Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
May I suggest you actually read the AOC's findings.
You will find that they are nothing like your "something like".
You may also wish to reflect on the fact that the AOC was flying helicopters on Operations before either of the Pilots involved in the Chinook disaster started at Primary School.
May I suggest you actually read the AOC's findings.
You will find that they are nothing like your "something like".
You may also wish to reflect on the fact that the AOC was flying helicopters on Operations before either of the Pilots involved in the Chinook disaster started at Primary School.
Last edited by cazatou; 5th Mar 2006 at 11:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
CAZATOU. Well said! JP
=cazatou]walter kennedy
May I suggest you actually read the AOC's findings.
You will find that they are nothing like your "something like".
You may also wish to reflect on the fact that the AOC was flying helicpters on Operations before either of the Pilots involved in the Chinook disaster started at Primary School.[/QUOTE]
=cazatou]walter kennedy
May I suggest you actually read the AOC's findings.
You will find that they are nothing like your "something like".
You may also wish to reflect on the fact that the AOC was flying helicpters on Operations before either of the Pilots involved in the Chinook disaster started at Primary School.[/QUOTE]
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
Thank you. I often wonder how many of the contributors to this Forum have actually set eyes on the BOI, let alone read it.
Tandemrotor
I know the above does not apply to you; but I do think you should be more patient with Walter Kennedy.
Surely you realise that he is (in his opinion) the ONE person in the World who KNOWS exactly what happened that June evening.
I have reason to believe that he is also a member of the "Flat Earth Society".
Thank you. I often wonder how many of the contributors to this Forum have actually set eyes on the BOI, let alone read it.
Tandemrotor
I know the above does not apply to you; but I do think you should be more patient with Walter Kennedy.
Surely you realise that he is (in his opinion) the ONE person in the World who KNOWS exactly what happened that June evening.
I have reason to believe that he is also a member of the "Flat Earth Society".
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys - I fear you are wasting your keyboard time
= TR is in blissful ignorance and I suspect the words 'monkey', 'don't', 'I', 'give' - and a few others apply
How glad am I that WK is on my 'ignore list'
You can find it on the user control panel.
I can highly recommend it!!
You can find it on the user control panel.
I can highly recommend it!!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
I think you do Tandemrotor a dis-service. I am, as you are aware, in total disagreement with W K; but everybody is entitled to their own opinion - even if it is total ****!!
I think you do Tandemrotor a dis-service. I am, as you are aware, in total disagreement with W K; but everybody is entitled to their own opinion - even if it is total ****!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But these guys were flying at 135kts in mist / cloud in the vicinity of and towards a mountain. Why? Anyone with experience of SH Heli ops will tell you that you don't get into that situation. They flew a perfectly servicable aircraft into a mountain and it's pie in the sky to try and pretend otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246, define "perfectly serviceable" as you see it. Did they fly into (or were they forced into because of circumstance) mist/cloud? I dont remember seeing that in the accounts of the board of inquiry. I guess you agree with the results of the Court Martial then.
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
Here we go again........ 
d246, please post your engineering and AAIB report.
I think you will find that the people who 'pretend' to know what happend had Air Rank at the time. The rest of us are happy to admit that we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever (You may recall that that is the required burden of proof, in accordance with the RAF's own rules).
Welcome to the debate.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
d246, please post your engineering and AAIB report.
I think you will find that the people who 'pretend' to know what happend had Air Rank at the time. The rest of us are happy to admit that we will never know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever (You may recall that that is the required burden of proof, in accordance with the RAF's own rules).
Welcome to the debate.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
d246,
I think that you will find a few very experienced SH pilots on this thread who would strongly disagree with you.
Over the years, several people have come onto this thread and made comments such as yours. Some of them have, on being challenged, had the guts to actually read this thread (quite an undertaking) and then been gracious enough to come back with changed views. I wonder whether you would do that?
I think that you will find a few very experienced SH pilots on this thread who would strongly disagree with you.
Over the years, several people have come onto this thread and made comments such as yours. Some of them have, on being challenged, had the guts to actually read this thread (quite an undertaking) and then been gracious enough to come back with changed views. I wonder whether you would do that?
pulse and Brian,
I think we should take him at face value; after all, no-one would join a forum like this unless they were certain of their facts. Maybe at long last d246 can steer us toward the incontrovertible proof that the aircraft was indeed fully serviceable, the aircrew were negligent and the Air rank officers were right. Clearly his knowledge and background allow d246 some form of insight denied the rest of us.
How about it, 246? Would you be kind enough to share the evidence? Something truly emphatic to match the forthright tone of your "pie in the sky" comment would be good.
I think we should take him at face value; after all, no-one would join a forum like this unless they were certain of their facts. Maybe at long last d246 can steer us toward the incontrovertible proof that the aircraft was indeed fully serviceable, the aircrew were negligent and the Air rank officers were right. Clearly his knowledge and background allow d246 some form of insight denied the rest of us.
How about it, 246? Would you be kind enough to share the evidence? Something truly emphatic to match the forthright tone of your "pie in the sky" comment would be good.
Hi Brian.
Received a reply from Liam Fox today, he has noted my comments and will look at the website. hopefully he may come on board in the near future. Is it worth a nudge from others ??
Cheers
Air pig
Received a reply from Liam Fox today, he has noted my comments and will look at the website. hopefully he may come on board in the near future. Is it worth a nudge from others ??
Cheers
Air pig
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246, please post your engineering and AAIB report
I don't think you will find any evidence of any mechanical failures in the above reports. To many obviously, blatant acts of negligence and or indiscipline have been covered up in the past due to lack of absolute proof. It would seem that at last the service has ditched this nonsence.
Yes I do accept the findings of the board and the conclusions of the Air rranks, they knew what they were looking at unlike sundry politicians and Sherrifs. There are no circumstances that 'force' people to fly flat out into mist or mountains. Whatever may have happened they put themselves in a position from which they were going to hit the mountian regardless, you cannot fly into those conditions at that speed, full stop.
I flew SH helis in NI for two years. I also knew both pilots.
I don't think you will find any evidence of any mechanical failures in the above reports. To many obviously, blatant acts of negligence and or indiscipline have been covered up in the past due to lack of absolute proof. It would seem that at last the service has ditched this nonsence.
Yes I do accept the findings of the board and the conclusions of the Air rranks, they knew what they were looking at unlike sundry politicians and Sherrifs. There are no circumstances that 'force' people to fly flat out into mist or mountains. Whatever may have happened they put themselves in a position from which they were going to hit the mountian regardless, you cannot fly into those conditions at that speed, full stop.
I flew SH helis in NI for two years. I also knew both pilots.
Last edited by d246; 9th Mar 2006 at 10:35.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So both of you know for a fact that they flew into granite cloud in full control of the aircraft?
Many of us believe that there may have been a malfunction robbing them of control.
Nothing has been proved either way, hench the ascertion that the comments/findings by the air officers could not be justified.
Many of us believe that there may have been a malfunction robbing them of control.
Nothing has been proved either way, hench the ascertion that the comments/findings by the air officers could not be justified.
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
d246.
At the time of the accident, the Chinook HC2 fleet were suffering numerous spurious warnings in the cockpit. ZD576 also had a problematic history since its mid life update.
A simple yes or no will do to this question, but you will need to back your answer up with evidence:
Was there a spurious caption illuminated in the cockpit in the last 20 or so seconds of the flight that may have been a distraction?
From your reply, I take it that you agree then that the President of the BoI was correct to say that there was insufficient evidence to find human faillings. It was when it reached Air Rank level that the interpretation of the limited evidence differed. Which of the two (President of the BoI or Reviewing Officers) is the correct interpretation? Why so?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
At the time of the accident, the Chinook HC2 fleet were suffering numerous spurious warnings in the cockpit. ZD576 also had a problematic history since its mid life update.
A simple yes or no will do to this question, but you will need to back your answer up with evidence:
Was there a spurious caption illuminated in the cockpit in the last 20 or so seconds of the flight that may have been a distraction?
From your reply, I take it that you agree then that the President of the BoI was correct to say that there was insufficient evidence to find human faillings. It was when it reached Air Rank level that the interpretation of the limited evidence differed. Which of the two (President of the BoI or Reviewing Officers) is the correct interpretation? Why so?
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Just a numbered other
d246
How lucky you are to be so sure.
Note that none of us is denying that the scenario you are so willing to accept may be the truth, in just the same way that we are willing to believe that something else occured to contribute to or cause this accident.
What we do require, however, is that before dead people are found guilty of gross negligence, that negligence must be proven to the standard required by the RAF's own rules in force at the time.
Proof with no doubt whatsoever,
How lucky you are to be so sure.
Note that none of us is denying that the scenario you are so willing to accept may be the truth, in just the same way that we are willing to believe that something else occured to contribute to or cause this accident.
What we do require, however, is that before dead people are found guilty of gross negligence, that negligence must be proven to the standard required by the RAF's own rules in force at the time.
Proof with no doubt whatsoever,
Last edited by Arkroyal; 10th Mar 2006 at 07:51.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, I am just curious..........does the fact that the two deceased pilots were found negligent affect the widows pensions. I hope you dont deem my question out of order. If you would prefer please respond by PM......Ken
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with both points raised by D246 and Ark. D246 is correct in stating that
and so consequently the cause of the accident must rest with the aircrew....BUT
is also correct.
They may have caused the accident but they were not Grossly negligent.
Whatever may have happened they put themselves in a position from which they were going to hit the mountian regardless, you cannot fly into those conditions at that speed, full stop
before dead people are found guilty of gross negligence, that negligence must be proven to the standard required by the RAF's own rules in force at the time.
They may have caused the accident but they were not Grossly negligent.