Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Nichol
Re your comment: Mobile phones. The BOI did examine this (para 37) but found no evidence that it was a factor.
I doubt any of the BOI were communication specialists, neither would they have the knowledge that is around nowadays on the danger of mobiles etc.
I recall the early to mid 1990's were still early days in respect to mobiles. I was with a military touring circus in 1990-92 (my euphemism) and we travelled the length and breadth of the UK, as well as Germany, most of mainland Europe, and into Eastern Europe. I usually landed the job of bagman for the mobile phone. In those days it was a large cellnet contraption which was about double the size of a respirator pack. It worked off battery but preferred mains if available. I was only a middle ranker, but of course the OC and other seniors used it at every opportunity to pass sitreps (even when flying). Now our outfit were no way as important or secretive as the pax on the Chinook, and I just can't believe the security team from NI travelled anywhere without doing an ET whenever possible. Did the BOI reveal details of mobile phones found amongst the wreckage?
A few brief excerpts from recent publications on mobile phones:
"Last month, an aircraft carrying German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was forced
to make an emergency landing after key cockpit equipment cut out. Authorities believe that a mobile phone was to blame for the fault which forced the minister's plane to abort its landing attempt and make a steep climb, after which the pilot made an
emergency landing without key cockpit instruments." Aviation Mag Oct 2000.
"AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION
The Safety Regulation Group (SRG) in England has reportedly found evidence that supports a ban of mobile phones onboard aircraft.
New studies show that mobile phones do indeed affect aircraft instruments, according
to Computerworld. The studies, which were carried out on Boeing 737 and 747
aircraft earlier this year, apparently show that mobile phones with an output of 1-2W
can cause deviations in the instruments that are beyond the allowed limits."
I think the cellnet we used with our travelling military "circus" was about 2.5W output.
Additionally, as a former Machrihanish guy (1992-93) I am aware that the US Navy Seals -Special Warfare Unit 2 were based there. They had inflatable seacraft and a MC130E "Combat Talon" aircraft. The Seal's training ground was on those cliffs around the Mull and in the waters off the point. Do we know of any activity in the area by the US Seals during the time-scale of the crash? I hate to think of the wattage of some of the kit they carried! As a comms engineer I can visualise the portable satcom dishes, microwave links etc they would use, and the power in some of the beams produced.
People used to think that Asbestos was safe, look at the view now. The same with mobiles, what may have been seen to be unimportant then, mostly through ignorance, is now strictly taboo. Is there any way we could find out about mobiles etc found amongst the wreckage? I doubt we would ever find out about Seal activity in the area. I could tell an amusing story about an audit I carried out on communications facilities at Machrihanish and the reply I got from OC Seals, but I'd probably end up in the clink!
My interest in the case? one of my pals on our travelling roadshow was later posted to NI and was a pax on the Chinook. Another one of the pax was a colleague from a previous tour we both did in Cyprus.
By the way, I also believe Machrihanish was the true destination of the Chinook and have written to my MP, to David Davis, and to Lord Chalfont on this matter.
------------------
RUCON
Re your comment: Mobile phones. The BOI did examine this (para 37) but found no evidence that it was a factor.
I doubt any of the BOI were communication specialists, neither would they have the knowledge that is around nowadays on the danger of mobiles etc.
I recall the early to mid 1990's were still early days in respect to mobiles. I was with a military touring circus in 1990-92 (my euphemism) and we travelled the length and breadth of the UK, as well as Germany, most of mainland Europe, and into Eastern Europe. I usually landed the job of bagman for the mobile phone. In those days it was a large cellnet contraption which was about double the size of a respirator pack. It worked off battery but preferred mains if available. I was only a middle ranker, but of course the OC and other seniors used it at every opportunity to pass sitreps (even when flying). Now our outfit were no way as important or secretive as the pax on the Chinook, and I just can't believe the security team from NI travelled anywhere without doing an ET whenever possible. Did the BOI reveal details of mobile phones found amongst the wreckage?
A few brief excerpts from recent publications on mobile phones:
"Last month, an aircraft carrying German foreign minister Joschka Fischer was forced
to make an emergency landing after key cockpit equipment cut out. Authorities believe that a mobile phone was to blame for the fault which forced the minister's plane to abort its landing attempt and make a steep climb, after which the pilot made an
emergency landing without key cockpit instruments." Aviation Mag Oct 2000.
"AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION
The Safety Regulation Group (SRG) in England has reportedly found evidence that supports a ban of mobile phones onboard aircraft.
New studies show that mobile phones do indeed affect aircraft instruments, according
to Computerworld. The studies, which were carried out on Boeing 737 and 747
aircraft earlier this year, apparently show that mobile phones with an output of 1-2W
can cause deviations in the instruments that are beyond the allowed limits."
I think the cellnet we used with our travelling military "circus" was about 2.5W output.
Additionally, as a former Machrihanish guy (1992-93) I am aware that the US Navy Seals -Special Warfare Unit 2 were based there. They had inflatable seacraft and a MC130E "Combat Talon" aircraft. The Seal's training ground was on those cliffs around the Mull and in the waters off the point. Do we know of any activity in the area by the US Seals during the time-scale of the crash? I hate to think of the wattage of some of the kit they carried! As a comms engineer I can visualise the portable satcom dishes, microwave links etc they would use, and the power in some of the beams produced.
People used to think that Asbestos was safe, look at the view now. The same with mobiles, what may have been seen to be unimportant then, mostly through ignorance, is now strictly taboo. Is there any way we could find out about mobiles etc found amongst the wreckage? I doubt we would ever find out about Seal activity in the area. I could tell an amusing story about an audit I carried out on communications facilities at Machrihanish and the reply I got from OC Seals, but I'd probably end up in the clink!
My interest in the case? one of my pals on our travelling roadshow was later posted to NI and was a pax on the Chinook. Another one of the pax was a colleague from a previous tour we both did in Cyprus.
By the way, I also believe Machrihanish was the true destination of the Chinook and have written to my MP, to David Davis, and to Lord Chalfont on this matter.
------------------
RUCON
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whilst I personally wouldn't rule out anything, RF interference affecting aircraft electronics, rotor streaming from the Mull, over-eager jarheads defending the Aurora hypersonic aircraft which conspiracists believe operated from Machrihanish, little green men from Mars or whatever, there is but one thrust to this whole tragic affair:
Was there overwhelming proof positive for the conclusion reached by the reviewing officers to be beyond any possible doubt whatsoever - or does sufficient doubt remain for the cause to be Not Positively Determined?
Was there overwhelming proof positive for the conclusion reached by the reviewing officers to be beyond any possible doubt whatsoever - or does sufficient doubt remain for the cause to be Not Positively Determined?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Have followed this thread v closely since its inception in June. Letters off this morning (snail mail) to Hoon, Blair and McGregor (cons South Norfolk).
BW's arrogance and attitude last Thursday on the Paxman show and the passion shown by Brian D and others finally persuaded me to write.
What I really want is McGregor's e-address so that I can badger him relentlessly about this and other topics in his last few months in office! Couldn't find it in the links posted above.
Keep it up.
sNr
BW's arrogance and attitude last Thursday on the Paxman show and the passion shown by Brian D and others finally persuaded me to write.
What I really want is McGregor's e-address so that I can badger him relentlessly about this and other topics in his last few months in office! Couldn't find it in the links posted above.
Keep it up.
sNr
Guest
Posts: n/a
I've been following this thread with great interest and whole heartedly support the campaign to have Jon Tapper and Rick Cook's names cleared.
I was on duty in the AAC ops room in Aldergrove and remember watching their aircraft leave that afternoon, it caught my attention because it departed to the East close to our barracks - we had a suspicion that some RAF aircrews might've been having a laugh at the "Pongo's" expense. Of course, it later became apparent that they'd taken that route on their way to Scotland.
JIMMACKENZIE
I've posted a question on the Question Forum relating to the effects of mobile phones on aircraft instruments/systems, it might be better to continue the subject there ? This thread should be left to the good folks trying to get some justice for Jon and Rick.
My thoughts and sympathies to all those that lost relatives or friends.
I was on duty in the AAC ops room in Aldergrove and remember watching their aircraft leave that afternoon, it caught my attention because it departed to the East close to our barracks - we had a suspicion that some RAF aircrews might've been having a laugh at the "Pongo's" expense. Of course, it later became apparent that they'd taken that route on their way to Scotland.
JIMMACKENZIE
I've posted a question on the Question Forum relating to the effects of mobile phones on aircraft instruments/systems, it might be better to continue the subject there ? This thread should be left to the good folks trying to get some justice for Jon and Rick.
My thoughts and sympathies to all those that lost relatives or friends.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stik,
your MP has no public e-mail address so the best thing to do is to find out when his surgery is and pop along to say Hi. Take loads of paperwork as they love it!!
Five questions from me to the ask PM site. I'm really looking forward to the programme.
Lets keep the pressure on.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
your MP has no public e-mail address so the best thing to do is to find out when his surgery is and pop along to say Hi. Take loads of paperwork as they love it!!
Five questions from me to the ask PM site. I'm really looking forward to the programme.
Lets keep the pressure on.
Regards all
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Point 1. I am afraid I've been out of Mil aviation for a short while and can't remember the chapter and verse but the comments about Safalt made me think.
As I remember JSP318 sets out many bits and pieces but somewhere in the preamble it states that all regulations contained therein are minima but may be affected by MORE STRINGENT regulations issued by lesser authorities ie GASO etc. I note also that the RN include any relaxations of regulations within JSP whereas the RAF use GASOs or local orders, which would seem to contravine the clear statement in JSP 318. If it is the case that JSP318 is "the bible" then would that make the issuing authority for the less stringent regulations culpable - ie is Wrattons 2800' not only wrong but in breach of JSP318? (And did he issue any such local orders?)
Point 2. (Probably a repeat) Who the Ł$"% authorised the sortie in those met conditions with a known icing limitation?
Point 3. Brian, I'm 100% behind the cause, keep it up, the truth is not negotiable.
GA
As I remember JSP318 sets out many bits and pieces but somewhere in the preamble it states that all regulations contained therein are minima but may be affected by MORE STRINGENT regulations issued by lesser authorities ie GASO etc. I note also that the RN include any relaxations of regulations within JSP whereas the RAF use GASOs or local orders, which would seem to contravine the clear statement in JSP 318. If it is the case that JSP318 is "the bible" then would that make the issuing authority for the less stringent regulations culpable - ie is Wrattons 2800' not only wrong but in breach of JSP318? (And did he issue any such local orders?)
Point 2. (Probably a repeat) Who the Ł$"% authorised the sortie in those met conditions with a known icing limitation?
Point 3. Brian, I'm 100% behind the cause, keep it up, the truth is not negotiable.
GA
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sent:
Sir,
I write to request your support in Parliament in the case the unsupportable verdict of Gross Negligence against Flight Lieutenants John Tapper and Rick Cook as a result of their fatal air accident in Mull of Kintyre. As a serving military pilot I accept the dangers of my profession, but I also expect that my country’s government will not posthumously belittle my reputation and effectively punish my family. It was not until my wife asked me to explain how such a verdict would affect the families of the aircrew and to assure her that I could not leave her in such a situation, that I realised how important an issue this was for me. I have grave concerns over the current actions of the Secretary of State for Defense in ignoring the obvious lack of POSITIVE evidence for the verdict of Gross Negligence.
The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the time of the crash the Chinook Mk 2 was subject to a number of safety concerns. These problems, primarily with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), but significantly in this case the poor performance in icing conditions, were of such a magnitude that the Rotary Wing Test Squadron at Boscombe Down had ceased flying the airframe, effectively halting the full Military Aircraft Release process. Even so, Air Marshal Wratton had allowed the same aircraft type to be deployed operationally in Northern Ireland. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 airframe. Yet in their reviewing roles they flouted RAF Board of Inquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.
The MoD has simply ignored the criticisms of the PAS claiming that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" yet still the lives of the families of these aircrew are blighted by a blatant disregard for justice and the rules of evidence. This case is personal; it concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen and their families in their leaders and the integrity of “the system”.
I would ask that you pursue this matter as best you can in the interests of justice and the reputations of two servicemen who died doing their duty.
Yours aye
Sir,
I write to request your support in Parliament in the case the unsupportable verdict of Gross Negligence against Flight Lieutenants John Tapper and Rick Cook as a result of their fatal air accident in Mull of Kintyre. As a serving military pilot I accept the dangers of my profession, but I also expect that my country’s government will not posthumously belittle my reputation and effectively punish my family. It was not until my wife asked me to explain how such a verdict would affect the families of the aircrew and to assure her that I could not leave her in such a situation, that I realised how important an issue this was for me. I have grave concerns over the current actions of the Secretary of State for Defense in ignoring the obvious lack of POSITIVE evidence for the verdict of Gross Negligence.
The nub of the argument is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. At the time of the crash the Chinook Mk 2 was subject to a number of safety concerns. These problems, primarily with the Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC), but significantly in this case the poor performance in icing conditions, were of such a magnitude that the Rotary Wing Test Squadron at Boscombe Down had ceased flying the airframe, effectively halting the full Military Aircraft Release process. Even so, Air Marshal Wratton had allowed the same aircraft type to be deployed operationally in Northern Ireland. Air Marshals Wratten and Day were major players in the hurried introduction of the Chinook Mk 2 airframe. Yet in their reviewing roles they flouted RAF Board of Inquiry (BofI) Regulations requiring "No Doubt Whatsoever" before overturning the original BofI finding which, like Sir Stephen Young's FAI, could not find conclusively the cause of the accident.
The MoD has simply ignored the criticisms of the PAS claiming that "lessons have been learned", and "this can't happen again" yet still the lives of the families of these aircrew are blighted by a blatant disregard for justice and the rules of evidence. This case is personal; it concerns the reputations of 2 professional pilots, the feelings of their families and the confidence of future Servicemen and their families in their leaders and the integrity of “the system”.
I would ask that you pursue this matter as best you can in the interests of justice and the reputations of two servicemen who died doing their duty.
Yours aye
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please people,
Forget the technical arguements ref SA, mobile phones,etc.. When we all heard about the crash the first thing we all thought, surely, was how could they have been below it in that area. The Board has done it's job and determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact cause of the tragedy. In that respect, how can the reviewing Officers go against the findings of a properly constituted Board. We must keep the pressure on for justice, according to the findings, and not through conjecture.
I really am getting annoyed with the arrogance shown by so many, in positions of power, who think they can flout the law of common justice.
I only hope if I suffered an accident, under similar circumstances, ppruners would invest as much time and effort on my case. We are all in the same boat so stick to the main thrust of all of this. There is no incontrovertible evidence to bring a verdict of negligence. There are doubts as to the actual cause/s of the accident. That is all we have to focus on. Remember!
Justice has no expiry date!
Forget the technical arguements ref SA, mobile phones,etc.. When we all heard about the crash the first thing we all thought, surely, was how could they have been below it in that area. The Board has done it's job and determined that there was insufficient evidence to determine the exact cause of the tragedy. In that respect, how can the reviewing Officers go against the findings of a properly constituted Board. We must keep the pressure on for justice, according to the findings, and not through conjecture.
I really am getting annoyed with the arrogance shown by so many, in positions of power, who think they can flout the law of common justice.
I only hope if I suffered an accident, under similar circumstances, ppruners would invest as much time and effort on my case. We are all in the same boat so stick to the main thrust of all of this. There is no incontrovertible evidence to bring a verdict of negligence. There are doubts as to the actual cause/s of the accident. That is all we have to focus on. Remember!
Justice has no expiry date!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bag Man and others
Follow the link to get to the letter
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html</A>
And I can't believe he's given his full home address !!
TL
[This message has been edited by Titan Locked (edited 08 December 2000).]
Follow the link to get to the letter
<A HREF="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,48179,00.html</A>
And I can't believe he's given his full home address !!
TL
[This message has been edited by Titan Locked (edited 08 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
AVM Wratten's offer to face scrutiny seems to me to be a bit of tactical bluster.
From his Times article he bases his whole argument on his view that the Chinook was flying "too low and too fast" under the prevailing conditions. If that is so, why should he insist that the only people he will face almost certainly know little about airmanship. For example, I was very disappointed when, during the Paxman interview, Chalfont seemed to agree that they were too low and too fast as he did not challenge that assumption in one of Paxman's questions. According to the only witness, we know that, immediately prior to the accident, they were legally VFR. Does Wratten think that they were being grossly negligent at that point. All other issues about FADEC etc are not relevant to HIS argument
He should face up to scrutiny from experienced civil and military helicopter pilots and the argument should only be based on KNOWN facts, i.e. the actual weather,the eyewitness account and whatever rules and regulations they were operating under. If it is agreed that they were being negligent before they entered cloud, the Wratten conclusion should stand. If it is not agreed, there is no evidence which explains why they entered cloud and Wratten and Day should publish a profound apology to the families of those affected. In my view this should also include the families of serving pilots who may have suffered some anxiety over this issue. As I have said earlier I have never been in the RAF and have no personal axe to grind here.
If that cannot be arranged, would he agree to Lord Chalfont at al being represented by the now famous Tudor Owen? That might be interesting. Judging by his performance at the RAeS I cannot see either happening but it might be worth making a counter challenge based on the above.
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
From his Times article he bases his whole argument on his view that the Chinook was flying "too low and too fast" under the prevailing conditions. If that is so, why should he insist that the only people he will face almost certainly know little about airmanship. For example, I was very disappointed when, during the Paxman interview, Chalfont seemed to agree that they were too low and too fast as he did not challenge that assumption in one of Paxman's questions. According to the only witness, we know that, immediately prior to the accident, they were legally VFR. Does Wratten think that they were being grossly negligent at that point. All other issues about FADEC etc are not relevant to HIS argument
He should face up to scrutiny from experienced civil and military helicopter pilots and the argument should only be based on KNOWN facts, i.e. the actual weather,the eyewitness account and whatever rules and regulations they were operating under. If it is agreed that they were being negligent before they entered cloud, the Wratten conclusion should stand. If it is not agreed, there is no evidence which explains why they entered cloud and Wratten and Day should publish a profound apology to the families of those affected. In my view this should also include the families of serving pilots who may have suffered some anxiety over this issue. As I have said earlier I have never been in the RAF and have no personal axe to grind here.
If that cannot be arranged, would he agree to Lord Chalfont at al being represented by the now famous Tudor Owen? That might be interesting. Judging by his performance at the RAeS I cannot see either happening but it might be worth making a counter challenge based on the above.
------------------
"If you keep doing what you've always done, you will keep getting what you've always got"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Points:
1. Who the f**k is Stuart Eastwood? Isn't it just ever so slightly amazing that his letter just happened to be available for publishing at the same time as Wratten's? Is he one of Wratten's former bag carriers?
2. Wratten's arrogance and intransigence (those words again!) are staggering. Fellows of the RAeS, experienced Chinook pilots, other professional aviators, aerospace professionals, Lords, MPs, journalists and members of the public are all totally convinced that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Faced with such an overwhelming weight of informed opinion why oh why cannot Wratten see that the only two people that are out of step are himself and Day?
1. Who the f**k is Stuart Eastwood? Isn't it just ever so slightly amazing that his letter just happened to be available for publishing at the same time as Wratten's? Is he one of Wratten's former bag carriers?
2. Wratten's arrogance and intransigence (those words again!) are staggering. Fellows of the RAeS, experienced Chinook pilots, other professional aviators, aerospace professionals, Lords, MPs, journalists and members of the public are all totally convinced that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Faced with such an overwhelming weight of informed opinion why oh why cannot Wratten see that the only two people that are out of step are himself and Day?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chaps
Just been reading through this discussion again, and I have a couple of questions:
Several people mentioned Rick's intercom being in the "Emergency" position - as a humble civvy spam-can pilot, can someone explain the significance of this?
What is the normal cruising speed of a loaded Chinook? Would you cruise at the same speed at low level?
How close to fully loaded was it?
Arkroyal asked if the waypoint change was manual or automatic - this point doesn't seem to have been answered - does anyone know?
Let me just add that I am fully behind the campaign, I just want to clarify these few points for my own interest.
Just been reading through this discussion again, and I have a couple of questions:
Several people mentioned Rick's intercom being in the "Emergency" position - as a humble civvy spam-can pilot, can someone explain the significance of this?
What is the normal cruising speed of a loaded Chinook? Would you cruise at the same speed at low level?
How close to fully loaded was it?
Arkroyal asked if the waypoint change was manual or automatic - this point doesn't seem to have been answered - does anyone know?
Let me just add that I am fully behind the campaign, I just want to clarify these few points for my own interest.
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Nichol
So, Billy Wrotten will deign to explain yet again to those who are too wilfully ignorant to understand that his Holy Writ is the only possible explanation for events.
Any chance of any of your Meeja contacts arranging for this 'interrogation' (his word - beat me, beat me big boy!) to be on television rather than in print?
If His Airship were to come across only half as monumentally insensitive and delusionally arrogant as he did on Newsnight, I think even the Goon would be setting the verdict aside before the programme finished transmitting!
So, Billy Wrotten will deign to explain yet again to those who are too wilfully ignorant to understand that his Holy Writ is the only possible explanation for events.
Any chance of any of your Meeja contacts arranging for this 'interrogation' (his word - beat me, beat me big boy!) to be on television rather than in print?
If His Airship were to come across only half as monumentally insensitive and delusionally arrogant as he did on Newsnight, I think even the Goon would be setting the verdict aside before the programme finished transmitting!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just to let you all know that the individual by the name of Pilgarlick was not the person some thought it to be. Someone totally unconnected who had been following the thread and took a chance on posting. Probably won't se them again.
Grey Area.
Excellent letter. It is important that Blair is made aware of the damage to morale and confidence. Copy it to your own MP too.
Chocks
I'll research the answers and post them here when available. Unless of course, anyone beats me to it.
Right, 'scuse me. "Dear Mr Wratten.......
Regards all.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Grey Area.
Excellent letter. It is important that Blair is made aware of the damage to morale and confidence. Copy it to your own MP too.
Chocks
I'll research the answers and post them here when available. Unless of course, anyone beats me to it.
Right, 'scuse me. "Dear Mr Wratten.......
Regards all.
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just learned to read, chaps!!
Yes, indeed, you do accept that they MAY have been 'negligent' to whatever degree, but with no EVIDENCE they cannot be convicted.
One day, I'll learn how to use this site properly!
However, no one picked up on the do 'black boxes' bit - shouldn't the helo's have them? I understand several RAF crash inquiries said this?
Yes, indeed, you do accept that they MAY have been 'negligent' to whatever degree, but with no EVIDENCE they cannot be convicted.
One day, I'll learn how to use this site properly!
However, no one picked up on the do 'black boxes' bit - shouldn't the helo's have them? I understand several RAF crash inquiries said this?