Ned Nederlander Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 qualifications in aeronautical engineering Does that bother you ? seriously ? you were the first to tell us you had a 'relevant degree' and that you 'knew something of the subject' and yet all you've offered is the absolutely pitiful pilot error/mayday nonsense and some half-arsed auto-rotation post ..other than that you've just repeatedly asked about something I've said all along was speculation and most likely never happened Now you are apparently trying to imply I was wrong to trust a news international employee less than the other witnesses who all gave similar accounts to each other. Even after you've had it explained that the Ni employee gave numerous differing witness statements which couldn't possibly all be true as they conflicted with each other and one of which placed him 200m away from the aircraft which was flying at 500m altitude, thereby putting Mr news international a minimum of 300m in the air himself. He wasn't telling the truth. Common sense tells us this but apparently you think it is 'moronic' not to believe him utterly and you instead choose to ignore every other witness statement. But unlike you the story has evolved and moved on - folk have spoken about loads of stuff on here and we've tried to establish what went on - his account is probably the most widely published and has generated debate here and elsewhere ... I've said nose over tail aint likely loads of times but I've tried to find a way to make it fit but you'd rather just dismiss his account outright and repeatedly ask me how it could have happened when I've repeatedly said it probably didn't (is any of that sinking in ) You've now added that Mr Smart 'wasn't telling the truth', even coming from you that's a surprising statement - I'm more that happy to assume that he was traumatised and in shock when he recounted what he'd seen but to simply imply that he wasn't telling the truth is yet more staggering guff from yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Why not just admit you don't have qualifications in aeronautical engineering since you keep making standard grade physics style mistakes? Apparently the fact that falling objects are essentially weightless has escaped you. You said a falling aircraft could be made to go end over end by being top heavy, then even after having it pointed out that doesn't work, you then tried the exact same thing with the aircraft being unbalanced by fuel. It doesn't matter how unbalanced the aircraft is or along which axis, it needs weight to make it topple. If it is weightless, it won't fall over, will it? Standard grade physics tell us this. Now you are suggesting that more drag on the lower half of the aircraft compared to the upper would cause it to go end over end. Here are some objects which are designed to have lots of drag on one side: A dart, a parachute, a bullet. All things specifically designed to have way more drag in one area than another because this STOPS then from spinning. Playing with things at primary school tells us this. Now you are apparently trying to imply I was wrong to trust a news international employee less than the other witnesses who all gave similar accounts to each other. Even after you've had it explained that the Ni employee gave numerous differing witness statements which couldn't possibly all be true as they conflicted with each other and one of which placed him 200m away from the aircraft which was flying at 500m altitude, thereby putting Mr news international a minimum of 300m in the air himself. He wasn't telling the truth. Common sense tells us this but apparently you think it is 'moronic' not to believe him utterly and you instead choose to ignore every other witness statement. Mr Smart said he shat himself and was trying to hide, a little bit harsh to say he lied in that situation. I paraphrased him but I did hear him mentioning both things in the immediate aftermath of it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 Apparently the fact that falling objects are essentially weightless has escaped you. You said a falling aircraft could be made to go end over end by being top heavy, then even after having it pointed out that doesn't work, you then tried the exact same thing with the aircraft being unbalanced by fuel. It doesn't matter how unbalanced the aircraft is or along which axis, it needs weight to make it topple. If it is weightless, it won't fall over, will it? Standard grade physics tell us this. Now you are suggesting that more drag on the lower half of the aircraft compared to the upper would cause it to go end over end. Here are some objects which are designed to have lots of drag on one side: A dart, a parachute, a bullet. All things specifically designed to have way more drag in one area than another because this STOPS then from spinning. Playing with things at primary school tells us this. I'm at work so can't try this but I imagine you've got a dart close by - drop it and see what happens - I reckon a helicopter with all the fuel in the forward tank would fall in pretty much the same way (it did after all have stabalising stub wings on the tail) .. a dart might even go slightly over on itself before landing nose down !? But that in no way suggests that I'm saying that's what happened here because I'll say again that it seems feckin unlikely ! I have no idea how that helicopter came down - 'nose-over-tail' is unlikely - 'tumbling' is unlikely - the most 'likely' movement would have been rotational in the yaw axis but the aircraft appears to have hit the pub 'straight on' in line with the direction of travel so that would seem to rule that out !? How did the rotors stop so quickly when the gearbox was found to be free to move ? the rotor brake might eventually stop the rotors if there was no power but surely not as quickly as that .. and that would undoubtedly have been easy for the crash investigators to spot given the overheating and damage that would occur. Did, as I suggested earlier, the pilot pull up and cause the blades to stall as the aircraft rushed to the ground ? Double engine failure !? really ? what are the chances ? was it fuel related ? anything I've worked on has had independent fuel lines and pumps - that aircraft might even have 'sucked' fuel (I don't know !) but there was certainly a report of 'spluttering' engines (could that have been 'slapping' blades !?) Was the fuel distributed properly, was there a feeder tank and was it being filled ? no-one reported a smell of fuel in the pub so I assume the fuel tanks didn't rupture .. would the investigation have already covered the distribution ? The crash is baffling - we might never know what happened - I was surprised when the initial inspection found no evidence of mechanical failure as a main rotor gearbox failure certainly ticked all the boxes ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Does that bother you ? seriously ? you were the first to tell us you had a 'relevant degree' and that you 'knew something of the subject' and yet all you've offered is the absolutely pitiful pilot error/mayday nonsense and some half-arsed auto-rotation post ..other than that you've just repeatedly asked about something I've said all along was speculation and most likely never happened You may think it nonsense that the pilot had time to make a mayday but for some reason didn't. The team investigating the crash won't. On the other hand you claim to have qualifications in aeronautical engineering but would have trouble passing standard grade physics. If aeronautical engineers really knew that little about physics then aircraft would be falling out of the sky all the time. But unlike you the story has evolved and moved on - folk have spoken about loads of stuff on here and we've tried to establish what went on - his account is probably the most widely published and has generated debate here and elsewhere ... I've said nose over tail aint likely loads of times but I've tried to find a way to make it fit but you'd rather just dismiss his account outright and repeatedly ask me how it could have happened when I've repeatedly said it probably didn't (is any of that sinking in ) You've now added that Mr Smart 'wasn't telling the truth', even coming from you that's a surprising statement - I'm more that happy to assume that he was traumatised and in shock when he recounted what he'd seen but to simply imply that he wasn't telling the truth is yet more staggering guff from yourself. You were fixated on his account and remained so even after having it explained to you that it was unlikely at least twice. Then you gave numerous physically impossible explanations for how it may have happened. Hence me fixating on that. If you don't think Mr smart was being untruthful then please explain how it is possible for the aircraft to be tumbling and not tumbling depending on WHICH of his accounts you believe or where he happened to be that placed him 200m away from an aircraft flying at 500m height. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Mr Smart said he shat himself and was trying to hide, a little bit harsh to say he lied in that situation. I paraphrased him but I did hear him mentioning both things in the immediate aftermath of it all. I was careful not to say he lied. Every time you remember something it changes slightly in your memory which is why police and investigators like to be the first people to question a witness. Smart was interviewed maybe hundreds of times by various news agencies and during that time his story changed. He might be lying deliberately but only he knows. On the other hand he definately isn't telling the accurate truth and he isn't a reliable witness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 (edited) You may think it nonsense that the pilot had time to make a mayday but for some reason didn't. The team investigating the crash won't. I think he didn't make a mayday call because he was busy trying to control and fly the aircraft whilst possibly not even knowing what was going wrong - I've said before that I think it reflects just how desperate the situation was. And the crash investigators will certainly take into account the lack of a mayday call but they wont interpret it as an attempt to cover his tracks. If you don't think Mr smart was being untruthful then please explain how it is possible for the aircraft to be tumbling and not tumbling depending on WHICH of his accounts you believe or where he happened to be that placed him 200m away from an aircraft flying at 500m height. You've gone on to state in your reply to 'ayrmad' that "Every time you remember something it changes slightly in your memory" so perhaps you've already come up with an explanation for that !? He says 'tumbling' and 'turning in a strange position'... is he trying to describe the same action ? who knows ! - perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? And I don't know Glasgow but could the pub have been around 200m from the car park and could the aircraft have been around 500m up ? was it as simple as that ? perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? (Edit: spelling) Edited December 17, 2013 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I think he didn't make a mayday call because he was busy trying to control and fly the aircraft whilst possibly not even knowing what was going wrong - I've said before that I think it reflects just how desperate the situation was. And the crash investigators will certainly take into account the lack of a mayday call but they wont interpret it as an attempt to cover his tracks. You've gone on to state in your reply to 'ayrmad' that "Every time you remember something it changes slightly in your memory" so perhaps you've already come up with an explanation for that !? He says 'tumbling' and 'turning in a strange position'... is he trying to describe the same action ? who knows ! - perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? And I don't know Glasgow but could the pub be around 200m from the car park and could the aircraft have been around 500m up ? was it as simple as that ? perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? (Edit: spelling) No witness remembers an incident 100% for 100% of the time, If 2 people give the EXACT same account of an incident they wouldn't be believed IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 I think he didn't make a mayday call because he was busy trying to control and fly the aircraft whilst possibly not even knowing what was going wrong - I've said before that I think it reflects just how desperate the situation was. And the crash investigators will certainly take into account the lack of a mayday call but they wont interpret it as an attempt to cover his tracks. You've gone on to state in your reply to 'ayrmad' that "Every time you remember something it changes slightly in your memory" so perhaps you've already come up with an explanation for that !? He says 'tumbling' and 'turning in a strange position'... is he trying to describe the same action ? who knows ! - perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? And I don't know Glasgow but could the pub have been around 200m from the car park and could the aircraft have been around 500m up ? was it as simple as that ? perhaps every time he remembered it it changed slightly in his memory !? (Edit: spelling) Again, I'm not saying he deliberately lied, just that what he said couldn't all be true. He was untruthful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Again, I'm not saying he deliberately lied, just that what he said couldn't all be true. He was untruthful. That's just not the correct word to use IMO, if you said that to me face to face and I was Mr Smart I'd be enraged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Again, I'm not saying he deliberately lied, just that what he said couldn't all be true. He was untruthful. I've lost track of all these 'untuths' ! There was the "tumbling / turning strangely" one which I guess could be the same event but described differently - and the "200m / 500m" 'untruth' which could be as simple as 200m from the pub with the aircraft 500m up ! Remind me of the others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTJohnboy Posted December 17, 2013 Share Posted December 17, 2013 Maybe we should just wait for the results of the AAIB enquiry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 Seemingly four yoofs broke into the pub: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25427114 #GlasgowSpirit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growl3th Posted December 18, 2013 Share Posted December 18, 2013 the "200m / 500m" 'untruth' which could be as simple as 200m from the pub with the aircraft 500m up ! That's how I understood it. Pretty obvious really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phasma ex machina Posted December 26, 2013 Share Posted December 26, 2013 Westboro baptist Church have called us all "fag beasts" on twitter. The satanists have revenge at hand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eye Valley Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Engine failure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26194408 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Engine failure.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26194408 But Jock001 said..... I hope that the pilot's family can now reach some sort of closure. Bad enough to have lost a loved one in tragic circumstances, but it must have been hellish waiting to see if he was going to be blamed in any way for the accident. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Engine failure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-26194408 I'm pleased about that, the pilot's family have enough to deal with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Oh, Jock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) My mate recently got a nice bottle of Islay malt from Charlie Windsor and a nice letter. Fair play to Chuck. He's getting better but will still be in for a fair bit until his legs are fully healed. Edited February 14, 2014 by jagfox144 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 That chuff monkey was convinced it was pilot error. He's a tit, as most on here stated at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.