Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence at the crash site indicated a high speed impact. In any case thier speed was such that they were unable to avoid crashing. Pulse 1, what questions? The facts speak for themselves, as the board and the Air ranks accurately deduced. Dwell on semantics as long as you wish, those of us who have been there in SH heli's know, the findings were correct. As the 'powers that be' have mantained despite the barrage of nonsence from the media, politicians and all and sundry.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
I believe that it is not the actual speed that is contentious but rather that there seemed to be a suggestion pushed throughout the inquiries that they had been going too fast in the “conditions” and that this contributed to the crash – which I believe is absolute rubbish and many of you contributing to this thread should have said so strongly a long time ago – here are my thoughts on speed alone:
Mr Holbrook had not seen a (big) twin rotor helicopter before and so could not be expected to be able to judge its speed AT ALL – do you remember the FIRST time you ever saw a jumbo jet on finals? (yep, going back a bit) – looked so slow like it was hanging in the air, right? – an unfamiliar object with no nearby familiar objects to compare it with. With all respect to Mr Holbrook, all that could reasonably be taken from his witness was that it was not doing anything unusual and was in reasonable visibility whilst it was being observed – and this was a couple of miles off the Mull when its speed would have been expected to be at the optimum for the job in hand – a ferry flight – at its best cruising speed which many of you should know and should have said clearly some time ago that this was not excessive – that it was to be expected – not let them get away with insinuating that it was anything like unduly hasty/reckless, whatever.
The evidence from the crash and reconstruction of the last moments suggest that the cruising speed (with that strong tailwind) had been maintained very much to impact – they were not expecting to enter the mist – it was not that they were going to fast to pick their way, they had been going to turn before it and had been approaching it in clear air – there is no maximum speed that you should use when intending to avoid an obstacle, you just avoid it – if you are flying a FJ at low level and, while always intending to fly around it, you crash into a hill, it was not the speed that was the problem. If they really knew how close the mist/Mull was then they should have turned by the actual position of waypoint A – not slowed down or started to climb over – just turned whilst clear of the mist.
Here I go again: they were somehow misled as to how far they had to go.
I believe that it is not the actual speed that is contentious but rather that there seemed to be a suggestion pushed throughout the inquiries that they had been going too fast in the “conditions” and that this contributed to the crash – which I believe is absolute rubbish and many of you contributing to this thread should have said so strongly a long time ago – here are my thoughts on speed alone:
Mr Holbrook had not seen a (big) twin rotor helicopter before and so could not be expected to be able to judge its speed AT ALL – do you remember the FIRST time you ever saw a jumbo jet on finals? (yep, going back a bit) – looked so slow like it was hanging in the air, right? – an unfamiliar object with no nearby familiar objects to compare it with. With all respect to Mr Holbrook, all that could reasonably be taken from his witness was that it was not doing anything unusual and was in reasonable visibility whilst it was being observed – and this was a couple of miles off the Mull when its speed would have been expected to be at the optimum for the job in hand – a ferry flight – at its best cruising speed which many of you should know and should have said clearly some time ago that this was not excessive – that it was to be expected – not let them get away with insinuating that it was anything like unduly hasty/reckless, whatever.
The evidence from the crash and reconstruction of the last moments suggest that the cruising speed (with that strong tailwind) had been maintained very much to impact – they were not expecting to enter the mist – it was not that they were going to fast to pick their way, they had been going to turn before it and had been approaching it in clear air – there is no maximum speed that you should use when intending to avoid an obstacle, you just avoid it – if you are flying a FJ at low level and, while always intending to fly around it, you crash into a hill, it was not the speed that was the problem. If they really knew how close the mist/Mull was then they should have turned by the actual position of waypoint A – not slowed down or started to climb over – just turned whilst clear of the mist.
Here I go again: they were somehow misled as to how far they had to go.
Brian, Beagle and Ginseng
My MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, tells me that he has written to Adam Ingram (Minister of State for the Armed Forces) requesting him to “comment on the points you raise”.
This is what I had written to Geoffrey C-B (thanks to the three of you - Brian, Beags and Ginseng!):
I referred to a letter from the Secretary for Defence to the Conservative Leader David Cameron. In it Dr Reid said:
“.... The original Board, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the HCDC and the House of Lords Select Committee have all studied the same evidence. Each new Government and Ministerial team since the accident has also had the opportunity to review the case. Indeed, when the Labour Government came into office in 1997, it was our opinion that an injustice had been done which we could put right. Despite having looked closely at the case then, and again when Geoff became Defence Secretary, we were not able to justify overturning the findings. My opinion continues to be that the finding should remain undisturbed.”
In contrast to the views expressed in this letter, it remains the fact that two of the bodies adduced by Dr Reid in his support, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and the House of Lords Select Committee, plus the Public Accounts Committee, all failed to find the pilots negligent.
I shall be very grateful if you will write to the Right Honourable gentleman to ask him what was the further evidence, presented to him in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Perhaps he would be good enough to provide you with a copy of that evidence.
Thank you once again for your support.
We await Adam Ingram's reply with interest......
AirSound
This is what I had written to Geoffrey C-B (thanks to the three of you - Brian, Beags and Ginseng!):
I referred to a letter from the Secretary for Defence to the Conservative Leader David Cameron. In it Dr Reid said:
“.... The original Board, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry, the HCDC and the House of Lords Select Committee have all studied the same evidence. Each new Government and Ministerial team since the accident has also had the opportunity to review the case. Indeed, when the Labour Government came into office in 1997, it was our opinion that an injustice had been done which we could put right. Despite having looked closely at the case then, and again when Geoff became Defence Secretary, we were not able to justify overturning the findings. My opinion continues to be that the finding should remain undisturbed.”
In contrast to the views expressed in this letter, it remains the fact that two of the bodies adduced by Dr Reid in his support, the Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry and the House of Lords Select Committee, plus the Public Accounts Committee, all failed to find the pilots negligent.
I shall be very grateful if you will write to the Right Honourable gentleman to ask him what was the further evidence, presented to him in 1997 and since, that changed his opinion from one of an injustice to that of negligence with absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Perhaps he would be good enough to provide you with a copy of that evidence.
Thank you once again for your support.
We await Adam Ingram's reply with interest......
AirSound
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aah! but with the loadies back in the cabin, who in the cockpit would have bothered scrambling the SSR transponder dials if they had come into trouble so quickly with a judgment of distance error? 7760 would have been difficult to get to from 7000 even if you spent all day throwing beanbags at such a piece of kit - the switches ain't easy to knock accidentally. Could it have actually been set before they got into trouble?
Nah! – someone would have mentioned it … surely.
How about a hypothetical? At the time, trying out a new navaid would normally have been done by a Flightchecker (BD) and so not a usual op flight task and so probably no specific SSR code on the books – so what code do you grab if an op a/c is the first one that can take the onboard gear and an opportunity for a test presents itself?
Nah! – someone would have mentioned it … surely.
How about a hypothetical? At the time, trying out a new navaid would normally have been done by a Flightchecker (BD) and so not a usual op flight task and so probably no specific SSR code on the books – so what code do you grab if an op a/c is the first one that can take the onboard gear and an opportunity for a test presents itself?
Walter, please do the world a favour and go away.
Your little green men (or SEALS) scurrying about the Mull with their portable DMEs are just a figment of your imagination - and are a total irrelevance to the principal thrust of this thread.
Your little green men (or SEALS) scurrying about the Mull with their portable DMEs are just a figment of your imagination - and are a total irrelevance to the principal thrust of this thread.
Last edited by BEagle; 17th Mar 2006 at 19:43.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beagle
Here is another reference to their presence that someone forwarded to me:
Eric Waugh, in the Belfast Telegraph on 29 September 2001, reported:
Two RAF officers at a Lincolnshire base, one a senior communications officer, have confirmed that Americans were at the scene of the crash first. When the British servicemen asked them to explain themselves, they were told: "We are looking for something that belongs to us."
You could probably find out for yourself what kind of communication sets were issued to the particular section at the time - a bit outside your comfort zone, is it?
Here is another reference to their presence that someone forwarded to me:
Eric Waugh, in the Belfast Telegraph on 29 September 2001, reported:
Two RAF officers at a Lincolnshire base, one a senior communications officer, have confirmed that Americans were at the scene of the crash first. When the British servicemen asked them to explain themselves, they were told: "We are looking for something that belongs to us."
You could probably find out for yourself what kind of communication sets were issued to the particular section at the time - a bit outside your comfort zone, is it?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
First my apologies for a tardy reply, we had to attend a Funeral in the UK.
With reference to Mr Holbrook; the quote was from an Officer (senior to me) who had attended the FAI. If the information he gave me was incorrect then I unreservedly withdraw my statement that Mr Holbrook had changed his evidence.
First my apologies for a tardy reply, we had to attend a Funeral in the UK.
With reference to Mr Holbrook; the quote was from an Officer (senior to me) who had attended the FAI. If the information he gave me was incorrect then I unreservedly withdraw my statement that Mr Holbrook had changed his evidence.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
The first people at the site were the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy. They secured the site until the Civil Police and Fire Services, as well as Medical Personnel, arrived from Campbeltown to assist. Later RAF Personnel from RAF Kinloss took over as Crash Guard. Nobody else was allowed on the site until the search for any possible survivors was completed.
Are you suggesting that USN SEALS approached the wreckage and ignored the plight of those involved in this tragedy so that they could search for equipment that may have been on board?
What would an RAF Comms Officer have to do with it (except in your imagination)?
I would suggest that you are on an ego trip of your own and are willing to totally ignore any pain that you may cause to those who were themselves involved in the aftermath of this tragic incident; let alone the heartrending anguish that you cause to those who lost loved ones as a result.
To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell "You have been here too long for any good you may have done; IN THE NAME OF GOD GO!!"
The first people at the site were the Lighthouse Keeper and his Deputy. They secured the site until the Civil Police and Fire Services, as well as Medical Personnel, arrived from Campbeltown to assist. Later RAF Personnel from RAF Kinloss took over as Crash Guard. Nobody else was allowed on the site until the search for any possible survivors was completed.
Are you suggesting that USN SEALS approached the wreckage and ignored the plight of those involved in this tragedy so that they could search for equipment that may have been on board?
What would an RAF Comms Officer have to do with it (except in your imagination)?
I would suggest that you are on an ego trip of your own and are willing to totally ignore any pain that you may cause to those who were themselves involved in the aftermath of this tragic incident; let alone the heartrending anguish that you cause to those who lost loved ones as a result.
To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell "You have been here too long for any good you may have done; IN THE NAME OF GOD GO!!"
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a suggestion. Walter Kennedy, why don't you print all the data from all the fora concerning this accident and write a book with your own theories.
That way you can make some money and we can be spared the endless frequent drivel you inject into what is otherwise a sensible discussion site.
That way you can make some money and we can be spared the endless frequent drivel you inject into what is otherwise a sensible discussion site.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, first things first:
Most importantly, cazatou, absolutely no need to apologise, and I am genuinely sorry to hear of your bad news.
Numerous contributors to this thread, and indeed in the wider debate, can make statements, which aren't supported by the 'facts'. Those opinions can then be regurgitated, even elaborated, by others, and I accept that in that atmosphere of 'fact deficit', a damning picture can be painted of the accident.
I apologise for correcting your contribution, when I could have corrected others, it's just that yours was relatively straightforward to counter. Others sometimes need more time and effort.
JP
You asked why the yachtsman's assessment of speed might be relevant to the cause of the crash.
I don't think I ever said it was. However...
It is (to some) an appealing profile to suggest that the crew flew the aircraft at high speed, across the water, in an attempt to ameliorate, the 'apparent' crew hours 'problem', and simply 'pressed on' regardless.
Particularly appealing when this version originates from an opinion ("it's obvious, right!") rather than being a 'fact led' analysis.
The second reason the yachtsman's evidence may be 'interesting', I put it no more strongly than that, is that he sees the aircraft at relatively low level, relatively low speed, and in sunlight. Yet within approximately 60 seconds or so later, it has 'apparently' climbed into cloud, and impacted a hillside at high speed!
In the words of another, the level of incompetence required to deliberately climb and accelarate into cloud, makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!
Again in the words of another, it is simply not recognisable as a chinook (or any other helicopter's) technique!
Where does that leave us? I do not know, other than to say this:
Even after exhaustive examination of the 'physical' evidence, the AAIB could not, and did not, say the aircraft was serviceable at any moment up to, and including, the impact.
I put it to you that is exactly what they would have had to have said in order to satisfy the standard of proof required to find Flts Cook and Tapper guilty of anything.
d246
We are I'm sure, impressed with your expertise in the field. Perhaps you imagine you are the only one engaged in this forum, and the wider debate with such an insight?
It may or may not interest your arrogant self to know that 2 of the RAF's most highly decorated pilots since WW2 (both having flown Chinooks!) along with very many others, don't agree with your assertion that:
Since these distinguished officers are clearly not media, or politicians, I guess they must fit into the 'all and sundry' category, spouting "nonsence" (sic)
You may like to bear in mind that many of us (who have also 'been there') find the concept that, "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent" to be in the very highest traditions of the RAF, and of natural justice! It seeks to prevent those that are unable to defend themselves, from becoming the victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Most importantly, cazatou, absolutely no need to apologise, and I am genuinely sorry to hear of your bad news.
Numerous contributors to this thread, and indeed in the wider debate, can make statements, which aren't supported by the 'facts'. Those opinions can then be regurgitated, even elaborated, by others, and I accept that in that atmosphere of 'fact deficit', a damning picture can be painted of the accident.
I apologise for correcting your contribution, when I could have corrected others, it's just that yours was relatively straightforward to counter. Others sometimes need more time and effort.
JP
You asked why the yachtsman's assessment of speed might be relevant to the cause of the crash.
I don't think I ever said it was. However...
It is (to some) an appealing profile to suggest that the crew flew the aircraft at high speed, across the water, in an attempt to ameliorate, the 'apparent' crew hours 'problem', and simply 'pressed on' regardless.
Particularly appealing when this version originates from an opinion ("it's obvious, right!") rather than being a 'fact led' analysis.
The second reason the yachtsman's evidence may be 'interesting', I put it no more strongly than that, is that he sees the aircraft at relatively low level, relatively low speed, and in sunlight. Yet within approximately 60 seconds or so later, it has 'apparently' climbed into cloud, and impacted a hillside at high speed!
In the words of another, the level of incompetence required to deliberately climb and accelarate into cloud, makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up!
Again in the words of another, it is simply not recognisable as a chinook (or any other helicopter's) technique!
Where does that leave us? I do not know, other than to say this:
Even after exhaustive examination of the 'physical' evidence, the AAIB could not, and did not, say the aircraft was serviceable at any moment up to, and including, the impact.
I put it to you that is exactly what they would have had to have said in order to satisfy the standard of proof required to find Flts Cook and Tapper guilty of anything.
d246
those of us who have been there in SH heli's know, the findings were correct.
It may or may not interest your arrogant self to know that 2 of the RAF's most highly decorated pilots since WW2 (both having flown Chinooks!) along with very many others, don't agree with your assertion that:
the findings were correct. As the 'powers that be' have mantained despite the barrage of nonsence (sic) from the media, politicians and all and sundry.
You may like to bear in mind that many of us (who have also 'been there') find the concept that, "Only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent" to be in the very highest traditions of the RAF, and of natural justice! It seeks to prevent those that are unable to defend themselves, from becoming the victims of a miscarriage of justice.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 19th Mar 2006 at 20:32.
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
Mr Purdey.
We don't know because we weren't there. Mr Holbrook was, so why does everyone try to discredit his evidence, or assume that they know what he saw better than the man himself?
He is the last known eye witness. He is a precise, intelligent man who has explained what he saw, in an articulate way. It matters not one jot what any of us think Mr Holbrook saw.
Speculation and assumptions are best left to Reviewing Officers.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
We don't know because we weren't there. Mr Holbrook was, so why does everyone try to discredit his evidence, or assume that they know what he saw better than the man himself?
He is the last known eye witness. He is a precise, intelligent man who has explained what he saw, in an articulate way. It matters not one jot what any of us think Mr Holbrook saw.
Speculation and assumptions are best left to Reviewing Officers.
My best, as always.
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
Brian,
John Purdey has a very serious point.
When I was a young RAF Officer in the mid 1960's; every Airfield with even a medium sized Town near it was expected to put on an Open Day for the Battle of Britain anniversary.
One of the great "standby's" was the "Guess the height and speed of the aircraft" as a single aircraft flew acros the airfield at a predetermined height and speed.
In my experience nobody, of the general public, got within 30-40 kts and 2-300ft.
The point is that ones conclusions as to height and speed can be prejudiced by ones previous experience with aircraft of different shape and size.
Mr Holbrook may well be correct; but NO tests were carried out to assess his peceptions in relation to height and speed in relation to the Chinook.
If PSO to CAS is reading this then maybe you could arrange a trial?
John Purdey has a very serious point.
When I was a young RAF Officer in the mid 1960's; every Airfield with even a medium sized Town near it was expected to put on an Open Day for the Battle of Britain anniversary.
One of the great "standby's" was the "Guess the height and speed of the aircraft" as a single aircraft flew acros the airfield at a predetermined height and speed.
In my experience nobody, of the general public, got within 30-40 kts and 2-300ft.
The point is that ones conclusions as to height and speed can be prejudiced by ones previous experience with aircraft of different shape and size.
Mr Holbrook may well be correct; but NO tests were carried out to assess his peceptions in relation to height and speed in relation to the Chinook.
If PSO to CAS is reading this then maybe you could arrange a trial?
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
Cazatou,
I wasn't trying to be flippant with mr Purdey. If it reads as such, then I apologise.
Mr Holbrook gave an estimated speed of 60 to 80 knots. He also made the specific point, "Yes, but again, it would have been useful at the time to have had an opportunity to observe an aircraft of that type travelling at that speed".
I agree - an opporunity missed by the BoI. It doesn't lessen the validity of Mr Holbrook's evidence though.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I wasn't trying to be flippant with mr Purdey. If it reads as such, then I apologise.
Mr Holbrook gave an estimated speed of 60 to 80 knots. He also made the specific point, "Yes, but again, it would have been useful at the time to have had an opportunity to observe an aircraft of that type travelling at that speed".
I agree - an opporunity missed by the BoI. It doesn't lessen the validity of Mr Holbrook's evidence though.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP
What do I think?
Well I see it like this: The yachtsman appears to be familiar with Sea King helicopters, indeed to my knowledge, that is the ONLY size of helicopter he refers to.
Have you any idea of the relative sizes of Sea King and Chinook fuselages? You might be surprised at the answer!!
Cazatou
You are of course correct. Indeed it would be difficult even for experienced aviators to guess the precise speed of an aircraft.
If there were some other compelling evidence to the contrary, it would be entirely justifiable to dismiss the evidence of the yachtsman.
However, there is not!
He is the only surviving witness to the aircraft's approach to the Mull, and as was pointed out earlier, he appeared, in every respect, to be a very measured man, as far as his evidence was concerned.
Perhaps the most important thing to come out of this exchange (and I thank you for bringing our attention to it!) is that the BOI cited his evidence, and only his evidence, in support of their assertion, that the aircraft approached the Mull at high speed.
You will agree, they were wrong so to do!
This is precisely why I, and many others, continually wish to see statements of 'opinion' supported by the factual evidence upon which that opinion is based.
May I remind you:
Matters of opinion, are not matters of fact!
And contrast that with the standard of proof required here:
"Absolutely no doubt whatsoever"
Drill down to the facts, and see if you can satisfy that burden.
What do I think?
Well I see it like this: The yachtsman appears to be familiar with Sea King helicopters, indeed to my knowledge, that is the ONLY size of helicopter he refers to.
Have you any idea of the relative sizes of Sea King and Chinook fuselages? You might be surprised at the answer!!
Cazatou
You are of course correct. Indeed it would be difficult even for experienced aviators to guess the precise speed of an aircraft.
If there were some other compelling evidence to the contrary, it would be entirely justifiable to dismiss the evidence of the yachtsman.
However, there is not!
He is the only surviving witness to the aircraft's approach to the Mull, and as was pointed out earlier, he appeared, in every respect, to be a very measured man, as far as his evidence was concerned.
Perhaps the most important thing to come out of this exchange (and I thank you for bringing our attention to it!) is that the BOI cited his evidence, and only his evidence, in support of their assertion, that the aircraft approached the Mull at high speed.
You will agree, they were wrong so to do!
This is precisely why I, and many others, continually wish to see statements of 'opinion' supported by the factual evidence upon which that opinion is based.
May I remind you:
Matters of opinion, are not matters of fact!
And contrast that with the standard of proof required here:
"Absolutely no doubt whatsoever"
Drill down to the facts, and see if you can satisfy that burden.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou
That was only one of several references (in the public domain) to the presence of the SEALS at the site – are you saying that they were not there?
You wrote:
<< Are you suggesting that USN SEALS approached the wreckage and ignored the plight of those involved in this tragedy so that they could search for equipment that may have been on board?>>
Well derrr …putting it bluntly, some would have grabbed the kit and others would have taken care of any survivors …
<<I would suggest that you are on an ego trip of your own and are willing to totally ignore any pain that you may cause to those who were themselves involved in the aftermath of this tragic incident; let alone the heartrending anguish that you cause to those who lost loved ones as a result.>>
With the sledging I’m taking here for so long, do you really think ego has anything to do with it? Even still, is not ego a positive attribute for pilots like yourselves? – so long as it gets good results?
Now, about pain and anguish:
What about the feelings of the relatives of the crew who at best can expect the clearing of names on a technicality the way the campaign has gone so far – would they not feel a whole lot better if they thought that EVERY aspect of this incident had been THOROUGHLY explored?
What about the feelings of at least some of the relatives of the team on board who must have had some sense that perhaps foul play had taken them out – officially such an idea was prematurely dismissed whilst a possible method is still apparent – if there is any chance that this had happened, everyone should do their utmost to explore this possibility as only determining the actual cause could lead to justice being done in this case; think of the lives that they had lived – the ever present danger in daily life – how hard it must be for them to accept that, having survived so far, they are lost in an accident attributed to pilot error in what is generally accepted to be the safest way of getting VIPs around who are at risk.
And what about the people of Northern Ireland, the anguish that they must have felt when this team was lost – their champions in that awful conflict – it is they who are suffering the consequences on a grand scale – they deserve answers just as much as those having suffered direct personal loss.
<<To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell "You have been here too long for any good you may have done; IN THE NAME OF GOD GO!!">>
Bush and Blair embellished utterances with reference to God – didn’t work even on couch potatoes – please do not insult the intelligence of interested parties here with that tacky bull**** - and to borrow thunder from Cromwell is a bad move, I think, as I at least regard him as an arch traitor (borrowing money from a foreign power to run a professional army against his countrymen, putting troops in parliament when it didn’t go along with his wishes, etc).
FJJP
You wrote:
<< … why don't you print all the data from all the fora concerning this accident and write a book with your own theories.
That way you can make some money and we can be spared the endless frequent drivel you inject into what is otherwise a sensible discussion site.>>
For starters, I’m not in it for money – and I do not have a price.
Strange it is that you do not have such strong words for followers of Campbell’s book who accept the theory that the fog signal station was mistaken for the light house WITHOUT actually plotting the course on a chart and seeing that the oblique angle of approach to the coast made it more accurate to describe the fog signal station as being NEARER as opposed to being to the right – anything but the obvious, eh?
And without my input– whether you accept the whole scenario or not - many aspects that have been cleared up would still be confused – and many of you appear to want to keep them that way.
I did not come to this thread to verbally joust with you but indeed to use it as “a sensible discussion site” – not every response has been through postings and I am glad to say that it has been very worthwhile, if somewhat slow – sorry to disappoint you.
That was only one of several references (in the public domain) to the presence of the SEALS at the site – are you saying that they were not there?
You wrote:
<< Are you suggesting that USN SEALS approached the wreckage and ignored the plight of those involved in this tragedy so that they could search for equipment that may have been on board?>>
Well derrr …putting it bluntly, some would have grabbed the kit and others would have taken care of any survivors …
<<I would suggest that you are on an ego trip of your own and are willing to totally ignore any pain that you may cause to those who were themselves involved in the aftermath of this tragic incident; let alone the heartrending anguish that you cause to those who lost loved ones as a result.>>
With the sledging I’m taking here for so long, do you really think ego has anything to do with it? Even still, is not ego a positive attribute for pilots like yourselves? – so long as it gets good results?
Now, about pain and anguish:
What about the feelings of the relatives of the crew who at best can expect the clearing of names on a technicality the way the campaign has gone so far – would they not feel a whole lot better if they thought that EVERY aspect of this incident had been THOROUGHLY explored?
What about the feelings of at least some of the relatives of the team on board who must have had some sense that perhaps foul play had taken them out – officially such an idea was prematurely dismissed whilst a possible method is still apparent – if there is any chance that this had happened, everyone should do their utmost to explore this possibility as only determining the actual cause could lead to justice being done in this case; think of the lives that they had lived – the ever present danger in daily life – how hard it must be for them to accept that, having survived so far, they are lost in an accident attributed to pilot error in what is generally accepted to be the safest way of getting VIPs around who are at risk.
And what about the people of Northern Ireland, the anguish that they must have felt when this team was lost – their champions in that awful conflict – it is they who are suffering the consequences on a grand scale – they deserve answers just as much as those having suffered direct personal loss.
<<To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell "You have been here too long for any good you may have done; IN THE NAME OF GOD GO!!">>
Bush and Blair embellished utterances with reference to God – didn’t work even on couch potatoes – please do not insult the intelligence of interested parties here with that tacky bull**** - and to borrow thunder from Cromwell is a bad move, I think, as I at least regard him as an arch traitor (borrowing money from a foreign power to run a professional army against his countrymen, putting troops in parliament when it didn’t go along with his wishes, etc).
FJJP
You wrote:
<< … why don't you print all the data from all the fora concerning this accident and write a book with your own theories.
That way you can make some money and we can be spared the endless frequent drivel you inject into what is otherwise a sensible discussion site.>>
For starters, I’m not in it for money – and I do not have a price.
Strange it is that you do not have such strong words for followers of Campbell’s book who accept the theory that the fog signal station was mistaken for the light house WITHOUT actually plotting the course on a chart and seeing that the oblique angle of approach to the coast made it more accurate to describe the fog signal station as being NEARER as opposed to being to the right – anything but the obvious, eh?
And without my input– whether you accept the whole scenario or not - many aspects that have been cleared up would still be confused – and many of you appear to want to keep them that way.
I did not come to this thread to verbally joust with you but indeed to use it as “a sensible discussion site” – not every response has been through postings and I am glad to say that it has been very worthwhile, if somewhat slow – sorry to disappoint you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter kennedy
I have to agree with FJJP - you really should write a book and have it published. I doubt that you would make any money from it; but I think you would make a lot of Libel Lawyers very happy indeed.
Your Post 1871
Quote:
"Was not its airspeed (135Kts) the optimum cruise for the job?"
Well, that depends on various factors such as weather conditions, passenger comfort, aircraft weight etc.
Quote:
"There seemed to be a willingness to confuse the public by including the tailwind component"
7729hrs flying in the RAF over 31 years and I got it wrong all that time!!!
Quote:
"an evaluation task where the ground equipment was erroneously or maliciously in the wrong place""
For "erroneously" read "MANSLAUGHTER"and for "maliciously" read "MASS MURDER".
PS. If you DO have any evidence for your statements; is it not your duty to place such evidence before the relevant Police authorities so that a criminal investigation can take place?
I have to agree with FJJP - you really should write a book and have it published. I doubt that you would make any money from it; but I think you would make a lot of Libel Lawyers very happy indeed.
Your Post 1871
Quote:
"Was not its airspeed (135Kts) the optimum cruise for the job?"
Well, that depends on various factors such as weather conditions, passenger comfort, aircraft weight etc.
Quote:
"There seemed to be a willingness to confuse the public by including the tailwind component"
7729hrs flying in the RAF over 31 years and I got it wrong all that time!!!
Quote:
"an evaluation task where the ground equipment was erroneously or maliciously in the wrong place""
For "erroneously" read "MANSLAUGHTER"and for "maliciously" read "MASS MURDER".
PS. If you DO have any evidence for your statements; is it not your duty to place such evidence before the relevant Police authorities so that a criminal investigation can take place?
Last edited by cazatou; 21st Mar 2006 at 11:45.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
I am in full agreement with your ps.
The first thing I did 11+ years ago was to raise my concern on the possibility of sabotage by way of navigation aids with the authorities - the haste (before inquiries complete, etc) was to allow them the chance of gathering evidence before it was lost. Hopefully, with more details, something can be done in the near future.
By the way, with all your experience in aviation (and this goes for other contributors to this thread), how come there has not been a post acknowledging the existence of the PRC112 system and any discussion about it? Are you familiar with the concept of the sin of omission?
I am in full agreement with your ps.
The first thing I did 11+ years ago was to raise my concern on the possibility of sabotage by way of navigation aids with the authorities - the haste (before inquiries complete, etc) was to allow them the chance of gathering evidence before it was lost. Hopefully, with more details, something can be done in the near future.
By the way, with all your experience in aviation (and this goes for other contributors to this thread), how come there has not been a post acknowledging the existence of the PRC112 system and any discussion about it? Are you familiar with the concept of the sin of omission?