Chinook - Mull of Kintyre
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Jayteeto I have not blamed anyone nor am I trying to for the Mull crash. Just observing the few facts available. I certainly mean no disrespect to the crew, RAF or those close to the incident.
If you knew me you would mark well how I stand my corner when many others do not. My dogmatic refusal to take 19 pax into an air mass producing lightning being just one. This is LEARNED behaviour having seen what happens to aircraft that have been struck.
Jayteeto and Shytorque, I fully understand your emotional reaction to anyone even talking about the Mull. However even your own arguments paint a picture of events very close to what has happened to to this threads subject aircraft and crew. A crew under pressure making a forced error. That is MOST PROBABLY what lies at the heart of this matter.
Jayteeto, your incredible rude remark for me to *****Off is forgiven on the understanding this subject seems more personal to you than most.
Shytorque, being disciplined in war for failing to follows orders is far too complex to chuck in this mix.
If you knew me you would mark well how I stand my corner when many others do not. My dogmatic refusal to take 19 pax into an air mass producing lightning being just one. This is LEARNED behaviour having seen what happens to aircraft that have been struck.
Jayteeto and Shytorque, I fully understand your emotional reaction to anyone even talking about the Mull. However even your own arguments paint a picture of events very close to what has happened to to this threads subject aircraft and crew. A crew under pressure making a forced error. That is MOST PROBABLY what lies at the heart of this matter.
Jayteeto, your incredible rude remark for me to *****Off is forgiven on the understanding this subject seems more personal to you than most.
Shytorque, being disciplined in war for failing to follows orders is far too complex to chuck in this mix.
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
Believe me, I wanted to say it far far worse and it was designed to be rude. Thank you for your forgiveness, however it isn't required, thanks anyway.
You are absolutely entitled to your views and I actually respect that far more than you think. Over the last year, I have been rude to a number of people on pprune. It's weird, because it is often how they have presented their comments, not the actual comments themselves. The mull, Glasgow or Norfolk included a lot of posts where people stated things as factual; these were THEIR views not facts.
My issue was that you included the Chinook crash as CFIT in your list. Whilst 'controlled' could have been true, we don't actually know this as a fact. And there is my BIG personal problem............ without going over and over and over. No CVR, no proof, no public execution. Here's another little one to throw in. Dave Traill has been slated for not making a May day call, with a double engine failure, the number one radio drops out. So did he or didn't he?? We will never ever know without that CVR. No public execution??????? Not quite!!
Your views on other events may be 100% correct, but you can't prove it. That's all I mean to point out.
You are absolutely entitled to your views and I actually respect that far more than you think. Over the last year, I have been rude to a number of people on pprune. It's weird, because it is often how they have presented their comments, not the actual comments themselves. The mull, Glasgow or Norfolk included a lot of posts where people stated things as factual; these were THEIR views not facts.
My issue was that you included the Chinook crash as CFIT in your list. Whilst 'controlled' could have been true, we don't actually know this as a fact. And there is my BIG personal problem............ without going over and over and over. No CVR, no proof, no public execution. Here's another little one to throw in. Dave Traill has been slated for not making a May day call, with a double engine failure, the number one radio drops out. So did he or didn't he?? We will never ever know without that CVR. No public execution??????? Not quite!!
Your views on other events may be 100% correct, but you can't prove it. That's all I mean to point out.
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
Any lessons to learn? Loads.
1. Don't shift the blame onto defenceless pilots without any evidence. You will eventually be found out, even after 10 years+ (ditto Hillsborough fans)
1. Don't shift the blame onto defenceless pilots without any evidence. You will eventually be found out, even after 10 years+ (ditto Hillsborough fans)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Jayteeto, I have not, to my knowledge, included the Mull on any CFIT list. I think you might be mistaking me for another poster.
Just so we are clear, we are all entitled to reasonable opinions provided they are supported by our experience and intelligence.
IT IS A reasonable opinion that the Mull was simply a CFIT! Just as it is reasonable to have an opinion that a spurious, 12 second indication of engine failure from the FADEC could have distracted the crew. However, in the absence of clear evidence we are left to our own opinions. My opinion is not based on blame or cause. Simply what can I draw from the event that may help me.
In this directive, planning a route in poor or likely deteriorating WX with a turning waypoint on high ground, rather than over open water, could, if circumstances conspire, cause a greater problem regardless of what else may be happening in the cockpit. In addition, maintaining very high Groundspeed towards rising terrain coasting in, in DVE, is a very poor practice best avoided.
I have read every report on the Mull and my opinions are unchanged as to the most probable cause. In that opinion I conclude that had some money been spent on a WX radar I very much doubt the Mull would have happened as a crystal clear paint of the coast would become a primary navigation aid.
As it is some people's continued pursuit of other causes do not readily support the requirement of manufacturers and operators (RAF) to equip aircraft such that the flight crew have the best information available to them when they need it.
None of the above involves blaming anyone or anything. It is simple a discussion based on most probable cause, and drawing from that, what lessons can or should be learned.
Any finding of crew negligence is hopelessly naive and serves no real purpose other than to close, forever, and accident report.
Just so we are clear, we are all entitled to reasonable opinions provided they are supported by our experience and intelligence.
IT IS A reasonable opinion that the Mull was simply a CFIT! Just as it is reasonable to have an opinion that a spurious, 12 second indication of engine failure from the FADEC could have distracted the crew. However, in the absence of clear evidence we are left to our own opinions. My opinion is not based on blame or cause. Simply what can I draw from the event that may help me.
In this directive, planning a route in poor or likely deteriorating WX with a turning waypoint on high ground, rather than over open water, could, if circumstances conspire, cause a greater problem regardless of what else may be happening in the cockpit. In addition, maintaining very high Groundspeed towards rising terrain coasting in, in DVE, is a very poor practice best avoided.
I have read every report on the Mull and my opinions are unchanged as to the most probable cause. In that opinion I conclude that had some money been spent on a WX radar I very much doubt the Mull would have happened as a crystal clear paint of the coast would become a primary navigation aid.
As it is some people's continued pursuit of other causes do not readily support the requirement of manufacturers and operators (RAF) to equip aircraft such that the flight crew have the best information available to them when they need it.
None of the above involves blaming anyone or anything. It is simple a discussion based on most probable cause, and drawing from that, what lessons can or should be learned.
Any finding of crew negligence is hopelessly naive and serves no real purpose other than to close, forever, and accident report.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB, you are quite right that the inclusion of the Mull in the list of apparent CFIT events was another poster, it was I and you shouldn't have been subjected to a slagging-off for it.
Unfortunately there is a human tendency among those close to events to sometimes lose perspective and the flat refusal of some to accept that the Mull accident itself was in all probability plain CFIT (albeit associated with a great deal of appalling mismanagement by whole sections of the RAF which has no evident direct connection with the accident) is likely a symptom of that.
A lack of conclusive proof does not in any way mitigate against the familiar expression "beyond reasonable doubt". We have no "proof" that the recent Battersea accident occurred under control, but equally we have no indications otherwise, yet I hear no dissent as to what in all probability happened in that case. The physical situations appears broadly similar (poor vis, bumped into something solid) yet once a head of steam is built up the perceptions can diverge in opposite directions.
Of course it is natural to try to protect the good name of your colleagues and the appalling decision to apply the phrase "gross professional misconduct" (iirc) to the Mull pilots rightly created a sh!tstorm. That I unhesitatingly agree was wrong, utterly wrong and went a long way to achieving temperatures seldom seen in accident investigations.
But we must beware of allowing emotions to overrule logic and due process in accident investigations when all the available information (despite no conclusive proof) point to an unpalatable conclusion. That isn't an intellectually rigorous process.
Blame. Bad word in this context, an one that the AAIB at least avoid tho the military may sometimes be less conscientious. We really shouldn't be thinking in terms of "blame" in these cases, despite what the meeja say and do. We should accept reasons though, and accept that we are all human and thus subject to making mistakes. A refusal to accept that our colleagues made a mistake, or most probably made a mistake when there is no indication otherwise is equally unhelpful. The tendency to hunt feverishly and endlessly for esoteric and ever more fanciful and unfeasible mechanical reasons while refusing to consider human inputs is a common feature of all the accidents we've mentioned here. There's no doubt that the human is increasingly becoming the weak link in the chain and the sooner we take this on board the quicker we may find a way to work around it.
Unfortunately there is a human tendency among those close to events to sometimes lose perspective and the flat refusal of some to accept that the Mull accident itself was in all probability plain CFIT (albeit associated with a great deal of appalling mismanagement by whole sections of the RAF which has no evident direct connection with the accident) is likely a symptom of that.
A lack of conclusive proof does not in any way mitigate against the familiar expression "beyond reasonable doubt". We have no "proof" that the recent Battersea accident occurred under control, but equally we have no indications otherwise, yet I hear no dissent as to what in all probability happened in that case. The physical situations appears broadly similar (poor vis, bumped into something solid) yet once a head of steam is built up the perceptions can diverge in opposite directions.
Of course it is natural to try to protect the good name of your colleagues and the appalling decision to apply the phrase "gross professional misconduct" (iirc) to the Mull pilots rightly created a sh!tstorm. That I unhesitatingly agree was wrong, utterly wrong and went a long way to achieving temperatures seldom seen in accident investigations.
But we must beware of allowing emotions to overrule logic and due process in accident investigations when all the available information (despite no conclusive proof) point to an unpalatable conclusion. That isn't an intellectually rigorous process.
Blame. Bad word in this context, an one that the AAIB at least avoid tho the military may sometimes be less conscientious. We really shouldn't be thinking in terms of "blame" in these cases, despite what the meeja say and do. We should accept reasons though, and accept that we are all human and thus subject to making mistakes. A refusal to accept that our colleagues made a mistake, or most probably made a mistake when there is no indication otherwise is equally unhelpful. The tendency to hunt feverishly and endlessly for esoteric and ever more fanciful and unfeasible mechanical reasons while refusing to consider human inputs is a common feature of all the accidents we've mentioned here. There's no doubt that the human is increasingly becoming the weak link in the chain and the sooner we take this on board the quicker we may find a way to work around it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Jayteeto you see it only from the perspective of the Flight Crew. Just for a moment consider the relatives of the Pax. They might reasonably ask why the AC was less than 1 mile from the Mull, doing 170 knots Groundspeed below 500 feet heading straight at the mountain shrouded in fog. At this point the new TANS Waypoint was reselected by the crew. The new waypoint track was never acquired.
After that the AC began a climb but failed to clear the mountain, the final flight path onsistant with late visual acquisition of the terrain.
Those are the facts that we know. Post 431 was an inaccurate summary.
Agaricus Bisporus - I hear you five by five and agree. Some people seem unable to emotionally detach. The job that day was to transport passengers. When you read some posters they seem to have forgotten that. I also believe fighting in the wrong direction runs the risk of missing the obvious. In the case of the Mull, if they had WX Radar and used it, I doubt very much whether the event would have occurred.
Q. Do large Military UK helicopters now have Radar?
After that the AC began a climb but failed to clear the mountain, the final flight path onsistant with late visual acquisition of the terrain.
Those are the facts that we know. Post 431 was an inaccurate summary.
Agaricus Bisporus - I hear you five by five and agree. Some people seem unable to emotionally detach. The job that day was to transport passengers. When you read some posters they seem to have forgotten that. I also believe fighting in the wrong direction runs the risk of missing the obvious. In the case of the Mull, if they had WX Radar and used it, I doubt very much whether the event would have occurred.
Q. Do large Military UK helicopters now have Radar?
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
Not really, I feel for the families too, they deserve facts, not opinions. I think your last post was correct. Problem is that if that was a reliable in service aircraft with a CVR, like this 139 in Norfolk, I would be with you 100%. It's been pretty simple to solve this one with the facts available. Sadly, we can criticize this crew..... unfortunately. Poor decision, poor flying skills, all backed by CVR FACTS!!
It's not emotion that drives me, really!
It's not emotion that drives me, really!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Jayteeto - once again I do not blame the crew! That is far too simplistic and utterly counterproductive. It's worth remembering the crew had already extended their shift and Captain Taplin had expressed strong reservations in regard to his currency and the urgency at which the HC-2 was rushed into service on his Squadron.
Sadly if the RAF had concentrated on fixing these and other serious shortcomings I suspect you would feel a whole lot better. However it does not change my view of the prime causal factor but my mind is open.
Sadly if the RAF had concentrated on fixing these and other serious shortcomings I suspect you would feel a whole lot better. However it does not change my view of the prime causal factor but my mind is open.
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
Bogey, ok, I actually don't think we are that far apart.
Hope that was autocorrect with the pilots name, Tapper.
Hope that was autocorrect with the pilots name, Tapper.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise to those interested in G-LABL but I'm not prepared to see garbage written about the Mull accident.
DOUBLE BOGEY
Utter fantasy. No such radar data exists!
Utter fantasy. No such evidence exists. Not that they ever descended. Not that they ever flew straight. Not that they ever flew level. You are prepared to make assumptions!
Frankly your recollection of the incident is very poor. You can't even remember the name of Flight Lieutenant Tapper for chr1ss@ke!
There are so many holes in your statements of what you believe to be 'facts' (when they are no such thing!) that it is difficult to know where to begin!
You say you are motivated by some commitment to flight safety. Tell me, what do false assumptions based on opinions (NOT fact) do for flight safety?
You say you don't want to blame anyone, yet that is precisely what you are seeking to do. Looking for scapegoats based on your poor understanding of the facts, and prejudice. You have prejudged these two pilots on the basis of no reliable evidence whatsoever! Shame on you.
The enlightened amongst us may at least console ourselves that your prejudiced and ignorant 'opinions' are diametrically opposed to the official verdict into this accident.
Your cheap shot about the relatives of the passengers was 'interesting'! Some of us have met them, and know exactly how they feel about this disgusting chapter. Have you? Do you?
I would like to ask the mods to prevent any further muck-raking over an incident not even slightly linked to the subject of this thread. Anyone who wishes to discuss the Mull should start another thread, and let's all re-hash the last 20 years!
Once again, apologies to those interested in the subject of this thread. DOUBLE BOGEY should be ashamed of introducing his jaundiced views here!
DOUBLE BOGEY
In the Mull case the Radar data was fairly clear.
I think you would have to agree they descended, then flew straight and level
Frankly your recollection of the incident is very poor. You can't even remember the name of Flight Lieutenant Tapper for chr1ss@ke!
There are so many holes in your statements of what you believe to be 'facts' (when they are no such thing!) that it is difficult to know where to begin!
You say you are motivated by some commitment to flight safety. Tell me, what do false assumptions based on opinions (NOT fact) do for flight safety?
You say you don't want to blame anyone, yet that is precisely what you are seeking to do. Looking for scapegoats based on your poor understanding of the facts, and prejudice. You have prejudged these two pilots on the basis of no reliable evidence whatsoever! Shame on you.
The enlightened amongst us may at least console ourselves that your prejudiced and ignorant 'opinions' are diametrically opposed to the official verdict into this accident.
Your cheap shot about the relatives of the passengers was 'interesting'! Some of us have met them, and know exactly how they feel about this disgusting chapter. Have you? Do you?
I would like to ask the mods to prevent any further muck-raking over an incident not even slightly linked to the subject of this thread. Anyone who wishes to discuss the Mull should start another thread, and let's all re-hash the last 20 years!
Once again, apologies to those interested in the subject of this thread. DOUBLE BOGEY should be ashamed of introducing his jaundiced views here!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor
DOUBLE BOGEY didn't bring the Mull accident into this discussion. It was brought in, unfortunately IMHO, by Agaricus bisporus.
Agaricus bisporus
I'm pleased to see you've toned down your views a little.
Even after the publication of the extremely thorough Mull of Kintyre Review, you continued to argue (in the Chinook thread in the Mil forum) that the pilots were grossly negligent:
Even if the standard of proof required had been 'beyond reasonable doubt' (it was much higher than that, for very good reasons) I disagree with you - for the reasons given by the original BOI which were set out in detail and upheld by the Review.
No comment. 
DB
It would be entirely reasonable for them to ask that question.
The answer is: No-one knows.
Nobody was in a position to give a precise description of the either the cloud situation or the visibility over the south end of the Mull of Kintyre as they appeared to the pilots as they approached from the south west.
Although the BOI were reasonably certain that the helicopter was flying fast at low level in proximity to the southern end of the Mull, in the absence of a CVR, a flight data recorder or the evidence of the crew or any other witness, they could not know how or why the crew got into that situation.
All the BOI were able to do was to put forward three possible scenarios as to the cause of the accident and, because they believed their ToR required them to choose one, they chose the one they considered to be the most probable.
Do you mean a hunch?
NB: When I refer to the BOI I mean the Board presided over by Wg Cdr (as he then was) Andy Pulford – before AOC No1 Group and AOC-in-C Strike Command came to different conclusions based upon their 'experience and intelligence'.
The Review considered their reasoning to be flawed and rejected their conclusions. It upheld the findings of Andy Pulford's Board.
(He became Chief of the Air Staff in July last year.)
FL
DOUBLE BOGEY didn't bring the Mull accident into this discussion. It was brought in, unfortunately IMHO, by Agaricus bisporus.
Agaricus bisporus
the Mull accident itself was in all probability plain CFIT
the appalling decision to apply the phrase "gross professional misconduct" (iirc) to the Mull pilots rightly created a sh!tstorm. That I unhesitatingly agree was wrong, utterly wrong
Even after the publication of the extremely thorough Mull of Kintyre Review, you continued to argue (in the Chinook thread in the Mil forum) that the pilots were grossly negligent:
it is pretty clear also that had the definition been properly worded (ie, beyond reasonable...) then that GN charge would still have been made and would stick to this day unchallenged.
In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT.
In my world it is hard to see what else one calls CFIT.
That isn't an intellectually rigorous process.
DB
Just for a moment consider the relatives of the Pax. They might reasonably ask why the AC was less than 1 mile from the Mull, doing 170 knots Groundspeed below 500 feet heading straight at the mountain shrouded in fog.
The answer is: No-one knows.
Nobody was in a position to give a precise description of the either the cloud situation or the visibility over the south end of the Mull of Kintyre as they appeared to the pilots as they approached from the south west.
Although the BOI were reasonably certain that the helicopter was flying fast at low level in proximity to the southern end of the Mull, in the absence of a CVR, a flight data recorder or the evidence of the crew or any other witness, they could not know how or why the crew got into that situation.
All the BOI were able to do was to put forward three possible scenarios as to the cause of the accident and, because they believed their ToR required them to choose one, they chose the one they considered to be the most probable.
we are all entitled to reasonable opinions provided they are supported by our experience and intelligence
NB: When I refer to the BOI I mean the Board presided over by Wg Cdr (as he then was) Andy Pulford – before AOC No1 Group and AOC-in-C Strike Command came to different conclusions based upon their 'experience and intelligence'.
The Review considered their reasoning to be flawed and rejected their conclusions. It upheld the findings of Andy Pulford's Board.
(He became Chief of the Air Staff in July last year.)
FL
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer
I stand corrected regarding the introduction of the Mull into this discussion. Many thanks.
You refer to "Wing Commander (as he then was) Andy Pulford." For anyone who doesn't know he is now Air Chief Marshall Sir Andy Pulford, Chief of the Air Staff! A man of considerable integrity in the face of significant coercion to change his view, during this particular Board of Inquiry!
The board considered it incorrect to criticise the captain for any human errors based on the available evidence. It further considered that the co-pilot could not be criticised for failing to identify any errors.
Now PLEASE anyone wishing to discuss anything other than G-LABL, may I suggest you start a new thread?
I stand corrected regarding the introduction of the Mull into this discussion. Many thanks.
You refer to "Wing Commander (as he then was) Andy Pulford." For anyone who doesn't know he is now Air Chief Marshall Sir Andy Pulford, Chief of the Air Staff! A man of considerable integrity in the face of significant coercion to change his view, during this particular Board of Inquiry!
The board considered it incorrect to criticise the captain for any human errors based on the available evidence. It further considered that the co-pilot could not be criticised for failing to identify any errors.
Now PLEASE anyone wishing to discuss anything other than G-LABL, may I suggest you start a new thread?
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 7th Apr 2014 at 01:32.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Tandem rotor, if for one moment you would clear the paranoia that creates your prejudice you would have at least read my posts correctly. Just why do you think your views are the only ones that are valid! The only Unserviceability found by the investigation was a possible malfunction of the RADALT. I am sure you know that the RADALT simply records the height of the cliff at impact.
RADAR - read again. I know there was no WX radar that is my point.
BLAME - read again. My posts are clear.
Flying Lawyer - I may be mistaken but the lighthouse staff reported the lighthouse in fog??? The forecast mentioned possible DVS at the mainland coast.
Both - the final flight path, cyclic flare, turning left, 30 degrees nose up could be interpreted as a late acquisition of the surface but of course we will never know.
There are no definitive answers to this accident but we can reasonably speculate based on the facts as they are available. There is no "Shame" in doing this.
The Burden of Proof is there to protect the innocent from the slightest chance that there is another explanation. Its process does not conclude AT ALL, the most probable cause. TANDEMROTOR your anger towards me suggests you think because the Burden of Proof could not be met for negligence it automatically cancels any possibility of CFIT. This is simply not the case!! It just means there is insuuficient evidence to support negligence. In any other aviation operation this should open up the debate for a more progressive, productive discussion. However, the Mull, shrouded in implied controversy, seems to hold an immunity from this supported by near hysterical ranting posts like yours.
Again I apologise if the crew were your friends but this is aviation and if we do it long enough and hard enough we will lose friends. Sometimes the circumstances beggar belief and sometimes luck runs out. However getting emotional every 5 minutes because someone expresses an opinion, or worse ACCIDENTLY posts an inaccuracy, means you either have PTSD or you are manipulating posters emotionally to support your own views.
TANDEM - I have no doubt you will react with another emotional tiraid for something I have said in this post. But caution, I am fairly certain that apart from my summary of the overall flight path in post 431 I have recognised the emotion connected with this events and everything thereafter is information contained in the reports.
From the overall perspective of the very many CFITs into land and water the Mull accident is relatively unremarkable save for the appalling loss of life. Ultimately there may be a very different prime cause but as such we can learn nothing. However, if we consider the most probable cause as CFIT we can learn a great many lessons. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we are free to hypothesise for this purpose just as you do TANDEM when accident threads you post on are not so close to home.
RADAR - read again. I know there was no WX radar that is my point.
BLAME - read again. My posts are clear.
Flying Lawyer - I may be mistaken but the lighthouse staff reported the lighthouse in fog??? The forecast mentioned possible DVS at the mainland coast.
Both - the final flight path, cyclic flare, turning left, 30 degrees nose up could be interpreted as a late acquisition of the surface but of course we will never know.
There are no definitive answers to this accident but we can reasonably speculate based on the facts as they are available. There is no "Shame" in doing this.
The Burden of Proof is there to protect the innocent from the slightest chance that there is another explanation. Its process does not conclude AT ALL, the most probable cause. TANDEMROTOR your anger towards me suggests you think because the Burden of Proof could not be met for negligence it automatically cancels any possibility of CFIT. This is simply not the case!! It just means there is insuuficient evidence to support negligence. In any other aviation operation this should open up the debate for a more progressive, productive discussion. However, the Mull, shrouded in implied controversy, seems to hold an immunity from this supported by near hysterical ranting posts like yours.
Again I apologise if the crew were your friends but this is aviation and if we do it long enough and hard enough we will lose friends. Sometimes the circumstances beggar belief and sometimes luck runs out. However getting emotional every 5 minutes because someone expresses an opinion, or worse ACCIDENTLY posts an inaccuracy, means you either have PTSD or you are manipulating posters emotionally to support your own views.
TANDEM - I have no doubt you will react with another emotional tiraid for something I have said in this post. But caution, I am fairly certain that apart from my summary of the overall flight path in post 431 I have recognised the emotion connected with this events and everything thereafter is information contained in the reports.
From the overall perspective of the very many CFITs into land and water the Mull accident is relatively unremarkable save for the appalling loss of life. Ultimately there may be a very different prime cause but as such we can learn nothing. However, if we consider the most probable cause as CFIT we can learn a great many lessons. In the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we are free to hypothesise for this purpose just as you do TANDEM when accident threads you post on are not so close to home.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE BOGEY
Come come. You don't make me angry at all. But after 17 years of fighting to successfully clear the names of the pilots, purely on the basis of evidential arguments, you might forgive some of us for being a little frustrated, that out in the shadows lurk opinionated ignoramuses such as yourself.
Yet another distortion of the facts. Of course the AAIB (you'll have heard of them?) we're not able to positively determine the pre-flight serviceability of this aircraft, (though there were indeed two OTHER potentially serious faults!). Just to remind you, here's why. There was no Cockpit Voice Recorder. No Flight Data Recorder. Tragically no survivors. No eyewitnesses to the accident. No radio calls. Only the aircraft wreckage. (70% of which was destroyed by the post impact fire) Yet you KNOW what caused the accident??
Congratulations. You either have ESP, or you're a talented spiritual medium.
Oh, and by the by. When you said in an earlier post:
Did you MEAN to say:
A simple slip of the key board I'm sure? Or was it deliberate invention of 'fact' that you seem to so enjoy? You really don't know this case very well at all do you?
I challenge you to start another thread on the Mull rather than discuss it here. This is the wrong place. We can have a good debate, and re-hash the last twenty years elsewhere. I would welcome it.
Alternatively the mods may be able to split these discussions off?
Come come. You don't make me angry at all. But after 17 years of fighting to successfully clear the names of the pilots, purely on the basis of evidential arguments, you might forgive some of us for being a little frustrated, that out in the shadows lurk opinionated ignoramuses such as yourself.
The only Unserviceability found by the investigation was a possible malfunction of the RADALT.
Congratulations. You either have ESP, or you're a talented spiritual medium.
Oh, and by the by. When you said in an earlier post:
In the Mull case the Radar data was fairly clear.
In the Mull case the Radar data was NON EXISTENT.
I challenge you to start another thread on the Mull rather than discuss it here. This is the wrong place. We can have a good debate, and re-hash the last twenty years elsewhere. I would welcome it.
Alternatively the mods may be able to split these discussions off?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TANDEMROTOR - firstly the Mull Tragedy is marred by the intimation that the HC-2 was not fit to be released to service, the crew currency may have been inadequate and the Commander forced to fly against his will. Some parallels that others have mentioned blight the Corporate flying world. So if you can keep your composure we have every right to discuss the Mull topic here.
You journalistic rhetoric places great value on facts. However you are wrong about the fire! 80% of the fuselage was damaged by fire but only 20% destroyed.
If you are that familiar with this accident then tell me what possible reasons, other than low cloud, would cause a crew to fly below 500 feet over the sea towards high ground at a Groundspeed of 170 KIAS. witnesses on the Mull reported visibility below 500m. The yachtsman saw the aircraft estimated at 200-400 feet, flying below the cloud base, heading straight for the Mull.
TANS data infers that the crew may have been distracted after the second waypoint selection. The final flight path strongly infers inadvertent IMC.
The exact reasons why the crew flew towards the Mull below the Safety Altitude are unknown but on the few facts available described above the most probable cause, in my opinion no more and no less, is inadvertent IMC leading to CFIT.
Crucially, and this is the point TANDEM you seem incapable of processing, this conclusion does not necessarily mean that the crew were to blame. Equally it does not necessarily mean they were not to blame! There is simply not enough evidence in this regard, to know for certain and thus the required legal Proof cannot be met.
Now instead of being incredibly rude and calling me an "Ignoramus" just what do you have to offer that counters any of the above (which to the best of my recall is accurate in regards to the accident review).
Or alternatively keep bleating for us to move the topic to another thread.
I may well be an "Ignoramus" but like I said at the start, there are none so blind as those that cannot see.
I have drawn my own conclusions based on the evidence in the reports. If you want to modify my opinion you need to explain what is wrong in the reports and my mind is open.
DB
You journalistic rhetoric places great value on facts. However you are wrong about the fire! 80% of the fuselage was damaged by fire but only 20% destroyed.
If you are that familiar with this accident then tell me what possible reasons, other than low cloud, would cause a crew to fly below 500 feet over the sea towards high ground at a Groundspeed of 170 KIAS. witnesses on the Mull reported visibility below 500m. The yachtsman saw the aircraft estimated at 200-400 feet, flying below the cloud base, heading straight for the Mull.
TANS data infers that the crew may have been distracted after the second waypoint selection. The final flight path strongly infers inadvertent IMC.
The exact reasons why the crew flew towards the Mull below the Safety Altitude are unknown but on the few facts available described above the most probable cause, in my opinion no more and no less, is inadvertent IMC leading to CFIT.
Crucially, and this is the point TANDEM you seem incapable of processing, this conclusion does not necessarily mean that the crew were to blame. Equally it does not necessarily mean they were not to blame! There is simply not enough evidence in this regard, to know for certain and thus the required legal Proof cannot be met.
Now instead of being incredibly rude and calling me an "Ignoramus" just what do you have to offer that counters any of the above (which to the best of my recall is accurate in regards to the accident review).
Or alternatively keep bleating for us to move the topic to another thread.
I may well be an "Ignoramus" but like I said at the start, there are none so blind as those that cannot see.
I have drawn my own conclusions based on the evidence in the reports. If you want to modify my opinion you need to explain what is wrong in the reports and my mind is open.
DB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, thanks to the mods for splitting these discussions off from the previous thread. Much appreciated.
DOUBLE BOGEY, in your post #34 you said:
Would you be so kind as to explain precisely what you meant by that?
Thank you.
DOUBLE BOGEY, in your post #34 you said:
In the Mull case the Radar data was fairly clear.
Thank you.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I lost one good friend and a working acquaintance on the Mull Chinook. We will never know what happened and conjecture just raises the blood pressure.
I'm left wondering how many scores of military accident reports I have read where a recommendation has been to fit CVR/FDR. The real travesty is that there are so many aircraft still flying which could now be easily and cheaply fitted with such devices.
I'm left wondering how many scores of military accident reports I have read where a recommendation has been to fit CVR/FDR. The real travesty is that there are so many aircraft still flying which could now be easily and cheaply fitted with such devices.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Tandem, clearly you have nothing to offer beyond the official reports. My meaning is simple. Once clear of the Irish coast the aircraft descended to below 1000 feet. That was recorded on Radar.
Why, seeing as you were clearly not in the aircraft, did you feel the need to spend 17 years trying to prove the crew were not to blame. How do you know? Enlighten me so I can begin to understand the seemingly irrational response to this accident! What do you know that is not in the report?
Cows Getting Bigger. I am sorry about your friends truly. I am sure most of us on Pprune have experienced something similar.
Why, seeing as you were clearly not in the aircraft, did you feel the need to spend 17 years trying to prove the crew were not to blame. How do you know? Enlighten me so I can begin to understand the seemingly irrational response to this accident! What do you know that is not in the report?
Cows Getting Bigger. I am sorry about your friends truly. I am sure most of us on Pprune have experienced something similar.
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
None of us tried to prove anything, that was the whole argument, NOTHING could be proved. You really are making a knob of yourself. It wasn't emotion, that was the mistake many people made about the campaign. Many who argued actually believed in private that CFIT was a credible cause, but without proof you can't hang a good man.
Keep digging, Australia is near
Keep digging, Australia is near