- I see from that that the Captain's altimeter was 'probably' set on Regional (if I understand it correctly - one altimeter, at least). Hope Cazatou found that in the BoI.:ugh:

I have to thank you for your diligence in actually ANSWERING questions, an attribute which several others lack. As I have said before, I cannot accept your 'theory' however, due to the risks involved of it 'misfiring', although your arguments are persuasive.

No JP,
Before the Collins entry, the Air France analogy had never been raised in such detail. You just refuse to entertain anything that casts doubt on your case.


Cazatou,
Silence from you on that particular subject as well.
Given up yet on the inaccurate altimeter, "listening to pop", unwarranted slur on the crew.

Walter thank you,
989 to 991.5 also look like reasonable figures for a Regional QNH or LFP.
Unless anyone has anything to contradict this?

- you just WAIT until the guests have gone......:eek:

Cpt F

Caz/JP

It is interesting that SFFP - BOAC - DALEK et all seem more interested in points scoring against you, JP et all than coming up with convincing evidence to prove some idea or other. Brian does seem to be the intelligent and honourable exception.

Carry on enjoying the dolce vita - or is that in Italy?:) Whatever...........don't let the unintelligencia grind you down!:ok:

Have a good weekend whoever you are...........

And who is trying to score points now? I suspect the unintelligencia aren't entirely confined to the "some doubt" camp.

I get the impression that SFFP - BOAC - DALEK et al regularly post reasonable possibilities that cast some doubt on the original verdict. These seem to be regularly either dismissed out of hand, or ignored.

If I felt as strongly as they do, I'd be exasperated too. No wonder they are feel like they are banging their heads against a wall.

By the way, you didn't answer my question. Do you have "No doubt whatsover"?

TN

Thor

No.

PS I really like the word "whatsover" but I know what you mean!

No one can ever have "no doubt what so ever" about anything at any time. There will always be doubt whatever the evidence, and one can mull over all the possibilities endlessly. At the end of the day on this thread there are two camps that are needlessly nit picking at each other.

Those that feel that the pilots should be exonerated, on the one hand, and those that think that on the balance of probabilities and the evidence available there was a terrible error made by the crew on that day.

Those that made the decisions that were made at the time must have made them on the evidence as they saw it. That is how the justice system works. It is not perfect - but judgements have to be made. If no one makes a judgement justice stops and everyone is innocent as doubt will always exist..


The camp that think there was some dastardly plot to lure them to their deaths I feel should be quietly side lined and sent to naughty corner.

Whatever Good point, guilty, we should all try to remain civil.

Happy weekend to all..................:)

Thor Nogson
I am saying that of all the available information much points to a planned approach to a known LZ and no part of all the available information contradicts this.
The actions of the crew strongly suggest that they were surprised at their arrival at the mist covered slope, that they had misjudged their closing range to that slope, despite their knowledge that they must have been close to it (STANS, visual, and mental DR) – fast approaches to ships' helidecks depend on TACAN and can go wrong even in clear weather (eg Oz Blackhawk) – you need accurate, reliable distance measurement.
From a practical handling point of view with regard to the nature of that LZ, a fast approach would have been suitable if conditions allowed clear sight of a visual reference (which they were most probably not) or if they had a local distance measuring aid; the only such aid that a pilot would have trusted and could have been there was a PRC112; if the PRC112 was out of position, say ½ a mile or so up the hill instead of at the LZ, then the early turn and misjudgment of closing range is explained … well, I have explained this many times before as well as why a demonstration of such equipment could have been appropriate at that time.
A “monumental” coverup? - not many would need to know that it was a cover up of any kind - an ad hoc training addition to a routine flight (common enough) that went tragically wrong – easy enough: keep the exercise hush hush/need to know, tell those few involved that it was human error on the ground but it would be embarrassing for the service and there could be serious civil unrest if the public thought there was any chance of it being deliberate, threaten to bludgeon with the official secrets act, etc. Have you ever tried asking anything about the CPLS system? Noticed that it is still taboo – no one wants to touch on the subject with a barge pole? A case of the pilots taking one for the team?
As I have said before, perhaps it was an accident but if such equipment was being trialled/demonstrated then it would have been very easy for someone to deliberately be out of position and the implications of this are so serious that any chance of this being so must be explored thoroughly. There was a political motive for an arranged accident and so the RAF/MOD must swallow its pride and acknowledge the planned approach so that the police can investigate.

Baston,

I have no desire to be seen as trying to point score as you so eloquently describe, but I would ask you to please consider the following, in it's entirety if you would be so kind, which will explain where I am coming from.

I believe that Caz is a fool and a blowhard and I make this judgement based on his posts within this thread and his PM's to me. If you look back at the song and dance he made with regard to the "missed breakfast", and the fact that he failed to retract once Jayteeto had conclusively proved him wrong you will struggle to convince me and others differently. Best we forget the latest "listening to pop music" slur as the man obviously has no conscience.

Contrast that with JP who is without doubt one of the most articulate and obviously intelligent contributers here whose view point has never wavered for which he has my utmost admiration. However it will not surprise you to know that it's his steadfastness that that gives me, and I suspect most other folk, the most cause for confusion.

As an ALM I self confess to being not the brightest star in the sky but even with my limited IQ I can see that there is just not enough concrete evidence to support this judgement. Forgetting all the other recent issues if no one actually knows if the aircraft was serviceable prior to impact or what could actually be seen from the flight deck windows how on earth can this verdict have been reached.

I have asked JP time and time again to produce the "smoking gun" that shuts the rest of us up but he and others simply cannot do it as that particular weapon is nowhere to be found.

All I would ask is that someone posting on here could provide me with a definitive answer as to EXACTLY what happened that day and EXACTLY why :ok:

Bast0n, I agree that "no doubt whatsoever" demands an extremely difficult (impossible?) set of of essential criteria to be met. However, those were the rules at the time and there lies the problem. Despite the full-and-frank exchange of views presented on this thread by the two camps, I think it is fair to say that many/most/all believe there is a significant/high probability that the crew got things wrong in some way. But, "believe" &"probability" do not fit with the burden of proof required for "no doubt whatsoever".

All that is required from the MOD is acknowledgement that this burden of proof was not met. We don't need to shoot off into other directions about PRC112 LZs, breakfasts, met briefs, or little green men. Airworthiness is a valid issue that needs highlighting as it extend across the MOD fleets and ZD576 (like Nimrod and C130) should be used as an example of this systematic failing.

Cows,

I agree with you, but I think that this comment

And this one

Are not consistent.


If the aim is the former, if the MOD finally get around to it, they'd say something like:
It would probably be better for the MOD if HMG (i.e. David Cameron) came in and told them to rescind the original verdict. The MOD wouldn't have to change their POV at all, they could just say

"We still stand by everything, but we've been instructed to overturn the verdict. Case closed."

In either case, all the
concerns will be set aside.

To be honest, I'd be happy enough with that, but I don't think some others will be. My concern (for them), is that closure for the pilots would undermine their quest to see radical changes in regulation, investigation and review.

Just my 2p.

TN

p.s. Walter. Although the you present a coherent set of circumstances, and even if it is true, I can't see the MOD admitting they have been lying for all this time. And if it was a state sanctioned murder as you go on to postulate, I think there is even less likelihood of anyone admitting to that!

- this is where the problem is occurring. You and others mis-understand. Most of us do NOT think "the pilots should be exonerated" - simply because we do not know, and if we change your line to "that it is possible that there was a terrible error..." you would probably find wide-spread agreement. The simple fact is that for reasons that can only be surmised (albeit with justification) the clearly defined 'Rules' for BoI findings were not adhered to WITHOUT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Most of us think we know why.

I do not speak for Brian and the rest of his campaign group, but to me 'Cows' has summed it up neatly in his last paragraph

All that is required from the MOD is acknowledgement that this burden of proof was not met. < > Airworthiness is a valid issue that needs highlighting as it extend across the MOD fleets and ZD576 (like Nimrod and C130) should be used as an example of this systematic failing.

Based on various coroners' reports, enquiry findings and the like, the upper echelons of the military and the government have let us all, and particularly the armed forces, down badly. The above solution would go just a little way to redress this heinous failing. Whether or not this would lead on to a full re-opening of the enquiry is, for me, not an issue. I think there is sufficient evidence elsewhere of mis-management and colusion to prompt a major review of processes.

BOAC,

I am with that sentiment fully :ok:

Cows,
I agree one hundred percent with your last statement.
I have always accepted that there could have been negligence by the crew.
My favoured scenario has always been "some" "error of judgement."

John Purdy and Cazatou steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the evidence given by Sqn Ldr Burke to the FAI and HOL.
Evidence that should have been taken into consideration by the BOI and Reviewing Officers.
He was at the time, I believe, the most experienced Chinook TP in the RAF.
He produced evidence to show that UFCM,s and Power Interrupts had both taken place on more than one occasion.
Although the crew would have to have been exceptionally unlucky for such an event to have happened at the very moment the aircraft approached the Mull, sh*t, sometimes does happen.
I can, JP, from my seven years as FSO, give you examples of such events.

If these UCFM / Power Interrupt events cannot be completely ruled out, then the "absolutely no doubt whatsoever", criteria fails.
Without a ADR and CVR they cannot be ruled out.
Any sane and rational and fair person should be able to see this.
JP, Caz, bast0n, are you sane, rational and fair?

SFFP, BOAC, CGB, dalek, all good posts. Why? Because you have said what you want to, rather than restricting yourselves to the latest demands of caz or JP. I would also commend Cows:
There indeed is the crux of this matter, and not quite how you misquoted it Thor. Indeed I am perplexed by your:
given that our "quest" is based on the notion that airworthiness provision and enforcement in the UK Military Airfleet by the MOD is utterly compromised. JP disputes that, caz ignores it, but you seem to be indifferent to it. Can that be so? I only ask because that indifference seems to extend far and wide with the exception of those who I mention above and the other "usual suspects". It is surely time for those who post here as professionals to face up to the uncomfortable prospect that their military aircraft, either past or present, lack airworthiness. It was an eyeopener to me that the Hercules fell into that category from introduction in the late 60's (when I flew them) until very recently. It is to correct that deadly threat to our aircrew, their pax, and those over whom they fly that I call for an MAA and MAAIB, ASAP.

DALEK

Yup - at the last look in the mirror!! (Oh not Fair - bald!)

I'm on the side of "on the balance of probability". I don't think there were any signs of in this instance, therefore not a probable cause.

Of course I agree with your anger about unairworthy aircraft - but I do not feel that on the evidence presented it had any bearing on this accident.

bast0n:
But it wasn't presented to the BoI was it bast0n? Would you support the accident investigation being reopened (under whatever guise that the RAF could manage given caz's list of obstructions) to have that very evidence and those very witnesses presented?

Of course there were no signs - no flight recorder or CVR. Therefore neither probable or improbable, simply no information. But there was a history of such events, so I cannot see how you come to your conclusion.

Fitter2

You have put it very neatly. No signs - no evidence - no history of such events with this aircraft - no case...............

Bast0n,
Either you are a complete idiot, or you are taking the p*ss.
You know very well that without CVR / ADR, you cannot rule out UCFM / Power Interrupt.
Within the "rules" in force at the time, it is up to you to show that these events did not happen. Not for anyone else to show they did. "Balance of Probabilities is not good enough.
Like I said to JP and Caz before, if you can refute the "facts" of Sqn Ldr Burke, please feel free to do so.
Meat now ready for BBQ, have a nice weekend.

dalek

Re your post #5150

You stated that Sqn Ldr Burke

"produced evidence to show that UFCM's and Power Interrupts had taken place on more than one occasion"

Q1. Did he produce any evidence that one or both of these had taken place on this particular flight?

Q2. On those flights that suffered these occurrences - how many fatal and non fatal casualties were there?

Q3. How many of these occurrences were classified as Accidents and how many as Incidents?

Q4 Does "more than one occasion" mean two or twenty or more?

Q5 Do we not employ Test Pilots precisely because experience shows that "teething troubles" are to be expected with any new type of aircraft?