Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook - Hit Back Here
The Sunday times has asked me to draft an article to counter Sir william Wratten's claims that the pilots were negligent. I have all of the information I need but they want comments from anyone with an interest in the case. Any points posted will be used without names. If anyone does want to say anything a bit of info on your background would be helpful but is not required.
Cheers
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mickey Mauser,
I don't think anyone is trying to whip up emotions. You just have to look at all of the threads on this topic and the many letters to Pilot mag and the Royal Aeronautical Society to know that there are some strong feelings around.
yoyonow,
Hi, I know what you mean about the logic but you have to read the full BOI to understand how many uncertainties there are in this case. It was unprecidented that the verdict of gross negligence was delivered in a case where there was no CVR/ADR evidence.
I have the full BOI (not the summary or the crew room report) here and there are so many questions unanswered that one wonders why the verdict was brought. Let me explain the fundemental point:
Wratten's analysis is based on the "final flight path theory". The MOD insists it has a "complete and accurate picture of the final 40 seconds of the flight". This is simply untrue. It has two 2D snapshots (one in time one in position)of a partial 3D picture which they have then drawn a straight line through to produce "a final flight path".
I do not say that they are not correct I say that there a number of other posibilities and interpretations of this picture.
I also do not say that the pilots could not have been to blame, I say that there is no evidence that they were.
I know I have many critics but I believe a grave injustice was done here.
I don't think anyone is trying to whip up emotions. You just have to look at all of the threads on this topic and the many letters to Pilot mag and the Royal Aeronautical Society to know that there are some strong feelings around.
yoyonow,
Hi, I know what you mean about the logic but you have to read the full BOI to understand how many uncertainties there are in this case. It was unprecidented that the verdict of gross negligence was delivered in a case where there was no CVR/ADR evidence.
I have the full BOI (not the summary or the crew room report) here and there are so many questions unanswered that one wonders why the verdict was brought. Let me explain the fundemental point:
Wratten's analysis is based on the "final flight path theory". The MOD insists it has a "complete and accurate picture of the final 40 seconds of the flight". This is simply untrue. It has two 2D snapshots (one in time one in position)of a partial 3D picture which they have then drawn a straight line through to produce "a final flight path".
I do not say that they are not correct I say that there a number of other posibilities and interpretations of this picture.
I also do not say that the pilots could not have been to blame, I say that there is no evidence that they were.
I know I have many critics but I believe a grave injustice was done here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You blokes slag off the press for getting it wrong and here is a journalist (ex-Aircrew), doing the right thing and trying to get expert help and input. He may or may not have £ucked up in the Gulf War (even if he did it's ten years ago) and he may have quite naturally basked in the media spotlight, but he's doing a good job now, isn't sheltering behind some anonymous username, and is honest and upfront about what he wants.
The only thing he has done wrong is to open another bleedin' thread on the Chinook, when it would be more convenient for all of us if there was just the one.
But if I might chuck in my two-pennorth, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
1) To what extent is Wratten's case a self-interested one? If the more logical explanation is true, how much $hit sticks to him?
2) Did Boscombe Down not give it an MAR? Why not? Did they give it a Service Deviation (if so why?, and were they pressured to do so?)?
3) Is there any truth in the story that the TPs at Boscombe had refused to fly the HC.Mk 2?
4) What did Odiham's then TP think of it?
5) Why did we buy a Chinook 2 with DECS when the RAF's engineers had suggested that this was unnecessary, insufficiently mature, and likely to be prone to trouble?
YO-YO Are you certain enough (and the BOI's verdict required absolute certainty) that it was negligence. A gut feeling on the basis of the evidence (and/or knowledge of the blokes involved) isn't enough. I'm not being aggressive, but how can you ignore the whole DECS issue as a potential factor, Boscombe's supposed lack of faith, etc.
PS: John Nichol, E-Mail me your contact details and I'll happily give you a bell. Alternatively, Andy G at R4 Today may have some good contacts after his piece.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 21 June 2000).]
The only thing he has done wrong is to open another bleedin' thread on the Chinook, when it would be more convenient for all of us if there was just the one.
But if I might chuck in my two-pennorth, I'd like to know the answers to these questions.
1) To what extent is Wratten's case a self-interested one? If the more logical explanation is true, how much $hit sticks to him?
2) Did Boscombe Down not give it an MAR? Why not? Did they give it a Service Deviation (if so why?, and were they pressured to do so?)?
3) Is there any truth in the story that the TPs at Boscombe had refused to fly the HC.Mk 2?
4) What did Odiham's then TP think of it?
5) Why did we buy a Chinook 2 with DECS when the RAF's engineers had suggested that this was unnecessary, insufficiently mature, and likely to be prone to trouble?
YO-YO Are you certain enough (and the BOI's verdict required absolute certainty) that it was negligence. A gut feeling on the basis of the evidence (and/or knowledge of the blokes involved) isn't enough. I'm not being aggressive, but how can you ignore the whole DECS issue as a potential factor, Boscombe's supposed lack of faith, etc.
PS: John Nichol, E-Mail me your contact details and I'll happily give you a bell. Alternatively, Andy G at R4 Today may have some good contacts after his piece.
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 21 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
John,
Loads of respect to you for actually trying to do something positive in support of the guys at the sharp end. I see that you've only recently started putting posts on this forum, whether you've read other posts I clearly don't know, but my advice would be to read Strimmer Trimmers post on "The state of the Nation". A very well thought out and clearly stated article which has struck a cord with members of all services. Time permitting you should download this and use it.You are a well known personality with which Joe P can identify. I am fully prepared to give as much help as is required to make military aviation a safe and rewarding career once again. If you feel that there is potential in bringing the abysimal state of our forces into the public domain in an attempt to shock politicians into action, then please do so, for all our sakes.Any info you require don't hesitate to contact me/us here.
Loads of respect to you for actually trying to do something positive in support of the guys at the sharp end. I see that you've only recently started putting posts on this forum, whether you've read other posts I clearly don't know, but my advice would be to read Strimmer Trimmers post on "The state of the Nation". A very well thought out and clearly stated article which has struck a cord with members of all services. Time permitting you should download this and use it.You are a well known personality with which Joe P can identify. I am fully prepared to give as much help as is required to make military aviation a safe and rewarding career once again. If you feel that there is potential in bringing the abysimal state of our forces into the public domain in an attempt to shock politicians into action, then please do so, for all our sakes.Any info you require don't hesitate to contact me/us here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm too youthful in service terms to offer anything of personal value to your background research. Having said that, last year in the F.I's the Defence Select Committee asked specific questions in regards to the views and opinions of the current Chinook crews on this matter.
For background, see articles in a newspaper called 'ComputerWekly' dates: 18May00; 01Jun00; and 15Jun00. I'm not sure if the articles are available on line, but the web site is: www.computerweekly.com.
I accept the diretion of the equirery and the proposed retort, but lets not forget that there were four aircrew killed on that helicopter.
Good luck
[This message has been edited by Strewth Mate (edited 21 June 2000).]
For background, see articles in a newspaper called 'ComputerWekly' dates: 18May00; 01Jun00; and 15Jun00. I'm not sure if the articles are available on line, but the web site is: www.computerweekly.com.
I accept the diretion of the equirery and the proposed retort, but lets not forget that there were four aircrew killed on that helicopter.
Good luck
[This message has been edited by Strewth Mate (edited 21 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions."
Let's all be careful and think about what we're saying - and to whom we're saying it.
Let's all be careful and think about what we're saying - and to whom we're saying it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
First off, I really cannot understand why Bill Wratten has put his head above the parapet. I his position Iwould certainly have kept out of it on the basis that little or no good could come of joining the fray. However, that's history. An area which I think you could usefully include in whatever you write is the Tench report. In the late eighties William Tench, then Chief Inspector of Civil Aircraft Accidents (eg head of AAIB)was appointed by Lord Trefgarne, then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, to review Service Board of Inquiry procedures. This report - allegedly damning - was never published. I have always myself thought that BofIs were inherantly flawed, and there are numerous examples of AOCs and CinCs overruling findings. I strongly suspect that Tench found the same flaws. You could try contacting Ron MacDonald, Richard Hadlow or Ralph Kohn at RAes; they were the joint authors of the unofficial report which so upset BW, and they quoted a paragraph from Tench, so they presumably saw the report. On the basics of the Chinook case, I have yet to be persuaded one way or the other, but there are very many things which I don't know, but I do find flying in those conditions at that height and speed a bit hard to blame on a possible FADEC problem; on the other hand, gross negligence against victims of the crash is very hard to swallow.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GA and MM. By legit I intended to reasure people that this actually is John Nichol and that he really is working for the Sunday Times. I checked. Anonymous forum, people not who they claim to be etc. etc.
MM - little old me whipping up a frenzy of emotion? Overstatement I would say.
My personal interest lies in friends I have who are service pilots (all 3), the great number of rotary crews I have had the privildge to fly with over the years and a keen sense of fair play.
WWW
MM - little old me whipping up a frenzy of emotion? Overstatement I would say.
My personal interest lies in friends I have who are service pilots (all 3), the great number of rotary crews I have had the privildge to fly with over the years and a keen sense of fair play.
WWW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks so far guys,
Not that I should bother but, in reply to QB, I'm not sure how much I will get paid for the article and re the Ben Fund, I would estimate that I have raised many thousands of pounds by signing prints at airshows and going around with buckets.
Mr P, thanks for the note; I've followed pprune for quite a while now and read all of the posts, especially at Rotorheads, on this subject.
As I said, I know there will be critics but I have worked many, many hours (unpaid QB!) on this alongside the Tapper family because I feel a grave injustice was done.
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 22 June 2000).]
Not that I should bother but, in reply to QB, I'm not sure how much I will get paid for the article and re the Ben Fund, I would estimate that I have raised many thousands of pounds by signing prints at airshows and going around with buckets.
Mr P, thanks for the note; I've followed pprune for quite a while now and read all of the posts, especially at Rotorheads, on this subject.
As I said, I know there will be critics but I have worked many, many hours (unpaid QB!) on this alongside the Tapper family because I feel a grave injustice was done.
[This message has been edited by John Nichol (edited 22 June 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
People, do you think we could stop dragging up ancient history? John at least you are both willing and able to stand up and be counted where the rest of us are unable!
As I mentioned in a previous post, there was a good documentary on either BBC2 or Ch4 that dug deeper into the findings of the BOI. They examined the motivations of key people in the MOD and OAC's and the influence they exerted on the BOI where their personal reputations were placed at stake on getting FADEC into service. They then examined the technical failures of the kit and the problems the USAF have had with it. Then they looked at the influence the various manufacturers played on the MOD/BOI to come down with a negligence finding against the pilots to get them off the hook. They were worried that a finding against them would hit their foreign sales in a tmie when the "peace dividend" was hitting their profit margins.
I hope this helps. The crews and families deserve better, cinicism here doesn't help
------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!
As I mentioned in a previous post, there was a good documentary on either BBC2 or Ch4 that dug deeper into the findings of the BOI. They examined the motivations of key people in the MOD and OAC's and the influence they exerted on the BOI where their personal reputations were placed at stake on getting FADEC into service. They then examined the technical failures of the kit and the problems the USAF have had with it. Then they looked at the influence the various manufacturers played on the MOD/BOI to come down with a negligence finding against the pilots to get them off the hook. They were worried that a finding against them would hit their foreign sales in a tmie when the "peace dividend" was hitting their profit margins.
I hope this helps. The crews and families deserve better, cinicism here doesn't help
------------------
Remember: all landings are controlled crashes!
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Nichol
I am sure you realise that for an article to be effective in refuting Bill Wratton’s, you will have to do more than reiterate the fact that there was no physical evidence for the finding - because the author never said there was.
So you will have to come up with something new, or at the least (IMHO) answer questions like those in my post here (made by chance the day before the article came out)
To make life easier here is a copy of that post, please read it carefully John, because I wanted to give the crew every possible benefit of the doubt:
Copy
It is with great fear and trepidation that I write this in case it will upset several contributors to this and the earlier threads – but I would genuinely like people’s views on the following couple of points.
If the system ordered the chaps to fly the wrong aircraft for all the wrong reasons on the wrong job and left them with no alternative but to do it at low level (and for the record I do NOT find it impossible to believe that it might have) then the first thing I have difficulty with is why the trip was not aborted at some stage after getting airborne and before there was any risk of getting to the high ground on track? (horse to water stuff)
Surely all of us agree that any modern military aeroplane is sufficiently complex that it is not difficult to find fault with it after getting airborne. Even if calling the fault has an element of judgement in it (which will be queried back on the ground) surely any crew that has reached the stage of doing a trip like this is both up to and entitled to such a call?
I guess that makes me feel the chaps were content to carry on.
But say I am totally wrong, and they were very unhappy (but did not think of the above way out) then would we not all slow down a bit or change track when approaching the land?
NB I am NOT saying it was their fault. I am just pointing out what a terrible and genuine puzzle the whole tragedy has become.
Perhaps that is why the topic will not go away - it is simply one of the most uncertain aviation accidents so far. So many things do not add up (including my two points above?).
End of copy
Good luck John, I don’t envy you your task.
John F
I am sure you realise that for an article to be effective in refuting Bill Wratton’s, you will have to do more than reiterate the fact that there was no physical evidence for the finding - because the author never said there was.
So you will have to come up with something new, or at the least (IMHO) answer questions like those in my post here (made by chance the day before the article came out)
To make life easier here is a copy of that post, please read it carefully John, because I wanted to give the crew every possible benefit of the doubt:
Copy
It is with great fear and trepidation that I write this in case it will upset several contributors to this and the earlier threads – but I would genuinely like people’s views on the following couple of points.
If the system ordered the chaps to fly the wrong aircraft for all the wrong reasons on the wrong job and left them with no alternative but to do it at low level (and for the record I do NOT find it impossible to believe that it might have) then the first thing I have difficulty with is why the trip was not aborted at some stage after getting airborne and before there was any risk of getting to the high ground on track? (horse to water stuff)
Surely all of us agree that any modern military aeroplane is sufficiently complex that it is not difficult to find fault with it after getting airborne. Even if calling the fault has an element of judgement in it (which will be queried back on the ground) surely any crew that has reached the stage of doing a trip like this is both up to and entitled to such a call?
I guess that makes me feel the chaps were content to carry on.
But say I am totally wrong, and they were very unhappy (but did not think of the above way out) then would we not all slow down a bit or change track when approaching the land?
NB I am NOT saying it was their fault. I am just pointing out what a terrible and genuine puzzle the whole tragedy has become.
Perhaps that is why the topic will not go away - it is simply one of the most uncertain aviation accidents so far. So many things do not add up (including my two points above?).
End of copy
Good luck John, I don’t envy you your task.
John F
Guest
Posts: n/a
John.
In my heart o hearts I hope and believe that it was FADEC or avionics loading failure. However, one has to consider a scenario (one of many)that may fit the facts as recorded by the BOI. In the eyes of the revered audience in the back of the cab the crew had, (but really had'nt) "SF/Gulf War" background. They may have felt honour bound to prove their capabilities to perform in such a manner for these not uninfluential pax, as indeed many of us have in the past. The majority of us across all types havepushed weather limits before to get the job done or impress!
As I said, it's another scenario to fit the facts.
Want to talk? Let me know.
In my heart o hearts I hope and believe that it was FADEC or avionics loading failure. However, one has to consider a scenario (one of many)that may fit the facts as recorded by the BOI. In the eyes of the revered audience in the back of the cab the crew had, (but really had'nt) "SF/Gulf War" background. They may have felt honour bound to prove their capabilities to perform in such a manner for these not uninfluential pax, as indeed many of us have in the past. The majority of us across all types havepushed weather limits before to get the job done or impress!
As I said, it's another scenario to fit the facts.
Want to talk? Let me know.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't know what your time-scale is for this article but if time were not the major concern, I would look at a couple of accidents where I see some parallels - ANZ's DC10 into Mt Erebus and (recently mentioned in the famous Dining-in night thread), the Vulcan at LHR.
Not parallels for the same reason, of course but the original Erebus verdict was as suspect(subsequently proved to be so) as the Chinook and those of us who were at the coal-face in the 50's would still view the Vulcan verdict as 'interesting'
Not parallels for the same reason, of course but the original Erebus verdict was as suspect(subsequently proved to be so) as the Chinook and those of us who were at the coal-face in the 50's would still view the Vulcan verdict as 'interesting'