Chinook - Hit Back Here
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not a Professional Pilot at all but just wanted to say that I've voted for a certain senior officer as well.
Keep up the fun stuff also...I particularly liked the noisy aircraft thread (we're ex non-complainers from somewhere near Salisbury - but it was a bit disconcerting when a large green object popped-up over the BBQ party)
Keep up the fun stuff also...I particularly liked the noisy aircraft thread (we're ex non-complainers from somewhere near Salisbury - but it was a bit disconcerting when a large green object popped-up over the BBQ party)
Guest
Posts: n/a
JN :
Culled from the Today web site :
Nominations close December 23rd. We'll draw up a shortlist December 27th when you'll get a chance to vote for the winner, which will then be announced Saturday December 30th.
Interesting to see that they've asked Bob Ayling for his hero and villain !!
------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"
Culled from the Today web site :
Nominations close December 23rd. We'll draw up a shortlist December 27th when you'll get a chance to vote for the winner, which will then be announced Saturday December 30th.
Interesting to see that they've asked Bob Ayling for his hero and villain !!
------------------
I got bored with "WhoNeedsRunways"
Guest
Posts: n/a
This morning I received a 2 page reply from William Hague's office. The meaty bit reads:
"The Government is wrong to hide behind the mantra of 'no new evidence', as a reason not to set aside the gross negligence verdict of the two dead RAF Chinook pilots.
The Prime Minister recently told Martin Bell MP that the Government was being 'entirely straightforward' and that 'questions had been fully answered'. However they blocked answers to four Parliamentary questions put down by Robert Key, one of our defence spokesman.
They misled Robert Key and the Defence Select Committee and later wrote to put the record straight. The Government also failed to publish the crucial Tench report, which we believe came to the same conclusion as the new PAC report - that the RAF Board of Inquiry officers are judge and jury. This procedure falls foul of the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6 (Entitlement to a Full and Impartial Tribunal).
This arrogant and stubborn attitude sends all the wrong signals to the families of the servicemen and the world-wide aviation soft-ware industry. The Government is saying that if you can not prove software is defective, then blame the pilots. But increasingly, the Government does not have the capability to evaluate software and they are now privatising Boscombe Down, which is our only independent public sector aircraft testing and evaluation capability. It was Boscombe Down that grounded the Chinook the day before it crashed."
No surprise about the blocking and evading but it's good to see it put down in black and white.
Still no reply from my Labour MP!!!
Oh yes, I voted for Mr Wratten as 'villain' on the 18th December.
"The Government is wrong to hide behind the mantra of 'no new evidence', as a reason not to set aside the gross negligence verdict of the two dead RAF Chinook pilots.
The Prime Minister recently told Martin Bell MP that the Government was being 'entirely straightforward' and that 'questions had been fully answered'. However they blocked answers to four Parliamentary questions put down by Robert Key, one of our defence spokesman.
They misled Robert Key and the Defence Select Committee and later wrote to put the record straight. The Government also failed to publish the crucial Tench report, which we believe came to the same conclusion as the new PAC report - that the RAF Board of Inquiry officers are judge and jury. This procedure falls foul of the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6 (Entitlement to a Full and Impartial Tribunal).
This arrogant and stubborn attitude sends all the wrong signals to the families of the servicemen and the world-wide aviation soft-ware industry. The Government is saying that if you can not prove software is defective, then blame the pilots. But increasingly, the Government does not have the capability to evaluate software and they are now privatising Boscombe Down, which is our only independent public sector aircraft testing and evaluation capability. It was Boscombe Down that grounded the Chinook the day before it crashed."
No surprise about the blocking and evading but it's good to see it put down in black and white.
Still no reply from my Labour MP!!!
Oh yes, I voted for Mr Wratten as 'villain' on the 18th December.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Also voted for ACM WW on the 22nd - nobody more deserving I feel! Had also requested several of my offshore buddies do the same - we know the skill levels that you helicopter pilots have - thanks to the guys (and gals) from Bristows/Bond/Helikopter Service/Norsk etc etc for getting us all safely to & from.
Where is everybody? No posts since the 23rd?
Where is everybody? No posts since the 23rd?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Reply received from Dr Gadian with regard to the article on his studies in wind shear in the Daily Telegraph. Text from his e-mail to me below:
Dear Brian,
This article has indeed caused me some major difficulties. I am
actually a lecturer in Atmospheric Physics at UMIST and am working
on turbulent airflow over hills, as one of my research topics.
I use very high resolution models to examine airflow over hills.
The article has only a few lines which give an accurate reflection
of a conversation the reporter had with me, when he phoned me at home
on a Tuesday evening.
I am afraid I cannot help you with the Chinook crash, as I have no
knowledge which can relate to that, other than the fact that when
air flows over hills there can be turbulence and in certain circumstances
strong downdraughts. These effects are found at heights slightly greater
than the summit height, and can exist down to teh ground, again in
specific circumstances. My research specifically relates to turbulence
caused in these special circumstances. If an aircraft is too
close to steep hills then turbulence can be a problem. This is well
known and why pilots are told not to fly near hills. There is a
problem obviously when aircraft land, as they have little option but
to travel near the ground! This is what some of my work relates to.
Since the controvesy I have wondered what the airflow was like
over the peninsula for that day. However briefly
looking at the charts the weather looks totally unsuitable for strong
turbulence. Also it would take me 6 weeks of effort, for something
that looks a totally unsuitable case study.
I thus feel I cannot contribute anything to your case
Regards
Alan Gadian
My thanks to Dr Gadian for taking the time to reply to my enquiry.
Regards all. Enjoy the New Year, before the re-commencement of battle!!
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Dear Brian,
This article has indeed caused me some major difficulties. I am
actually a lecturer in Atmospheric Physics at UMIST and am working
on turbulent airflow over hills, as one of my research topics.
I use very high resolution models to examine airflow over hills.
The article has only a few lines which give an accurate reflection
of a conversation the reporter had with me, when he phoned me at home
on a Tuesday evening.
I am afraid I cannot help you with the Chinook crash, as I have no
knowledge which can relate to that, other than the fact that when
air flows over hills there can be turbulence and in certain circumstances
strong downdraughts. These effects are found at heights slightly greater
than the summit height, and can exist down to teh ground, again in
specific circumstances. My research specifically relates to turbulence
caused in these special circumstances. If an aircraft is too
close to steep hills then turbulence can be a problem. This is well
known and why pilots are told not to fly near hills. There is a
problem obviously when aircraft land, as they have little option but
to travel near the ground! This is what some of my work relates to.
Since the controvesy I have wondered what the airflow was like
over the peninsula for that day. However briefly
looking at the charts the weather looks totally unsuitable for strong
turbulence. Also it would take me 6 weeks of effort, for something
that looks a totally unsuitable case study.
I thus feel I cannot contribute anything to your case
Regards
Alan Gadian
My thanks to Dr Gadian for taking the time to reply to my enquiry.
Regards all. Enjoy the New Year, before the re-commencement of battle!!
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
To Ben Leice.
I was the tasking WKPR at JATOC that week. My Brief from the Flt Lt was, These people have to get to Fort George At Inverness. All of them could not go civ air so how do we get them to Fort George. Option 1 was 2 Pumas. Option 2 was Chinook.
I went for the first option. By wednesday afternoon I was informed by my boss that they have to travel together as they have things to discuss on the way across before the conference. So it was changed to the chinook.
I saw the news report on Ch4 about a helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre when I got home from work, I phoned the office to find out if it was our chinook. The night wkpr said yes. I then phoned my brother in law to find out if his father in law was away in scotland that weekend he confirmed thet he was. I told him that he had better get round to her house as she was going to need him shortly. To this day His wife doesn't know it was me that put her father on that flight.
I was the tasking WKPR at JATOC that week. My Brief from the Flt Lt was, These people have to get to Fort George At Inverness. All of them could not go civ air so how do we get them to Fort George. Option 1 was 2 Pumas. Option 2 was Chinook.
I went for the first option. By wednesday afternoon I was informed by my boss that they have to travel together as they have things to discuss on the way across before the conference. So it was changed to the chinook.
I saw the news report on Ch4 about a helicopter crash on the Mull of Kintyre when I got home from work, I phoned the office to find out if it was our chinook. The night wkpr said yes. I then phoned my brother in law to find out if his father in law was away in scotland that weekend he confirmed thet he was. I told him that he had better get round to her house as she was going to need him shortly. To this day His wife doesn't know it was me that put her father on that flight.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JATOC,
welcome to the thread. Are you in a position to say who the individual was who made the decision to place all these people on the one aircraft? Surely, it would have been at a higher level that a Flt Lt? (no offence meant to the Flt Lt).
I also have many more questions I would like to ask, if you are in agreement. Drop me an e-mail if that's OK.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Happy New Year all.
welcome to the thread. Are you in a position to say who the individual was who made the decision to place all these people on the one aircraft? Surely, it would have been at a higher level that a Flt Lt? (no offence meant to the Flt Lt).
I also have many more questions I would like to ask, if you are in agreement. Drop me an e-mail if that's OK.
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Happy New Year all.
Guest
Posts: n/a
JATOC
There were two low-flying Chinooks sighted that evening in Co Antrim; one was seen near Carnlough on the east coast and the other near Portrush on the north coast. Did you make the arrangements for both? If not, which one?
You said that the decision to use a Chinook was passed to you on Wednesday afternoon, June 1, the day before the crash. Do you remember when you were given the brief to organise transport?
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 01 January 2001).]
There were two low-flying Chinooks sighted that evening in Co Antrim; one was seen near Carnlough on the east coast and the other near Portrush on the north coast. Did you make the arrangements for both? If not, which one?
You said that the decision to use a Chinook was passed to you on Wednesday afternoon, June 1, the day before the crash. Do you remember when you were given the brief to organise transport?
[This message has been edited by Ben Leice (edited 01 January 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben,
Happy New Year. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but why are you so keen to explore other Chinook flights? What does it have to do with the one that crashed?
Please don't think I'm being rude as that is not my intention (I'm usually far more blunt!). I'm just a little curious. Where do you hope to take this line?
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Happy New Year. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit thick, but why are you so keen to explore other Chinook flights? What does it have to do with the one that crashed?
Please don't think I'm being rude as that is not my intention (I'm usually far more blunt!). I'm just a little curious. Where do you hope to take this line?
Regards
Brian
[email protected]
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook
Guest
Posts: n/a
Brian, I think we can leave rudeness to one side! A happy New Year to one and all.
Like many other people I'm curious too. I'm still not sure which of the two Chinooks crashed. I hope JATOC can shed some light on the mystery.
The Scottish sheriff wanted to know why the Chinook which crashed was where it was when it was and the wing commander could offer no explanation. It was about a mile to the east of its projected path despite its sophisticated navigation equipment and the clear view of the lighthouse.
Two RAF senior officers blamed the pilots for the crash although the board said it would be a mistake to criticise the pilots on the evidence available. Does anyone know what the views of the third RAF senior officer were? [He is referred to in Holland's book "Phoenix" but not named.]
Like many other people I'm curious too. I'm still not sure which of the two Chinooks crashed. I hope JATOC can shed some light on the mystery.
The Scottish sheriff wanted to know why the Chinook which crashed was where it was when it was and the wing commander could offer no explanation. It was about a mile to the east of its projected path despite its sophisticated navigation equipment and the clear view of the lighthouse.
Two RAF senior officers blamed the pilots for the crash although the board said it would be a mistake to criticise the pilots on the evidence available. Does anyone know what the views of the third RAF senior officer were? [He is referred to in Holland's book "Phoenix" but not named.]
Guest
Posts: n/a
JATOC, please excuse my lack of understanding with your post but isn't your brother-in-law's wife your sister?
Your boss must have been badly informed to think all the passengers could have any form of group discussion (apart from hand-written notes)in the back of a Chinook.
Incidentally ,why did you choose 2 Pumas as your first option?
Your boss must have been badly informed to think all the passengers could have any form of group discussion (apart from hand-written notes)in the back of a Chinook.
Incidentally ,why did you choose 2 Pumas as your first option?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ben
The crew could have been a lot more than one mile off track, even with its sophisticated nav systems for a few reasons:
1. It may have lost GPS signal temporarily. This is common in wet weather with a cracked aerial and I've had it many times. Pretty tricky to nav within one mile wwhen over water with no nav aids!
2. Also there are places on the globe that even with a fully functional GPS you get an alert and no GPS info; just a black hole I guess.
3. In route steer mode the RNS252 give you left and right of track in nautical miles, but the steer bar indicates the quickest way back onto the track line. What we tend to do is use the GPS derived track and fly a wind corrected heading to achieve the track line. WE tend not to keep the steer bar in the middle all of the time as it is pointless and requires vitually constant heading adjusment (impossible at low level). Instead we fly for a while, check our position and alter heading to converge wit track, that is if we want to.
4. There is no reason to religiously follow the steer unless you are trying to avoid something which is off your track, such as a stud farm or a bloke with a metal plate in his head.
Ben, I think you are mistaken about the second aircraft. Don't believe everything you hear from unqualified eyewitnesses, in most cases they remember only what they want to.
HPT
The crew could have been a lot more than one mile off track, even with its sophisticated nav systems for a few reasons:
1. It may have lost GPS signal temporarily. This is common in wet weather with a cracked aerial and I've had it many times. Pretty tricky to nav within one mile wwhen over water with no nav aids!
2. Also there are places on the globe that even with a fully functional GPS you get an alert and no GPS info; just a black hole I guess.
3. In route steer mode the RNS252 give you left and right of track in nautical miles, but the steer bar indicates the quickest way back onto the track line. What we tend to do is use the GPS derived track and fly a wind corrected heading to achieve the track line. WE tend not to keep the steer bar in the middle all of the time as it is pointless and requires vitually constant heading adjusment (impossible at low level). Instead we fly for a while, check our position and alter heading to converge wit track, that is if we want to.
4. There is no reason to religiously follow the steer unless you are trying to avoid something which is off your track, such as a stud farm or a bloke with a metal plate in his head.
Ben, I think you are mistaken about the second aircraft. Don't believe everything you hear from unqualified eyewitnesses, in most cases they remember only what they want to.
HPT
Guest
Posts: n/a
HPT,
Thanks very much for the GPS info.
The lighthouse was visible from at least two miles out at sea, according to the yachtsman, so it seems unlikely that the pilots would have opted for the path they found themselves on if they had been able to follow the planned route to the west of the lighthouse.
A large twin-rotor helicopter with patchwork quilt-like camouflage is fairly distinctive. What else could it have been but a Chinook?
I don't wish to sound facetious but I'm sure the pilots would have taken every measure possible to avoid the mountains just off their planned route.
Thanks very much for the GPS info.
The lighthouse was visible from at least two miles out at sea, according to the yachtsman, so it seems unlikely that the pilots would have opted for the path they found themselves on if they had been able to follow the planned route to the west of the lighthouse.
A large twin-rotor helicopter with patchwork quilt-like camouflage is fairly distinctive. What else could it have been but a Chinook?
I don't wish to sound facetious but I'm sure the pilots would have taken every measure possible to avoid the mountains just off their planned route.