot oscar( but nicly)
Got told to foxtrot oscar( but nicly)
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
Re: Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
FJJP,
excellent stuff. Thank you, as always, for your support.
Trilander - care to name names? Everyone here knows how much I enjoy e-mailing MPs
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
excellent stuff. Thank you, as always, for your support.
Trilander - care to name names? Everyone here knows how much I enjoy e-mailing MPs
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook