Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Corona Blue,
Sorry, I have never made the claim that FADEC had caused a Chinook to beat itself to death. I think you have me confused with the posting by Jackonicko. I assume the incident you are referring to is the one that occurred in Wilmington USA and is answered by the MoD in my posting further up this page (Question 1).
Hope this helps.
Brian
Sorry, I have never made the claim that FADEC had caused a Chinook to beat itself to death. I think you have me confused with the posting by Jackonicko. I assume the incident you are referring to is the one that occurred in Wilmington USA and is answered by the MoD in my posting further up this page (Question 1).
Hope this helps.
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just as an aside to the main debate, the flunkey from MOD talked about the new HUMS and CVR for the mk2a. Heard rumours that boscombe won't clear it as the company wwho make it will not release details of the software. (Anyone for deja-vu?) It seems a tragic shame that there are fatal chinook accident reports from the mid 80's that recommend an adr/cvr fit asap. Doesn't time fly when your having fun. Good luck with the campaign john. Good work fella.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BD,
sorry for the delay, here is the letter to which I referred:
“In his article (Pilot, August), Sir William Wratten, the Air Chief Marshal responsible for the Chinook negligence verdict, reiterates his controversial 1995 findings but fails to answer the doubts.
He dismisses criticisms of his verdict – most of them from professional airmen and aerospace engineers- as “wilful ignorance”. Sir William is also careless with the facts. He is not breaking a “long-held silence”. He wrote 2 letters to the Royal Aeronautical Society’s publication Aerospace in 1998. When the ensuing professional correspondence went against him, he resigned from the society..
Again, nobody has ever suggested that a possible technical fault must have cleared itself. Al that has been suggested, as he knows, is that computer faults often leave no trace. Nor is it true that his BoI found a “total absence” of any technical fault. The President, Wing Commander AC Pulford, specifically reported such a possibility (report, 46c).
And why does Sir William describe the lighthouse as “fogbound”? He knows very well that the yachtsman, the witness closest to ZD576 before impact, and therefore in the best position to judge, believed that the pilots could see the lighthouse.
The RAF BoI spent 7 months examining witnesses. In its report, under “Navigation”, it found that the “chosen route was logical and sound for a low level VFR flight” (43a) and that “navigation technique was not a factor in the accident” (43c).
On what evidence does Sir William know better? The BOI found that the low-level (300-400’
visual flight plan was professional and correct. The icing level that day precluded an overflight of the Mull. The Chinook had a 4 degree C icing limitation, and the crew was well aware of it. Indeed, they filed a visual flight plan because of the forecast icing conditions over the Mull.
The crew’s first visual waypoint was the Mull lighthouse. The pilots must have seen it because they had selected the next waypoint, Corran, when they were about one nm from the lighthouse. This is definite from evidence found in the Racal SuperTans navigation computer.
The President and members of the BoI said that “it would be incorrecto criticise [the pilots] for human failings based on the available evidence” (67c) and (68). They concluded that they did not know the cause of the accident.
Enter the Air Marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, as reviewing officers. They had taken no part in the investigation and had not heard the witnesses. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for accepting the aircraft which, in the opinion of their airworthiness advisers at Boscombe, was not ready for squadron service. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for authorising – indeed specifically tasking – the sub-airworthy aircraft for the carriage of VVIP’s.
Dissatisfied with the inconclusive findings of the BoI, they took it upon themselves – with no evidence and no proof – to blame the two dead pilots for gross negligence.
At the Fatal Accident Inquiry the Scottish Sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, a judge experienced in the rules of evidence, could not agree with negligence after hearing 16 days of expert RAF and MoD evidence. Among the witnesses was the yachtsman, Mark Holbrook, who said that the Chinook was in sunshine – he remembered “the sun glinting off its windows” - and he believed the crew could see the Mull lighthouse.
On what evidence does Sir William believe that an experienced professional two man crew, having filed a visual flight plan, and having selected its next waypoint, jointly agree to switch suddenly to instrument flight rules and fly suicidally straight on and up into cloud-covered high ground and icing which they knew to be there?
Sir William says that “the responsibilities of command cannot be shirked”. He is right, and one accepts that these responsibilities could not conceivably include the approving the carriage of VVIP’s in aircraft of dubious airworthiness. But command responsibilities do not include blaming dead pilots for the subsequent disaster, without evidence or proof.
JM Ramsden
20 Towsend Drive
St Albans
AL3 5RQ “
sorry for the delay, here is the letter to which I referred:
“In his article (Pilot, August), Sir William Wratten, the Air Chief Marshal responsible for the Chinook negligence verdict, reiterates his controversial 1995 findings but fails to answer the doubts.
He dismisses criticisms of his verdict – most of them from professional airmen and aerospace engineers- as “wilful ignorance”. Sir William is also careless with the facts. He is not breaking a “long-held silence”. He wrote 2 letters to the Royal Aeronautical Society’s publication Aerospace in 1998. When the ensuing professional correspondence went against him, he resigned from the society..
Again, nobody has ever suggested that a possible technical fault must have cleared itself. Al that has been suggested, as he knows, is that computer faults often leave no trace. Nor is it true that his BoI found a “total absence” of any technical fault. The President, Wing Commander AC Pulford, specifically reported such a possibility (report, 46c).
And why does Sir William describe the lighthouse as “fogbound”? He knows very well that the yachtsman, the witness closest to ZD576 before impact, and therefore in the best position to judge, believed that the pilots could see the lighthouse.
The RAF BoI spent 7 months examining witnesses. In its report, under “Navigation”, it found that the “chosen route was logical and sound for a low level VFR flight” (43a) and that “navigation technique was not a factor in the accident” (43c).
On what evidence does Sir William know better? The BOI found that the low-level (300-400’
visual flight plan was professional and correct. The icing level that day precluded an overflight of the Mull. The Chinook had a 4 degree C icing limitation, and the crew was well aware of it. Indeed, they filed a visual flight plan because of the forecast icing conditions over the Mull.The crew’s first visual waypoint was the Mull lighthouse. The pilots must have seen it because they had selected the next waypoint, Corran, when they were about one nm from the lighthouse. This is definite from evidence found in the Racal SuperTans navigation computer.
The President and members of the BoI said that “it would be incorrecto criticise [the pilots] for human failings based on the available evidence” (67c) and (68). They concluded that they did not know the cause of the accident.
Enter the Air Marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day, as reviewing officers. They had taken no part in the investigation and had not heard the witnesses. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for accepting the aircraft which, in the opinion of their airworthiness advisers at Boscombe, was not ready for squadron service. They were the same Air Marshals who had been responsible for authorising – indeed specifically tasking – the sub-airworthy aircraft for the carriage of VVIP’s.
Dissatisfied with the inconclusive findings of the BoI, they took it upon themselves – with no evidence and no proof – to blame the two dead pilots for gross negligence.
At the Fatal Accident Inquiry the Scottish Sheriff, Sir Stephen Young, a judge experienced in the rules of evidence, could not agree with negligence after hearing 16 days of expert RAF and MoD evidence. Among the witnesses was the yachtsman, Mark Holbrook, who said that the Chinook was in sunshine – he remembered “the sun glinting off its windows” - and he believed the crew could see the Mull lighthouse.
On what evidence does Sir William believe that an experienced professional two man crew, having filed a visual flight plan, and having selected its next waypoint, jointly agree to switch suddenly to instrument flight rules and fly suicidally straight on and up into cloud-covered high ground and icing which they knew to be there?
Sir William says that “the responsibilities of command cannot be shirked”. He is right, and one accepts that these responsibilities could not conceivably include the approving the carriage of VVIP’s in aircraft of dubious airworthiness. But command responsibilities do not include blaming dead pilots for the subsequent disaster, without evidence or proof.
JM Ramsden
20 Towsend Drive
St Albans
AL3 5RQ “
Guest
Posts: n/a
Skua,
thank you very much for the article. I will be in touch with Mr Ramsden by mail forthwith.
Yet again, the question of authorisation of the aircraft raises it's head. Why has there never been a need to justify the introduction of the Mk2 into service in the same manner of the misguided justification to apportion blame?
Likewise the comment on responsibilities
Regards, as always
Brian
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 31 August 2000).]
thank you very much for the article. I will be in touch with Mr Ramsden by mail forthwith.
Yet again, the question of authorisation of the aircraft raises it's head. Why has there never been a need to justify the introduction of the Mk2 into service in the same manner of the misguided justification to apportion blame?
Likewise the comment on responsibilities
Regards, as always
Brian
[This message has been edited by Brian Dixon (edited 31 August 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Percy, Your name is not Wrattem by any chance? Your assumption that the crew were knowingly flying below SA is just that, an assumption. In our aircraft we have kit that is good on most occasions to 7 yds but in a single week produced errors in 6 aircraft of up to 60 nms. Our SALT "bubble" is 15 nms. Had one of our aircraft been at low altitude in poor visibility it could well have been lost, and the crew blamed.
Just an example of what might have happened. The crew may well have been rubber d****d by equipment that now lies in a million pieces.
Aircrew error is a likely cause of this accident, but it can never be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". So the finding of Gross Negligence must contravene British, European, Klingon and anybody elses law you care to mention.
Just an example of what might have happened. The crew may well have been rubber d****d by equipment that now lies in a million pieces.
Aircrew error is a likely cause of this accident, but it can never be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". So the finding of Gross Negligence must contravene British, European, Klingon and anybody elses law you care to mention.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good point, Old Git. Wrotten appears to be keen enough to "protest too much" in The Times, Scotland on Sunday, the RAeS and Pilot etc but seems less keen to raise his head above the parapet in a forum where his outrageous assumptions can be picked over and exposed. One presumes that His Airship is aware of PPRuNe, or perhaps he has learned his lesson and realises that the wind has changed. It seems the Reverend Tony is less ready to accept that assumption and opinion counts as Holy Writ just because it was written by an Air Chief Marshal.
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 01 September 2000).]
[This message has been edited by misterploppy (edited 01 September 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reply received from my M.P.
Not particularly encouraging, but a few quotes follow.
It is interesting that he has found it hard to distinguish error from negligence; and I have written back to make the difference plain.
'....I deprecated the attitude of RAF discipline, which always seemed to want to find somebody to blame.'
'I recently attended a meeting with three senior former pilots, who were putting the case that the outcome of the Chinook crash enquiry was a “miscarriage of justice”. I have to say that I found their arguments unconvincing.'
'It seems to me that all the evidence points to pilot error - an accident, with tragic consequences - and it is because of the tragic consequences that I understand the finding of gross negligence came about.'
So the outcome can affect the cause, can it?
Not particularly encouraging, but a few quotes follow.
It is interesting that he has found it hard to distinguish error from negligence; and I have written back to make the difference plain.
'....I deprecated the attitude of RAF discipline, which always seemed to want to find somebody to blame.'
'I recently attended a meeting with three senior former pilots, who were putting the case that the outcome of the Chinook crash enquiry was a “miscarriage of justice”. I have to say that I found their arguments unconvincing.'
'It seems to me that all the evidence points to pilot error - an accident, with tragic consequences - and it is because of the tragic consequences that I understand the finding of gross negligence came about.'
So the outcome can affect the cause, can it?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Arkroyal,
Thank you for your writing to your MP. Would you be willing to name and shame them? I appreciate this would narrow down your location and understand if you do not wish to.
I am pleased that you are pointing out to the knowledgeable individual that there is a difference between Pilot error and Gross Negligence. Could you also try to find out who the senior former pilots were.
If I knew how to attach smilies mine would have steam coming from the ears!!
regards and thanks.
Brian
Thank you for your writing to your MP. Would you be willing to name and shame them? I appreciate this would narrow down your location and understand if you do not wish to.
I am pleased that you are pointing out to the knowledgeable individual that there is a difference between Pilot error and Gross Negligence. Could you also try to find out who the senior former pilots were.
If I knew how to attach smilies mine would have steam coming from the ears!!
regards and thanks.
Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
At Brian's request, I have posted Chapter 1 of the multi-chapter, 50k word Computer Weekly report on a new thread, with a hot link back to this one.
It is at:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/000600.html
It is at:
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/For...ML/000600.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian
In my next exchange with my M.P. I will ask about the ‘Senior pilots’ in question.
I don’t think it would be fair to name the man openly here, and expose him to the rottweilers, but I would gladly pass his name to you via e-mail. Whilst I have no objection to my own identity being known on this thread, there are others, of a more current commercial relevance to my own employment that require my anonymity.
I’ll now check out the Computer Weekly article.
Is the complete accident report available to we mere civvies?
For smilies http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/smilies.html
In my next exchange with my M.P. I will ask about the ‘Senior pilots’ in question.
I don’t think it would be fair to name the man openly here, and expose him to the rottweilers, but I would gladly pass his name to you via e-mail. Whilst I have no objection to my own identity being known on this thread, there are others, of a more current commercial relevance to my own employment that require my anonymity.
I’ll now check out the Computer Weekly article.
Is the complete accident report available to we mere civvies?
For smilies http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/smilies.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks Arkroyal.
I understand you reluctance about not naming your MP. However, he is a public servant and should be tough enough to deal with the likes of me. That aside, I will respect your wishes. I have e-mailed the webmaster and asked for my e-mail address to be passed to you. Grateful if you would copy the entire letter.
I am currently trying to find somewhere to have a public e-mail address so that individuals can send items they consider maybe useful in the overall campaign. Personal comments should be kept to this forum.
Unfortunately, the complete accident report is not available to we mortals.
Hopefully you will get my address. Looking forward to your reply.
Regards
Brian
Thanks for the smilies tip.
I understand you reluctance about not naming your MP. However, he is a public servant and should be tough enough to deal with the likes of me. That aside, I will respect your wishes. I have e-mailed the webmaster and asked for my e-mail address to be passed to you. Grateful if you would copy the entire letter.
I am currently trying to find somewhere to have a public e-mail address so that individuals can send items they consider maybe useful in the overall campaign. Personal comments should be kept to this forum.
Unfortunately, the complete accident report is not available to we mortals.
Hopefully you will get my address. Looking forward to your reply.
Regards
Brian
Thanks for the smilies tip.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have been reliably informed that Pilot magazine have accepted a fuller article from Mike Ramsden, following his letter to them the other month (Written in response to Wratten's article).
They plan to publish it in the November issue.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook
They plan to publish it in the November issue.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date." - John Cook