Talk:1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note

As a matter of Edit, the aircraft seems to have been flying Northbound, out of rather than to Northern Ireland, for a meeting in Scotland.

There are two threads to the controversy about this crash. The technical issues about this model are difficult enough. The power management system of this model was under great suspicion before the incident. A similar crash to a similar model Chinook in the continental US apparently led the maker Boeing to pay substantial compensation to dependents of its victims. It may be nothing to do with it that the RAF's procurement of the successor HC3 model of the Chinook, two years after the accident, was so disastrously handled that the new aircraft have not been and may never be brought into service.

The Royal Air Force Commander and Commander-in-Chief of the formation in which the aircraft belonged found the pilots guilty of gross negligence. They ignored much of the evidence and overrode the inconclusive recommendations of the Board of Inquiry in order to do so. Few aviators were persuaded by this judgement. Aviators naturally feel that it is unnecessary and likely to be unjust to blame completely those aircrews who die in this way. Most significantly a select committee of the House of Lords, chaired by a very senior judge, would have overturned the judgement. The Ministry of Defence obdurately refuses to change the initial judgement to this day.

These opinions and the House of Lords report can be reached through http://chinook-justice.org/.

Thanks for that. I've updated the description of the direction of the flight and added an external link.
Just so you know, anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, even without creating an account. So if you want to expand on what we have in the article so far, please feel free to do so. -- Solipsist 12:01, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Old page

Just a note that a different version (pre-merge) of this page is at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinook_crash_on_Mull_of_Kintyre&oldid=25307986 Ojw 22:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I took out the conspiracy theory about the secret Mach 5 stealth plane ('Aurora') having caused the crash, as there is absolutely no evidence for this. John
And again. Bringing some wacky conspiracy theory into it shows no respect for the dead, or for the truth.
John
This article seems to have become rather bland and devoid of information recently.
I think our phrase "The official inquiry was pilot error, although this has often been disputed" doesn't even begin to cover the number of people (RAF Board of Inquiry, Fatal Accident Inquiry, House of Commons Defence Committee, House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, and House of Lords Select Committee) who officially expressed those doubts.
For example, how does wikipedia benefit from removing the House of Lords Select Committee's opinion that the pilot error theory was "incomprehensible/not justified"? Ojw 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)



This is a very inadequate coverage' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphasierra (talk • contribs) 01:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC) Alphasierra 22/2/10 Particularly as so many enquiries have been done and published, this is a very inadequate coverage of an air crash where 29 people died and the reputations of many people, alive and dead is in question. The layout is without any rhyme or reason, and the page is full of factual errors.

"The twin-engined Chinook ZD576 flew into a hillside in dense fog." That is quite inadequate. Part of the problem of working out what happened and maybe part of the cause of the crash was that there was over a mile of visibility at sea level but due to low cloud, much less at the altitude of the crash.

"the helicopter could have been shot down by the IRA with their known SA 7 surface-to-air missile capability was quickly ruled out by investigators." What is your evidence that the IRA had SAM 7s. What would they be doing sitting at the end of one of the longest cul-de-sacs in Britain?

"Alternative theories point to problems with the RAF's upgrade programme for their Chinook helicopters. In particular, other similarly upgraded helicopters had experienced problems with engine power delivery delays and false warnings, which may have been caused by control software. Such an event could have been a major distraction to the flight crew." Or engine failure could have been the first order cause of the crash.

"Whilst the official inquiry concluded that the crash was caused by pilot error," and 8 lines down "In 1995, an RAF board of inquiry found that there was no conclusive evidence to determine the cause of the crash." One or both of these statements must be wrong. They are certainly inadequate coverages of the duties of the Board, their legal responsibilities and the time spent and the duties and responsibilities of the two commanders.

"However, two air marshals, on reviewing the evidence, found the two pilots guilty of gross negligence in flying too fast and low in thick fog." The Air Officer Commanding No.1 Group, Air Vice Marshal J R Day concluded that both pilots were "negligent to a gross degree". He commented that it was "incomprehensible why two trusted, experienced and skilled pilots should … have flown a serviceable aircraft into cloud covered high ground". The Air Officer Commander in Chief Strike Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir William Wratten, said, "Lamentably, all the evidence points towards them having ignored one of the most basic tenets of airmanship, which is never to attempt to fly visually below safety altitude unless the weather conditions are unambiguously suitable for operating under Visual Flight Rules."

"A subsequent Fatal Accident Inquiry (1996), House of Commons Defence Committee report (2000) and Commons Public Accounts Committee have all either left open the question of blame or challenged the original conclusion."

The following have all reviewed the crash: In early 1996 a fatal accident inquiry (FAI) under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. The House of Commons Defence Committee produced a short report on the crash in May 1998. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reported in November 2000 on Ministry of Defence: Acceptance of the Chinook Mk 2 helicopter. House of Lords Select Committee produced a long report on Chinook ZD 576 2002. These are all rich sources, so too are the RAF enquires.

"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." The House of Lords Report deals with the yachtsman’s testimony and says, “We do not consider that Mr Holbrook changed his evidence between his appearances before the Board and the FAI, rather that when he was subjected to professional examination and cross-examination at the FAI and to our questioning he was able to expand upon the rather brief evidence which he had given to the Board. We had no hesitation in accepting him as a reliable and convincing witness.” Having sailed round the Mull in many conditions, I know Mr Holbrooks would have hours to take in the conditions and I find the description one mile at sea level and low broken clouds and patches of sunlight very believable.

"pilot error induced by fatigue is likely to have played a great part; and Steuart Campbell suggests in his book Chinook Crash (2004, ISBN 1-84415-074-7) that by failing to climb to safety altitude upon entering cloud," That is speculation. The Air Marshall's point was that they should not have flown into the cloud. Their supporters suggestion is that they did so because the aircraft was faulty. "making a navigational error in poor visibility, mistaking the fog signal station for the lighthouse, together caused the crash." These are also speculations. If the writer knew the navigational system and the location, he would know not to entertain either.

"The Ministry of Defence successfully sued Textron, the manufacturers of the system, after a near-fatal Chinook crash caused by an uncommanded engine run-up in 1989." In 1989 a Chinook HC2 engine owned by the MoD was destroyed on test bed, so "near fatal Chinook crash" is wrong.

"It is possible that the helicopter was headed for RAF Machrihanish rather than towards Inverness (as claimed by the MoD), and that the navigation system failed." There is no evidence for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphasierra (talk • contribs) 01:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to fly the refitted helo

If memory serves correctly, this was a billion UK pound refit program on about 10 Chinooks, where a costly MOD procurement specification insisted on a cheap hybrid analogue / digital control system, rather than the manufacturers newly developed full digital system. The refit being compromised by interference, massive delays, with arguments regarding specification and suitability.

I seem to remember that many pilots (at risk of their career) refused to fly the aircraft as they considered it unsafe, especially in instrument conditions (altimeter problems being one of a list of faults). Pilots only speaking off record, and through one of the deceased pilots father (a retired RAF pilot) Wasn't the fleet of refurbished aircraft grounded for years (if not still so!) A conspiracy there certainly was, especially so, considering RAF policy when an aircraft crashes and the pilot is killed. No doubt all the senior officials, officers and politicians involved in this travesty, are long retired comfortable receiving huge government pensions! These pilots stupid mistake, was to allow themselves to be pressurized into making the flight. May they "rest in peace" and their families find closure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.140.101 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tone of this page

I think this page gives too much weight to the FADEC theory. The HOL inquiry quoted (and I have read it) does not say that FADEC was to blame. It says that the original verdict that pilot error was *solely* to blame, was unjustified. In legal terms, that is like saying that a conviction was 'unsafe'. It is emphatically not a 'not guilty' verdict. Furthermore, to think of it like this (as much public opinion seems to, and as the tone of the current article implies), is to misunderstand the terms of reference of the original enquiry, in my opinion.

If you compare this to Wiki's coverage of Pan Am Flight 103, it focusses on the official expanation of the crash, rather than the various other theories. I recently re-edited the 'Paris crash' section of the Concorde article to reflect a greater balance in this regard. Like Andrew Brookes in Flight to Disaster (written before the HOL report), I think the balance of probability is that pilot error through fatigue played a part, maybe the greater part in causing the crash.

What would you say to a more NPOV treatment in this article? Guinnog 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC) (AKA 'John' above, before I had an account)

I think you are right. I'd say 'go for it', but there are several people who edit here, so there might be some other opinions. -- Solipsist 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
See what you think, I've tried to make the article a little more encyclopedic. Guinnog 19:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The House of Lords Select Committee did reject the air marshals' verdict, but only after concluding (against the evidence presented) that the aircraft was not under control 4 secs before impact. It was also overly impressed by the 'enormous rudder input' at impact (for which there is a logical explanation). It concluded that it would never be known why the aircraft flew into the Mull (however I have given an explanation). The subsequent debate about this in the HoL on 5 Nov 2002 merely noted the Committee' report, rejecting an amendment from Lord Chalfont to call on the Government to set aside the air marshals' verdict. Many members were critical of Chalfont and the Committee and some wished it had never been established. Steuart4 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a quite comprehensive (although from the POV of defending the pilots) report on the Chinook HC2's FADEC problems in this pdf here: [1] including details of earlier near-accidents. Things got so bad the A&AEE refused to fly them until the FADECs had been fixed. That is unusual and almost always means there is something seriously wrong with the aircraft.
It MAY have been pilot error but HMG and the MoD seemed to be bending over backwards not to place any blame on the aircraft itself, to the point of issuing seriously misleading, not to say plainly inaccurate, statements. That was patently absurd, and just goes to show how low an opinion of the public (who pay their wages) these two organisations had developed. That may also explain this: United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal.
BTW, if you like observing the rather incompetent way the UK government has behaved over the past few years then try listening to The Goon Show - you'll love it.
... and for the MoD, try The Men from the Ministry - I should think Lennox-Brown and Lamb must be pretty high up in the Civil Service by now. Perhaps they're actually ruining running things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GCHQ

In researching my rewrite of this article, I've come across no source for the claim that GCHQ personnel were on board. Is there a cite, or do we have to have an 'allegedly' in there? Guinnog 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take down the GCHQ rather than add an 'allegedly' or a {{Fact}} tag. Hope that's ok. Guinnog 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice your earlier question. Here is one source that mentions GCHQ personel, although I can't vouch for its accuracy and I don't think it is the source that I originally got the infomation from. That was probably chinook-justice.org, but I can't find any mention of it there now. -- Solipsist 08:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Effects on IRA war

This is quite a frequent comment, for example in the Brookes book. I've thrown in the reference on the BBC coverage for now, but there are many more specialist ones I could cite. One hates to refer to 'common sense', but it would seem to be such that removing so many senior personnel at one stroke would weaken the ability of the team.

Brookes also refers to the tragedy of their deaths coming so soon before the ceasefire and the peace process, but I thought that too emotional for an encyclopedia article.

You were right to pick up my exaggeration about the scale of the loss though. Guinnog 17:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename

To all and sundry, I've renamed this page in order to conform it to the aviation and disaster management projects' naming conventions for such crashes. Akradecki 17:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

CFIT?

I'm not sure it's fair to list the cause in the info box as Controlled Flight Into Terrain. This was the findings of the initial inquiry, but that has subsequently been overturned. The FADEC failure scenario would have meant that the helicopter was not fully under control at the time of the crash and if it was not under control then the crash was by definition not a CFIT. The Seconds From Disaster episode covering this crash also listed a control jam due to a failure of a mounting bracket in the control closet as a possible cause, again meaning the aircraft was not under full control and therefore would not qualify as a CFIT.

I think the cause in the info box should be changed to "undetermined", maybe listing the three most probably causes (Possible pilot error/CFIT, Possible FADEC failure, Possible Control jam). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.44.20 (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:1994 Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==January 2008== B-class checklist added. Article still meets all criteria. Wexcan (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 01:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1994_Mull_of_Kintyre_Chinook_crash/Archive_1&oldid=1092966658"