Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airborne
So be it!
Chugaz
Yes - I am deliberately putting across a middle view. The vast majority of pilots that I have discussed this with agree with this argument - and it is only that.
The middle view again, and I am sorry if it annoys you, is - Pilot error largely to blame but not "Gross" negligence.
you come across as a troll
Chugaz
I find your posts to be some of the most annoying of all, bast0n
The middle view again, and I am sorry if it annoys you, is - Pilot error largely to blame but not "Gross" negligence.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I make a suggestion here - a sort of New Year's Resolution if you like, to reduce the noise to signal ratio?
How about all those posters here, who when asked a direct question, IGNORE it or reply with a different question WITHOUT answering the original at the next opportunity (ie post on thread), be ignored?
I propose that "I do not know" be accepted as a satisfactory reply, even if a somewhat awkward and potentially embarrassing answer.
How about all those posters here, who when asked a direct question, IGNORE it or reply with a different question WITHOUT answering the original at the next opportunity (ie post on thread), be ignored?
I propose that "I do not know" be accepted as a satisfactory reply, even if a somewhat awkward and potentially embarrassing answer.
bast0n:
So please spell out your "middle view" bast0n, because I just don't get it. The vast majority of pilots, I suspect, are prepared to agree that the pilots may have been in error, even perhaps that they may have been negligent, but they don't know that and merely accept the possibility. You on the other hand do appear to know and to accept the scenario that their airships paint, baulking only at finding the pilots negligent, let alone grossly so. The words cake and eating come to mind. Most pilots I submit would readily opt for negligent if their airships version was known to be what happened. Point is we don't know, but we do know a lot about their airships now and it doesn't make pleasant reading. Nonetheless we have to read it and determine our view.
My view is that the MOD and the Services should no longer be the Airworthiness Regulator and Air Accident Investigators respectively. They have shown themselves not to be trusted in those roles. The MAA should therefore be made separate from and independent of the MOD, and the MAAIB in turn of the MAA. That is my view bast0n. What is your view? Could you please spell it out for me, because at the moment I just don't get it.
Yes - I am deliberately putting across a middle view. The vast majority of pilots that I have discussed this with agree with this argument - and it is only that.
My view is that the MOD and the Services should no longer be the Airworthiness Regulator and Air Accident Investigators respectively. They have shown themselves not to be trusted in those roles. The MAA should therefore be made separate from and independent of the MOD, and the MAAIB in turn of the MAA. That is my view bast0n. What is your view? Could you please spell it out for me, because at the moment I just don't get it.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bastOn
A couple of points if I may:
I cannot speak for the Mk2, however I know the Mk1 most certainly had that ability. That is why it's release to service said the a/c was unsuitable for extended low level operations! This in a tactical SH helicopter!!!
But we got on and flew it anyway. Because everyone else did.
Even after a very largely unexplained, fatal accident in the Falklands, when a Chinook gently departed from level flight from 500', impacting the ground in a HIGH SPEED vertical dive.
The only transmission was the centre portion of the words **cking He**. Of course the recommendation to retrofit CVR after this accident, was ignored. Seven years later Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were required to pay the price for that decision too!
Are you, or any of your 'vast majority of pilots', familiar with the term 'double DASH runaway'? Or it's powerful effect?
I absolutely accept that pilots unfamiliar with this a/c type, or this case, are perfectly happy to play fast and loose with the facts. I'm not concerned by their views one little bit!
A couple of points if I may:
I ask again - did this Mark 2 have the ability to fly itself into a nearby lump of rock without the pilots having any input whatsoever?
But we got on and flew it anyway. Because everyone else did.
Even after a very largely unexplained, fatal accident in the Falklands, when a Chinook gently departed from level flight from 500', impacting the ground in a HIGH SPEED vertical dive.
The only transmission was the centre portion of the words **cking He**. Of course the recommendation to retrofit CVR after this accident, was ignored. Seven years later Flt Lts Tapper and Cook were required to pay the price for that decision too!
The vast majority of pilots that I have discussed this with agree with this argument
I absolutely accept that pilots unfamiliar with this a/c type, or this case, are perfectly happy to play fast and loose with the facts. I'm not concerned by their views one little bit!
The Chinook, in my opinion, has always been a bloody dangerous airframe
Luckily that 1994 posting involved only one 'new' HC2 airframe and it was easily possible to keep it firmly on the ground, due various 'airframe rigging' problems, for several months of a very long 6 month tour.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy New Year Seldom.
I do not believe for one moment that Gp Capt Pulford chose to exclude Sqn Ldr Burke's evidence from the BOI. I think he was leant on from a great height.
Before you complain again JP, do read what the HOL said about the exclusion of Burke. They think the same as me, so I have considerable top cover.
The inclusion of the Burke evidence would not have made a great deal of difference to the findings of the original BOI. They did not not after all produce the findings of Gross Negligence.
They could easily have supported their case with something like.
" At around one minute before the crash Mr Holrook witnessed the aircraft apparently serviceable and under control. The Board find it (Highly?) unlikely that a catastrophic failure of the types envisaged by Sqn Ldr Burke could have happened in the short timescale available........"
The findings of the Board would still make sense.
It would still make it impossible for the Reviewing Officers to reconcile (Highly) unlikely with the concept of Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever.
Even politicians would see through that one.
Hence the need for Wratten, Day and fellow travellers such as JP, to try and suppress the evidence.
If you ignore it, it does not exist.
Is that your attitude JP? An ostrich does that, and it eventually gets eaten by lions.
Grrrrr!
I do not believe for one moment that Gp Capt Pulford chose to exclude Sqn Ldr Burke's evidence from the BOI. I think he was leant on from a great height.
Before you complain again JP, do read what the HOL said about the exclusion of Burke. They think the same as me, so I have considerable top cover.
The inclusion of the Burke evidence would not have made a great deal of difference to the findings of the original BOI. They did not not after all produce the findings of Gross Negligence.
They could easily have supported their case with something like.
" At around one minute before the crash Mr Holrook witnessed the aircraft apparently serviceable and under control. The Board find it (Highly?) unlikely that a catastrophic failure of the types envisaged by Sqn Ldr Burke could have happened in the short timescale available........"
The findings of the Board would still make sense.
It would still make it impossible for the Reviewing Officers to reconcile (Highly) unlikely with the concept of Absolutely No Doubt Whatsoever.
Even politicians would see through that one.
Hence the need for Wratten, Day and fellow travellers such as JP, to try and suppress the evidence.
If you ignore it, it does not exist.
Is that your attitude JP? An ostrich does that, and it eventually gets eaten by lions.
Grrrrr!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey
On 24th December (Post #7408) I asked the question reproduced below. Accepting that you may have been preparing for Midnight Mass or enjoying one or two mince pies too many, thereby not noticing my post, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my question now.
In his review of the BoI, AM Wratten used the following words:
How does this statement fit with Wratten's conclusion, "beyond any doubt whatsoever" that the pilots were negligent?
With best New Year wishes,
Meadowbank
On 24th December (Post #7408) I asked the question reproduced below. Accepting that you may have been preparing for Midnight Mass or enjoying one or two mince pies too many, thereby not noticing my post, perhaps you would be kind enough to answer my question now.
In his review of the BoI, AM Wratten used the following words:
"without the irrefutable evidence of an Accident Data Recorder and a Cockpit Voice Recorder, there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise detail of the sequence of events in the minutes and seconds immediately prior to impact".
With best New Year wishes,
Meadowbank
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite amazing - since I suggested the 'put up or shut up' idea, the background noise has died significantly. Messrs Purdey and Cazatou have been spotted grazing these pastures, but obviously are unable to answer the questions. There you go. Simples, as they say..
No doubt they will be back, but with other deflecting 'questions' and no 'answers', and we all know what to do then, I trust?
No doubt they will be back, but with other deflecting 'questions' and no 'answers', and we all know what to do then, I trust?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going Round Buoys
JP,
Congratulations on yet another disingenuous response which seems to have "vanished" since I read it at 11:11 - and you accuse others of going round the bouy again! The question was not about when negligence occurred (on the basis that your opinion is that it did) but how you can meet the requirements of no doubt whatsoever when even the senior RO admits to a degree of speculation. This question never gets answered except by the independent Inquiries who consistently, and at the highest of legal levels, say that the RAF's finding was wrong. Just to remind you, and any others who could be "taken in" by your response, this is what the Lords Inquiry said about the Reviewing Officers' Hypothses:
No direct reference to the standard of proof
Neither Reviewing Officer referred to directly to the standard of proof (absolutely no doubt whatsoever) at paragraph 9 of Annex G to AP3207. The AOC stated he was:
“…aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased aircrew,”
However, nothing in his remarks indicated that the difficulty he was alluding to was the satisfaction of a extremely high standard of proof. He could equally well have been referring to sensitivity or embarrassment in making such a finding. If “difficulty” in this was intended to refer to the standard of proof, it was an astonishingly understated way of dealing with such a crucial test. Perhaps this cursory treatment indicates that the AOC had not been properly advised as to the significance of the test.
The AOC-in-C, in his subsequent remarks, made no mention at all of any “difficulty” or of the standard of proof.
Neither Reviewing Officer appeared to justify his opinion that the deceased pilots were grossly negligent by reference to any statutory standard of proof.
and later:
Conclusion
The hypothesis recorded by the Reviewing Officers and repeated by the Chiefs of Staff was not well founded in fact and did not therefore meet the statutory criterion for a finding of negligence. Sufficient doubt existed for the initial Board to quite properly decline to make a finding of negligence. Neither Reviewing Officer nor any higher authority justified the substitution of their opinion that a finding of negligence was appropriate on the basis of assumptions derived from the same, very limited evidence available to the Board. Additional doubt was later cast on some of the assumptions by evidence not before the Board but available by September 2001.
The essential objectivity of accident investigation was incorrectly overridden, and subjective opinion was misguidedly allowed to replace the painstaking analysis of the initial Board.(my bolds)
And it is still this injustice that this thread is all about!
JB
Congratulations on yet another disingenuous response which seems to have "vanished" since I read it at 11:11 - and you accuse others of going round the bouy again! The question was not about when negligence occurred (on the basis that your opinion is that it did) but how you can meet the requirements of no doubt whatsoever when even the senior RO admits to a degree of speculation. This question never gets answered except by the independent Inquiries who consistently, and at the highest of legal levels, say that the RAF's finding was wrong. Just to remind you, and any others who could be "taken in" by your response, this is what the Lords Inquiry said about the Reviewing Officers' Hypothses:
No direct reference to the standard of proof
Neither Reviewing Officer referred to directly to the standard of proof (absolutely no doubt whatsoever) at paragraph 9 of Annex G to AP3207. The AOC stated he was:
“…aware of the difficulty of attributing negligence to deceased aircrew,”
However, nothing in his remarks indicated that the difficulty he was alluding to was the satisfaction of a extremely high standard of proof. He could equally well have been referring to sensitivity or embarrassment in making such a finding. If “difficulty” in this was intended to refer to the standard of proof, it was an astonishingly understated way of dealing with such a crucial test. Perhaps this cursory treatment indicates that the AOC had not been properly advised as to the significance of the test.
The AOC-in-C, in his subsequent remarks, made no mention at all of any “difficulty” or of the standard of proof.
Neither Reviewing Officer appeared to justify his opinion that the deceased pilots were grossly negligent by reference to any statutory standard of proof.
and later:
Conclusion
The hypothesis recorded by the Reviewing Officers and repeated by the Chiefs of Staff was not well founded in fact and did not therefore meet the statutory criterion for a finding of negligence. Sufficient doubt existed for the initial Board to quite properly decline to make a finding of negligence. Neither Reviewing Officer nor any higher authority justified the substitution of their opinion that a finding of negligence was appropriate on the basis of assumptions derived from the same, very limited evidence available to the Board. Additional doubt was later cast on some of the assumptions by evidence not before the Board but available by September 2001.
The essential objectivity of accident investigation was incorrectly overridden, and subjective opinion was misguidedly allowed to replace the painstaking analysis of the initial Board.(my bolds)
And it is still this injustice that this thread is all about!
JB
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Purdey,
I believe, (in my opinion), that your biggest problem is you mistake Rank for Experience.
In military aircrew at Officer Level, the vast pool of knowledge is located at the Flight Lieutenant / Squadron Leader level. Even most Squadron Commanders accept that technical flying issues are best referred to the specialists such as QFI or Nav Ldr .
By the time you reach Air Rank you never see raw data.
As an Air Officer the expert information of the QFI and Nav Ldrs are filtered through Flt Cdrs, Sqn Cdrs, Stn Cdrs, and at least one pyramid of HQ Staffs.
You rarely see the initial report.
This thread is filled with countless Junior, (plus a few Senior) officers who tell you, you are probably wrong. They include Test Pilots, QFI's, Nav Ldrs, JEngO's etc, many with SH and Chinook experience. I doubt you can find a single experienced Chinook aircrew that supports your conclusions.
Yet you continue to claim that the case is proved to ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.
In the past you were very offended when I called you arrogant. Please look up the Oxford dictionary and tell me why the definition does not apply to you?
I believe, (in my opinion), that your biggest problem is you mistake Rank for Experience.
In military aircrew at Officer Level, the vast pool of knowledge is located at the Flight Lieutenant / Squadron Leader level. Even most Squadron Commanders accept that technical flying issues are best referred to the specialists such as QFI or Nav Ldr .
By the time you reach Air Rank you never see raw data.
As an Air Officer the expert information of the QFI and Nav Ldrs are filtered through Flt Cdrs, Sqn Cdrs, Stn Cdrs, and at least one pyramid of HQ Staffs.
You rarely see the initial report.
This thread is filled with countless Junior, (plus a few Senior) officers who tell you, you are probably wrong. They include Test Pilots, QFI's, Nav Ldrs, JEngO's etc, many with SH and Chinook experience. I doubt you can find a single experienced Chinook aircrew that supports your conclusions.
Yet you continue to claim that the case is proved to ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.
In the past you were very offended when I called you arrogant. Please look up the Oxford dictionary and tell me why the definition does not apply to you?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Bristol
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olive Oil
The question is not about Wratten's thought processes. It asks whether the two statements he made are contradictory. You have to face up to the fact that they are, and I don't see how in logic anyone could argue otherwise
Dick
The question is not about Wratten's thought processes. It asks whether the two statements he made are contradictory. You have to face up to the fact that they are, and I don't see how in logic anyone could argue otherwise
Dick
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but you wrong Olive, however if you had written the following.......
Opinion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even JP has admitted he has no idea as to the weather that was observed from the flight deck windows in the minutes prior to the crash. The fact is no one alive knows what could be seen from the flight deck windows so what ever opinion anyone has it's nowt but supposition.
And in this case that simply will not do or am I missing something here
What is suspected, because there is no actual eyewitness evidence to prove the fact is that the aircraft flew into deteriorating weather and the crew did not avoid it or return to base. With that lack of definative information, the ROs had The Rules of The Air and JSP318 and ASOs and a stack of regulations to guide them to their findings and conclusions without the need to consider the precise order in which the crew's airmanship/captaincy may or may not havefailed. That was their opinion then and I suspect that nothing here now is likely to alter their views.
OO
OO
Even JP has admitted he has no idea as to the weather that was observed from the flight deck windows in the minutes prior to the crash. The fact is no one alive knows what could be seen from the flight deck windows so what ever opinion anyone has it's nowt but supposition.
And in this case that simply will not do or am I missing something here
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Olive Oil,
1. Do you have any flying experience?
2. How current were you when you first dealt with this report?
3. Do you have any Chinook time?
4. Do you have engineering qualifications?
5. How long have you served working for an organisation like IFS or AAIB?
Do you have any relevant Flight Safety qualifications at all?
1. Do you have any flying experience?
2. How current were you when you first dealt with this report?
3. Do you have any Chinook time?
4. Do you have engineering qualifications?
5. How long have you served working for an organisation like IFS or AAIB?
Do you have any relevant Flight Safety qualifications at all?
Excellent 5 questions dalek, now we await the excellent 5 answers, and wait, and wait, and....
That John Purdey, Olive Oil, et al see no conflict between the concept of no doubt whatsoever and the mere opinions (your word Olive) of two men (not backed up by any Rules or Regulations for the simple reason that they could not prove that any such Rules or Regulations had been broken) would not matter one jot except for the fact that they thus seek to justify the improper processes of the Military Air Accident Investigation and the Military Airworthiness Authorities, aka the Services (the RAF in this case) and the MOD respectively. That they wish to nail their case to that mast is their affair. I would only say that if ever the CAA and the AAIB were implicated in the improper granting to an unairworthy aircraft type of a CofA and the subsequent finding of manslaughter against the deceased pilots of a crash involving that type with no proof (ie proof!), there would be a national scandal. The fact that some 17 years after the event these particular Airworthiness and Accident Investigation authorities have yet to be the subjects of such a national scandal is a scandal in itself. 17 years is more than enough. Enough now! Let Right Be Done!
That John Purdey, Olive Oil, et al see no conflict between the concept of no doubt whatsoever and the mere opinions (your word Olive) of two men (not backed up by any Rules or Regulations for the simple reason that they could not prove that any such Rules or Regulations had been broken) would not matter one jot except for the fact that they thus seek to justify the improper processes of the Military Air Accident Investigation and the Military Airworthiness Authorities, aka the Services (the RAF in this case) and the MOD respectively. That they wish to nail their case to that mast is their affair. I would only say that if ever the CAA and the AAIB were implicated in the improper granting to an unairworthy aircraft type of a CofA and the subsequent finding of manslaughter against the deceased pilots of a crash involving that type with no proof (ie proof!), there would be a national scandal. The fact that some 17 years after the event these particular Airworthiness and Accident Investigation authorities have yet to be the subjects of such a national scandal is a scandal in itself. 17 years is more than enough. Enough now! Let Right Be Done!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some who read this thread would relate to the situation of approaching an aerodrome near an urban sprawl at night - you initially may look for the darkest area! - the "regulars" on this thread have unwittingly drawn more attention to the area of nav kit because they have kept it so much in the dark.
Face up to it, by the time they had changed the waypoint they were already too close in (a little over 600 metres to the nearest shore, was it?) to the indistinct hill – although they were in daylight, fuzzed up with mist as it was, it was just as dangerous to approach at speed as at night – and this very experienced crew would have known this - if they had no reason to approach it that closely then they were indeed negligent to some extent.
I believe that the most harsh verdict was politically motivated so as to infer to the public that it was just a case of pilot error "beyond any doubt whatsoever", to allay concerns over, say, sabotage that could have led to unrest or mistrust of the peace process – so the government is not going to give up this view lightly.
So perhaps you all could expend just a fraction of your energy that you have fruitlessly expended on "airworthiness" (etc) on what they could have been intending to do there.
Face up to it, by the time they had changed the waypoint they were already too close in (a little over 600 metres to the nearest shore, was it?) to the indistinct hill – although they were in daylight, fuzzed up with mist as it was, it was just as dangerous to approach at speed as at night – and this very experienced crew would have known this - if they had no reason to approach it that closely then they were indeed negligent to some extent.
I believe that the most harsh verdict was politically motivated so as to infer to the public that it was just a case of pilot error "beyond any doubt whatsoever", to allay concerns over, say, sabotage that could have led to unrest or mistrust of the peace process – so the government is not going to give up this view lightly.
So perhaps you all could expend just a fraction of your energy that you have fruitlessly expended on "airworthiness" (etc) on what they could have been intending to do there.