Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Couple of points on the above (although please note, I am NOT an expert!). If it needs correcting please let me know.
The emergency code was 7700. The IFF transponder was found set at 7760 as opposed to the normal setting of 7000. It may be that the pilots were attempting to fly an out of control aircraft, with the crewman Graham Forbes attempting to dial in the emergency code. A further clue is that Rick Cook's intercom was found in the emergency position.
The point is, no one knows.
Retired and Senile - Hope you have contacted your MP by now!!
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
The emergency code was 7700. The IFF transponder was found set at 7760 as opposed to the normal setting of 7000. It may be that the pilots were attempting to fly an out of control aircraft, with the crewman Graham Forbes attempting to dial in the emergency code. A further clue is that Rick Cook's intercom was found in the emergency position.
The point is, no one knows.
Retired and Senile - Hope you have contacted your MP by now!!
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
R and S seems to have raised several points fairly neatly.
It is possible that the guys saw part of the Mull, turned early to start on the next leg and then entered cloud. Thinking they had seen all of the high ground and were clear of it, they may have made a slower climb than needed.
Lots of "mays" and "possibles", but this would be error rather than negligence and without proof, it should never have been labelled negligence.
The main part of the BOI made most of this clear, it was only the senior officers that disagreed.
It is possible that the guys saw part of the Mull, turned early to start on the next leg and then entered cloud. Thinking they had seen all of the high ground and were clear of it, they may have made a slower climb than needed.
Lots of "mays" and "possibles", but this would be error rather than negligence and without proof, it should never have been labelled negligence.
The main part of the BOI made most of this clear, it was only the senior officers that disagreed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The possibility of an intercom problem and the previous "No fault found" TANS errors may be very significant and the key to the final cause.
The NHP would have held the chart and been operating the TANS. The HP may not have fully realised the immediate imminence of the rising ground ahead, especially if the intercom failed as they were coasting in. In the marginal (but within limits for SH) weather conditions the top of the hill may have been obscured from the aircraft. It only takes a small amount of cloud to do this; the witness on the yacht may well have been able to see much more from sea level looking up. It is quite possible that another TANS error occurred - as it had been known to have done on this particular airframe in the days before the accident (were the crew aware of this? I don't know the answer to that one). It could well have been that no-one on board realised they were actually off track and so close to the rapidly rising ground due to poor external cues. The supposed "button push" waypoint change could be a red herring because a (default setting) automatic waypoint change just prior to the (erroneous?) turning point may have occurred instead. I don't recall this having been fully investigated.
Now, pointing straight at the Mull, the top of which may have been hidden, an intercom problem may have prevented cross-cockpit communication in the last vital seconds. It would certainly have been a distraction causing a "heads in" situation.
I therefore think it very likely that a CFIT occurred. Whatever, the crew should never have been held negligent. They were put in a situation that many pilots would not have recovered from. A crew unhappy to be making the flight notleast because of the known potential for sudden and disastrous engine control problems of this new, very different and unproven mark of aircraft. An airframe with no IFR option, suspect nav kit, and a faulty intercom in weather close to the limits. Whiteout. CFIT.
Nothing changes my opinion that they were probably "nibbled to death by ducks". Much of the nibbling was done by those further up the chain. They were then villified out of anger, spite and a concern that an organisational shambles was possibly about to be uncovered. Those involved in this whitewash should have taken into account the concerns of the crew in the first place.
The crew should NOT have been ordered to take the flight in the circumstances.
The NHP would have held the chart and been operating the TANS. The HP may not have fully realised the immediate imminence of the rising ground ahead, especially if the intercom failed as they were coasting in. In the marginal (but within limits for SH) weather conditions the top of the hill may have been obscured from the aircraft. It only takes a small amount of cloud to do this; the witness on the yacht may well have been able to see much more from sea level looking up. It is quite possible that another TANS error occurred - as it had been known to have done on this particular airframe in the days before the accident (were the crew aware of this? I don't know the answer to that one). It could well have been that no-one on board realised they were actually off track and so close to the rapidly rising ground due to poor external cues. The supposed "button push" waypoint change could be a red herring because a (default setting) automatic waypoint change just prior to the (erroneous?) turning point may have occurred instead. I don't recall this having been fully investigated.
Now, pointing straight at the Mull, the top of which may have been hidden, an intercom problem may have prevented cross-cockpit communication in the last vital seconds. It would certainly have been a distraction causing a "heads in" situation.
I therefore think it very likely that a CFIT occurred. Whatever, the crew should never have been held negligent. They were put in a situation that many pilots would not have recovered from. A crew unhappy to be making the flight notleast because of the known potential for sudden and disastrous engine control problems of this new, very different and unproven mark of aircraft. An airframe with no IFR option, suspect nav kit, and a faulty intercom in weather close to the limits. Whiteout. CFIT.
Nothing changes my opinion that they were probably "nibbled to death by ducks". Much of the nibbling was done by those further up the chain. They were then villified out of anger, spite and a concern that an organisational shambles was possibly about to be uncovered. Those involved in this whitewash should have taken into account the concerns of the crew in the first place.
The crew should NOT have been ordered to take the flight in the circumstances.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mr B,
Well, neither actually, but thanks.
First post was actually around 1996 as member no. 70 something, before a megaglitch lost all our details - I think I put the first rotary post on the forum.
Recent technical problems called for a re-registering of the name and hence the counter re-set.
Well, neither actually, but thanks.
First post was actually around 1996 as member no. 70 something, before a megaglitch lost all our details - I think I put the first rotary post on the forum.
Recent technical problems called for a re-registering of the name and hence the counter re-set.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Shytorque, welcome back! Gremlins now sorted then.
I too wonder like you, if any major thought was given to the possibility that the TANS waypoint changed automatically. Six years since I used the RNS 232, but I am sure that in the route steer mode waypoint change was automatic as each was approached. Originally, Wratten used the pilots’ routine waypoint change as some kind of proof that things were proceeding normally at that time. Obviously irrelevant if the change was automatic. Now of course he has moved the goalposts, claiming that the ‘negligence’ had already taken place prior to this change.
I’d like to hear from a current user of the system as to the possibility of an automatic waypoint change.
BillK, Retired and Senile, smooth approach
Some good points made, and all speculation as valid as any other theory. Since speculation and theory are all there will ever be in this case, and all Wratten and Day had to hand when stitching up John and Rick, it is still totally incomprehensible that where the burden of proof is ‘absolutely no doubt’ (note that smooth approach not reasonable doubt) this verdict is allowed to stand.
The reasons for the flight and the importance of the passengers should, of course, be irrelevant, as they do not have any bearing on the cause of this tragedy. I imagine that a similar accident involving just the crew and a few pongos would have escaped Wratten’s wrath. He and Day felt they had to come to a robust conclusion in order to avoid looking woolly and indecisive, which would be career damaging in such a high profile case. They sacrificed the crew on the altar of their own careers.
Wratten’s career ended in mysterious circumstances in 1997 (reasons which may ‘come out’ in the light of Lord Chalfont’s promise to ditch the Queensbury rules in this fight). He surely has little to lose and much to gain in terms of honour to admit he was wrong.
I too wonder like you, if any major thought was given to the possibility that the TANS waypoint changed automatically. Six years since I used the RNS 232, but I am sure that in the route steer mode waypoint change was automatic as each was approached. Originally, Wratten used the pilots’ routine waypoint change as some kind of proof that things were proceeding normally at that time. Obviously irrelevant if the change was automatic. Now of course he has moved the goalposts, claiming that the ‘negligence’ had already taken place prior to this change.
I’d like to hear from a current user of the system as to the possibility of an automatic waypoint change.
BillK, Retired and Senile, smooth approach
Some good points made, and all speculation as valid as any other theory. Since speculation and theory are all there will ever be in this case, and all Wratten and Day had to hand when stitching up John and Rick, it is still totally incomprehensible that where the burden of proof is ‘absolutely no doubt’ (note that smooth approach not reasonable doubt) this verdict is allowed to stand.
The reasons for the flight and the importance of the passengers should, of course, be irrelevant, as they do not have any bearing on the cause of this tragedy. I imagine that a similar accident involving just the crew and a few pongos would have escaped Wratten’s wrath. He and Day felt they had to come to a robust conclusion in order to avoid looking woolly and indecisive, which would be career damaging in such a high profile case. They sacrificed the crew on the altar of their own careers.
Wratten’s career ended in mysterious circumstances in 1997 (reasons which may ‘come out’ in the light of Lord Chalfont’s promise to ditch the Queensbury rules in this fight). He surely has little to lose and much to gain in terms of honour to admit he was wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I still can't help thinking this whole thing has less to do with Fadecs, waypoints and the like, and everything to do with presentation.
For decades the RAF has found pilots guilty of gross negligence as a crude way of teaching their colleagues that if they get it just a little bit wrong they'll be crucified. How many times in the past have senior officers put their arms around widows at funerals, told them hubby was a hero, and then told all the rest of the guys on the squadron he was guilty of gross negligence? They knew, but the family and the rest of the world was spared the knowledge that he brought it on himself. All in-house.
Then, if I'm right, the RAF changed its policy on crash findings and made them public, without properly thinking things through. The Chinook crash, I believe, was the first one -or about the first one - since that policy change. And, again if I'm right, the fuss over that finding forced another change, so that now two findings are issued. One is blander and goes to the public ("we will never know what really happened on that dark and stormy night....) the other stays internal and says 'gross negligence'
If all this is right it seems a shame somebody like Mr Day or Mr Squire doesn't come out and say so, even if it means they do admit making a mistake.
For decades the RAF has found pilots guilty of gross negligence as a crude way of teaching their colleagues that if they get it just a little bit wrong they'll be crucified. How many times in the past have senior officers put their arms around widows at funerals, told them hubby was a hero, and then told all the rest of the guys on the squadron he was guilty of gross negligence? They knew, but the family and the rest of the world was spared the knowledge that he brought it on himself. All in-house.
Then, if I'm right, the RAF changed its policy on crash findings and made them public, without properly thinking things through. The Chinook crash, I believe, was the first one -or about the first one - since that policy change. And, again if I'm right, the fuss over that finding forced another change, so that now two findings are issued. One is blander and goes to the public ("we will never know what really happened on that dark and stormy night....) the other stays internal and says 'gross negligence'
If all this is right it seems a shame somebody like Mr Day or Mr Squire doesn't come out and say so, even if it means they do admit making a mistake.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bombedup,
welcome to the debate.
The point about this injustice is that in order to find deceased pilots grossly negligent, there had to be 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.'
The Air Marshal himself stated recently that he reached his verdict by taking into account a 'degree of speculation'. This simply isn't good enough to support the verdict. This is the whole purpose of my campaign. I, nor anyone else knows what took place in the last few minutes of the fateful flight. Therefore, the verdict is unsafe and unlawful, and should be withdrawn immediately.
welcome to the debate.
The point about this injustice is that in order to find deceased pilots grossly negligent, there had to be 'Absolutely no doubt whatsoever.'
The Air Marshal himself stated recently that he reached his verdict by taking into account a 'degree of speculation'. This simply isn't good enough to support the verdict. This is the whole purpose of my campaign. I, nor anyone else knows what took place in the last few minutes of the fateful flight. Therefore, the verdict is unsafe and unlawful, and should be withdrawn immediately.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bombedup
Methinks you have got it about right. I have been appalled at all this media talk of the "RAF having found the pilots guilty of gross negligence". Unless MAFL has changed since I did officer training, BOIs cannot find anyone guilty of anything. They are not Courts Martial- the rules of evidence are entirely different - they are meant to elicit the most likely cause of the accident to help prevent a recurrence. No more. The proceedings were privileged and classified at least CONFIDENTIAL. At my first station (Middleton St George, now Teeseside Airport, then a Meteor AFS) the stus were tent-pegging at such a rate that Co Durham took on the aspect of the surface of the moon. Churchill roused himself from his stupor enough to write the Air Minister a rude Minute asking what the hell was going on. The Staish (current jargon?) was summoned by the Darlington Coroner. The Staish was a Kiwi, built like an All Black, with two tours on Lancs, a DSO and at least one DFC. When the coroner demanded the relevant BOI proceedings, threatening Contempt charges, our man said that the Air Force Act prevented him from complying - or Kiwi words to that effect! It was sorted at Air Ministry/ Lord Chancellor level. In the Chinook case presumably the MOD was so scared of upsetting the Jock Fatal Accident Inquiry and the ScotNats, that they caved in.
As for reviewing officers, they have always tried to show their virility by beefing up BOI findings (Not verdicts!). I had to preside on a BOI into a fatal on a UAS. A number of civilian eye-witnesses testified that our lad had been indulging in a bit of unauthorised low-flying and then tried his hand at a slow roll under a fairly low cloudbase and went in. We found a rudder cable jammed between a sheave and its bracket and had the boffins up from Farnborough to take a look. They took as much trouble over that Chippie as if it had been a Lightning, and had to conclude that the cable probably jammed on impact. But it gave us enough latitude to find that the most probableycause of the accident was error on the part of a pilot who was insufficiently experienced to perform the intended manoeuvre. Of course the reviewing officer went to town and dire threats of de-bollocking were issued to all squadron and flight commanders. But all that was protected by privilege and the OSA. Time does not necessarily lead to progress!
------------------
molto digitate
Methinks you have got it about right. I have been appalled at all this media talk of the "RAF having found the pilots guilty of gross negligence". Unless MAFL has changed since I did officer training, BOIs cannot find anyone guilty of anything. They are not Courts Martial- the rules of evidence are entirely different - they are meant to elicit the most likely cause of the accident to help prevent a recurrence. No more. The proceedings were privileged and classified at least CONFIDENTIAL. At my first station (Middleton St George, now Teeseside Airport, then a Meteor AFS) the stus were tent-pegging at such a rate that Co Durham took on the aspect of the surface of the moon. Churchill roused himself from his stupor enough to write the Air Minister a rude Minute asking what the hell was going on. The Staish (current jargon?) was summoned by the Darlington Coroner. The Staish was a Kiwi, built like an All Black, with two tours on Lancs, a DSO and at least one DFC. When the coroner demanded the relevant BOI proceedings, threatening Contempt charges, our man said that the Air Force Act prevented him from complying - or Kiwi words to that effect! It was sorted at Air Ministry/ Lord Chancellor level. In the Chinook case presumably the MOD was so scared of upsetting the Jock Fatal Accident Inquiry and the ScotNats, that they caved in.
As for reviewing officers, they have always tried to show their virility by beefing up BOI findings (Not verdicts!). I had to preside on a BOI into a fatal on a UAS. A number of civilian eye-witnesses testified that our lad had been indulging in a bit of unauthorised low-flying and then tried his hand at a slow roll under a fairly low cloudbase and went in. We found a rudder cable jammed between a sheave and its bracket and had the boffins up from Farnborough to take a look. They took as much trouble over that Chippie as if it had been a Lightning, and had to conclude that the cable probably jammed on impact. But it gave us enough latitude to find that the most probableycause of the accident was error on the part of a pilot who was insufficiently experienced to perform the intended manoeuvre. Of course the reviewing officer went to town and dire threats of de-bollocking were issued to all squadron and flight commanders. But all that was protected by privilege and the OSA. Time does not necessarily lead to progress!
------------------
molto digitate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flatus,
I refer you to the post by my colleague Brian above. Make no mistake, this was a verdict, and one brought in unlawfully by a vindictive man with a hidden agenda.
Your Chipmunk story has echos of a certain Bulldog (Bristol) in the 30s. F/O Bader was lucky that Wratten wasn't his AOC wasn't he.
Welcome to Pprune and this debate.
I had the great pleasure (?) of staying in the Officer's Mess (St Georges Hotel)at Middleton St George a couple of weeks ago. It is said to be haunted by one of your 'tent peggers' who managed to park his meteor in his cabin. (sorry, room)
I refer you to the post by my colleague Brian above. Make no mistake, this was a verdict, and one brought in unlawfully by a vindictive man with a hidden agenda.
Your Chipmunk story has echos of a certain Bulldog (Bristol) in the 30s. F/O Bader was lucky that Wratten wasn't his AOC wasn't he.
Welcome to Pprune and this debate.
I had the great pleasure (?) of staying in the Officer's Mess (St Georges Hotel)at Middleton St George a couple of weeks ago. It is said to be haunted by one of your 'tent peggers' who managed to park his meteor in his cabin. (sorry, room)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thank you, Ark
This particular stu, having been taught that
Vcrit on the meteor was about 130kts, thought that he was strong enough to defeat the laws of aerodynamics and tried a roller landing on one! I arrived at the station the next day and the smoking wreckage in the Mess seemed to confirm Middleton's reputation as Boot Hill.
------------------
molto digitate
This particular stu, having been taught that
Vcrit on the meteor was about 130kts, thought that he was strong enough to defeat the laws of aerodynamics and tried a roller landing on one! I arrived at the station the next day and the smoking wreckage in the Mess seemed to confirm Middleton's reputation as Boot Hill.
------------------
molto digitate
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good Lord!
Logged onto the site to find this on page 2!! Sorry for my slakking everyone. Unfortunately, work has interfered with serious campaigning of late. However, I'm now back. I'll get the latest regarding the meeting of the Mull of Kintyre and Mr Hoon and post it soonest.
Regards one and all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 19 November 2000).]
Logged onto the site to find this on page 2!! Sorry for my slakking everyone. Unfortunately, work has interfered with serious campaigning of late. However, I'm now back. I'll get the latest regarding the meeting of the Mull of Kintyre and Mr Hoon and post it soonest.
Regards one and all.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 19 November 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mull of Kintyre Group - Mr Hoon Meeting Update.
Mr Hoon is currently evaluating a document submission from the Group. He will reply to Lord Chalfont when he has read the document.
Lord Chalfont will be arranging a Select Committee to review the Mull of Kintyre crash incident. It is hoped that the process will begin in the New Year.
The Mull of Kintyre Group would like everyone to know that they are still very committed to taking this incident to Mr Blair.
To that end, I would encourage anyone to write to Mr Blair to express their concern regarding this incident (Oh here goes Brian again about writing to Ministers!). I'm sure he will be only too delighted to pass them on to Minister Hoon. Let's keep the pressure on!!
Finally, watch out for a forthcoming report from the Public Accounts Committee. I think it is due soon, and may make reference to the Chinook crash. Once I know more you will all read it here.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Mr Hoon is currently evaluating a document submission from the Group. He will reply to Lord Chalfont when he has read the document.
Lord Chalfont will be arranging a Select Committee to review the Mull of Kintyre crash incident. It is hoped that the process will begin in the New Year.
The Mull of Kintyre Group would like everyone to know that they are still very committed to taking this incident to Mr Blair.
To that end, I would encourage anyone to write to Mr Blair to express their concern regarding this incident (Oh here goes Brian again about writing to Ministers!). I'm sure he will be only too delighted to pass them on to Minister Hoon. Let's keep the pressure on!!
Finally, watch out for a forthcoming report from the Public Accounts Committee. I think it is due soon, and may make reference to the Chinook crash. Once I know more you will all read it here.
Regards
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
I once...maybe rather unwisely....while slightly drunk after a dinner at Aldergrove, asked Mr Day how he found the CH pilots negligent in his report.
His answer was.." Two Fully qualified pilots flew a perfectly servicable ac into the ground...it could only possibly be gross negligence"
Anyone care to comment???
His answer was.." Two Fully qualified pilots flew a perfectly servicable ac into the ground...it could only possibly be gross negligence"
Anyone care to comment???
Guest
Posts: n/a
I agree with Webpilot, 1.3vstall. Wrotten in particular climbed the greasy pole using a fair few daggers in backs as foot and hand holds. Very few (if any) people mourned when he was punted off to his sinecure at Rolls-Royce in late '97, they were welcome to him!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lafyar Cokov, my comment would have been:
AVM Day, if only everything was as black and white as the Guinness you've obviously had too much of, you might have a point. It isn't, and you haven't.
Arrogant chap then? But that's the only sure way up that greasy pole, so I suppose we should be happy to be led by the infallible. Which in turn is a nice link to president Bliar. Do as Brian asks and swamp number 10 with your thoughts!
AVM Day, if only everything was as black and white as the Guinness you've obviously had too much of, you might have a point. It isn't, and you haven't.
Arrogant chap then? But that's the only sure way up that greasy pole, so I suppose we should be happy to be led by the infallible. Which in turn is a nice link to president Bliar. Do as Brian asks and swamp number 10 with your thoughts!