but the intention was always to conduct the entire flight at low level and the aircraft never climbed above a few hundred feet Indeed, the AAIB-calculated aircraft attitude at impact would be relatively extreme for an aircraft flying IMC |
Not sure whether it's a real lack of appreciation as to how SH do their business or some other agenda that prompted that :confused:
|
spheroid
I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would read a little more about this accident before making inane comments! It is possible you have some experience of helo ops. As do many of the people who post in defence of the two pilots involved. Do you think we are all just 'nuts' or 'simpletons'?? :ugh: Please contribute in a more 'informed' way. Thank you. |
Chinooks
Why did the pilots fly below the MSA when they were obviously unaware of their location. This was a VFR flight and the pilots were IMC.
|
Some of you guys just don't get it. This is not about whether the pilots were IMC/VMC etc. It is about the rules for BOIs which, at the time, said pilots could only be found grossly negligent if there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to the cause of the accident. As the MOD have not/cannot satisfy that burden of proof, the 'verdict' of gross negligence remains flawed. Rick and John did not and should not need to prove anything. :ugh:
|
Some of you guys just don't get it. This is not about whether the pilots were IMC/VMC etc. It is about the rules for BOIs which, at the time, said pilots could only be found grossly negligent if there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever as to the cause of the accident. As the MOD have not/cannot satisfy that burden of proof, the 'verdict' of gross negligence remains flawed. Rick and John did not and should not need to prove anything |
Spheroid,
Assuming that you meant to write "they" displayed poor captaincy; can you explain that statement? How do you know it? |
Lurking 123
I'm afraid you got that wrong. A finding of gross negligence following an accident is not dependant on the cause of the accident. If you indulge in an unauthorised low level beat up of your girlfriends house and suffer an uncontained engine failure which results in abandonment of the aircraft then you would be found negligent to a gross degree because your unauthorised actions resulted in a situation where no action on your part could prevent the loss of the aircraft. The same failure whilst complying with your authorisation would not result in such a finding. The senior reviewing officers of the Chinook BOI concluded that the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima. |
While accusations of gross negligence against the pilots are mere unfounded opinion, this cannot be said of those who knowingly and quite deliberately permitted the airworthiness of the aircraft to erode in the preceding years. It is a pity there doesn't seem to be any mechanism whereby their actions are recognised, except promotion and fat pensions.
Worse, nothing has changed and still we see Boards of Inquiry citing failure to implement these mandated regulations. Nimrod, Tornado, Sea King............... Their actions were, and remain, without any doubt whatsoever, a breach of Duty of Care amounting to Gross Negligence. |
tucumseh
May I point out that the first sentence in your last post is merely "unfounded opinion". |
cazatou:
failure whilst complying with your authorisation would not result in such a finding. |
Chugalug 2
So why did the cover-up start as soon as the BOI convened? Just one example: This thread has had contributions from people professing to be "the other crew" explaining how Messrs Tapper & Cook stated that fateful evening that they (as the SF crew) would fly the Inverness task because of the poor weather and the inexperience on the Chinook of the RN Pilot of the other crew that had been scheduled to do that task. If that is true then how is it that the BOI, following interviews conducted under oath with detatchment personnel (including the other crew), stated in their report that Tapper & Cook flew that sortie because "Detatchment crews preferred to operate on a day on /day off rota"? |
Caz
tucumseh May I point out that the first sentence in your last post is merely "unfounded opinion". |
Cazatou:
So why did the cover-up start as soon as the BOI convened? |
Chugalug. Kennedy's was not the only explanation; I had suggested here many times that the crew were not where they thought they were. Had they been on their intended track, they would have cleared the hills ahead of them (as they no doubt expected to do), but a quarter of a mile off that track the hills were around 300ft higher.
But the important fact is, as CAZ pointed ou in his quote: ".......the pilots were grossly negligent in that they continued to fly the aircraft directly towards the Mull at high speed, at low level and in deteriorating visibility thus failing to comply with their VFR minima". Those circumstances are the facts of the matter. http://static.pprune.org/images/stat...ser_online.gif We really must not go round exactly the same bouys as before, but can anyone offer an alternative and credible explanation? Regards JP |
John Purdey:
Those circumstances are the facts of the matter |
The evidence from the yachtsman was that the aircraft was being flown fast and low towards the Mull. The waypoint change is a fact and if they were not in control of the aircraft then, the change should not have been made. The change was made when they were facing a known rock and in the prevailing weather (go watch the video from the tourists taken only minutes earlier and the evidence of the lighthouse keeper who could see barely yards) the only options that they should have taken were detailed by Day.
The pilots failed to take the actions that they should have done and at the waypoint change they were already negligent. It might pay to read the MOD statement with an open mind. There will be no change from the MOD or Ministers, now or in the future. |
Here we go again, round and round we go.
Atlantic C it might help us avoid this if you found some earlier, similar comments on this thread and read the following arguments "with an open mind". |
pulse,
Sorry I've read more on this than most people . And I've written more reasoned responses than most. AC |
pulse,
Sorry I've read more on this than most people . And I've written more reasoned responses than most. AC But as who? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.