Chinook - Still Hitting Back 3 (Merged)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinok
As at least one contributer has pointed out, this discussion is becoming repetative and pontless. But just two coments from me; I am stll waiting to hear all the whistles being blown (see my 2246), and nor i do not yet see a forest of hands in response to my 2330. Where have all the members of the Mull lobby gone? Regards. Jp
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Originally Posted by John Purdey
As at least one contributer has pointed out, this discussion is becoming repetative and pontless. But just two coments from me; I am stll waiting to hear all the whistles being blown (see my 2246), and nor i do not yet see a forest of hands in response to my 2330. Where have all the members of the Mull lobby gone? Regards. Jp
So John Purdey and Walter Kennedy are one and the same person?
It's not surprising that the argument has become "repetative" and "pontless", then - is it?
jp,
Assuming that you are, in fact, referring to your 2338, I do not think that anyone can "put their hands up" to that until you decide whether the hills were "wholly" or "partly" obscured by cloud (your words). If you mean partly, please define how much. It seems that most people on this thread, unlike your goodself, are reluctant to make such judgements without the facts.
Assuming that you are, in fact, referring to your 2338, I do not think that anyone can "put their hands up" to that until you decide whether the hills were "wholly" or "partly" obscured by cloud (your words). If you mean partly, please define how much. It seems that most people on this thread, unlike your goodself, are reluctant to make such judgements without the facts.
Last edited by pulse1; 2nd Jul 2006 at 20:44.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mr Purdey,
I know of no lobby group, but I can assure you that the Mull of Kintyre Campaign Group is alive and kicking. I spoke to the new chap at the MoD only last week and we work as tirelessly as ever to overturn the indefensible verdict. I thought you would give me a bit more credit than to expect me to publish any campaign strategy here before speaking, again, to the MoD.
Anyway, to address your other points, I regret that you will be waiting a long time for a conspiracy theory because, unlike senior retired officers, we realise that it is probably wise to rely solely on known facts and stick to the rules and regulations in force at the time of the accident. Unfortunately, there appears to be very few facts available. Conspiracy theorists generally use speculation and giant leaps of both faith and logic to present their version of events. We have not done so, and never will.
I'm guessing that the other post you were referring to was your one at 2238. I have to offer an apology because I am unable to answer your question. Why so, you may ask? Well, simple really. I don't know what Jon and Rick could see, so it would be foolish for me to offer a speculative answer. As I see it, you have two options with regards this point - lament the decision not to fit ADR and CVR, or do the same as the Reviewing Officers and state that, even though you were not there, you know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the visibility was from the cockpit.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I know of no lobby group, but I can assure you that the Mull of Kintyre Campaign Group is alive and kicking. I spoke to the new chap at the MoD only last week and we work as tirelessly as ever to overturn the indefensible verdict. I thought you would give me a bit more credit than to expect me to publish any campaign strategy here before speaking, again, to the MoD.
Anyway, to address your other points, I regret that you will be waiting a long time for a conspiracy theory because, unlike senior retired officers, we realise that it is probably wise to rely solely on known facts and stick to the rules and regulations in force at the time of the accident. Unfortunately, there appears to be very few facts available. Conspiracy theorists generally use speculation and giant leaps of both faith and logic to present their version of events. We have not done so, and never will.
I'm guessing that the other post you were referring to was your one at 2238. I have to offer an apology because I am unable to answer your question. Why so, you may ask? Well, simple really. I don't know what Jon and Rick could see, so it would be foolish for me to offer a speculative answer. As I see it, you have two options with regards this point - lament the decision not to fit ADR and CVR, or do the same as the Reviewing Officers and state that, even though you were not there, you know with absolutely no doubt whatsoever what the visibility was from the cockpit.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
I hope you have more luck getting jp/walt to answer your question than I had. Twice I asked him to tell us what the guys could ACTUALLY see from the cockpit window and he simply chooses to ignore the question but continues to stir in his usual manner.
Best of luck with your continued efforts which I am sure will bear fruits evntually.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
I hope you have more luck getting jp/walt to answer your question than I had. Twice I asked him to tell us what the guys could ACTUALLY see from the cockpit window and he simply chooses to ignore the question but continues to stir in his usual manner.
Best of luck with your continued efforts which I am sure will bear fruits evntually.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ABiW,
give the man a chance. I don't think the point is being ignored. I'm sure that he's just trying to locate the photograph that the Air Marshals used!
Mr Purdey - no offence intended. Tongue firmly in cheek!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
give the man a chance. I don't think the point is being ignored. I'm sure that he's just trying to locate the photograph that the Air Marshals used!
Mr Purdey - no offence intended. Tongue firmly in cheek!
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian
Of course I know you will recall, but there is indeed a photograph in existence which speaks to the weather surrounding the lighthouse, within 5 minutes or so of the accident.
Of course I know you will recall, but there is indeed a photograph in existence which speaks to the weather surrounding the lighthouse, within 5 minutes or so of the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
ShyTorque
You make too much of a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, for which I apologise.
As to the 'wholly or partly' remark I made earlier, I was trying to acommodate not only evidence of the (trained) lighthouse keeper and the several walkers on that hillside, who talked about a visibility of 20 meters or less, but also the witness who said he had had a glimpse (I believe it was) of the shoreline from the hillside. I should have guessed that a great deal would be made of the latter observation, while the first and certainly the most important one was happily ignored.
Meanwhile, still no volunteers who are prepared to say that they would have carried on towards the hills at low level?
With all good wishes. JP
You make too much of a simple slip of the finger on the keyboard, for which I apologise.
As to the 'wholly or partly' remark I made earlier, I was trying to acommodate not only evidence of the (trained) lighthouse keeper and the several walkers on that hillside, who talked about a visibility of 20 meters or less, but also the witness who said he had had a glimpse (I believe it was) of the shoreline from the hillside. I should have guessed that a great deal would be made of the latter observation, while the first and certainly the most important one was happily ignored.
Meanwhile, still no volunteers who are prepared to say that they would have carried on towards the hills at low level?
With all good wishes. JP
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tandemrotor,
I do, indeed, recall the photograph. I also have a copy of the video taken by the holidaymaker in those few minutes prior to the accident. The coast is quite easy to make out.
Mr Purdey,
No-one disputes what the Lighthouse Keeper (trained) said about the weather. The point is this: recall the last time you were stood in fog. How did you know how far in front of you the fog extended? It is impossible to estimate the thickness (expanse, not density) of fog when you are stood in it. Mr Lamont correctly stated that he was stood in fog and no one can dispute that.
What puzzles me is why the evidence of the Yachtsman (trained skipper which, I presume, includes some Met input) is so easily dismissed when he was looking at the murkey stuff from the same direction as the approaching Chinook. Surely his estimation as to how far out, or not, the fog extended is worth listening to, and bears more relevance to the weather observation issue? That, in my humble opinion is the most important one that has been ignored.
What is the point of persisting with your request for volunteers?
"Yes, I would carry on." = Chinook ZD576 still crashed on the Mull 12 years ago.
"No, I most certainly wouldn't carry on." = Chinook ZD576 still crashed on the Mull 12 years ago.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I do, indeed, recall the photograph. I also have a copy of the video taken by the holidaymaker in those few minutes prior to the accident. The coast is quite easy to make out.
Mr Purdey,
No-one disputes what the Lighthouse Keeper (trained) said about the weather. The point is this: recall the last time you were stood in fog. How did you know how far in front of you the fog extended? It is impossible to estimate the thickness (expanse, not density) of fog when you are stood in it. Mr Lamont correctly stated that he was stood in fog and no one can dispute that.
What puzzles me is why the evidence of the Yachtsman (trained skipper which, I presume, includes some Met input) is so easily dismissed when he was looking at the murkey stuff from the same direction as the approaching Chinook. Surely his estimation as to how far out, or not, the fog extended is worth listening to, and bears more relevance to the weather observation issue? That, in my humble opinion is the most important one that has been ignored.
What is the point of persisting with your request for volunteers?
"Yes, I would carry on." = Chinook ZD576 still crashed on the Mull 12 years ago.
"No, I most certainly wouldn't carry on." = Chinook ZD576 still crashed on the Mull 12 years ago.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry Mr Purdey, I can't answer your question - because I don't know what the weather looked like. Show me what the weather was like from the cockpit and I'll answer your question. I'm not avoiding the issue. Honest!
I'm quite nice to fly with - very chatty
Have you found the photo yet?
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
I'm quite nice to fly with - very chatty
Have you found the photo yet?
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,528
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Am I alone in thinking that most of this dialogue over the past two weeks (including my own input some days ago) is somewhat pointless, tiresome, and highly repetitive? If there are those from the MoD who are anti-campaign and observing this thread, I can imagine their reactions. Don't mean to sound priggish or judgmental, but as a pro-campaigner it all seems a bit dilutory (if such a word exists). Then, I suppose if you're caz or JP that matters not ----
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That there is so much confusion 12 years on over what the view from the cockpit was is ridiculous – their view is perhaps one aspect that CAN be estimated with a reasonably high probability attached.
Anyone familiar with that part of the world and given what is known of the met forecast, especially in regard to the wind direction, together with the witnesses’ accounts would surely assume that the slopes of the Mull were covered in a local mist that obscured ground detail from just about the shoreline on.
You could count on it.
On that particular day, the cloud base was also so low that the top of the Mull was in cloud such that the mist merged with that cloud – it is highly probable that they would have been looking at an amorphous grey blob with no ground detail beyond the shoreline and with no boundary to give any perspective – they would have been able to see it for some distance but it would have been very difficult to judge their distance from it in their approach especially with regard to judging when to turn at their speed. When I say “highly probable” here, I mean almost certainly – the only conceivable exception being sporadic clear patches in a moving carpet of mist which, if anything, would have alerted them to how close in they actually were.
There could have been a possibility of some mist patches offshore, but this would have caused an earlier turn (waypoint A was very close in).
Had this been a straightforward ferry flight, prudence would have had them making a slight turn to the left at waypoint change – instead, after effectively discarding the SuperTANS at the critical time, they made a small (corrective?) steer to the right.
The reason for their continuing on IN THESE CONDITIONS is germane to understanding what happened – it should have been a starting point for debate.
Anyone familiar with that part of the world and given what is known of the met forecast, especially in regard to the wind direction, together with the witnesses’ accounts would surely assume that the slopes of the Mull were covered in a local mist that obscured ground detail from just about the shoreline on.
You could count on it.
On that particular day, the cloud base was also so low that the top of the Mull was in cloud such that the mist merged with that cloud – it is highly probable that they would have been looking at an amorphous grey blob with no ground detail beyond the shoreline and with no boundary to give any perspective – they would have been able to see it for some distance but it would have been very difficult to judge their distance from it in their approach especially with regard to judging when to turn at their speed. When I say “highly probable” here, I mean almost certainly – the only conceivable exception being sporadic clear patches in a moving carpet of mist which, if anything, would have alerted them to how close in they actually were.
There could have been a possibility of some mist patches offshore, but this would have caused an earlier turn (waypoint A was very close in).
Had this been a straightforward ferry flight, prudence would have had them making a slight turn to the left at waypoint change – instead, after effectively discarding the SuperTANS at the critical time, they made a small (corrective?) steer to the right.
The reason for their continuing on IN THESE CONDITIONS is germane to understanding what happened – it should have been a starting point for debate.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: preston
Age: 76
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazatou,
About your 2300 post.
Are you saying that because the Law Lords have no aircrew experience their decisions are irrelevant.
They rule everyday on matters medical, financial, engineeering etc. Are you saying that all decisions they come to not directly related to points of law are invalid? Or simply the ones you disagree with? You insult the British legal system by your arrogance.
About your 2300 post.
Are you saying that because the Law Lords have no aircrew experience their decisions are irrelevant.
They rule everyday on matters medical, financial, engineeering etc. Are you saying that all decisions they come to not directly related to points of law are invalid? Or simply the ones you disagree with? You insult the British legal system by your arrogance.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Brian Dixon. Re the weather as seen from the cockpit, what is wrong with the evidence of the 'lone yachtsman' who was looking at the same coast at the same time (he saw the aircraft itself heading in towards the coast remember) as were the crew? Regards. JP
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JP. Surely we should be dealing here with facts 'beyond any doubt whatsoever'. Whatever the yachtsman guesses, assumes, surmises or opines may or may not have been visible from the cockpit is irrelevant. He was not in the cockpit and therefore cannot state as fact what was visible or not visible from it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dalek
Arrogant - Moi?
I do not know if you have read the Hansard transcript of the HOL debate. Lord Glenarthur (a man with great experience of Helicopter Operations - both Military and Civil) - spoke forcefully against the amendment. Lord Chalfont produced a letter from a former CDS who was sure "from the day of the accident" that the crew were not negligent.
I fail to understand how a former CDS could have arrived at that conclusion before the BOI or AAIB had even arrived at the scene, let alone have started their investigations. That I would call "arrogant".
Arrogant - Moi?
I do not know if you have read the Hansard transcript of the HOL debate. Lord Glenarthur (a man with great experience of Helicopter Operations - both Military and Civil) - spoke forcefully against the amendment. Lord Chalfont produced a letter from a former CDS who was sure "from the day of the accident" that the crew were not negligent.
I fail to understand how a former CDS could have arrived at that conclusion before the BOI or AAIB had even arrived at the scene, let alone have started their investigations. That I would call "arrogant".
Last edited by cazatou; 5th Jul 2006 at 14:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chinook
Brian Dixon. Please answer the question; given what the yachtsman (a reliable observer) saw as the weather covering the coast at the exactly same time as the crew would have seen it, would you or would you not have carried on? Yes or No? (You know my answer to that question; I would not have flown within miles of those sinister hills in those conditions) Regards. JP
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Originally Posted by John Purdey
Brian Dixon. Please answer the question; given what the yachtsman (a reliable observer) saw as the weather covering the coast at the exactly same time as the crew would have seen it, would you or would you not have carried on? Yes or No? (You know my answer to that question; I would not have flown within miles of those sinister hills in those conditions) Regards. JP
A really irritating PPRuNer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Purdey,
give me a chance to answer! I have to work sometimes!
There's nothing wrong with the evidence of the yachtsman. It is what he says he saw, from the location he was at, at the time he saw it. It deserves just as much recognition as that given to those on the hillside. No one involved in the issues afterwards was anywhere near the Mull, so we should accept it for what it is - another piece of evidence from a witness. The fact that it differs from other witnesses is not for you or I to judge.
You are wasting you time trying to get me to answer your question as to whether or not I would fly towards the Mull. I don't deal in speculation or hypothesis as you well know. Show me what could be seen from the cockpit and I assure you that I will give a truthful answer.
I fear that you and I going over the weather issue (again) is, as pointed out by Jindabyne, pointless. Lets agree that you wouldn't fly towards the Mull and I can't make my mind up because I can't see out of the window.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
give me a chance to answer! I have to work sometimes!
There's nothing wrong with the evidence of the yachtsman. It is what he says he saw, from the location he was at, at the time he saw it. It deserves just as much recognition as that given to those on the hillside. No one involved in the issues afterwards was anywhere near the Mull, so we should accept it for what it is - another piece of evidence from a witness. The fact that it differs from other witnesses is not for you or I to judge.
You are wasting you time trying to get me to answer your question as to whether or not I would fly towards the Mull. I don't deal in speculation or hypothesis as you well know. Show me what could be seen from the cockpit and I assure you that I will give a truthful answer.
I fear that you and I going over the weather issue (again) is, as pointed out by Jindabyne, pointless. Lets agree that you wouldn't fly towards the Mull and I can't make my mind up because I can't see out of the window.
My best, as always.
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Last edited by Brian Dixon; 5th Jul 2006 at 22:39.