Chinook - Mull of Kintyre
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Before you try to draw me again bear in mind I personally have a substantial amount of experience, in the air, in a helicopter, in similar conditions. I know what it looks, smells and feels like. Not the rarified atmosphere of the barrack room lawyer......or other kind. I know well the pressure, thought processes and strict priority of action required to survive in such situations especially when dealing with a malfunction.
As the parent of a military pilot at the time, I was drawn to the MoK campaign right from the beginning. As a PPL I could only play a very minor part in the years of repetitive debate but the fear of ever finding myself in the position of the Tapper and Cook families has driven me to take an above average interest in developments. The resurrection of this debate depresses me for the following reasons:
1. As far as I recall, no-one has ever denied the possibility of CFIT, so why are we arguing about it? Unless new information becomes available, this debate will go nowhere.
2. Hearing the same distortions of facts used to support arguments e.g. witnesses report that the Mull was shrouded in cloud. Well, the bit they were in obviously was but that doesn't necessarily mean that, FROM THE PILOT'S VIEWPOINT it was completely covered. Remember the pictures we were shown of orographic cloud covering parts of the Mull?
3. And the most depressing of all. The way that MoD and VVSO's have lied about the airworthiness of the HC2. This is compounded by the fact that they continue to to do so while people die. I particularly found it amazing that anyone would fly an aeroplane, especially with passengers, which required a DECU connector to be checked every 15 minutes because there was a history of them becoming detached. As an expert in light duty electrical contacts this was one area which I felt competent to comment on. I did ask at the time how many pilots would take to the air in such a machine and nobody responded. Interestingly, when I have asked a variety of civil and military pilots face to face, everyone said that they wouldn't.
It seems that, the introduction of the MAA and MAAIB has, as far as the FAA is concerned, made thing worse. I understand that they did have a fairly robust Air Safety organisation which relied on middle ranking officers who were unlikely to see further promotion and were therefore much more independent. I believe that this has now been superceded by a far less independent MAA.
1. As far as I recall, no-one has ever denied the possibility of CFIT, so why are we arguing about it? Unless new information becomes available, this debate will go nowhere.
2. Hearing the same distortions of facts used to support arguments e.g. witnesses report that the Mull was shrouded in cloud. Well, the bit they were in obviously was but that doesn't necessarily mean that, FROM THE PILOT'S VIEWPOINT it was completely covered. Remember the pictures we were shown of orographic cloud covering parts of the Mull?
3. And the most depressing of all. The way that MoD and VVSO's have lied about the airworthiness of the HC2. This is compounded by the fact that they continue to to do so while people die. I particularly found it amazing that anyone would fly an aeroplane, especially with passengers, which required a DECU connector to be checked every 15 minutes because there was a history of them becoming detached. As an expert in light duty electrical contacts this was one area which I felt competent to comment on. I did ask at the time how many pilots would take to the air in such a machine and nobody responded. Interestingly, when I have asked a variety of civil and military pilots face to face, everyone said that they wouldn't.
It seems that, the introduction of the MAA and MAAIB has, as far as the FAA is concerned, made thing worse. I understand that they did have a fairly robust Air Safety organisation which relied on middle ranking officers who were unlikely to see further promotion and were therefore much more independent. I believe that this has now been superceded by a far less independent MAA.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
Now you are being plain stupid and offensive at the same time.
FL's flying experience as well as his "Lawyer" credentials are impeccable along with his personal integrity being of the highest standard.
It is time you take a holiday or sober up, whichever will allow you to regain your senses and manners.
Not the rarified atmosphere of the barrack room lawyer...
FL's flying experience as well as his "Lawyer" credentials are impeccable along with his personal integrity being of the highest standard.
It is time you take a holiday or sober up, whichever will allow you to regain your senses and manners.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Shy torque, if someone wants to try and discredit an eyewitness on the basis that they are "Notoriously Unreliable" despite the facts indicating they were albeit spot on TOUGH! This is what I inferred from FLs post. If He did not imply this then maybe he can explain the relevance of his statement when in fact the witnesses evidence was, from my perspective, very accurate. I believe he used that statement to "Belittle" my post on the same subject, as if the yachtsman evidence was not worth considering.
As regards Experience I am non the wiser and have made no indication that I think FL is not experienced OR that I disrespect him. However, this is an Aviation forum not a forum of Law and as such the perspective of a Lawyer may differ considerably from the perspective of an operational pilot.
I do not know but I doubt FL has flown either commercially or in the Military. Thus his aviation experienced may be limited to recreation only, which whilst it sounds a lot more fun than commercial flying does not provide the kinds of pressure proffessional aviators can be subjected too.
I am sure FL is a nice guy to boot and a very good Lawyer.
As regards Experience I am non the wiser and have made no indication that I think FL is not experienced OR that I disrespect him. However, this is an Aviation forum not a forum of Law and as such the perspective of a Lawyer may differ considerably from the perspective of an operational pilot.
I do not know but I doubt FL has flown either commercially or in the Military. Thus his aviation experienced may be limited to recreation only, which whilst it sounds a lot more fun than commercial flying does not provide the kinds of pressure proffessional aviators can be subjected too.
I am sure FL is a nice guy to boot and a very good Lawyer.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
commercial flying does not provide the kinds of pressure proffessional aviators can be subjected too.
Shy torque, if someone wants to try and discredit an eyewitness on the basis that they are "Notoriously Unreliable" despite the facts indicating they were albeit spot on TOUGH!
I agree with the above comment by Boudreaux Bob.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Shytorque, As usual a post filled with veiled insults and cynical responses. Just what possible purpose do you think you have brought to this debate other than stirring the pot.
You think Bobs post is good! On one hand he calls me offensive and then he calls me an Idiot. A post so lacking in either moral, litary or intelligent fibre I could not bring myself to answer it.
Being rude and calling people names is childish behaviour not worth of a response.
You think Bobs post is good! On one hand he calls me offensive and then he calls me an Idiot. A post so lacking in either moral, litary or intelligent fibre I could not bring myself to answer it.
Being rude and calling people names is childish behaviour not worth of a response.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
I did not call you an "Idiot".
I did say your recent posts were "plain stupid and offensive". There is a difference between that and calling you an Idiot, although your interpretation is not far from the mark I guess.
I give far more credence to a very experienced Private Pilot and owner of several different airplanes and helicopters, who is also a very respected member of the Legal Profession, with qualifications in both aviation and legal proceedings, over a guy whose sole qualification is limited to just aviation.
That being said, it takes only a decent up bringing to grasp the basic tenets of courtesy.
I am reliably informed that Flying Lawyer is a very skilled Pilot with a control touch that would be envied by anyone with an appreciation for such attributes.
Ratings alone do not the Pilot make.
For sure, manners do the Gentleman make.
Honesty has always been considered a virtue.
Crab all you want DB, but you need to re-think the tone and content of your posts.
Surely you can be more professional sounding than you have lately?
I did not call you an "Idiot".
I did say your recent posts were "plain stupid and offensive". There is a difference between that and calling you an Idiot, although your interpretation is not far from the mark I guess.
I give far more credence to a very experienced Private Pilot and owner of several different airplanes and helicopters, who is also a very respected member of the Legal Profession, with qualifications in both aviation and legal proceedings, over a guy whose sole qualification is limited to just aviation.
That being said, it takes only a decent up bringing to grasp the basic tenets of courtesy.
I am reliably informed that Flying Lawyer is a very skilled Pilot with a control touch that would be envied by anyone with an appreciation for such attributes.
Ratings alone do not the Pilot make.
For sure, manners do the Gentleman make.
Honesty has always been considered a virtue.
Crab all you want DB, but you need to re-think the tone and content of your posts.
Surely you can be more professional sounding than you have lately?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey
Your opening salvo in this going over of old ground was to suggest that if the crew had observed the simple concept of safety altitude then the accident wouldn't have happened.
If that wasn't apportioning blame, it was certainly very scathing by someone who clearly isn't as familiar with some parts of the report as he claims to be.
Therefore please stop trying to pretend that you don't now blame the pilots, when you clearly do.
Your opening salvo in this going over of old ground was to suggest that if the crew had observed the simple concept of safety altitude then the accident wouldn't have happened.
If that wasn't apportioning blame, it was certainly very scathing by someone who clearly isn't as familiar with some parts of the report as he claims to be.
Therefore please stop trying to pretend that you don't now blame the pilots, when you clearly do.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what other air accidents have the UK Military found pilots guilty of gross professional negligence? It might be instructive to see what it has taken in the past to achieve this accolade...
The more I read of this the more it seems that the MoD used that device in an attempt to slam the door on further enquiry which they feared would lead to hugely embarrassing revelations of their gross professional misconduct in various aspects of certification and operational use of the aircraft. The amount of sitting on files and obfuscation amongst the Top Neddies is pretty damning and reeks of a big, embarrassed cover-up at the highest levels.
This upset over the word "blame" doesn't help the discussion either. The "gross professional..." epithet was eventually removed and I gather has been taken by dome to amount to absolving the pilots of all blame. I can't see how one reaches that conclusion, there are infinite levels of "blame", though responsibility is probably a better word. Thank God the civvy accident investigators avoid the blame culture entirely, the mil would do well to do so too. Still, whichever way you cook it the primary responsibility of a pilot is to keep his machine from violent impacts with the ground, and failure to achieve that is generally considered to involve some degree of less than perfect piloting (discounting catastrophic failures etc)
DB has a point re safety altitude, had a safe altitude been achieved no such accident could have taken place. I think it is rather an overreaction to suggest that statement implies blame - something that occurs whenever the B word is used here, but it is nonetheless a factual statement.
Equally, I cannot understand why anyone would plot a route to a waypoint that is on a thousand ft high rock when cloudbase is 500ft, let alone when it is also forecast to have a PROB30 of being in IMC. The next leg to Fort William as planned ran along the length of the mountainous Mull. That too is inexplicable as a VMC route though would have worked for the trip home at medium level, excepting any question of icing conditions (I'm not aware of the temps forecast). Surely if you were expecting IMC over land and had 500ft cloudbase over water you'd plot a waypoint a mile or two SW or W of the lighthouse then go to Ft William over water the whole way? Again, this isn't blame at all, just questioning what seems to me a curiously impractical style of navigation. Why one earth would you not just fly up the western coast of the Mull - it takes you where you want to go?
Too many question with answers we'll never know, but suggesting that a pilot who flies into a stuffed cloud is devoid of responsibility is taking it too far, unless you can prove - that is conclusively prove - something catastrophic or entirely beyond his control caused it. And of course no one can even start to suggest any evidence for that. Unequivocal proof works both ways.
Quid pro quo, isn't it called?
The more I read of this the more it seems that the MoD used that device in an attempt to slam the door on further enquiry which they feared would lead to hugely embarrassing revelations of their gross professional misconduct in various aspects of certification and operational use of the aircraft. The amount of sitting on files and obfuscation amongst the Top Neddies is pretty damning and reeks of a big, embarrassed cover-up at the highest levels.
This upset over the word "blame" doesn't help the discussion either. The "gross professional..." epithet was eventually removed and I gather has been taken by dome to amount to absolving the pilots of all blame. I can't see how one reaches that conclusion, there are infinite levels of "blame", though responsibility is probably a better word. Thank God the civvy accident investigators avoid the blame culture entirely, the mil would do well to do so too. Still, whichever way you cook it the primary responsibility of a pilot is to keep his machine from violent impacts with the ground, and failure to achieve that is generally considered to involve some degree of less than perfect piloting (discounting catastrophic failures etc)
DB has a point re safety altitude, had a safe altitude been achieved no such accident could have taken place. I think it is rather an overreaction to suggest that statement implies blame - something that occurs whenever the B word is used here, but it is nonetheless a factual statement.
Equally, I cannot understand why anyone would plot a route to a waypoint that is on a thousand ft high rock when cloudbase is 500ft, let alone when it is also forecast to have a PROB30 of being in IMC. The next leg to Fort William as planned ran along the length of the mountainous Mull. That too is inexplicable as a VMC route though would have worked for the trip home at medium level, excepting any question of icing conditions (I'm not aware of the temps forecast). Surely if you were expecting IMC over land and had 500ft cloudbase over water you'd plot a waypoint a mile or two SW or W of the lighthouse then go to Ft William over water the whole way? Again, this isn't blame at all, just questioning what seems to me a curiously impractical style of navigation. Why one earth would you not just fly up the western coast of the Mull - it takes you where you want to go?
Too many question with answers we'll never know, but suggesting that a pilot who flies into a stuffed cloud is devoid of responsibility is taking it too far, unless you can prove - that is conclusively prove - something catastrophic or entirely beyond his control caused it. And of course no one can even start to suggest any evidence for that. Unequivocal proof works both ways.
Quid pro quo, isn't it called?
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 8th Apr 2014 at 14:47.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Bob, do you actually read any posts properly. In the absence of anything to offer you resort to taunting me. Stay out of other people's discussions and let FL speak for himself.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
The more I read of this the more it seems that the MoD used that device in an attempt to slam the door on further enquiry which they feared would lead to hugely embarrassing revelations of their gross professional misconduct in various aspects of certification and operational use of the aircraft. The amount of sitting on files and obfuscation amongst the Top Neddies is pretty damning and reeks of a big, embarrassed cover-up at the highest levels.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 8th Apr 2014 at 20:43. Reason: Because Agaricus' post has been expanded after I replied, I inserted the quote I referred to.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Satsuma - my opening SALVO remains valid and correct. If they were at Safety altitude they would never have hit the hill.
My view is this was most probably inadvertent IMC leading to CFIT.
I do not agree the crew were negligent. That does not mean I believe no mistakes were made!
Now stop goading and add something of value if you have it.
My view is this was most probably inadvertent IMC leading to CFIT.
I do not agree the crew were negligent. That does not mean I believe no mistakes were made!
Now stop goading and add something of value if you have it.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they had not taken off it would not have happened either, DB.
Why the need to be at Safety Height if they were intent upon remaining VFR/VMC?
Likewise, plotting a waypoint to a known bit of rock does not mean one has to get to the Way Point before changing course. After crossing some water, without Radar to show the coastline, perhaps they wanted to ensure where that bit of Rock was so as to facilitate a Visual point of Reference.
As there were no Survivors and no CVR, we shall never know what the Pilots were thinking, planning, or doing when they met their end in this tragedy.
What we know for sure is the aircraft struck the ground while in flight, the weather was not good, the aircraft did not have all the Avionics it could have had and in some views should have had, the aircraft itself had known issues that challenged it being declared air worthy, and that there was a huge miscarriage of justice when the RAF Management both attempted to cover all that up and did so by trying to laid sole blame upon the Pilots.
Coming along later with all this supposition with scant knowledge of the facts and putting forth as having any relation to what happened that day is a bit presumptuous in my view.
How many times by how many people must you hear that before you understand that?
Yes, I do read your posts. This is a public forum and thus any discussion is open to all and sundry.
Hate that as you might, you will just have to deal with it.
Why the need to be at Safety Height if they were intent upon remaining VFR/VMC?
Likewise, plotting a waypoint to a known bit of rock does not mean one has to get to the Way Point before changing course. After crossing some water, without Radar to show the coastline, perhaps they wanted to ensure where that bit of Rock was so as to facilitate a Visual point of Reference.
As there were no Survivors and no CVR, we shall never know what the Pilots were thinking, planning, or doing when they met their end in this tragedy.
What we know for sure is the aircraft struck the ground while in flight, the weather was not good, the aircraft did not have all the Avionics it could have had and in some views should have had, the aircraft itself had known issues that challenged it being declared air worthy, and that there was a huge miscarriage of justice when the RAF Management both attempted to cover all that up and did so by trying to laid sole blame upon the Pilots.
Coming along later with all this supposition with scant knowledge of the facts and putting forth as having any relation to what happened that day is a bit presumptuous in my view.
How many times by how many people must you hear that before you understand that?
Yes, I do read your posts. This is a public forum and thus any discussion is open to all and sundry.
Hate that as you might, you will just have to deal with it.
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
I have been posting for a long time, the only person I ever used the ignore facility was Walter. Bogey now makes two. A shame really because I promised to be more tolerant after getting involved in the fiasco Glasgow thread. I did try, but he caused overload.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Bob, read Agarus last post. He has summed it up very neatly and better than I could have. Then read the accident report on the section about the VFR rules and VMC minima in place at the time.
Jay, take a day off. 'Opinions are like' you surely you know the rest.
I would suggest DB's - 'I personally have a substantial amount of experience, in the air, in a helicopter, in similar conditions. I know what it looks, smells and feels like. Not the rarified atmosphere of the barrack room lawyer......or other kind. I know well the pressure, thought processes and strict priority of action required to survive in such situations especially when dealing with a malfunction'
Eloquently put.
Bar being in same country what has Glasgow got to do with it - nothing except you have a problem with DB. Try doing it privately or even give him a ring I'm sure he will give you a number should you so wish. The barrack room bit might be a bit of a freudian slip but I'm guessing FL has never seen the inside of a barrack room and as for qualifying experience levels on the fact somebody owns a Gazelle - pure crass - as being the Master of a guild, again crass albeit a pilot guild.
Dbs had his say and you yours - move on, agree to disagree.
I would suggest DB's - 'I personally have a substantial amount of experience, in the air, in a helicopter, in similar conditions. I know what it looks, smells and feels like. Not the rarified atmosphere of the barrack room lawyer......or other kind. I know well the pressure, thought processes and strict priority of action required to survive in such situations especially when dealing with a malfunction'
Eloquently put.
Bar being in same country what has Glasgow got to do with it - nothing except you have a problem with DB. Try doing it privately or even give him a ring I'm sure he will give you a number should you so wish. The barrack room bit might be a bit of a freudian slip but I'm guessing FL has never seen the inside of a barrack room and as for qualifying experience levels on the fact somebody owns a Gazelle - pure crass - as being the Master of a guild, again crass albeit a pilot guild.
Dbs had his say and you yours - move on, agree to disagree.
We appear to have reached the same impasse that this highly emotive subject eventually resolves itself into.
Any perceived cover-up or whitewashing of the events may have had much to do with who was on the aircraft and where they were going - a lot of assets in one basket (sorry to mix metaphors) for the sake of what was essentially a social event. Having, by design or by accident, put pressure on the crew to complete the task in a less than perfect aircraft in less than perfect weather, it is no great surprise to me that an element of ar*e-covering then ensued by career-minded senior officers.
I haven't read the full report for quite some time but I don't remember any mention of GPS inaccuracies which I believe had been noted on the Chinook in that part of the world before.
Any perceived cover-up or whitewashing of the events may have had much to do with who was on the aircraft and where they were going - a lot of assets in one basket (sorry to mix metaphors) for the sake of what was essentially a social event. Having, by design or by accident, put pressure on the crew to complete the task in a less than perfect aircraft in less than perfect weather, it is no great surprise to me that an element of ar*e-covering then ensued by career-minded senior officers.
I haven't read the full report for quite some time but I don't remember any mention of GPS inaccuracies which I believe had been noted on the Chinook in that part of the world before.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE BOGEY
I posted the entirety of the evidence relating to height including the ST data in post #64 in order to provide all the relevant information for those who have not read the reports in detail, or at all.
Surely it was very clear from what I posted that, in this instance, the witness's upper estimate was reasonably accurate? If I had been trying to "fool" or "hoodwink" anyone, as you suggest, I would not have posted the ST data.
Perhaps my general comment about the unreliability of height estimates was superfluous in this instance – although his lower estimate was way out (relative to the height being discussed). I readily admit that it is a hobby-horse of mine because, over the years, I've seen many pilots put at risk in court (prosecutions and civil actions) by the inaccurate estimates of witnesses.
You are correct. I have never flown commercially and, although I was fortunate to be taught to fly by the RAF, I have never flown in the military.
I have never claimed to be an experienced pilot. I've been lucky to get wider experience than many PPLs but that doesn't make me an experienced pilot.
I have not offered any opinion about what happened and would not presume to do so. (I find it irritating when PPLs, and even non-pilots, spoil the flow of discussions with their theories and argue with professionals in areas in which they have no expertise or experience. I confine myself to those aspects of discussions where I do have expertise and experience.)
I agree. I have focused on the evidence. I'm a lawyer so naturally I would.
You clearly have enormous experience of flying in challenging conditions. I respect that. (A few years ago, I travelled to Aberdeen in the hope of observing the sort of conditions with which off-shore pilots often have to deal. Unfortunately, for my purposes, the weather on both my jumpseat flights out to rigs was benign: Bristow Aberdeen)
I don't have the same experience as you, but I do have many years' experience of studying accident reports (AAIB & BOI), working closely with experts in accident investigation and aviation matters, examining evidence and dealing with aviation fatal accident cases.
Is it your view that I don't have appropriate experience to comment upon the evidence or, more to the point, the lack of it?
I disagreed with your interpretation of the absence of evidence of a defect in the helicopter, pointing out the extent of the damage and referring to the AAIB expert's comment about it
I pointed out that a causative defect could not be discounted. I did not suggest that the accident was caused by a defect.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to make such comments?
I have also been critical of the BOI procedure then in force. The independent Review concluded that the BOI "was conducted under a system which was, by generally accepted standards of justice and fairness, manifestly unfair to deceased aircrew." That is also my view.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to express such an opinion?
I repeat: I have not offered any opinion about what happened.
I have a hunch, based upon my experience of dealing with such matters, but I would not presume to post it.
For some reason, you appear to assume that I disagree with your view about what happened.
FL
I posted the entirety of the evidence relating to height including the ST data in post #64 in order to provide all the relevant information for those who have not read the reports in detail, or at all.
Surely it was very clear from what I posted that, in this instance, the witness's upper estimate was reasonably accurate? If I had been trying to "fool" or "hoodwink" anyone, as you suggest, I would not have posted the ST data.
Perhaps my general comment about the unreliability of height estimates was superfluous in this instance – although his lower estimate was way out (relative to the height being discussed). I readily admit that it is a hobby-horse of mine because, over the years, I've seen many pilots put at risk in court (prosecutions and civil actions) by the inaccurate estimates of witnesses.
You are correct. I have never flown commercially and, although I was fortunate to be taught to fly by the RAF, I have never flown in the military.
I have never claimed to be an experienced pilot. I've been lucky to get wider experience than many PPLs but that doesn't make me an experienced pilot.
I have not offered any opinion about what happened and would not presume to do so. (I find it irritating when PPLs, and even non-pilots, spoil the flow of discussions with their theories and argue with professionals in areas in which they have no expertise or experience. I confine myself to those aspects of discussions where I do have expertise and experience.)
However, this is an Aviation forum not a forum of Law and as such the perspective of a Lawyer may differ considerably from the perspective of an operational pilot.
You clearly have enormous experience of flying in challenging conditions. I respect that. (A few years ago, I travelled to Aberdeen in the hope of observing the sort of conditions with which off-shore pilots often have to deal. Unfortunately, for my purposes, the weather on both my jumpseat flights out to rigs was benign: Bristow Aberdeen)
I don't have the same experience as you, but I do have many years' experience of studying accident reports (AAIB & BOI), working closely with experts in accident investigation and aviation matters, examining evidence and dealing with aviation fatal accident cases.
Is it your view that I don't have appropriate experience to comment upon the evidence or, more to the point, the lack of it?
I disagreed with your interpretation of the absence of evidence of a defect in the helicopter, pointing out the extent of the damage and referring to the AAIB expert's comment about it
I pointed out that a causative defect could not be discounted. I did not suggest that the accident was caused by a defect.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to make such comments?
I have also been critical of the BOI procedure then in force. The independent Review concluded that the BOI "was conducted under a system which was, by generally accepted standards of justice and fairness, manifestly unfair to deceased aircrew." That is also my view.
Is it your view that I'm not qualified to express such an opinion?
I repeat: I have not offered any opinion about what happened.
I have a hunch, based upon my experience of dealing with such matters, but I would not presume to post it.
For some reason, you appear to assume that I disagree with your view about what happened.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 8th Apr 2014 at 19:23.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB,
As there are numerous investigations and reviews, I am not sure to which you suggest i read.
I found this in a summary. Is this what you are referring to when you talk about RAF Minimums and such?
As there are numerous investigations and reviews, I am not sure to which you suggest i read.
I found this in a summary. Is this what you are referring to when you talk about RAF Minimums and such?
RAF Visual Flight Rules (VFR) require the crew to have a minimum visibility of 5.5 kilometres above 140 knots, or minimum visibility of one kilometre travelling below 140 knots;[25] if VFR conditions are lost an emergency climb must be immediately flown.[26] Nine out of ten witnesses interviewed in the inquiry reported visibility at ground level in the fog as being as low as ten to one hundred metres at the time of the crash; in-flight visibility may have been more or less than this. The tenth witness, a yachtsman who was offshore, reported it as being 1 mile, though he is regarded as a less reliable witness as he changed his testimony.[27]
If witness accounts of visibility are correct, the pilots should have transferred to Instrument Flight Rules,[28] which would require the pilots to slow the aircraft and climb to a safe altitude at the best climbing speed.[29] In the area around the Mull of Kintyre, the safe altitude would be 2,400 feet above sea level, 1,000 feet above the highest point of the terrain.[30] The height of the crash site of ZD576 was 810 feet, 1,600 feet below the minimum safe level.[6] The Board of Inquiry into the accident recommended formal procedures for transition from Visual Flight Rules to Instrument Flight Rules in mid-flight be developed, and the RAF has since integrated such practices into standard pilot training.[31]
Regarding negligence on the part of the pilots, the 2011 Report said "the possibility that there had been gross negligence could not be ruled out, but there were many grounds for doubt and the pilots were entitled to the benefit of it... [T]he Reviewing Officers had failed to take account of the high calibre of two Special Forces pilots who had no reputation for recklessness."[32]
If witness accounts of visibility are correct, the pilots should have transferred to Instrument Flight Rules,[28] which would require the pilots to slow the aircraft and climb to a safe altitude at the best climbing speed.[29] In the area around the Mull of Kintyre, the safe altitude would be 2,400 feet above sea level, 1,000 feet above the highest point of the terrain.[30] The height of the crash site of ZD576 was 810 feet, 1,600 feet below the minimum safe level.[6] The Board of Inquiry into the accident recommended formal procedures for transition from Visual Flight Rules to Instrument Flight Rules in mid-flight be developed, and the RAF has since integrated such practices into standard pilot training.[31]
Regarding negligence on the part of the pilots, the 2011 Report said "the possibility that there had been gross negligence could not be ruled out, but there were many grounds for doubt and the pilots were entitled to the benefit of it... [T]he Reviewing Officers had failed to take account of the high calibre of two Special Forces pilots who had no reputation for recklessness."[32]