|
CGB,
Whilst I totally agree with the sentiment of your post it is, IMHO some of those very rabbits you mention that are going to expose the scandalous short comings of some of the senior management involved in this case. Post H-C there will be some very senior folk, probably at least one of which who contributes on here, who will be absolutely dreading the inevitable findings from this inquiry. |
Originally Posted by tucumseh
(Post 6096055)
Beagle
It was AMSO policy from 1988-on to withhold funding for those aspects of airworthiness I mention. |
Cows getting bigger
Please forgive me, but the name is Cook. No french letter! :) |
Seldom
Sorry, no link. To the best of my knowledge the individuals I dealt with directly have not put their names in the public domain; although they are known. Haddon-Cave was given the same information and, as I said, apparently didn't interview them but simply noted the effect in his conclusions. |
Cows Getting Bigger has given us an appropriate reminder of what Brian and others are striving to achieve.
So now I'm going to crave the indulgence of the forum to ask a question of Bast0n, if I may: Baston: I am also of the opinion as a bit of a pragmatist that to believe that this aircraft flew quite happily across the sea and then somehow a fault - undisclosed - hurled it into the hillside is not believable at any level. talking about a B205A pilot whose tail-rotor pitch link had failed in flight, giving him the equivalent of around 200%+ full-right pedal ...had the same malfunction just as he was positioning a 205A to pick up an underslung load at Saiq in Oman (6300 ft amsl, temp at that time of year around 20 degrees). I gather he rolled the throttle shut and landed right next to the USL on the other side from the Jebel VOR who was waiting to hook-up. Don't know how many rotations the aircraft made, but the aircraft landed level and was completely undamaged. Top bit of flying. It gave me pause for thought, as only the day before I'd been flying the same aircraft for the artillery cadets at Izki. Usual stuff - load the aircraft up full, quick circuit to make sure they're all happy then off at low level (SOAF version) across the bundu to give them their moneysworth. If that same malfunction had occurred just a few flying-hours earlier, would anyone have bothered to look for the pitch-change link in the wreckage or would it have just gone down as yet another low-flying-pilot-cocks-it-up-bigtime? It didn't stop me from operating at low altitude, but I spent a great deal more attention going through the "what-ifs" when doing so... |
Tandem - apologies. Amended.
|
Thud and Blunder
I quite see where you are coming from, but are you saying had you crashed it, no investigation would have been carried out and the broken pitch link not found? I do hope not. If however your aircraft had flown slap bang into the side of the valley in mist and no evidence of mechanical failure was subsequently found you would probably be in the frame for a bit of investigation! I think that most of us have flown aircraft that have had a major/catostrophic failure shortly after we had flown it. I recall the whole tail rotor pylon of a Wessex V that fell off onto the flight deck as the tail was being folded after it had landed on! I would not have blamed the pilot then nor you after all the available evidence had come to light. I am certain that many posters in this tragic case are undervaluing the airmanship aspects of the accident. |
Chinook
Baston. You are right. It is easier to bash the heirachy than to study the airmanship errors. JP
|
Excuse a mere ex-ATCer and long time lurker dipping a toe in here but...
JP some may say: It was easier to bash the airmen than to study the heirarchy Hopefully the latest review will study both the airmanship and the heirarchy with appropriate 'blame' being laid where it belongs. Back to lurking |
JP,
Do you mean the "Flying to fast for the Conditions" at Waypoint change, or some other Airmanship errors? Please enlighten us. I do notice that Baston couldn't. |
Originally Posted by bast0n
(Post 6097042)
Thud and Blunder
I quite see where you are coming from, but are you saying had you crashed it, no investigation would have been carried out and the broken pitch link not found? What if it had not been a mechanical failure but was down to a software issue and was untraceable, gross negligence? I am certain that many posters in this tragic case are undervaluing the airmanship aspects of the accident. |
Dear old Dalek
Go back a few hundred posts and read all the airmanship issues that were discussed at length ages ago. Remember now..................................? |
Chinook
S&S. Let us hope so. If there were failings in the heirachy then they should be exposed-no argument. My point is that most of the pruners here have banged on about airworthiness and heirarchical failings, while chosing to ignore the blatant failings in airmanship.
Dalek. I mean that the a/c pressed on into what were certainly IMC conditions and did so well below safety altitude. Is that really so difficult to hoist on board? Regards to all courteous contributers. JP |
Originally Posted by JP
the blatant failings in airmanship.
|
Originally Posted by John Purdey
(Post 6097516)
S&S. My point is that most of the pruners here have banged on about airworthiness and heirarchical failings, while chosing to ignore the blatant failings in airmanship.
What utter utter utter twaddle and I doubt you will find anyone on here and I mean anyone who does not accept that there is a pretty good chance the guys got it wrong on that day. Trouble is pretty good chance does not cut the mustard with regards to the judgment made. Dalek. I mean that the a/c pressed on into what were certainly IMC conditions and did so well below safety altitude. Is that really so difficult to hoist on board? Regards to all courteous contributers. JP And is it really so damnably difficult for you to accept that without an eye witness we will never know for sure if the aircraft ever went IMC at all |
Seldom
And is it really so damnably difficult for you to accept that without an eye witness we will never know for sure if the aircraft ever went IMC at all |
Originally Posted by bast0n
(Post 6097622)
Seldom
Bit careless at least then to fly into the hillside if they were VMC? Or is is the magic bullet of the "perhaps" problem with the aircraft that hurled them into the ground? |
Chinook
Seldom. My remarks were addressed to the courteous pruners, as I said. JP
|
Sir,
Thats why I replied. |
SFFP
Your assertion that without an eyewitness we will never know if the Chinook went IMC at all. Pity you didn't read the Board of Inquiry - with its witness statements in respect of the weather At the time of the crash. Mr Murchie, lighthouse keeper:" I would estimate the visibility at this stage to be 15 to 20 metres at most." Mrs Murchie: " went outside to see the helicopter but because of the dense fog we couldn't see it at all. We could hear that it was very,very close and was flying low." Mr Lamont, lighthouse keeper: "the visibility as I drove over the hill from Campbeltown was down to 10 metres or less. Mr Brocher: " The weather was really bad at this time, there was a lot of mist and fog, visibility was only about 10 or 15 ft .... I could not see it (the Chinook) for the mist and fog. There are several others |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.