Chinook crash in the news again.

[The Hypno-Toad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8438659.stm

Always thought this one was very, very fishy meself. Very convienent how anyone who knew (literaly in some cases) where the bodies were buried, was all on the same chopper, going to a quickly arranged meeting, just as the feelers were going out for what would become the Good Friday agreement...

Tinfoil helmets on.

[odyssey2200]

Expect a large tin of Dulux' best Whitewash.

[YAD061]

odyssey2200 said:

Expect a large tin of Dulux' best Whitewash.

not needed

"This latest information is from an RAF document; it was available to the Inquiry team and cannot be classed as new evidence."

[anonymous-user]

Guam said:

Typical MOD wherever possible blame the Aircrew!!

Indeed.

I think it was a disgraceful cover up blaming the aircrew for what was clearly a fault with the aircraft. As you say, typical MOD.

[Mojocvh]

el stovey said:

Guam said:

Typical MOD wherever possible blame the Aircrew!!

Indeed.

I think it was a disgraceful cover up blaming the aircrew for what was clearly a fault with the aircraft. As you say, typical MOD.

What was the fault that caused the crash stovey?

[anonymous-user]

Mojocvh said:

el stovey said:

Guam said:

Typical MOD wherever possible blame the Aircrew!!

Indeed.

I think it was a disgraceful cover up blaming the aircrew for what was clearly a fault with the aircraft. As you say, typical MOD.

What was the fault that caused the crash stovey?

My impression and many Ex Chinook crew I know is that it was regarding the fadec software. Although the MOD blame the pilots and fog.

[freecar]

Sad that the RAF blamed the aircrew, hopefully this software revelation will clear some names. Still they've had the wreckage all this time you'd think they'd have spent more time looking at it!

[YAD061]

"The internal MoD document passed to the BBC proves there were serious concerns and warnings over the engine control computer system, known as the FADEC"

but

"This latest information is from an RAF document; it was available to the Inquiry team and cannot be classed as new evidence"

disgusting

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_843700...

[odyssey2200]

Guam said:

Worst of this is that IIRC these choppers sat in hangars at Odiham for Aeons due to this software problem and one does wonder whether the "crats" just kicked them loose without fully resolving the issues?

The Yanks have been using Chinooks for years.

Why do ours have problems and theirs don't appear to?

[odyssey2200]

Guam said:

odyssey2200 said:

Guam said:

Worst of this is that IIRC these choppers sat in hangars at Odiham for Aeons due to this software problem and one does wonder whether the "crats" just kicked them loose without fully resolving the issues?

The Yanks have been using Chinooks for years.

Why do ours have problems and theirs don't appear to?

IIRC from what I was told at the time they didnt have the same software (propably another MOD penny pinching fkup)!

So yet again our MOD took something that worked well and fked about with it until it broke?


Idiots!

[YAD061]

odyssey2200 said:

Guam said:

odyssey2200 said:

Guam said:

Worst of this is that IIRC these choppers sat in hangars at Odiham for Aeons due to this software problem and one does wonder whether the "crats" just kicked them loose without fully resolving the issues?

The Yanks have been using Chinooks for years.

Why do ours have problems and theirs don't appear to?

IIRC from what I was told at the time they didnt have the same software (propably another MOD penny pinching fkup)!

So yet again our MOD took something that worked well and fked about with it until it broke?


Idiots!

Driven by bean counters rather than engineers

[pacman1]

Now, I may have this wrong.
I thought the software was a joint development between Boeing and the MOD. But the MOD financial contribution was minimal, so when they asked for the codes to use the finished software, Boeing refused until they coffed up more money. The MOD said no, Boeing said ta ta then, and we now have some bodged software solution that doesn't work correctly.

[odyssey2200]

pacman1 said:

Now, I may have this wrong.
I thought the software was a joint development between Boeing and the MOD. But the MOD financial contribution was minimal, so when they asked for the codes to use the finished software, Boeing refused until they coffed up more money. The MOD said no, Boeing said ta ta then, and we now have some bodged software solution that doesn't work correctly.

FFS

Its a chopper.

A chopper that has the same engines that have worked perfectly well for fking years doing exactly the same job around the world.

WHY fk ABOUT WITH IT??


AHHHH!!!

[pacman1]

That's the MOD for you. Save a penny now, loose a pound later.
That's why a defence review is long overdue.

[fadeaway]

pacman1 said:

Now, I may have this wrong.
I thought the software was a joint development between Boeing and the MOD. But the MOD financial contribution was minimal, so when they asked for the codes to use the finished software, Boeing refused until they coffed up more money. The MOD said no, Boeing said ta ta then, and we now have some bodged software solution that doesn't work correctly.

Think you're confusing the special forces Chinook mk3 acquisition mess-up with this crash.

[pacman1]

fadeaway said:

pacman1 said:

Now, I may have this wrong.
I thought the software was a joint development between Boeing and the MOD. But the MOD financial contribution was minimal, so when they asked for the codes to use the finished software, Boeing refused until they coffed up more money. The MOD said no, Boeing said ta ta then, and we now have some bodged software solution that doesn't work correctly.

Think you're confusing the special forces Chinook mk3 acquisition mess-up with this crash.

Ah, I stand corrected then.

[YAD061]

A bit more info on the software cock up

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2000/11/30/...

[YAD061]

Guam said:

pacman1 said:

Now, I may have this wrong.
I thought the software was a joint development between Boeing and the MOD. But the MOD financial contribution was minimal, so when they asked for the codes to use the finished software, Boeing refused until they coffed up more money. The MOD said no, Boeing said ta ta then, and we now have some bodged software solution that doesn't work correctly.

Thats pretty close to what I was told years ago by the guys at Odiham when the subject of these choppers was discussed by yours truly so IIRC you are pretty much bang on the money!


Cheers

it sounds right to me too

[MarkRSi]

el stovey said:

Guam said:

Typical MOD wherever possible blame the Aircrew!!

Indeed.

I think it was a disgraceful cover up blaming the aircrew for what was clearly a fault with the aircraft. As you say, typical MOD.

If it was pilot error then surely the MOD should still be responsible since they trained the pilot(s) and picked them for the operation?

[supersingle]

Dead aircrew can't defend themselves and shouldn't be blamed unless there's irrefutable evidence against them. There wasn't, most of the aircraft was lost to the sea.

Firstly the crew are ordered to fly an unsafe helicopter and then they are blamed when (in all likelyhood) it fails and they are killed.

There are certain people within the MOD who deserve stringing up over this scandal, cover-up and buck passing. It's a dreadful breach of the military covenant if ever there was one.