Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
spreadsheet---cameras
guys......in response to PM's I have expanded the guide to my speed/time/distance spreadsheet , hopefully making it easier to understand........link is here...
also from my #7358.........
......although I mentioned a camera flash partly in jest , I now realise that it is/was a possible factor..............having done some tests on a overcast , misty day I found that an 'average' flashgun is easily visible at one kilometre from the observer ( ..their range was 1.5 kilometres from waypoint 'A' at waypoint change .........)..and even if the flash is pointed at 45 degrees or 90 degrees from the observer it is still easily visible . In addition if the observer is looking in the right direction it is also visible with the flash pointed away from the observer due to the reflection from the mist..............I used a Rollei Beta 4 for the test which I consider a medium sized unit and which uses two AA batteries..................They could have gotten a false sense of orientation if they saw any flash at all near the cottage........ or more especially any flash off to their r/h/s which could have re-inforced the impression that they were about to pass offshore abeam the lighthouse..........
rgds all..........
also from my #7358.........
The fatal last few seconds of flight actually took them over a small cottage , and I think that a possible and far more likely theory , is that they could see this cottage way up on the hillside............
if anyone were taking flash photos near the cottage at the relevant time it could have been a simple mistake .............if the flash were powerful enough to be visible.........
if anyone were taking flash photos near the cottage at the relevant time it could have been a simple mistake .............if the flash were powerful enough to be visible.........
rgds all..........
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is even less likely if one looks at the sworn evidence of the witnesses on the Mull at the time of the crash; The 2 Lighthouse Keepers (who were trained Met Observers) estimated the visibility at their respective locations on the Mull as "15 to 20 metres at most" and "10 metres or less". Other witnesses gave estimates of "10 to 15 feet" and "9 or 10 feet maximum" at their respective locations.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: High Wycombe UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flashgun tests...
I now realise that I neglected to mention ..... that my flashgun tests were done at mid-day .....................at the time of the crash , the sun was 29.6 degrees above the horizon , which equates to its position at mid-day at my home at this time of year....offering similar general light levels.......
......in case anyone wonders , any sun the crew saw would have been almost due west of them at 262 to 266 degrees True during the flight.......courtesy of US Navy tables....
rgds Robin.......
......in case anyone wonders , any sun the crew saw would have been almost due west of them at 262 to 266 degrees True during the flight.......courtesy of US Navy tables....
rgds Robin.......
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Dixon
All : I'm new to PPrune and have joined to learn more about M of K theories. in particular it has been recommended that I contact Brian Dixon. But his inbox is full. Does anyone have contact with him or anyone on the Chinook Justice Campaign, can put me in touch, or pass on?
Jimmy Willison
Jimmy Willison
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
Thankfully, I'm back.
JimmyW. Very good timing. Unfortunately, I had to take a bit of time away to deal with other matters away from this topic. However, I am now back and catching up with things here. Try to PM me again with what it is you wish to ask. I will try to answer.
To everyone else, I cannot thank you all enough for carrying on the good fight. Throughout my time away from here I have worked, wherever possible, behind the scenes with Mike Tapper and the current enquiry and can only hope that it has been of enough use.
It will take a short while to get fully up to speed again, but rest assured, the irritating sod is, once again, at his most irritating!
My sincere thanks to everyone again.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
To everyone else, I cannot thank you all enough for carrying on the good fight. Throughout my time away from here I have worked, wherever possible, behind the scenes with Mike Tapper and the current enquiry and can only hope that it has been of enough use.
It will take a short while to get fully up to speed again, but rest assured, the irritating sod is, once again, at his most irritating!
My sincere thanks to everyone again.
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Bedfordshire
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
There is no contention about the weather at the crash site - it was hill fog! Notwithstanding, an estimate of "9 or 10 feet maximum" stretches the credibility of the witness concerned and visibilities of less than 20 metres are darned uncommon, even in Freezing Fog, which this wasn't.
MB
There is no contention about the weather at the crash site - it was hill fog! Notwithstanding, an estimate of "9 or 10 feet maximum" stretches the credibility of the witness concerned and visibilities of less than 20 metres are darned uncommon, even in Freezing Fog, which this wasn't.
MB
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have been here before, many times.
The lighthouse keepers, who were certainly close to the point of impact, were in IMC.
Mr Holbrook, who was close to the final Waypoint Change, was in VMC.
Wratten maintains that Negligence had taken place by Waypoint Change. If this was the case there was no evidence that weather was a factor in this Negligence.
The lighthouse keepers could not see the edge of the cloudbank, so there is nobody who can even confirm entry into IMC.
The lighthouse keepers, who were certainly close to the point of impact, were in IMC.
Mr Holbrook, who was close to the final Waypoint Change, was in VMC.
Wratten maintains that Negligence had taken place by Waypoint Change. If this was the case there was no evidence that weather was a factor in this Negligence.
The lighthouse keepers could not see the edge of the cloudbank, so there is nobody who can even confirm entry into IMC.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it that Cazatou has again failed to answer the question and has dug up the irrelevancy of the 'can't see me hand in front of me face, Guv' bit?
Makes you wonder what he is trying to hide.
Here's another for him - was these 'witnesses' standing at waypoint change?
Someone let me know if he answers that.
Makes you wonder what he is trying to hide.
Here's another for him - was these 'witnesses' standing at waypoint change?
Someone let me know if he answers that.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: England
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Brian Dixon
Welcome back. A quick question.
Has anything been said about the format of the current enquiry.
Are there going to be public evidence sessions or is it just going to review the existing papers and be 'sprung' fully formed at some future date?
Eg
Welcome back. A quick question.
Has anything been said about the format of the current enquiry.
Are there going to be public evidence sessions or is it just going to review the existing papers and be 'sprung' fully formed at some future date?
Eg
Post 7651.
Lay assessments of visibility are notoriously wild.
"Visibility" is carefully defined and, inter alia, depends upon recognising an object for what it is known to be.
9 to 10 feet assessments in hill fog are ludicrous and such statements should be inadmissable as evidence.
In 41 years in Met. I don't think I ever saw vis. as bad as 50 metres whilst on duty, and less than 100 metres was very rare.
Worst I ever saw was London before Clean Air Act, and I could believe that was about 20 yards in thick yellow ****e with someone else driving and me half way out the window.
Lay assessments of visibility are notoriously wild.
"Visibility" is carefully defined and, inter alia, depends upon recognising an object for what it is known to be.
9 to 10 feet assessments in hill fog are ludicrous and such statements should be inadmissable as evidence.
In 41 years in Met. I don't think I ever saw vis. as bad as 50 metres whilst on duty, and less than 100 metres was very rare.
Worst I ever saw was London before Clean Air Act, and I could believe that was about 20 yards in thick yellow ****e with someone else driving and me half way out the window.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It maters not how much 'sea weed' analysing you have done over that 41 year period there is a poster on here who will never respond to your claims.
For no other reason than to do so would bring his whole house of cards tumbling down as the testimony of those on the Mull form the basis for his whole argument.
For no other reason than to do so would bring his whole house of cards tumbling down as the testimony of those on the Mull form the basis for his whole argument.
Sea-weed! We were modern. We used balls. And issued them sometimes.
Observers needed them in fog on airfields ...... one of my lads was awol for a whole hour at dawn at Topcliffe and I had to do his job and mine [c. 1966] because he went to the enclosure for the 0600 big read of instruments and became disorientated. When he finally got back on the ATC runway check garry I issued him with string, ball, Banglestein's, observer for use of, unwinding behind. Loss of sense of humour.
Observers needed them in fog on airfields ...... one of my lads was awol for a whole hour at dawn at Topcliffe and I had to do his job and mine [c. 1966] because he went to the enclosure for the 0600 big read of instruments and became disorientated. When he finally got back on the ATC runway check garry I issued him with string, ball, Banglestein's, observer for use of, unwinding behind. Loss of sense of humour.
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
ExGrunt,
thank you. Good to be back. The Enquiry is reviewing all existing documentation. There will be no public sessions.
Check the Enquiry website for the full background: Mull of Kintyre Review | Mull of Kintyre Review
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
thank you. Good to be back. The Enquiry is reviewing all existing documentation. There will be no public sessions.
Check the Enquiry website for the full background: Mull of Kintyre Review | Mull of Kintyre Review
Kind regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current inquiry is being extremely thorough, and rigorous. The individuals are extremely capable.
whilst I cannot exclude the possibility of them being 'got at', I feel quietly confident that they will not contradict the judgements of EVERY INDEPENDENT inquiry to review the evidence!
They would have to find some considerable justification, should they disagree with so many independent assessments.
whilst I cannot exclude the possibility of them being 'got at', I feel quietly confident that they will not contradict the judgements of EVERY INDEPENDENT inquiry to review the evidence!
They would have to find some considerable justification, should they disagree with so many independent assessments.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 11th Mar 2011 at 17:53.
The Enquiry is reviewing all existing documentation.
Abbey Road
You ask very good questions which the Review has so far declined to answer directly.
They HAVE sought certain source documents of the day from MoD, who have not been able to supply them despite them being quoted by the BoI. The good news is that the Review has then asked individual staffs who have provided their own copies. (Meaning parts of MoD didn't try very hard to be helpful in the first place - no surprise there then). In turn, this led to the question whether the Freedom of Information Act restrictions applied to the Review (whereby MoD can cite expense as a reason not to supply and, bizarrely, what they do supply does not have to be accurate or truthful). They didn't answer that either.
As for documents that MoD withheld from the various inquiries over the years or simply ignored when giving evidence (FADEC is a good example), the Review is not being very proactive, relying on individuals to make submissions and enclosing said documents. Again, they don't offer comment on whether or not these are welcome. (I imagine MoD thinks they are not). There is no evidence yet of follow-up action.
Finally, I know the Review has been advised of certain documents which the regulations demand should exist, but MoD denies the existence of and, not surprisingly, didn't mention at the time. This is a different issue and I believe the review should simply rule that MoD has not complied with its own regulations - thus, "organisational fault" should be included as a contributory cause. These papers mainly relate to airworthiness - it is unnecessary in my opinion for the Review to dwell too long on this given the evidence that both Mk1 and Mk2 were not airworthy; something admitted 4 years later to the Public Accounts Committee and now openly conceded by MoD.
The remaining questions (in my opinion) relate to why this information was withheld from those charged with signing for airworthiness and, whether or not, these individuals would have taken a different view had they been informed in the early 90s of the systemic failings Haddon-Cave claims only started in 1998. (This does not get away from the fact the aircraft was not properly cleared to fly anyway, but that is a slightly different issue).
A mixed bag really. It would seem they are, rightly, keeping things close to their chests but, like Haddon-Cave, avoiding the detail - which is where the Devil lies. Perhaps the Mull Group could expand on the above and say if they have submitted "new" evidence.
I assume that includes all the documents whose existence has been learnt about since the last enquiry, whether they have yet been seen by any enquiry? Can the current Enquiry ask for documents it believes should exist?
You ask very good questions which the Review has so far declined to answer directly.
They HAVE sought certain source documents of the day from MoD, who have not been able to supply them despite them being quoted by the BoI. The good news is that the Review has then asked individual staffs who have provided their own copies. (Meaning parts of MoD didn't try very hard to be helpful in the first place - no surprise there then). In turn, this led to the question whether the Freedom of Information Act restrictions applied to the Review (whereby MoD can cite expense as a reason not to supply and, bizarrely, what they do supply does not have to be accurate or truthful). They didn't answer that either.
As for documents that MoD withheld from the various inquiries over the years or simply ignored when giving evidence (FADEC is a good example), the Review is not being very proactive, relying on individuals to make submissions and enclosing said documents. Again, they don't offer comment on whether or not these are welcome. (I imagine MoD thinks they are not). There is no evidence yet of follow-up action.
Finally, I know the Review has been advised of certain documents which the regulations demand should exist, but MoD denies the existence of and, not surprisingly, didn't mention at the time. This is a different issue and I believe the review should simply rule that MoD has not complied with its own regulations - thus, "organisational fault" should be included as a contributory cause. These papers mainly relate to airworthiness - it is unnecessary in my opinion for the Review to dwell too long on this given the evidence that both Mk1 and Mk2 were not airworthy; something admitted 4 years later to the Public Accounts Committee and now openly conceded by MoD.
The remaining questions (in my opinion) relate to why this information was withheld from those charged with signing for airworthiness and, whether or not, these individuals would have taken a different view had they been informed in the early 90s of the systemic failings Haddon-Cave claims only started in 1998. (This does not get away from the fact the aircraft was not properly cleared to fly anyway, but that is a slightly different issue).
A mixed bag really. It would seem they are, rightly, keeping things close to their chests but, like Haddon-Cave, avoiding the detail - which is where the Devil lies. Perhaps the Mull Group could expand on the above and say if they have submitted "new" evidence.
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
Abbey Road,
the Enquiry has made it clear that they welcome all documentation relating to this injustice, regardless as to when it became available.
The MoD has never made an admssion as to exactly what information it holds (although the list runs into excess of 800+ spreadsheet pages), but they should comply with requests from the Enquiry. However...
Over the years, the Campaign has amassed a substantial amount of documentation ourselves. This is now in the hands of the Enquiry for them to examine and question. Difficult to say if any of this is 'new' evidence as we don't know what the MoD have in their files. What is probably fair to say is that certainly some of the information in our possession was never seen by the initial Board of Inquiry.
As Tuc says, the Enquiry are playing their cards close to their chest. Without doubt, this is the right and proper approach. It avoids influence (from both sides of the issue), speculation and unnecessary interference. They are, however, keen to hear from anyone who feels that they have something to contribute.
Not much of an answer, but I hope it clarifies some of your points.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
the Enquiry has made it clear that they welcome all documentation relating to this injustice, regardless as to when it became available.
The MoD has never made an admssion as to exactly what information it holds (although the list runs into excess of 800+ spreadsheet pages), but they should comply with requests from the Enquiry. However...
Over the years, the Campaign has amassed a substantial amount of documentation ourselves. This is now in the hands of the Enquiry for them to examine and question. Difficult to say if any of this is 'new' evidence as we don't know what the MoD have in their files. What is probably fair to say is that certainly some of the information in our possession was never seen by the initial Board of Inquiry.
As Tuc says, the Enquiry are playing their cards close to their chest. Without doubt, this is the right and proper approach. It avoids influence (from both sides of the issue), speculation and unnecessary interference. They are, however, keen to hear from anyone who feels that they have something to contribute.
Not much of an answer, but I hope it clarifies some of your points.
Regards,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook