Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)

[walter kennedy]

Cazatou
Pardon me, I forgot to answer your two specific points:
<<"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.>>
And this is for you experienced aviators to answer, surely, and clear this one up – I repeat, was its airspeed to be expected (given the parameters that you listed) on that leg from NI to the Mull?
<<"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!!!>>
My point was that, if the 135kts airspeed was to have been expected (as above point) then the effective ground speed (including the strong tailwind component) was not indicative of undue haste on the part of the pilots. The a/c’s speed seems to have often been referred to as high together with suggestions that the pilots had been pushing it – I am saying that it has been quite wrong to suggest such and I have always been surprised that this aspect has not been rectified by experienced aviators like yourselves.

[An Teallach]

Brian

Speculation and assumptions are best left to Reviewing Officers.

Simply brilliant!

May I suggest we leave Mr Mitty, sorry Kennedy to his speculations and adopt a policy of not feeding the troll? I'm getting fed up wading through the 'X Files' when I pop in to see if anything of consequence is happening.

Did anything come of the Parliamentary Ombudsman route, Brian?

[Tandemrotor]

Guys, just a gentle reminder.

Hypothetically speaking, if you wished to ignore somebody's posts. All you would need to do, is go to the top of the page, and click on 'user cp'. From there, look down the 'control panel' column, and under miscellaneous, you will find an item entitled; 'buddy/ignore list.

You know it makes sense!

[cazatou]

Tandemrotor,

I am sorely tempted.

11 years ago he reported his concerns to "the authorities" and they do not appear to have got back to him. I wonder why that is?

Do you think that he has more than one anorak?

Walter Kennedy,

One thing you should learn about aircrew is that they, generally, do not refer to items of aircraft equipment by their official numbers. Aircrew will refer to the UHF/VHF/DME/ADF/VOR/ TACAN/ILS/GNS/Inertial Nav etc.

You are floundering in a slough of half-baked theory accentuated by a dismal lack of aviation knowledge. You have no solid verifiable FACTS - just theories supported by tittle tattle, rumour and "journalists" quoting un-named "sources". You seize on every little word which you feel could assist your ramblings and twist it out of context. You never even questioned what I said were my qualifications!!

Irrespective of which side of the argument contributors to this thread are; all are acutely aware of the major human tragedy which occurred that June evening. For the bereaved, and for many of those who sorted through the carnage of the wreckage site, the scars will never heal.

All we, on both sides of the argument, ask is that you desist from your inane postings.

PS That is "slough" as in Bunyan and not "slough" as in Betjeman.

[KENNYR]

To all sane members..............Please stop feeding W**k**'s ego. All you are doing is encouraging him/her to continue because he/she is getting the attention that he/she is craving.

Lets all concentrate on getting justice for the crew and NOTHING else. Ignore him/her and it might go away.

We will never know exactly what happened except for the tragic outcome of the incident and the injustice done to the crew and their families by a rigged investigation and an outrageous dicision by his airship D*y.

[cazatou]

walter kennedy,

Your one redeeming feature is your total acceptance of what you are told as the absolute truth. I am not, however, convinced that your redeeming feature makes it safe for you to walk the streets alone at night. In fact I am not sure it makes it safe for you to walk the streets at all.

You leapt on the flying hours figure I gave you as true and referred to me as someone "with your experience". The figure I gave you was correct but I never specified in what capacity I had accrued those hours. I could have been an acting Cpl Air Steward on the Transport Fleet.

You refer to a "Senior RAF Signals Officer" stating that there were USN SEALS at the crash site. That report may be correct, but not for the reason you suppose. On the other hand it could have been "a slow news night".

There are 2 types of "Officer": Commissioned Officers (Plt Off to MRAF) and Non Commissioned Officers (Cpl to Flt Sgt); Warrent Officers and Master Aircrew receive the Queens Warrent.

The report could refer to a Cpl from Comcen (rather than the SAC swaying next to him) talking in the Pub about a rumour he heard the other day. The "senior" being added to improve the story - the reporter could always plead "confidentiality" if pressed as to his sources.

I must confess, however, that the most stunning confession of your naivety was your statement that you informed the relevant authorities 11 1/2 years ago of your concerns that sabotage may have played a part in the Chinook accident.

I am sure that such a thing had never even crossed the minds
of the relevant authorties in the UK!!!!

[walter kennedy]

Cazatou
Why keep avoiding the basic questions – the answers to which could improve everyone’s understanding of the conditions, what systems were available, etc, etc?
Do you think that the a/c’s speed was normal for the purposes of the flight with regard to its all up weight etc or not? – simple for someone on this thread to answer, one would have thought. Forget the whole “conspiracy theory” for a moment, the answer to this simple question could show how wrong it was to insinuate that they had been flying too fast as had cropped up throughout the inquiries and would surely contribute to the argument that the verdict was ill founded.

Regarding the system that I have suggested may have been involved, you wrote:
One thing you should learn about aircrew is that they, generally, do not refer to items of aircraft equipment by their official numbers. Aircrew will refer to the UHF/VHF/DME/ADF/VOR/ TACAN/ILS/GNS/Inertial Nav etc.
Please check out post No. 62 of 19th March 2006 on “Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety” thread, specifically the bit:
"In mid 2004 I noticed that the we were not quite following the rules set in SPINS regarding the PRC112s and associated equipment".
Whatever you call it, my point is no one else here has discussed the system – if anyone reading this thread recognizes it, it would be very nice for us all to know what is the “correct” name for it and then perhaps others with experience of it will hopefully recognize it, wake up and join in the discussion.

Regarding your cheap shot:
<<11 years ago he reported his concerns to "the authorities" and they do not appear to have got back to him. I wonder why that is?>>
I put a lot of effort in back then at the expense of my family, friends, and work – I put my concerns over this crash as a higher priority – I was deeply concerned that this aspect had been overlooked and wanted it addressing. With support from the political side, a meeting was arranged with the RAF at Whitehall; it was meant to be a technical discussion but the person I had to deal with was an Air Commodore who seemed to be there as a brick wall.

And this:
<< I must confess, however, that the most stunning confession of your naivety was your statement that you informed the relevant authorities 11 1/2 years ago of your concerns that sabotage may have played a part in the Chinook accident.

I am sure that such a thing had never even crossed the minds
of the relevant authorties in the UK!!!!>>

I meant specifically by way of navigation systems and I pre-empted the inquiries so as to give the authorities the opportunity to look for evidence in case they had overlooked the possibility – here’s what I posted to you verbatim:
<<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.>>
I believe an apology is in order, thank you.
Regarding the comment about naivety – who is it here that cannot contemplate the possibility of this team being removed for being an obstacle to the peace process?

I have said it before and I will say it again: you do not have to accept the whole scenario that I have put forward but by following the navigation aspect in detail many parameters of this flight have been cleared up that, in many cases, had otherwise been used to criticize the pilots; to list a few:
The actual local weather conditions (common in that area with that prevailing wind at that time of year - good for VFR at low level – mist localized on landmass, clear at sea right up to shoreline);
That they were not breaking VFR for a helo in those conditions before they entered the mist (which was right on the landmass and not before);
The appropriateness of the speed;
That they were never planning to go over the Mull and so had not engaged an “inappropriate rate of climb” – further, the “cruise” climb was so far short of clearing the Mull that it was obvious that this was not the intention from this perspective alone;
The accuracy of the SuperTANS after a water crossing (this crew had such reservations about its accuracy that they would not have been alarmed if, say, it had disagreed with another reference by ½ a mile or so at waypoint change);
The approach angle to the coast (being so oblique that a mistaken visible feature near the shoreline could have had little influence on their route);
Etc.

Further, I would have thought it in the interests of other aircrew that as much as possible be determined about this crash in the interests of safety in the future - which is why I do not understand your personal attacks when it would have been simpler and more beneficial to have helped clear these details up earlier – much earlier.

[FJJP]

I cannot believe that the arguments continue.

The entire senior intelligence cadre is aboard an aircraft that crashes - does anyone here really believe that sabotage wasn't considered?

Estimating aircraft speed by eye is impossible, especially over the sea without terrain to measure against and without the day to day experience of observation of the same aircraft type. The yachtsman is in no position to testify to the speed, never mind commenting on 'high speed'.

If the US SEALS were cooperating with the RAF in trials of special equipment it would not be discussed in open court or inquiry. In any case, even if true, a navaid would not cause an aircraft to crash.

There is still no explanation as to why the crew did not turn as planned to fly along the coast.

No further speculation is of any value because it cannot be carried further.

End of story. Now can we stop wasting bandwidth and concentrate on the campaign to get MOD to re-consider the findings?

FJJP

[cazatou]

walter kennedy,

You inadvertantly hit the nail on the head in your last posting when you referred to "navigation aids". That is exactly what they are - AIDS. They assist the crew in their navigation.

The responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight rests solely with the crew.

Furthermore; SOP's required the crew, in the eventuality of the possibility that the aircraft would enter IMC at low level, to climb at maximum possible rate until at or above MSA. If this was not practicable then they should have slowed down; stopped and turned around to return from whence they had come. The statement of the BOI that the crew "selected an inappropriate rate of climb to clear the Mull" is arrant nonsense. If you are about to go IMC at low level your only option is a max rate climb and an avoiding turn away from high ground.

Ther have been people in the past who have failed to agree with this concept; only a very few of them, however, are available to argue their point of view.

[cazatou]

Enough is Enough

walter kennedy,

Something has been nagging at the back of my mind regarding one of your posts; I have just found what it was.

Your Post 1958

Quote: WHO IS IT HERE THAT CANNOT CONTEMPLATE THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS TEAM BEING REMOVED FOR BEING AN OBSTACLE TO THE PEACE PROCESS?

How dare you insinuate that I, and other contributors to this forum, were willing accessories to (or at least condoned) mass murder and its subsequent cover up. What evidence-and I mean evidence; not speculation- do you have to support such an outrageous and insulting suggestion?

Do you honestly believe that the contributors here who were friends and comrades in arms of the deceased willingly conspired in their demise and then assisted in an elaborate cover up?

Do you believe that the whole accident investigation was an elaborate sham?

Do you believe that HMG murdered 30+ Civilians, Police and Military Personnel in an attempt to get the "Peace Process" restarted?

Walter - I would suggest that you have been tolerated up to now, though not by everyone, because you have been seen as something of a joke. That is now over!!

Unless I see a total retraction and apology within 24hrs I will join Tandemrotor and delete you on my user cp and will urge everone else to do the same.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Walt,

'fraid you have overstepped the mark by quite a big way.
Shame on you Sir, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I too would strongly urge you to retract your comments in toto and offer an apology.
TSM

[John Purdey]

Chinok

Walter. Cazatou and Swinging Monkey are quite right. Apology from you is awaited, then kindly BELT UP. JP

[FJJP]

Good spot cazatou.

And if we don't get an apology and retraction then there will be a complaint to the moderator with a request that your membership be revoked.

FJJP

[cazatou]

walter kennedy,

I note that you have not had the decency to reply; however I thought I would put a further couple of points arising from your recent posts to you so that you can answer them at the same time as my last post to you.

Firstly, your post 1939.

"2 RAF Officers----- have confirmed that Americans were at the scene first. When British Servicemen asked them to explain themselves they were told "We are looking for something that belongs to us".

Except, of course, that the people who were actually there such as the Lighthouse Keeper and his Wife (below the crash site) as well as the Deputy Lighthouse Keeper, who avoided being engulfed by the crashing aircraft as he drove down the hill by only a matter of a couple of seconds, never mentioned SEALS in their very detailed statements.

Then there were the hill walkers who descended into a scene reminiscant of Dante's Inferno and others who had climbed up to the Mull to offer assistance.

Thes were followed by Civil Police and Fire Services as well as Civil Medical Personnel.

So who were the "British Servicemen" who asked the "SEALS" to explain themselves?!!!

When asked why the "SEALS" did not immediately render assistence to the victims you replied sarcastically:

"Well derr....putting it bluntly, some would have grabbed the kit and others would have taken care of any survivors." This patently did not happen as even 30 minutes after the crash there were still some faint signs of life detectable in a few of the victims.

One final point; the aircraft impacted on the Mull at a speed of approx 230 ft per second; the wreckage was spread over several acres of land - a lot of which was on fire.

How was it that your "SEALS" managed to locate the item that "caused the crash" so quickly.

Are you suggesting that they tipped the dead and injured out of the way in the frantic search for incriminating evidence?

Goodbye walter

[Sven Sixtoo]

I wasn't going to bother

But since everyone else is having a go

A PRC112 is a box about 9" by 3" by 2"

Its a homing device.

There is no aircraft onboard device that has any specific designation that corresponds.

Walter please go away

Sven

[walter kennedy]

cazatou
Suggest you move your PC out of the wine cellar.
Save your wrath for the MI6 gentlemen who had been in secret negotiations with the IRA and whose strategy was completely at odds with that of the team on ZD576 - I doubt that the ceasefire, which occurred so indecently soon after the crash, would have happened had the team still been around.
That is to say, people capable of dirty tricks had a motive and that therefore the possibility of an “inside” job needed to be considered, however unlikely, however unpleasant a prospect, and however unthinkable.
I have put forward my thoughts openly with little thought for political correctness – rather than criticize me, you should make use of the bounds that I have opened up.
Should it have been the case that an opportunity for an ad hoc trial of a novel system was offered to the RAF and it went wrong one can understand the reluctance to go public about it – especially when, with the simplistic interpretation of VFR, such a system should not have caused a problem. Thus it is the saving of unnecessary embarrassment that I believe the RAF as a body may have been engaged in rather than knowingly covering up anything sinister – they would only have had to have been suckered into participating and, judging by the naivety displayed on this site, would not even have been suspicious after the event let alone before.
As I have explained this in some previous post sometime back do not take this in any way to be an apology – whatever the reason for this strategy of establishing nothing and obfuscation, it is blocking anyone else from analyzing what happened.
Just to put things into perspective – did anyone want to comment on the speed?
The average speed from Ni to the Mull had been said to be on the high end of cruise (or something like), things were said to the effect that they were in a hurry (sort of thing) – comments that really were a slur on the pilots suggesting (along with a few other things) that they were a bit reckless or something like that – well I ask why you (all) don’t just work it out and refute such comments – looking at the manufacturers graphs it seems that even at the heaviest, at sea level at the air temp they had, the speed was well within limits – not at the top end – I could be mistaken – why not do this one little thing – just agree on this one parameter if it is true – was it just a normal/ to be expected cruising speed or not? – too much effort? – surely some of you out there would be able to answer off the top of your head?, or not the idea at all?
You (collectively) criticize someone who is prepared to stick his neck out to get some aspects discussed and hopefully cleared up and yet you cannot even give a definitive answer on the appropriateness of the a/c’s speed ………
SVEN
I don’t understand your post at all – info on the system has been in the public domain for years – you can download glossies – you can do it!
The PRC112 is the handheld communication set that a soldier on the ground has that has a DME function (UHF) for when he wants picking up – the aircraft requires a unit the US describes as ARS-6, which gives range and approx brg to the PRC112 when one is activated within range but I do not know what RAF name is – but I do know that RAF had on board equipment (the ARS-6 bit) for several Chinooks by 1995 (I say “for” not “in” as the units were palletized for easy exchange between a/c).
So I am perplexed by your post – who was it aimed for?

[cazatou]

walter kennedy

The cheap shot opener was far from the mark even for you. This room is far too small to be a wine cellar, it only has a floor area of 28 sq metres!! This 3 storey building is living accommodation and the 2 storey grange alongside has an overflow bedroom and my Wife's Artists Studio upstairs; the 50 Sq metre Gymnasium is on the Ground floor. The purpose built wine cellar
is in the 18th century farmhouse across the lane - it covers 50 sq metres and has walls 30 cm thick.

You have made your position quite clear but, in case anybody missed it, I will repeat what you wrote.

"do not take this in any way to be an apology"

After that statement you go on to further insult people.

I did not press the "ignore" facility for a few hours in view of the time differential between you and us; a courtesy I now regret.


FJJP

May I suggest "over to you" otherwise he will complain I am picking on him.

[FJJP]

Actioned...

[Tandemrotor]

Welcome!

I hope you will find it much less infuriating here now.

I know I have.

[cazatou]

walter

I had a PM from walter some months ago. Apparently he had "Worked Out" what had caused the Mull crash before the BOI report was published. He gave up his job so that he would be free to concentrate on his crusade and has lived on loans and handouts from friends and relatives ever since.

I can see his problem. How do you go back after all this time and say "I got it wrong"?

Personally, I think he is paranoid and, therefore, incapable of introspection.

On a brighter note: it is 0815Z here, the sun is shining and the OAT on the patio by the pool is 23 C.