By: Creaking Door
- 16th August 2015 at 19:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was told that it was a night time flight as the crew MIGHT have been training for bombing raids this was hinted at by a family researcher at the library, could this be true do you think?
According to one of the quotes that you posted:
Avro Anson NK890 was on charge at 60 OTU (Operational Training Unit) which had been set up at RAF High Ercall on the 7th May, 1943 to train Mosquito aircrew.
On the evening of Friday, January 12th 1945 an Avro Anson, Serial Number NK890, took off from RAF High Ercall with a crew of six on a training exercise from which it was never to return. The purpose was to train the crew for night intruder missions behind enemy lines. Avro Ansons were used to train pilots and navigators in wireless procedures and navigation systems. This particular aircrew, despite their young age, were already very experienced flyers on the most advanced night fighter of the war at this time, the de Havilland Mosquito.
The Mosquito was a truly multi-role aircraft that would have operated over enemy territory at night in both fighter and bomber versions. 'Intruder' missions cover a variety of missions but all would have been over enemy held territory; missions could have been flown by radar-equipped night-fighter variants against enemy aircraft, including night-fighters, or bomber variants against enemy airfields or communications targets such as railways or canals.
By: Moggy C
- 16th August 2015 at 20:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Also, the eyewitness account of the aircraft before the crash states that one of the engines was on fire; this is not something that an eyewitness would likely be mistaken about.
By: Creaking Door
- 16th August 2015 at 20:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While I would agree that in many cases eye witness testimony can be unreliable...
...being correct about whether an aircraft has an engine on fire at night must be pretty clear-cut. It requires no special aviation knowledge, doesn't really suffer from 'incorrect' knowledge, unless an exhaust-flame was mistaken for an engine fire but that seems unlikely (to me).
By: Moggy C
- 16th August 2015 at 22:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not remotely possible.
Back on the subject of eye witnesses, a remarkable number of reports from non-expert witnesses talk of flames before a crash which later prove to be inaccurate.
We will never know at this remove but I wouldn't take this as definitive.
By: dianesowden
- 16th August 2015 at 23:03Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Coming back to what Mum and Dad told me about there being not a body in the coffin, would the RAF REALLY have told them that? Wouldn't that have just upset them, they told me that Stan was blown up into little pieces and they could only find little bits of him to put into the coffin. Why would the RAF say such a thing to people who have just been bereaved? I don't understand why the RAF said that to his Mother?
By: scrooge
- 16th August 2015 at 23:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Late that evening or early on the morning of the 13th and possibly alcohol fuelled, they made their journey home. When they were in the vicinity of the canal bridge, which is about half way between Lyneal and Welshampton, they became aware of an aircraft flying overhead towards Lyneal with one of its engines on fire."
Hearsay from a 5 y/o about what probably unreliable eyewitnesses saw.
It's more likely that the Board of Enquiry were correct, but there is a very slimly possiblity they were not.
By: scrooge
- 16th August 2015 at 23:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, probably not.
But if there was no body or only pieces, sand was used to increase the weight of the coffin to make it seem full. This practice would have been fairly common and would have been talked about so if the story got about that someones son had died in a crash then eventually someone would tell the story of 'someone they knew who knew someone who's son was buried, but wasn't really because it was really sand'. It wouldn't take much for this to occur for any crash victim.
I'll also add that crashing an Anson would not be likely to give enough of a destructive event to completely obliterate a body per the story. whether it was on fire in the air or not.
Also, if it had been on fire in flight per the heresay, it is likely more crew would have tried to parachute clear.
By: Creaking Door
- 17th August 2015 at 00:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We will never know at this remove but I wouldn't take this as definitive.
No, absolutely not definitive at all but it is interesting to examine the evidence of eye witnesses against the other possible causes for the crash that were suggested at the time.
The official accident card reads ‘Pilot apparently lost control at night. Aircraft crashed in a wood and burst into flames at Lyneal Wood. 0.55hrs.’
The board of inquiry found that control of the aircraft was lost and it spun into the ground...
Clearly the evidence of the eye witnesses does not tally with the official explanation.
By: Creaking Door
- 17th August 2015 at 00:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think it is all hearsay evidence from somebody who was five years old at the time. Yes, some of the account is the wartime memories of a five year old but some of the information would appear to have been researched at a later date, possibly with the eyewitnesses themselves. A five year old couldn't possibly know that Noel Griffiths was 'now 82 and living in Cornwall'.
By: Moggy C
- 17th August 2015 at 07:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it is worth repeating Charlie's caution from earlier in the thread.
Forgive me but this fascinating thread seeking historical evidence seems to be turning into a request for speculation and interpretation of events decades ago about which no one has any personal knowledge. Is that helpful?
By: dianesowden
- 17th August 2015 at 12:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But I don't know what the Board of Enquiry said at the moment, nobody has sent it to me. I have just posted a letter to Canada as someone suggested I did asking for Donald's service record.
By: Creaking Door
- 17th August 2015 at 13:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did the information come from in your post number 11 (#11); some information you posted there mentioned the 'official record card' and the 'board of enquiry' that recorded the (apparent) reason for the crash as 'loss of control by pilot'?
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 16th August 2015 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to one of the quotes that you posted:
The Mosquito was a truly multi-role aircraft that would have operated over enemy territory at night in both fighter and bomber versions. 'Intruder' missions cover a variety of missions but all would have been over enemy held territory; missions could have been flown by radar-equipped night-fighter variants against enemy aircraft, including night-fighters, or bomber variants against enemy airfields or communications targets such as railways or canals.
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 16th August 2015 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
:eagerness: That is a very interesting bit of information to know, now I will wait to see what comes back from Canada!!
I have saved the photo to my photos on my laptop.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th August 2015 at 20:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 16th August 2015 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
While I would agree that in many cases eye witness testimony can be unreliable...
...being correct about whether an aircraft has an engine on fire at night must be pretty clear-cut. It requires no special aviation knowledge, doesn't really suffer from 'incorrect' knowledge, unless an exhaust-flame was mistaken for an engine fire but that seems unlikely (to me).
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 16th August 2015 at 21:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was told that if the pilot was too low that would have caused the plane to be set alight, it that true or not please?
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th August 2015 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not remotely possible.
Back on the subject of eye witnesses, a remarkable number of reports from non-expert witnesses talk of flames before a crash which later prove to be inaccurate.
We will never know at this remove but I wouldn't take this as definitive.
Moggy
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th August 2015 at 22:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And if you read the account it is hearsay evidence recalled by someone who at the time was five years old, not an eye witnesses account.
Moggy
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 16th August 2015 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Coming back to what Mum and Dad told me about there being not a body in the coffin, would the RAF REALLY have told them that? Wouldn't that have just upset them, they told me that Stan was blown up into little pieces and they could only find little bits of him to put into the coffin. Why would the RAF say such a thing to people who have just been bereaved? I don't understand why the RAF said that to his Mother?
Posts: 108
By: scrooge - 16th August 2015 at 23:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Late that evening or early on the morning of the 13th and possibly alcohol fuelled, they made their journey home. When they were in the vicinity of the canal bridge, which is about half way between Lyneal and Welshampton, they became aware of an aircraft flying overhead towards Lyneal with one of its engines on fire."
Hearsay from a 5 y/o about what probably unreliable eyewitnesses saw.
It's more likely that the Board of Enquiry were correct, but there is a very slimly possiblity they were not.
Posts: 108
By: scrooge - 16th August 2015 at 23:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, probably not.
But if there was no body or only pieces, sand was used to increase the weight of the coffin to make it seem full. This practice would have been fairly common and would have been talked about so if the story got about that someones son had died in a crash then eventually someone would tell the story of 'someone they knew who knew someone who's son was buried, but wasn't really because it was really sand'. It wouldn't take much for this to occur for any crash victim.
I'll also add that crashing an Anson would not be likely to give enough of a destructive event to completely obliterate a body per the story. whether it was on fire in the air or not.
Also, if it had been on fire in flight per the heresay, it is likely more crew would have tried to parachute clear.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th August 2015 at 00:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, absolutely not definitive at all but it is interesting to examine the evidence of eye witnesses against the other possible causes for the crash that were suggested at the time.
Clearly the evidence of the eye witnesses does not tally with the official explanation.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th August 2015 at 00:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't think it is all hearsay evidence from somebody who was five years old at the time. Yes, some of the account is the wartime memories of a five year old but some of the information would appear to have been researched at a later date, possibly with the eyewitnesses themselves. A five year old couldn't possibly know that Noel Griffiths was 'now 82 and living in Cornwall'.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 17th August 2015 at 07:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it is worth repeating Charlie's caution from earlier in the thread.
Moggy
Posts: 3,778
By: Trolly Aux - 17th August 2015 at 07:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The exhausts at night used to glow and also show flame of the unburnt gasses, this may of been what was seen by the eye witnesses.
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 17th August 2015 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But I don't know what the Board of Enquiry said at the moment, nobody has sent it to me. I have just posted a letter to Canada as someone suggested I did asking for Donald's service record.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th August 2015 at 13:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did the information come from in your post number 11 (#11); some information you posted there mentioned the 'official record card' and the 'board of enquiry' that recorded the (apparent) reason for the crash as 'loss of control by pilot'?
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 17th August 2015 at 14:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That came from someone on the general enquiries bit of this website!!
Posts: 855
By: Ross_McNeill - 17th August 2015 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Most comes from the precis listed on the Form 1180 Accident Card.
The 'board of enquiry' is a corruption of the 'Court of Inquiry' which reported on Form 412.
The Form 1180 lists the file reference of this as 2582.
Personnel Registry File is listed as 686 and Form 1669 Casualty Card as 6547.
Ross
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 17th August 2015 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There seems to be some confusion.
Stanley's service record you will get from RAF Disclosures as two of us have pointed out.
The 'Canada' suggestion was that this may be a source of information about the crash as one of the people killed was a Canadian.
Moggy
Posts: 39
By: dianesowden - 17th August 2015 at 15:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thank you for that.