Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou wrote
<<If the crew had entered unservicabilities in the F700 in accordance with standard practice we would know the state of the aircraft.>>
Specifically, we would have known exactly what equipment was worked on (someone reading this should know I am nudging him). Perhaps the paperwork was not raised as they did not want to acknowledge the presence of a certain palletised thingummy whose mounts had worked loose.
<<If the crew had entered unservicabilities in the F700 in accordance with standard practice we would know the state of the aircraft.>>
Specifically, we would have known exactly what equipment was worked on (someone reading this should know I am nudging him). Perhaps the paperwork was not raised as they did not want to acknowledge the presence of a certain palletised thingummy whose mounts had worked loose.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse 1
Re your post 5034.
One hates to be a pedantic nitpicker BUT "either" means "one or the other" / "one of two".
There were three options.
Shall we take it then that the visibility was "1NM limited by haze"?
Re your post 5034.
One hates to be a pedantic nitpicker BUT "either" means "one or the other" / "one of two".
There were three options.
Shall we take it then that the visibility was "1NM limited by haze"?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse 1
Your post #5041
Very wide of the mark. I can't get obfuscated - Doctors Orders!!
Hint: Chambers Dictionary definition of obfuscated.
Your post #5041
Very wide of the mark. I can't get obfuscated - Doctors Orders!!
Hint: Chambers Dictionary definition of obfuscated.
Last edited by cazatou; 27th Jun 2009 at 11:38.
Come along children ... is this how far this thread has descended?
If you can't discuss the validity of the verdict in an intelligent fashion, please take your petty squabbling elsewhere.
If you can't discuss the validity of the verdict in an intelligent fashion, please take your petty squabbling elsewhere.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pulse 1
You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion. However, we other users of this thread are entitled to base our opinions of your contributions in the light of your Military flying experience and expertise. I note that you have a PPL and fly a Single Piston aircraft; there is no mention of any Military experience or connections.
Civilian rules for light aircraft VFR flight are not the same as those for Military aircraft - particularly those aircraft flying passengers. Moreover, the crew were flying on Active Service with passengers who could be considered to have VIP status; they had an absolute duty to abide by the rules and regulations pertaining to such a flight.
The yachtsman stated on oath to the BOI that the Chinook was flying "between 200 and 400ft" above the surface "in a straight line and in level flight and was proceeding towards.....the cloud localisation covering the Mull." The 11 persons who were present on the Mull and gave statements to the Police in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy were adamant that the visibility was exceedingly poor - the 2 Lighthouse Keepers, who were Qualified Met Observers, estimated the visibility at the Lighthouse as "15 to 20 metres at most" and on the road to the Lighthouse as "down to 10 metres or less".
The aircraft impacted the Mull approximately 100 metres from Mr Ellacott and his Brother-in-law after having passed overhead them. Neither of them saw the aircraft - Mr Ellacott stated "Visibility at this time was about nine or ten feet maximum."
I trust that this is of use to you.
PS Obfuscated means something totally different. Your reply to that Post indicates that you do not read Posts before replying.
You are, of course, fully entitled to your opinion. However, we other users of this thread are entitled to base our opinions of your contributions in the light of your Military flying experience and expertise. I note that you have a PPL and fly a Single Piston aircraft; there is no mention of any Military experience or connections.
Civilian rules for light aircraft VFR flight are not the same as those for Military aircraft - particularly those aircraft flying passengers. Moreover, the crew were flying on Active Service with passengers who could be considered to have VIP status; they had an absolute duty to abide by the rules and regulations pertaining to such a flight.
The yachtsman stated on oath to the BOI that the Chinook was flying "between 200 and 400ft" above the surface "in a straight line and in level flight and was proceeding towards.....the cloud localisation covering the Mull." The 11 persons who were present on the Mull and gave statements to the Police in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy were adamant that the visibility was exceedingly poor - the 2 Lighthouse Keepers, who were Qualified Met Observers, estimated the visibility at the Lighthouse as "15 to 20 metres at most" and on the road to the Lighthouse as "down to 10 metres or less".
The aircraft impacted the Mull approximately 100 metres from Mr Ellacott and his Brother-in-law after having passed overhead them. Neither of them saw the aircraft - Mr Ellacott stated "Visibility at this time was about nine or ten feet maximum."
I trust that this is of use to you.
PS Obfuscated means something totally different. Your reply to that Post indicates that you do not read Posts before replying.
Last edited by cazatou; 27th Jun 2009 at 18:35.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by caz
Civilian rules for light aircraft VFR flight are not the same as those for Military aircraft - particularly those aircraft flying passengers. Moreover, the crew were flying on Active Service with passengers who could be considered to have VIP status; they had an absolute duty to abide by the rules and regulations pertaining to such a flight.
In the Governments reply to the the statement from the House of Lords Committee, (and no doubt elsewhere), it is stated the the VFR limits for helicopters below 140 knots are clear of cloud, in sight of the ground and with a forward visibility of 1000 metres.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Then you will agree that they are different n'est pas?
Given that Mr Ellacott estimated the visibility at 9-10 feet maximum just prior to the Chinooks impact and the aircraft impacted at a speed of approx 253 feet per second less than 300 feet from him; then I would suggest that the forward visibility that the pilots had was very similar to that which Mr Ellacott had. If I am correct then I do not believe that indicates the crew were flying in VFR conditions at that time.
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change. If correct then the Pilots continued to fly in IMC (from prior to waypoint change until impact) without executing an emergency climb to Safety Altitude and turning away from impending danger. No Emergency R/T call was made, nor was the Transponder selected to Emergency or a SARBE actvated. There was no evidence that the Passengers and Rear Crew had been instructed to adopt Crash Positions.
Finally, the evidence from the AAIB investigation suggested that an attempted escape manouvre had been initiated immediately prior to impact. If correct then this would indicate that the aircraft was indeed under control at that time.
Then you will agree that they are different n'est pas?
Given that Mr Ellacott estimated the visibility at 9-10 feet maximum just prior to the Chinooks impact and the aircraft impacted at a speed of approx 253 feet per second less than 300 feet from him; then I would suggest that the forward visibility that the pilots had was very similar to that which Mr Ellacott had. If I am correct then I do not believe that indicates the crew were flying in VFR conditions at that time.
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change. If correct then the Pilots continued to fly in IMC (from prior to waypoint change until impact) without executing an emergency climb to Safety Altitude and turning away from impending danger. No Emergency R/T call was made, nor was the Transponder selected to Emergency or a SARBE actvated. There was no evidence that the Passengers and Rear Crew had been instructed to adopt Crash Positions.
Finally, the evidence from the AAIB investigation suggested that an attempted escape manouvre had been initiated immediately prior to impact. If correct then this would indicate that the aircraft was indeed under control at that time.
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
Groan.... herre we go with the weather again...
Caz,
you are correct in pointing out that Mr Ellacott stated that the visibility was about 9 - 10 feet maximum. What is not clear in your post was that he was draveeling down towards the lighthouse from the higher ground (which was covered in fog). Evidence given by Mr Crabtree, who was further down the landmass stated that The weather was fairly clear down by the lighthouse, but as you come up the climb the mist got thicker. He goes on to say that he was about a third of the way back up the track, entering thicker mist, when the accident occurred.
No doubt you will come back at me with the evidence from the lighthouse keepers and their wives, and I have no problem with that. However, taking into account the evidence given by Mr Holbrook (whichever account you wish), and the statement made by Mr Crabtree, indicates breaks in the could that could, at least, have allowed the crew to sight the landmass from the cockpit.
There is evidence for the landmass being in cloud and there is evidence that the cloudbase did not go all the way down the landmass. Therefore no-one can say with complete accuracy what could be seen from the cockpit.
Can we now leave the weather issue alone?
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Caz,
you are correct in pointing out that Mr Ellacott stated that the visibility was about 9 - 10 feet maximum. What is not clear in your post was that he was draveeling down towards the lighthouse from the higher ground (which was covered in fog). Evidence given by Mr Crabtree, who was further down the landmass stated that The weather was fairly clear down by the lighthouse, but as you come up the climb the mist got thicker. He goes on to say that he was about a third of the way back up the track, entering thicker mist, when the accident occurred.
No doubt you will come back at me with the evidence from the lighthouse keepers and their wives, and I have no problem with that. However, taking into account the evidence given by Mr Holbrook (whichever account you wish), and the statement made by Mr Crabtree, indicates breaks in the could that could, at least, have allowed the crew to sight the landmass from the cockpit.
There is evidence for the landmass being in cloud and there is evidence that the cloudbase did not go all the way down the landmass. Therefore no-one can say with complete accuracy what could be seen from the cockpit.
Can we now leave the weather issue alone?
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
caz:
Now why on earth do you think that an investigation by the aircraft operating authority would "think" such a thing caz? That "thought" is in direct contradiction to their sole witness to the en-route transit, who saw the aircraft AND the Mull lighthouse at the same time, ie neither was then in cloud. The same sole witness who has been constantly belittled by the RAF and MOD ever since, ie by the operating and airworthiness authorities combined. Now why do you think they would do that, caz? Is it perhaps that their conjectured case against the pilots would then collapse? Is it perhaps that their own culpability in rushing an unairworthy aircraft type into service would then be seen as a possible reason for this accident as against not being even considered by their own inquiry? Ms. Mandy Rice-Davies once summed up the judiciary's tendency to cover its own tracks. I think her famous one liner applies here equally, ie "Well they would, wouldn't they?".
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change.
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
Picking up on the other points:
Thought, but have no evidence to support this thought.
If correct, I agree - negligence. However, there is no evidence to support this.
Why was the call to Scottish Military not answered, despite an investigation finding no fault with the equipment at Scottish Mil? Is it conceivable that the transponder setting found at the accident site could have been:
a) moved during the multiple impacts with the ground or
b) being changed by someone to the emergency setting?
If it is not possible, why not?
I don't recall this ever being mentioned anywhere before. (Happy to be corrected). Again, many of the bodies were ejected from the aircraft during the multiple impacts with the ground, so extremely unlikely that they would have remained in one position.
The AAIB also suggested that pre-impact serviceability could not be ascertained.
No matter what opinions are put forward (including mine), there is always an alternative interpretation of the available information. Therefore, the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever is not met.
Why the MoD does not accept this, after all this time, is beyond me.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change.
If correct then the Pilots continued to fly in IMC (from prior to waypoint change until impact) without executing an emergency climb to Safety Altitude and turning away from impending danger.
No Emergency R/T call was made, nor was the Transponder selected to Emergency or a SARBE actvated.
a) moved during the multiple impacts with the ground or
b) being changed by someone to the emergency setting?
If it is not possible, why not?
There was no evidence that the Passengers and Rear Crew had been instructed to adopt Crash Positions.
Finally, the evidence from the AAIB investigation suggested that an attempted escape manouvre had been initiated immediately prior to impact. If correct then this would indicate that the aircraft was indeed under control at that time.
No matter what opinions are put forward (including mine), there is always an alternative interpretation of the available information. Therefore, the requirement of absolutely no doubt whatsoever is not met.
Why the MoD does not accept this, after all this time, is beyond me.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, chinook - am I wrong in that quote, then? The reply was for Cazatou's post #5045. I agree thay have "already been discussed " but I was seeking something slightly more 'acceptable' to him.
The only other reference I have found in this thread is from 'Olive Oil' and says:
"The Board members ...................... The prescribed minima for flying visually, VFR, are horizontal visibility of 1 km beneath a cloud base of at least 250 feet, if flying below 140 knots;"
I see you are quoted as saying:
"Now Chinook240 mentions cloudbase figures of 100', 250' and 500' for various circumstances" but this has no official status as far as I can see.
Cazatou - starting with "BOAC
Then you will agree that they are different n'est pas?" - that post is gibberish! Essentially mil limits are the same. Operational exemptions are then granted for weather WORSE than those limits. As HUNDREDS of posters have said all along, the weather at the crash site is NOT in dispute. You were talking about the weather observed by the yachtsman, n'est ce pas? I have yet to see ANYONE claim VMC at impact. I actually think I have hit upon your problem at last, Cazatou - you are obviously under the impression that posters here think the crew were trying to fly over the Mull? There are only a few posters who suggest anything like that, I think, cannot recall names, but one nutter even suggested the crew were trying to 'skim', in IMC, over the Mull by a few hundred feet! Have a good look back through this and the preceding threads and assure yourself that no-one with any credibility actually believes that.
The only other reference I have found in this thread is from 'Olive Oil' and says:
"The Board members ...................... The prescribed minima for flying visually, VFR, are horizontal visibility of 1 km beneath a cloud base of at least 250 feet, if flying below 140 knots;"
I see you are quoted as saying:
"Now Chinook240 mentions cloudbase figures of 100', 250' and 500' for various circumstances" but this has no official status as far as I can see.
Cazatou - starting with "BOAC
Then you will agree that they are different n'est pas?" - that post is gibberish! Essentially mil limits are the same. Operational exemptions are then granted for weather WORSE than those limits. As HUNDREDS of posters have said all along, the weather at the crash site is NOT in dispute. You were talking about the weather observed by the yachtsman, n'est ce pas? I have yet to see ANYONE claim VMC at impact. I actually think I have hit upon your problem at last, Cazatou - you are obviously under the impression that posters here think the crew were trying to fly over the Mull? There are only a few posters who suggest anything like that, I think, cannot recall names, but one nutter even suggested the crew were trying to 'skim', in IMC, over the Mull by a few hundred feet! Have a good look back through this and the preceding threads and assure yourself that no-one with any credibility actually believes that.
You will also be aware that the investigating RAF Board thought that the aircraft was in cloud and not flying VFR at waypoint change.
“Unfortunately, we are not able to say, even approximately, how far the cloud extended over the sea”.
Thus, any conclusions arising from the BoI's opinion are invalid.
BOAC stated
They were the weather limits which were laid down in HQ 1 Gp Support Helicopter Air Staff Orders at the time of the accident - they were very official!
"Now Chinook240 mentions cloudbase figures of 100', 250' and 500' for various circumstances" but this has no official status as far as I can see.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh
I agree, as I believe did the AOC, that such suppositon had no part to play in the adjudication required from him under the Air Force Act. The investigating Board had to consider, under their TOR's, all possible scenarios and it is not surprising that some of these are less credible than others. The "findings" of the investigating Board are not binding on the AOC or CinC; in the same way as the "findings" of a Police investigation are not binding on a Jury in a Criminal Trial. In each case the verdict must be reached on the evidence as a whole.
I agree, as I believe did the AOC, that such suppositon had no part to play in the adjudication required from him under the Air Force Act. The investigating Board had to consider, under their TOR's, all possible scenarios and it is not surprising that some of these are less credible than others. The "findings" of the investigating Board are not binding on the AOC or CinC; in the same way as the "findings" of a Police investigation are not binding on a Jury in a Criminal Trial. In each case the verdict must be reached on the evidence as a whole.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my recollection that Mr Ellacott and his Brother in Law were actually digging at a suggested WW2 wreck site at the time of the crash and that he was the first on the scene of the crash.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my recollection that Mr Ellacott and his Brother in Law were actually digging at a suggested WW2 wreck site at the time of the crash and that he was the first on the scene of the crash.
