Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Cazatou
Why bother quoting selected witnesses who were on the ground? Why not discuss what your beloved ROs told inquiries the pilots saw? What do you think about the slideshow that showed the cloud extending well out to sea, or the MoD's later admission this evidence was absolute tosh?
Why bother quoting selected witnesses who were on the ground? Why not discuss what your beloved ROs told inquiries the pilots saw? What do you think about the slideshow that showed the cloud extending well out to sea, or the MoD's later admission this evidence was absolute tosh?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's his lack of ability to see beyond the written word that causes Caz to post as he does.
The common denominator with what he says is that none of the witness's could see much more than 15 mtrs.
What this implies, but he continually fails to acknowledge, is that by their very own admission none of these witness's actually knows what the weather was at the crash site or what the weather was as seen from the cockpit windows.
In fact nobody knows what the weather at crash site or as seen from the flight deck was, or did I miss something
The common denominator with what he says is that none of the witness's could see much more than 15 mtrs.
What this implies, but he continually fails to acknowledge, is that by their very own admission none of these witness's actually knows what the weather was at the crash site or what the weather was as seen from the cockpit windows.
In fact nobody knows what the weather at crash site or as seen from the flight deck was, or did I miss something
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dervish
The Investigating BOI stated that the forecast weather weather was "suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
The corollary, of course, would be that the forecast weather "would have precluded fight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
Yet flight in accordance with VFR at low level was EXACTLY what the Pilots planned to do.
The Investigating BOI stated that the forecast weather weather was "suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
The corollary, of course, would be that the forecast weather "would have precluded fight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
Yet flight in accordance with VFR at low level was EXACTLY what the Pilots planned to do.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dervish
The Investigating BOI stated that the Forecast weather weather was "suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
The corollary, of course, would be that the Forecast weather "would have precluded fight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
Yet flight in accordance with VFR at low level was EXACTLY what the Pilots planned to do.
The Investigating BOI stated that the Forecast weather weather was "suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
The corollary, of course, would be that the Forecast weather "would have precluded fight in accordance with VFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
Yet flight in accordance with VFR at low level was EXACTLY what the Pilots planned to do.
caz:
One of my many unanswered questions that I have put to you is "where was the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre?" Now in fairness to Walter, who seems to think that I have been entirely unfair to him, he has well illustrated the orographic hill hugging cloud that is so typical of the Mull with the conditions that prevailed on that terrible day, ie with a stiff moist onshore wind. The conditions requiring "flight in accordance with IFR" would have thus required the "vicinity" to extend a mere matter of metres from the Mull. Now Walter's planned flight would have penetrated that vicinity, as would Wratten and Day's planned flight (ie to overfly the Mull) likewise. I presume that is what you contend, that the pilots planned to overfly the Mull. Other than being in total agreement with the then AOC and AOC-in-C, what basis have you for your contention, seeing as you have such disdain for Walter's?
The mere fact that the qualifications and experience of this crew alone suggests that they had no such intentions, ie of a planned approach or of a planned late climb into IMC for overflight, places both of your theories in doubt, rather than their intentions.
Oh, and caz, could you please, please, enter into this dialogue by answering questions put to you, or stay out of it?
The Investigating BOI stated that the forecast weather weather was "suitable for the flight but would have required flight in accordance with IFR in the vicinity of the Mull of Kintyre".
The mere fact that the qualifications and experience of this crew alone suggests that they had no such intentions, ie of a planned approach or of a planned late climb into IMC for overflight, places both of your theories in doubt, rather than their intentions.
Oh, and caz, could you please, please, enter into this dialogue by answering questions put to you, or stay out of it?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou (K52)
I don't believe anyone would doubt the testimony of the 'qualified met observers' on the Mull. They were (for the most part) in hill fog. Patchy perhaps, but hill fog none the less.
But of course as we sail round this buoy one final time, you know that already!
The difficulty however comes when you try to extend that evidence out to sea, to determine the weather being experienced by the pilots.
As you are obliged to accept, that would be akin to asking drinkers the weather in the car park, as they stood in the pub!
Anyway, not long at all now, before right is done.
I don't believe anyone would doubt the testimony of the 'qualified met observers' on the Mull. They were (for the most part) in hill fog. Patchy perhaps, but hill fog none the less.
But of course as we sail round this buoy one final time, you know that already!
The difficulty however comes when you try to extend that evidence out to sea, to determine the weather being experienced by the pilots.
As you are obliged to accept, that would be akin to asking drinkers the weather in the car park, as they stood in the pub!
Anyway, not long at all now, before right is done.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tandemrotor
Mr Holbrook, in his written statement to the BOI given under oath, stated that when the Chinook passed his yacht he was 2NM SW of the Mull, the visibility was 1NM limited by haze and the Chinook "was proceeding towards the mass of orographic cloud that obscured the Mull."
Mr Holbrook, in his written statement to the BOI given under oath, stated that when the Chinook passed his yacht he was 2NM SW of the Mull, the visibility was 1NM limited by haze and the Chinook "was proceeding towards the mass of orographic cloud that obscured the Mull."
That sounds like the vis was 2NM not 1NM, otherwise how could he see the "mass of orographic cloud that obscured the Mull"?
Didn't anyone ask the SAR crew about their transit to the Mull?
Didn't anyone ask the SAR crew about their transit to the Mull?
Didn't anyone bother to ask the SAR crew (the very next helicopter to approach the Mull that day) what the conditions were like towards the shoreline, beneath the cloud base, on their run in towards the Mull? (Before they hover taxied up into the fog to get to the crash site)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ever the viz it does sound from what Caz has posted that everything was legal
Not long now.
Edited to add: Bertie, you are making some assumptions there, which may not necessarily be correct.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
You forgot to mention that the evidence given to the FAI was in stark contrast to the written statement sworn on oath that Mr Holbrook gave to the BOI where he stated that his position was "2NM Southwest of the Mull and the visibility was 1NM limited by haze".
He also stated that the Chinook was "proceeding towards the mass of Orographic cloud that obscured the Mull".
You forgot to mention that the evidence given to the FAI was in stark contrast to the written statement sworn on oath that Mr Holbrook gave to the BOI where he stated that his position was "2NM Southwest of the Mull and the visibility was 1NM limited by haze".
He also stated that the Chinook was "proceeding towards the mass of Orographic cloud that obscured the Mull".
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
OK, I'll make comment, despite being asked not to prior to the conclusion of the current Review.
Good to see that we are still discussing the weather.
Caz, Mr Holbrook does not deny what he said to the FAI. Here is his evidence to the Select Committee:
624. Quite. I must put to you, three questions only were asked to you by the Board. You were asked: "At the time you saw the aircraft could you see the physical features of the cliffs on the Mull?" You said "No". Was that correct?
A. That is correct. What I could see on the Mull was not the physical features of the cliffs.
625. But could you see that the Mull was there, so to speak, that there was land there?
A. Yes, and in particular the lighthouse because of the colour contrast.
626. Because of the colour of the lighthouse?
A. The lighthouse compound, not the lighthouse building, the lighthouse compound.
627. That of course includes the keepers' houses.
A. I don't know where the keepers' houses are but there are several outbuildings and in particular this white perimeter fence which is quite extensive.
628. And the engine house is probably painted white as well.
A. Correct.
629. As you will appreciate, there has been some criticism of your evidence about visibility. To the Sheriff you said: "visibility at sea level was certainly in excess of three miles and possibly five." Do I understand that that was a reference to what you have just told us a moment ago, visibility towards the island of Rathlin?
A. That is correct.
I hope that the evidence of Mr Holbrook's (who was not stood inside fog) can now be accepted. In addition, the video shot by the holidaymakers (some 5-10 minutes prior to the accident) clearly shows that the cloudbase did not extend too far out, nor did it follow the contour of the landmass right down to the water.
Not long to wait now.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Good to see that we are still discussing the weather.
Caz, Mr Holbrook does not deny what he said to the FAI. Here is his evidence to the Select Committee:
624. Quite. I must put to you, three questions only were asked to you by the Board. You were asked: "At the time you saw the aircraft could you see the physical features of the cliffs on the Mull?" You said "No". Was that correct?
A. That is correct. What I could see on the Mull was not the physical features of the cliffs.
625. But could you see that the Mull was there, so to speak, that there was land there?
A. Yes, and in particular the lighthouse because of the colour contrast.
626. Because of the colour of the lighthouse?
A. The lighthouse compound, not the lighthouse building, the lighthouse compound.
627. That of course includes the keepers' houses.
A. I don't know where the keepers' houses are but there are several outbuildings and in particular this white perimeter fence which is quite extensive.
628. And the engine house is probably painted white as well.
A. Correct.
629. As you will appreciate, there has been some criticism of your evidence about visibility. To the Sheriff you said: "visibility at sea level was certainly in excess of three miles and possibly five." Do I understand that that was a reference to what you have just told us a moment ago, visibility towards the island of Rathlin?
A. That is correct.
I hope that the evidence of Mr Holbrook's (who was not stood inside fog) can now be accepted. In addition, the video shot by the holidaymakers (some 5-10 minutes prior to the accident) clearly shows that the cloudbase did not extend too far out, nor did it follow the contour of the landmass right down to the water.
Not long to wait now.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft was flying legally, as in not breaking it's weather minima, can you please tell us what crime you think is being committed?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz
Just about every time you get airborne, at some stage or other you proceed towards a mass of cloud.
The trick is not to enter it at below Safety Altitude.
If the crew could clearly see this this cloudmass from 2nms then approaching it and turning just short (say 0.5nm), should not present a problem.
That they did not do this suggests:
1. Technical Malfunction (FADEC UFCM).
2. Misjudgment of range. Which is Aircrew Error.
What you describe does not show negligence. And do remember, Wratten and Day assert that negligence had already taken place before Waypoint Change. You seem to be contending that it happened after.
Just about every time you get airborne, at some stage or other you proceed towards a mass of cloud.
The trick is not to enter it at below Safety Altitude.
If the crew could clearly see this this cloudmass from 2nms then approaching it and turning just short (say 0.5nm), should not present a problem.
That they did not do this suggests:
1. Technical Malfunction (FADEC UFCM).
2. Misjudgment of range. Which is Aircrew Error.
What you describe does not show negligence. And do remember, Wratten and Day assert that negligence had already taken place before Waypoint Change. You seem to be contending that it happened after.
That they did not do this suggests:
1. Technical Malfunction (FADEC UFCM).
2. Misjudgment of range. Which is Aircrew Error.
1. Technical Malfunction (FADEC UFCM).
2. Misjudgment of range. Which is Aircrew Error.
And guess which MoD withheld evidence about, and serially misled by both omission and commission. FADEC and UFCM. Very serious offences indeed, doubly so when they place lives at risk.
Oscar Wilde? He wrote about a gaol didn't he?