Chinook - Mull of Kintyre
Guest
Posts: n/a
Strangely enough the aft pylon on the Chinook can be made to detach by selecting too much nose up during a zero speed dust landing: suddenly introducing the rapidly rotating blades to the ground in this ungentlemanly manner upsets them somewhat and they decide to jump ship along with most of the rest of the back of the aircraft. But it takes Sqn execs to do it properly!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said, Skycop. Perhaps some justice at last, through the back door.
If memory serves me right, the Board members did not find the crew Culpably Negligent. They, like many of us, may have believed that the crew, doing their best in the circumstances, made an error of judgement. The crew may also have been distracted at a critical moment: possibly by a spurious systems warning. It seems that they were not happy with the integrity of the FADEC, or their conversion to and familiarity with the new Chinook Mark 2. Perhaps the Board had this in mind.
What borders on the incredible is that up the chain from the Board, senior officers managed to attach the 'Culpable' label. What's the point of having a BOI then? Why not just let the Group Captains and Airships make their own minds up....bearing in mind the political and economic consequences, rather than the outmoded concepts of justice and loyalty.
Cynical,me? Never!
If memory serves me right, the Board members did not find the crew Culpably Negligent. They, like many of us, may have believed that the crew, doing their best in the circumstances, made an error of judgement. The crew may also have been distracted at a critical moment: possibly by a spurious systems warning. It seems that they were not happy with the integrity of the FADEC, or their conversion to and familiarity with the new Chinook Mark 2. Perhaps the Board had this in mind.
What borders on the incredible is that up the chain from the Board, senior officers managed to attach the 'Culpable' label. What's the point of having a BOI then? Why not just let the Group Captains and Airships make their own minds up....bearing in mind the political and economic consequences, rather than the outmoded concepts of justice and loyalty.
Cynical,me? Never!
Guest
Posts: n/a
There are some accidents that just run and run, look at the assassination of JFK, there were millions watching and they still can't decide who shot who.
The Chinook accident on the MoK had very few people watching, and there wasn't much left unburnt after the impact to draw any substantial conclusions. In these circumstances one has to look at the probable cause, which is what I believe the BOI did. However when it comes to apportioning blame, then it should attach itself (formally) to everyone who formed part of the links in the chain of events. It is far too simplistic (and often too easy) to just blame the pilots.
The FADEC COULD have been a contributory cause, as COULD a thousand other things such as autopilot runaways, jammed controls, in fact anything that could have put the aircraft where it was. We just don't (and won't)know. Sad to say but that part of the coast over the years is littered with aircraft that unexpectedly hit cumulogranite. They weren't the first and certainly won't be the last.
It would appear to me that there are an increasing number of "plastic aircraft" these days that crash and leave very little behind to enable the investigators to determine the cause - Mathew Harding and Kent Air Ambulance Squirrel crashes to name but two. The best epitaph that all these guys could have is for flight data recorders or at the very least CVR's to be fitted to all military and commercial helicopters. If anything drastic happens to me, I for one would like my family, my friends and the wider aviation community to know WHY, even if it means letting the world know I ****** up!
From experience with bereaved relatives, it's the "not knowing" that hurts the most.
The Chinook accident on the MoK had very few people watching, and there wasn't much left unburnt after the impact to draw any substantial conclusions. In these circumstances one has to look at the probable cause, which is what I believe the BOI did. However when it comes to apportioning blame, then it should attach itself (formally) to everyone who formed part of the links in the chain of events. It is far too simplistic (and often too easy) to just blame the pilots.
The FADEC COULD have been a contributory cause, as COULD a thousand other things such as autopilot runaways, jammed controls, in fact anything that could have put the aircraft where it was. We just don't (and won't)know. Sad to say but that part of the coast over the years is littered with aircraft that unexpectedly hit cumulogranite. They weren't the first and certainly won't be the last.
It would appear to me that there are an increasing number of "plastic aircraft" these days that crash and leave very little behind to enable the investigators to determine the cause - Mathew Harding and Kent Air Ambulance Squirrel crashes to name but two. The best epitaph that all these guys could have is for flight data recorders or at the very least CVR's to be fitted to all military and commercial helicopters. If anything drastic happens to me, I for one would like my family, my friends and the wider aviation community to know WHY, even if it means letting the world know I ****** up!
From experience with bereaved relatives, it's the "not knowing" that hurts the most.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus:
As you will well know, you are UTTERLY out of order involving the Mull of Kintyre Chinook in your 'roll call' of pilot error! Though that may be your personal 'opinion' it is clearly unsupported by any facts, which is precisely why both pilots have, after a long battle for the truth, been unambiguously cleared of any blame whatsoever!
Though clearly you 'think' you know better than the experts!
Further, testimonials from acquaintances of the pilots tell the all too familiar story of how professional they were, how they strove for perfection and took such pride in the job - none of which I doubt for a moment but sadly after so much repetition of these sentiments from the Mull to Battersea, Sumburgh, that S76, possibly Glasgow and now this latest incident it seems to show that no matter how professional, careful and dedicated pilots are they (we) are frighteningly susceptible to "company pressure" to do things we don't like or know we shouldn't be contemplating.
Though clearly you 'think' you know better than the experts!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are UTTERLY out of order involving the Mull of Kintyre Chinook in your 'roll call' of pilot error!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Tandem rotor. Nobody has ever really explained in the Mull case why the two crew descended to 1000 feet over the sea and flew straight at the mull. If they had observed the simple concept of safety altitude that accident would never have happened. Sometimes there are none so blind as those that cannot see!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
satsuma
If you are correct that agaricus' point was that the Chinook Mk 2 was, at that time, un-airworthy, then I apologise. He was absolutely right.
DOUBLE BOGEY
We really shouldn't digress, so all I will say on the matter of the Mull is this. If you were discussing issues of fact, we could have a debate. However due to the lack of any survivors, any eyewitnesses, or recorded data, we are left only with matters of opinion. Yours appears different to mine, but then I am probably as familiar with that accident as it is possible for anyone to be. After a long fight by many of us for justice, my opinion is now in accordance with the official view. Yours is not, but of course if you too have the courage of your convictions, you could always now do as many of us did, and embark on a 17 year fight. Rather than simply bumping your gums together.
Apologies for the digression, but the link (if there is one) is the value of data/voice recording in accidents. It provides a window to the truth. Rather than allowing 'opinions' to prevail.
If you are correct that agaricus' point was that the Chinook Mk 2 was, at that time, un-airworthy, then I apologise. He was absolutely right.
DOUBLE BOGEY
We really shouldn't digress, so all I will say on the matter of the Mull is this. If you were discussing issues of fact, we could have a debate. However due to the lack of any survivors, any eyewitnesses, or recorded data, we are left only with matters of opinion. Yours appears different to mine, but then I am probably as familiar with that accident as it is possible for anyone to be. After a long fight by many of us for justice, my opinion is now in accordance with the official view. Yours is not, but of course if you too have the courage of your convictions, you could always now do as many of us did, and embark on a 17 year fight. Rather than simply bumping your gums together.
Apologies for the digression, but the link (if there is one) is the value of data/voice recording in accidents. It provides a window to the truth. Rather than allowing 'opinions' to prevail.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Double Bogey, there are a LOT of Chinook pages to read. We don't want to start a new Chinook argument, I'm sure?????
If YOU wish to reverse the new decisions made on that accident, please start a new thread. Blind cannot see guff is your opinion to which you are entitled, but the last I heard, the crew were exonerated due to a lack of credible evidence. I'm happy with that new decision and I am, frankly, sick to the back teeth of people who slag my dead mates off when they were not there at the time. I suppose you think the Hillsborough report is covering up that those killed actually brought it on themselves and the police didn't really cover it up.
If YOU wish to reverse the new decisions made on that accident, please start a new thread. Blind cannot see guff is your opinion to which you are entitled, but the last I heard, the crew were exonerated due to a lack of credible evidence. I'm happy with that new decision and I am, frankly, sick to the back teeth of people who slag my dead mates off when they were not there at the time. I suppose you think the Hillsborough report is covering up that those killed actually brought it on themselves and the police didn't really cover it up.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Tandem rotor, I appreciate your implied proximity to the Mull incident but! Sometimes fighting a corner in one direction, in the absence of recorded data, is juxtaposition to the progression of safety. Which I am assuming is the goal we all want. In the Mull case the Radar data was fairly clear. I think you would have to agree they descended, then flew straight and level, until the Mull got in the way.
In the absence of any other evidence we are all free, if we so wish, to decide what we believe is the most likely causes of such events. In doing so our conclusion can lead to a moderation of our own behaviours in an effort to improve our own chances of avoiding an albeit assumed, similar event.
Blame has nothing whatsoever to do with this process. In fact if the Chinook had a WX Radar, or a modern EGPWS surely we would not be having this discussion.
For the RAF to recognise the value of such equipment they have to identify the likely role, its absence may have played in accidents like the Mull.
So Tandemrotor, please do not dismiss me simply because I have chosen a path that serves for a positive tangible benefit rather than the road many others have taken which, for the most part, actually seeks to blame someone or something!
Accidents are just that! Events nobody wanted, planned or in many cases, envisioned would happen. Complex conspiracy theories, whilst entertaining, in my humble view generally serve to distract us from reacting appropriately to what are, in most cases, very simple events.
DB
In the absence of any other evidence we are all free, if we so wish, to decide what we believe is the most likely causes of such events. In doing so our conclusion can lead to a moderation of our own behaviours in an effort to improve our own chances of avoiding an albeit assumed, similar event.
Blame has nothing whatsoever to do with this process. In fact if the Chinook had a WX Radar, or a modern EGPWS surely we would not be having this discussion.
For the RAF to recognise the value of such equipment they have to identify the likely role, its absence may have played in accidents like the Mull.
So Tandemrotor, please do not dismiss me simply because I have chosen a path that serves for a positive tangible benefit rather than the road many others have taken which, for the most part, actually seeks to blame someone or something!
Accidents are just that! Events nobody wanted, planned or in many cases, envisioned would happen. Complex conspiracy theories, whilst entertaining, in my humble view generally serve to distract us from reacting appropriately to what are, in most cases, very simple events.
DB
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey
Remind us all what the icing clearance was for the Mk.2 Chinook at the time.
Then remind us all what safety altitude would be for military aircraft flying from the Mull to Inverness.
Then remind us all how it gets a bit colder when you're up at those altitudes.
Then write your apology.
Remind us all what the icing clearance was for the Mk.2 Chinook at the time.
Then remind us all what safety altitude would be for military aircraft flying from the Mull to Inverness.
Then remind us all how it gets a bit colder when you're up at those altitudes.
Then write your apology.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Satsuma so what are you saying, the could not climb due ice so instead they elected to fly IMC below safety altitude.
Like I said we all draw our own conclusions and Half baked conspiracy theories cut no ice.
Court Martialed for making a Command decision - I do not think so in British Military Aviation! Utter cobblers. Sorry.
I am not in a blame culture. Just a learning culture.
Like I said we all draw our own conclusions and Half baked conspiracy theories cut no ice.
Court Martialed for making a Command decision - I do not think so in British Military Aviation! Utter cobblers. Sorry.
I am not in a blame culture. Just a learning culture.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
So can we rename this Chinook thread????
Bogey, start a new thread and #### off. Your fabulous knowledge places those pilots IMC on purpose. The Chinook thread discusses a number of INADVERTANT reasons why they might have been there. I really would like the mods to stop this now. Otherwise Bogey, on your next post, could you please PROVE they went IMC BY CHOICE, or, well, you know.................
PS, just to help, it wasn't just an icing clearance they lacked, it was an Instrument Flying clearance that was denied as well. Trust me, I know, I walked out to the aircraft with them that day.
Bogey, start a new thread and #### off. Your fabulous knowledge places those pilots IMC on purpose. The Chinook thread discusses a number of INADVERTANT reasons why they might have been there. I really would like the mods to stop this now. Otherwise Bogey, on your next post, could you please PROVE they went IMC BY CHOICE, or, well, you know.................
PS, just to help, it wasn't just an icing clearance they lacked, it was an Instrument Flying clearance that was denied as well. Trust me, I know, I walked out to the aircraft with them that day.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Court Martialed for making a Command decision - I do not think so in British Military Aviation! Utter cobblers. Sorry.
I am not in a blame culture. Just a learning culture.
I am not in a blame culture. Just a learning culture.
Look at the comments made by the Air Rank officer who ran rough-shod over the findings of the BOI for the Mull accident. They could not positively determine the cause(s), and could not therefore put blame on the crew. The Air Rank officer, during the Lord's Inquiry, made a point of trying to belittle the President of the BOI, calling him "A relatively junior officer" (he was in fact of the usual rank/status for the job and now runs the RAF, btw).
Think why the crew were ordered to fly in an un-airworthy aircraft in the first place, despite the request of the captain.....
The introduction of the Mk2 was a compete c**k up; the department responsible for test flying it prior to it's introduction to service ceased flying theirs the day before because they thought it unsafe to continue, even in controlled test flying conditions. The "Mull" crew was made to "fly the flag" for political and /or career saving reasons against the request of the captain and it resulted in the tragic deaths of all on board.
Don't try to tell us there was no pressure from on high in British Military Aviation!
FYI, There was a court martial of an aircraft captain following events in the FI, after a higher command decision was disputed. Without going into great detail, crews could see the enemy air threat and could see that they needed to to fly their aircraft off ship to a dispersed location on shore asap. They were not allowed to, for reasons never made clear. This decision was challenged and one aircraft captain was formally disciplined by CM for doing so. The fact that the majority of the SH force went to the bottom of the sea shortly afterwards, indicated that the request was correct and reasonable.