After they were seen at low level, I suppose they could have pulled up above MSA. Then the FADEC threw a wobbler and caused them to descend onto the Mull.

Is that it?

Might be. Probably not. No one knows.

Question!
 

As no emergency calls were made before impact, how many FADEC's threw a wobbly at the same time/in rapid succession?

AA

OOOH! I missed that one!

AA - I could send you a picture of me sitting on a staddle stone in my garden to confirm you worst fears! (In IMC of course) David.

I genuinely am not trying to rock the boat here, but rather to put a practical aviators point of view had I been sitting on the BOI and looking at the evidence from take off to impact. Evidence and probabilities all provided by pre data recording aircraft and eyewitnesses. I just don't think that "Not Proven" would have come out of that BOI - ignore all the political ramifications if you can, as I do, as I do not think that they had much to do with that actual flight.

I am also convinced that "Gross negligence would have not even occurred to me.

David, the Happy Troll.

There was a time when I think many would have accepted any 'lesser' verdict, just to remove the stigma of 'gross negligence'. Such a stance would have given Their Airships a way out - with only minimal loss of face.

Unfortunately, it is coming to light that not only did Day and Wratten get it wrong but, ever since, there has been a 'pighead' (collective noun) of lemming-like Air Marshalls who have not been prepared to accept that two of their number made an error. In doing, they have colluded so as to maintain the abhorrent level of blame on the unfortunate pilots despite mountains of doubt.

That, as leaders in whom Her Majesty has placed 'especial trust', is absolutely unforgiveable and they have forfeited the opportunity for an easy escape. In the minds of many, these Sirs, Lords and Air Marshalls have no honour or decency and they are a disgrace to the uniform they once wore. If it were up to me, I would be happy to see their heads on a pole (proverbially) - preferably lining the Embankment, outside Lemming Main Building.

It is not up to me of course but, judging by the pigheads' letter in the DT yesterday, I suspect that they are already squirming - which will only intensify in court. Bring it on - I have no sympathy for them.:E

flipster

Agreed !

Apposite letter in todays Telegraph.

Sir,

"Pilot Error" is a pejorative phrase. It conjures up a picture of an aircraft operating normally until pilots blunder. In fact, pilots are the last link in the chain of events, which may originate from design, maintenance or organisational weaknesses. Usually pilots act to salvage the situation and all is well, but sometimes the outcome is an accident.
If we choose to believe Boscombe Down test pilots, rather than Whitehall - oriented Air Marshals, the Chinook was a seriously flawed aircraft. The criterion for pronouncing negligence by the deceased pilots has not been met.

Signed by Huw Baumgartner

For a little levity tonight, since Flipster has picked up on my suggestion, should we rename MOD (RAF) as 'RAF Lemming'?

Gents

Help me out here, please.

Either;

1.They continued VFR into IMC which sadly led them to the Mull.

2.They had climbed to MSA and were downed by FADEC (or other airworthiness) issues, and despite putting out no calls or being seen on radar they then descended and crashed onto the Mull.

Question:

If 1. above is correct, are they guilty of the 'gross negligence' charge?

BarbiesBoyfriend.
I'm not sure if you're taking the proverbial, have failed to read any of this thread, or are just plain thick. I discount the last option on the basis fhat you do have some hands on time (nearly 10000?).As the subject matter is quite serious I'll assume that you are serious, so that leaves me with only the second option. Your last post displays a singular lack of understanding of the details of this accident so that seems to be the logical choice. However, and this is important, I just don't know, and cannot,without any doubt whatsoever prove that you have not read this thread fully and diligently, (nor that you are not taking the p*ss , nor that you may be thick).
Do you get the drift?:ok:

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/l...rabs_MOD-1.jpgGood morning all. I know this is not a thread for much much humour but as I have at last managed to get out of bed - broken ribs on the ice -and AA has said that I must be a Troll I thought I would show you the senior RAF officers who are being so incredibly stupid at work on the MOD Troll chair!

Have a super weekend..............:ok:

NEW! 'Name the one that has fallen off' competition:)

BB: Your hypothesis:
They may be. They may not. That would depend entirely on the precise circumstances.

What's your opinion of what was occurring in the cockpit of ZD576 at the time in question?

Of course we have to deal in 'matters of opinion', as we cannot deal in 'matters of fact'.

bast0n, so sorry to hear of your mishap with the icy conditions. I hope that remedial repair work is effected quickly and successfully in accordance with the Regulations. So much for my feeble attempt at humour. As to yours, a fish head or two dotted amongst the crabs would indeed have been a witty take on a serious business. As it was you chose Schadenfreude. I did warn about that! :=
The front line may well be manned by retired Air Marshals of various luminosities. Behind them, uncomfortable with their part in a scandal that pre-dated the Mull tragedy but directly linked to it, may be those of a more piscine persuasion. We shall, without doubt, see in due course.

Chugaz

Fish heads added to avoid attacks by that chap Shadywhotsit..............:ok:

Well done bast0n. Now that's funny! :D I suppose you haven't any pongo related contents in your freezer to add to the montage? No? Well never mind, the point has been made nonetheless. Of course I might have suggested that you paint your toadstool purple, but that might well infringe planning regulations and upset Mrs b so further modifications would merely gild the lily and honour is satisfied, on my part at least. I will instruct my seconds to withdraw wie and trust that they have not caused you too much inconvenience.

http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/l...rabs_MOD-2.jpg

Chugaz,

Well, to be fair to all I have managed to find a small pile of anthracite located within the MOD that the Pongos have painted white to avoid standing out too much against a light and dark blue background..............:ok:

Chinook
 

Thor Nogson. Your 6132 ..... "This thread, and to a certain degree the campaign as a whole, absolutely require contributors with a contrary viewpoint in order to survive."
Well, at least that was honest. But many Pruners did not wish to play the game because their opinions were ignored, or the authors were insulted. JP

Ah memories, memories. You try telling the young of today about whitewashing coal heaps and do they believe you? Now that we have established this inter service rapport, bast0n, might we go further and agree that the only acceptable finding, given what is now known and perhaps more importantly what we do not know and never will, is one of "CNPD"? While we have no reason to suppose that the pilots did not conduct themselves with professionalism throughout this flight we now know that those charged with supplying them with an airworthy aircraft failed totally in that duty. The only reason that the cause of this accident cannot be ascribed to that total failure is that we do not know positively that it was. On the basis of probability it was IMHO a more probable cause and it would be inequitable to blame the pilots in any way while not blaming those who failed so shockingly in their duty. That is why "Pilot Error" is not acceptable to me. Perhaps you might, upon reconsideration, agree?

Tandem.

'What's my opinion?' Well, firstly it IS only an opinion and worth no more than anybody elses, maybe less than some on here that have Chinook or rotary time, which I have zero of.

I think they pressed on in marginal VMC and realised where they were a little too late.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong and I'm certainly not stating that that is what happened.

What I was driving at is this: Since, even if what I think took place, actually took place (and I accept we'll never know for sure) would that be enough to justify the very strong 'gross negligence' charge?

After all, plenty of other pilots have had various versions of the same accident and I'm sure that they were not all branded 'grossly negligent'.

That sounds awfully like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, to me... :rolleyes: