Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe Dalton should, necessarily, be required to show such "leadership" which would be, after all, falling on his sword for a 15 year old cause.
If, as I suspect may be the case, he is playing politics with the MoD and the politicians and doing it rather well. In doing so he protects his pension etc. by stating irrefutably that there is no new evidence and that Wratton and Day will be upheld while, at the same time, offering up on a platter the very gem that, (if the media can be stirred up - and a scandal like this will almost certainly get them buzzing like an angry hornet's nest), will force the overturning of Wratton and Day.
I think it might be time to concede that what our military needs up there in that rarefied atmosphere are not leaders per se but rather politically adept men or women who have the best interests of the country and the military at heart. I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over the last decade or so that "leaders" get crapped on by the professional politician/Civil Serpent. It's time there were people up there who can stand toe to toe with them when necessary.
Maybe, just maybe, Dalton is a little glimmer of hope. Only time will tell.
If, as I suspect may be the case, he is playing politics with the MoD and the politicians and doing it rather well. In doing so he protects his pension etc. by stating irrefutably that there is no new evidence and that Wratton and Day will be upheld while, at the same time, offering up on a platter the very gem that, (if the media can be stirred up - and a scandal like this will almost certainly get them buzzing like an angry hornet's nest), will force the overturning of Wratton and Day.
I think it might be time to concede that what our military needs up there in that rarefied atmosphere are not leaders per se but rather politically adept men or women who have the best interests of the country and the military at heart. I think it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt over the last decade or so that "leaders" get crapped on by the professional politician/Civil Serpent. It's time there were people up there who can stand toe to toe with them when necessary.
Maybe, just maybe, Dalton is a little glimmer of hope. Only time will tell.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - I'll bite
- apart from the fact that they were IMC when they crashed which no-one denies, can you, for the benefit of all, list those?
Originally Posted by baston
a few KNOWN facts
I understand well the point that you are making, AA, and for all I know you may well be right, but what you appear to admire I'm afraid I must condemn. The Royal Air Force is not a local authority or a Quango, it is a Fighting Service. Its Leaders (and the CAS, whatever might be his day to day duties, is the senior serving officer in that Fighting Service) are responsible for a duty of care to their subordinates that they may well send to War (as now). There has been much derision in this forum of the concept of "falling on one's sword", in fact as much derision as the more inept act of "shooting oneself in one's foot". As might be seen by my stated age, I come from a far off time when the former was seen as the act of someone who couldn't in all honour remain in post. The last person so to do, that I recall, was Lord Carrington, Thatcher's Foreign Secretary, following the invasion of the Falkland Islands. No doubt he too is damned with the rhetorical "What Good does it do?". The answer IMHO is that it is less about Good and Bad but rather about Right and Wrong. There has been great wrong done by the RAF CoC, not only to these two JO's but to the Service as a whole. It is time that the RAF 'fessed up to that and set about righting that wrong. Amongst other things I consider that a great deal of falling on swords will be called for!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: cranfield
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinook Human factors not pilot error
this is merely my observation on the whole issue as I mailed to the Daily Telegraph today - more in hope than expectaion -
Within most of the aviation industry the term 'human factors' has been recognised for some years as a vastly more fruitful psychological safety perspective than 'pilot error'. Unfortunately this recognition is less than universal as the comments by the CAS, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton (6 Jan) perhaps show: if you were buying a new car and the salesperson informed you its 'operating instructions had 'factored into' them such 'software issues' as unreliable speed indications, intermittant ABS braking control, random electronic fuel flow and 'smart' systems that could not tell the difference between hot and cold, day and night, rain or dry, the caveat that you are now aware of the inherent systemic design faults would hardly excuse the seller of his obligations, nor be likely to persuade you to buy - or any insurer to insure you! But if you were obliged, by the very nature of your job and duty to drive the car, would anyone in their right mind be surprised if you crashed? Yet a similar scenario might have been presented to the crew of the Chinook which crashed off the Mull of Kintyre. Until the totality of the 'human element' rather than just the 'pilot element' is fully considered in this investigation it appears that justice may never be done.
Within most of the aviation industry the term 'human factors' has been recognised for some years as a vastly more fruitful psychological safety perspective than 'pilot error'. Unfortunately this recognition is less than universal as the comments by the CAS, ACM Sir Stephen Dalton (6 Jan) perhaps show: if you were buying a new car and the salesperson informed you its 'operating instructions had 'factored into' them such 'software issues' as unreliable speed indications, intermittant ABS braking control, random electronic fuel flow and 'smart' systems that could not tell the difference between hot and cold, day and night, rain or dry, the caveat that you are now aware of the inherent systemic design faults would hardly excuse the seller of his obligations, nor be likely to persuade you to buy - or any insurer to insure you! But if you were obliged, by the very nature of your job and duty to drive the car, would anyone in their right mind be surprised if you crashed? Yet a similar scenario might have been presented to the crew of the Chinook which crashed off the Mull of Kintyre. Until the totality of the 'human element' rather than just the 'pilot element' is fully considered in this investigation it appears that justice may never be done.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug:
I'm in agreement with everything you say and feel. I agree that this is a right versus wrong issue but, unfortunately, times change. There was, for example, a time when our country's leaders had a modicum of honour themselves. That has clearly changed - look at the thieves whining about having to pay back expenses they embezzled..
Trying to be honourable with politicians and civil serpents has proven to be a waste of time since those who have the rank to stand up to them have retirement and other benefits held to ransom unless they toe the line. Thus, as in warfare, they need to "learn, adapt and overcome". The means by which the duty of care is fulfilled is, frankly, subordinate to the fact that it actually is fulfilled. If the CAS has to slink around the corridors of power thrusting metaphorical knives into the backs of the incumbent thieves and traitors then so be it, (I'd be happy with real knives too). If Dalton has cottoned onto this then, while I don't like the fact he has to stoop to those tactics, I applaud his attempt to beat the scum at their own game.
Then again, he may just be an idiot that gave away the farm inadvertently. Either way, in this case - with luck - the outcome will be positive and we can go back to trying to find the leader you wish at a later date...
I'm in agreement with everything you say and feel. I agree that this is a right versus wrong issue but, unfortunately, times change. There was, for example, a time when our country's leaders had a modicum of honour themselves. That has clearly changed - look at the thieves whining about having to pay back expenses they embezzled..
Trying to be honourable with politicians and civil serpents has proven to be a waste of time since those who have the rank to stand up to them have retirement and other benefits held to ransom unless they toe the line. Thus, as in warfare, they need to "learn, adapt and overcome". The means by which the duty of care is fulfilled is, frankly, subordinate to the fact that it actually is fulfilled. If the CAS has to slink around the corridors of power thrusting metaphorical knives into the backs of the incumbent thieves and traitors then so be it, (I'd be happy with real knives too). If Dalton has cottoned onto this then, while I don't like the fact he has to stoop to those tactics, I applaud his attempt to beat the scum at their own game.
Then again, he may just be an idiot that gave away the farm inadvertently. Either way, in this case - with luck - the outcome will be positive and we can go back to trying to find the leader you wish at a later date...
Interesting postscript on Icing Clearance
The Master Airworthiness Reference (the Release to Service) was at Amendment 1 at time of accident.
A properly amended RTS (i.e. in accordance with accompanying embodiment instructions) does NOT mention icing clearance; superceding the clearance commonly mentioned here.
Not only does this cause confusion to those who would rely on the RTS at the time, it creates a conflict between the Master and subsidiary documents (FRCs etc) and is indicative of just how sloppy some parts of MoD were.
This error was rectified post-crash. Better late than never I suppose.
A properly amended RTS (i.e. in accordance with accompanying embodiment instructions) does NOT mention icing clearance; superceding the clearance commonly mentioned here.
Not only does this cause confusion to those who would rely on the RTS at the time, it creates a conflict between the Master and subsidiary documents (FRCs etc) and is indicative of just how sloppy some parts of MoD were.
This error was rectified post-crash. Better late than never I suppose.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have the media been 'stirred into action' yet? Anyone know? Methinks a little 'help from our friends' would not go amiss right now. What is Paxman's phone number?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
walter k - the company I worked for at the time no longer exists, so sadly even if I were still in touch with colleagues I don't think I could get an answer. However from memory, I recall that I was told that although the demand for full power had been given by the pilots, the FADEC control had failed to respond... it wasn't that the engines had not yet spooled up to max speed, it was a matter that the FADEC had not responded to the pilot's request
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"drew his revolver and pointed it directly at his foot". On can reasonably assume that, in order to reach his current position, the man is not a fool. Has anyone considered that the apparently errant shot from the revolver was, in fact, quite deliberately aimed?
I did consider it and certainly hope you are right. However, when it comes to the MoD, I'm afraid my cynical gland goes into overdrive.
although the demand for full power had been given by the pilots, the FADEC control had failed to respond.
Hamish - If you are unaware, there was an instruction to carry out in-flight servicing every 15 mins to check a known problem, but no instructions as to what to do if it detached between servicing intervals (although MoD's position is the aircraft would "glide" to the ground).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No surprise then, but in response to my #6054 Baston has declined to tell us his findings of 'known facts', instead inviting me to 'read the thread'.
QED - waste of time.
QED - waste of time.
AA
and there's the rub! Most of the subverting of the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations over the last three decades would appear to have been organised and assured not by "politicians and civil serpents" but by senior Royal Air Force Officers. If the CAS is set on ensuring that such men are brought to book then he will have my best wishes, but I'll believe it when I see it, I'm afraid. If you or I had set about subverting the operational effectiveness of the Squadrons on which we served we would rightly have expected to face Courts Martial. What is different here?
since those who have the rank to stand up to them have retirement and other benefits held to ransom unless they toe the line.:
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hamish <<...it wasn't that the engines had not yet spooled up to max speed, it was a matter that the FADEC had not responded to the pilot's request...>>
What was this based on? Was this formally put to the AAIB?
Given that helicopters are inherently unstable and that such control systems would be working all the time, it seems highly improbable that the FADEC either didn't respond just at that moment before impact or that the crew did not notice such a problem earlier and avoid approaching difficult ground – they had flown quite a distance that day with it apparently working!.
What was this based on? Was this formally put to the AAIB?
Given that helicopters are inherently unstable and that such control systems would be working all the time, it seems highly improbable that the FADEC either didn't respond just at that moment before impact or that the crew did not notice such a problem earlier and avoid approaching difficult ground – they had flown quite a distance that day with it apparently working!.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
(Dare I suggest?) If you read the thread regarding the wx, I think you will find that I don't believe that they were in IMC until the very last seconds, as they entered the ground mist, which hardly counts. I have repeatedly suggested that anyone interested in this case should actully go up there at the right time of year and see such weather for themselves – it is quite consistent. At low level on that day (from what was expected and eyewitnesses I have spoken to) they would have been able to see the Mull from quite a way off (including the shoreline) but it would have been bereft of familiar objects or ground texture that could have helped their visual judgement of closing range while they were approaching at speed.
In those conditions, my view is that at the position of waypoint change they had already come in too close to have relied safely on SuperTANS or visual judgement and so, if you argue that they were not negligent, you need to dig deeper to explore the possibilities for equipment or procedures that they may have been reliant upon to excuse them.
(Dare I suggest?) If you read the thread regarding the wx, I think you will find that I don't believe that they were in IMC until the very last seconds, as they entered the ground mist, which hardly counts. I have repeatedly suggested that anyone interested in this case should actully go up there at the right time of year and see such weather for themselves – it is quite consistent. At low level on that day (from what was expected and eyewitnesses I have spoken to) they would have been able to see the Mull from quite a way off (including the shoreline) but it would have been bereft of familiar objects or ground texture that could have helped their visual judgement of closing range while they were approaching at speed.
In those conditions, my view is that at the position of waypoint change they had already come in too close to have relied safely on SuperTANS or visual judgement and so, if you argue that they were not negligent, you need to dig deeper to explore the possibilities for equipment or procedures that they may have been reliant upon to excuse them.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
If by now Boac you have not managed to garner all the known facts of this accident you really do not have the authority to comment. I do not intend to repeat all the posts for those who will not/cannot see. Do try to keep up and do your own research. QED!
Good night.
PS This was my pm to Boac
Hullo Boac
Quote:
- apart from the fact that they were IMC when they crashed which no-one denies, can you, for the benefit of all, list those?
I think it may be efficacious(!) if you reread the relevant parts of the thread!
All the best and lets keep our differing views polite and cheerful.
I think it was pilot error and I also think that their RAF Lordships have behaved abominably, so we have a little common ground.
David
No surprise then, but in response to my #6054 Baston has declined to tell us his findings of 'known facts', instead inviting me to 'read the thread'.
Good night.
PS This was my pm to Boac
Hullo Boac
Quote:
- apart from the fact that they were IMC when they crashed which no-one denies, can you, for the benefit of all, list those?
I think it may be efficacious(!) if you reread the relevant parts of the thread!
All the best and lets keep our differing views polite and cheerful.
I think it was pilot error and I also think that their RAF Lordships have behaved abominably, so we have a little common ground.
David
Last edited by bast0n; 12th Jan 2010 at 08:16.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello again. I was taken aback by your comment that you've always been against the verdict of Gross Negligence - that's not how I remembered your posts at all.
I just had a look back at pages 269/270/271, and you seem more than satisfied with the original verdict.
However, when I come to reply to your post, your suggestion that the verdict was unfair/disgraceful - can't remember the exact words you used - has gone.
Have you been reminded/remembered how you entered the thread?
In answer to BOAC's question - From your #5413:
You also stated the Airworthiness of the aircraft was irrelevant in your #5390
Has your position on any of this changed?
Kind regards,
TN
Last edited by Thor Nogson; 12th Jan 2010 at 09:27. Reason: Change to Bast0n's post etc
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thor
Thanks for commenting on my posts.
I have always been against the "gross" negligence, criminal culpability, and all the other statements that have been thrown at this unfortunate crew. I have also tried to dig a little at those who I believe have tried to obfuscate the argument with breakfast menus, airworthiness issues that seem to have little bearing on this actual flight and the machinations of Whitehall and the dreaded Boscombe Down clique who from practical experience of my own seem often to be a. hidebound and b. not in the real world of those out on the ground. (Ducking as appropriate.)
My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?
I have in the past mentioned DR and use of a stopwatch as a fallback when approaching from the sea high ground in bad weather and many other basic airmanship points especially the bit about that whatever is going on in the cockpit,(bitten by wasps etc), someone MUST keep flying the aircraft. Two lots of heads downs to deal with emergencies is not a good idea especially when the crew knew that they were very close to high ground covered in cloud.
The premise that this aircraft from the last waypoint suddenly took complete control of its own destiny and hurled itself for probably over a couple of minutes straight into the Mull with no distress call and so on seems to me to be a bit far fetched.
Actually my views on this saga are pretty unimportant but if if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc etc.............
Pursuing the heirarchy is not of interest to me, though obviously very important to some - but the actual mechanics of this flight is fascinating to those of us who have been there, seen it, done it.
Best wishes and good luck in proving whatever points you are persuing.
David
Thanks for commenting on my posts.
I have always been against the "gross" negligence, criminal culpability, and all the other statements that have been thrown at this unfortunate crew. I have also tried to dig a little at those who I believe have tried to obfuscate the argument with breakfast menus, airworthiness issues that seem to have little bearing on this actual flight and the machinations of Whitehall and the dreaded Boscombe Down clique who from practical experience of my own seem often to be a. hidebound and b. not in the real world of those out on the ground. (Ducking as appropriate.)
My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?
I have in the past mentioned DR and use of a stopwatch as a fallback when approaching from the sea high ground in bad weather and many other basic airmanship points especially the bit about that whatever is going on in the cockpit,(bitten by wasps etc), someone MUST keep flying the aircraft. Two lots of heads downs to deal with emergencies is not a good idea especially when the crew knew that they were very close to high ground covered in cloud.
The premise that this aircraft from the last waypoint suddenly took complete control of its own destiny and hurled itself for probably over a couple of minutes straight into the Mull with no distress call and so on seems to me to be a bit far fetched.
Actually my views on this saga are pretty unimportant but if if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc etc.............
Pursuing the heirarchy is not of interest to me, though obviously very important to some - but the actual mechanics of this flight is fascinating to those of us who have been there, seen it, done it.
Best wishes and good luck in proving whatever points you are persuing.
David
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sussex, UK
Age: 58
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't mind me asking, why did you edit out the "I have always been against the "gross" negligence" part of your previous post?
I have also tried to dig a little at those who I believe have tried to obfuscate the argument with breakfast menus, airworthiness issues that seem to have little bearing on this actual flight
My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?
My line all along, with a little irreverant digging at the above is that in all probability , bearing in mind that this aircraft had no data recording equipment, was serviceable on take off and so on and unnecessarily flew into the ground. I realise that the Hine suggestion on deceased aircrew is relevant, but does it rule out a verdict of "pilot error"?
Likewise, since we do not know what the pilots did or did not do, how can you suggest a verdict of pilot error. What was their error?!?
I'm not saying that it was not pilot error, far from it, but it cannot be proven.
Take a look at it from the other side. Two very competent pilots flew straight into a cloud cover and then a hill they knew was obscured by it when they had other clear and obvious options available. It as unlikely as any other scenario.
I, like many others, don't feel the need to prove anything. This is the crux of the matter, as without recording equipment, it's not possible to prove much.
I'd be happy to "not positively determine" the points in question...
TN
we don't know if any of the airworthiness issues had any impact on the flight