Chinook sets off mines?

[ORAC]

The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-2374020,00.html): Paratrooper died after Chinook 'set off mine'

A Paratrooper was killed in Afghanistan when the downdraft from an RAF helicopter caused mines to explode, it was claimed yesterday.

Corporal Mark Wright had requested that a small helicopter was sent to evacuate his 12-man patrol from a minefield where they were trapped. However, a twin-rotor Chinook was sent and its downdraft is alleged to have set off at least two explosions. Corporal Wright, 27, suffered head, shoulder and chest wounds and died while being evacuated. Five of the patrol were wounded and three lost legs.

The incident has been reported to the Royal Military Police by members of the 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, patrol. Officers and the Chinook pilot may be the subject of a court martial.

An RAF spokesman said that there was no evidence to support the allegations.

Full report in The Sun (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006440426,00.html) which appears to be the source of the other news reports.

[MTOW]

In another war in another far away place quite some years ago, the VC were quite adept at setting tree trunks etc up in clearings likely to be used as helicopter LZs so that the trunks would be blown over by the rotor wash and the mine, (usually but certainly not always an unexploded 105mm shell), set off.

A couple of colleagues of mine had their aircraft destroyed or very badly damaged by these mines.

It would seem from ORAC's post that this incident was not quite along those lines.

[Razor61]

The VC used to use windmills on large mines too, specifically placing them where the helicopters will land, the windmill turns in the downwash and screws down to detonate the mine, bringing down the helicopter (or so i read).

[anotherthing]

Its all supposition at the moment, but IF, as reported in some circles, Cpl Wright did ask specifically that a Chinook should not be sent, due to his belief it may set off mines, then surely some sort of investigation may need to be brought about to ascertain as to why a Chinook was sent.

If the request was ambiguous and did not specify a reason then it is a very unfortunate incident.

There may well have been a decision by command that the Chinook was the best option, despite any specific request, considering assets available at that time and also the need to evacuate 12 soldiers and kit.

To say that a pilot, following orders, may be subject to Courts Martial, seems to beggar belief.

I think we need to wait until the facts emerge.

Needless to sya, I doubt very much if the Current Bun has all the facts, but it does make good, sensational reading.... facts are of secondary importance to that comic.

[SASless]

For a fact Chinook downwash can cause landmines to go off....along with booby traps (IED's) depending upon the triggering mechanism for the device or amount and type of debris that can be blown about which could also trip the trigger of the device.

Once had a fallen tree trunk stand up and fall over into the right hand pilots door of a Chinook after an explosive charge went off. Minor damage to the door....major damage to my sense of well being.:eek:


Perhaps the Chinook crew could have tried to winch the guys up from a high hover....or use some sort of Short Haul techinque.

[cazatou]

Sorry to be pedantic BUT- WHAT SIZE HELICOPTER (OTHER THAN A CHINOOK) DO YOU REQUIRE TO EVACUATE A 12 MAN PATROL?

If you can come up with an answer; is it on the UK inventory?

[Tourist]

Without wanting to be facetious, it depends how many trips you are willing to make.

[scribbler614]

For what it's worth, I'm told by one who claims to know that the post action contact report was pretty clear that the Chinook didn't trigger the mines.
It didn't hover over the Paras. It overflew at a safe height and then landed at a safe distance.
Inference is that movement by the Paras set off the mines. There's not much comfort for anyone to take from this, but unless I'm being spun a line, at least the Chinook mates weren't to blame.
That said, if you take a group of tired, pi55ed off Paras after months of combat and subject them to an ordeal like this in which they lose a good mate, it's perhaps understandable if they lash out at someone.
:(

[Tombstone]

So what's the alternative?

Pick up 6 members of the patrol in a Lynx, leaving other half of the team at half strength on the ground? I don't think so, not out there.

It's a crappy situation & we need more SH out there for this NATO operation. The whole affair is an absolute shambles. The workload is taking away any real credit the guys are doing out there due to the fact that it's unsustainable. The chain is going to break at some point soon & the government are going to look very, very foolish on this issue.

Where are the bloody French? They've got a shed load of Helos we could be using out there. NATO my arse.

[London Mil]

The whole affair is an absolute shambles.

I think you have quite succinctly managed to sum up quite a few pages of post there. :D

[mutleyfour]

Can we suppose the crew knew it was a minefield? How much of the original Helo request made on the scene was forwarded to JHF?

It seems topical to blame the RAF for all of our shortcomings at the moment and maybe had the good Major's email not been leaked this may not have made the papers.

However I agree that an investigation needs to be made but lets not point the finger without all the hard facts.

[cockneyrock]

For what it's worth, I'm told by one who claims to know that the post action contact report was pretty clear that the Chinook didn't trigger the mines.
It didn't hover over the Paras. It overflew at a safe height and then landed at a safe distance.
Inference is that movement by the Paras set off the mines. There's not much comfort for anyone to take from this, but unless I'm being spun a line, at least the Chinook mates weren't to blame.
That said, if you take a group of tired, pi55ed off Paras after months of combat and subject them to an ordeal like this in which they lose a good mate, it's perhaps understandable if they lash out at someone.
:(

I heard the same thing. Sounds like a bit of "bandwagoniering" to me.

[PTT]

Sorry to be pedantic BUT- WHAT SIZE HELICOPTER (OTHER THAN A CHINOOK) DO YOU REQUIRE TO EVACUATE A 12 MAN PATROL?
If you can come up with an answer; is it on the UK inventory?
Puma? Merlin? Sea King? All can do the job (dependant on the density altitude at the time).

[South Bound]

Ahhhhhhh, this is so frustrating. Just spoken to a couple of people and there are many people reading this that know categorically that it was not a UK Chinook (don't know what it was, if indeed it was a helo), and yet they can't openly say why.

It is enough for me to take their word for it, I hope readers here will at least give the Wokka boys and girls the benefit of the doubt.

I look forward to a grovelling apology from the Sun, especially after quoting a brave dead man in their story.

[mutleyfour]

Puma? Merlin? Sea King? All can do the job (dependant on the density altitude at the time).

I think the point was that the UK has only Chinook and Lynx in theatre for PAX sorties.

[PTT]

I think the point was that the UK has only Chinook and Lynx in theatre for PAX sorties.
I rather thought the point was that every other type in the UK inventory would have been suitable for the job. Shame there's none in theatre...

[mikip]

I look forward to a grovelling apology from the Sun, especially after quoting a brave dead man in their story.


That'll be a first then there's no sales in apologies

[Avtur]

Please guys, stop all this slagging... We are all on the same "team" trying to achieve the same objectives, with the same limitations.

The individuals mentioned/contributing to any of these threads do not deserve this. They are all doing their best with little fiscal support and, presumably, with the same annoying limitations.

Weak words given my rage; there are too many threads/posts criticising the achievements of the Servics and their perceived limitations, rather than saluting the achievments made under intense pressure.

All spelling mistakes are DF incurred and with DOMCOM away.

[Navaleye]

Saw a Wokka at3.15over the City today. Made a nice noise and got everyones attention in the RBoS dealing floor.

[QFIhawkman]

I'm sorry guys, but what's to say a Merlin, a Lynx, a Puma, and for God's sake a Gazelle, WOULDN'T have set off landmines in this instance?

I'm pretty sure that a helo can't set off the type of mine we're talking about here anyway. Anti personnel, about 10-20kg of pressure required. (Unless we're talking about the MON series), Anti Tank, maybe twice that, plus.

Not being a physicist, I couldn't comment on the Lbs per foot footprint of the Chinook or any other aircraft there for that matter.

THEREFORE: Can we stop speculating on whether downwash caused this incident? At least until the facts are known, or at least clearer?

[PTT]

Avtur - It's not the people being criticised, and I think it's important to note that. The people are doing the absolute best possible given equipment, logistical and leadership (both political and higher military) failures. The acheivements made given those limitations have been fantastic, and are due to those people. Highlighting the failures which are due to limitations imposed upon those people attempts to address those limitations which the government can do something about but currently isn't. The failure of the government to provide the military with the appropriate equipment is the failure of the government to provide the most basic service it is designed to carry out - appropriate protection of the citizenry.

----

I'm sorry guys, but what's to say a Merlin, a Lynx, a Puma, and for God's sake a Gazelle, WOULDN'T have set off landmines in this instance?

I'm pretty sure that a helo can't set off the type of mine we're talking about here anyway. Anti personnel, about 10-20kg of pressure required. (Unless we're talking about the MON series), Anti Tank, maybe twice that, plus.

Not being a physicist, I couldn't comment on the Lbs per foot footprint of the Chinook or any other aircraft there for that matter.

THEREFORE: Can we stop speculating on whether downwash caused this incident? At least until the facts are known, or at least clearer?
You're probably right - downwash alone probably can't set off a landmine, but a rock being blown by downwash certainly can, and Chinnys move a lot more rocks when they land than Gazelles do.
That said, speculation is fairly useless at this point if South Bound's information is correct.

[L1A2 discharged]

Anti-Tank is no longer a term used by UK Mil PLC ..... it appeared that for some strange reason a few people thought that they could drive over 'Anti Tank' mines in a lesser vehicle without effect. Unfortunately incorrect in this asumption they were injured / damaged badly. The 'modern' term is 'Anti Vehicle' :8

[Roadster280]

Is it not the case that a hovering helicopter is attracted to the ground by its weight (mass x gravity), and therefore to remain static, needs to exert an equivalent downwards force? Even a Lynx, MTOW of 4.7t, needs to exert that amount of force, spread over the area under the rotor disc. As the rotor disc gets lower to the ground, the pressure increases, and is deflected sideways, such that the downdraft has an increasing horizontal component.

Emplaning a Wokka with rotors running, in full kit, requires quite some effort, let alone resisting the downdraft as it tries to escape gravity. I've spent quite some time experiencing the joys of hooking up USLs, under most UK types, and it's hard work, even on Scouts(!). I can well imagine that the type of landmine which is initiated by movement, as opposed to pressure, would go bang.

I don't imagine the mines cared who owned the helo. But then, come to think of it, I wouldn't imagine the a/c was tasked to hover over a minefield either, for exactly this reason.