Originally Posted by
SASless
I an familiar with the Mull of Kintyre accident...and the controversy that surrounds it.
The Falklands crash that followed some major maintenance as I recall on face value should be a suspected engineering failure of some kind as a probable cause.
Not saying that it was....but post maintenance crashes usually are.
One thing for sure....the RAF Airworthiness policies and procedures sure seem to take a lot of criticism in the Military Aircrew Forum here at pprune.
The Chinook is as safe as any other design and due to its long time in service beginning since the early 1960's.....and it is still going strong doing work no other helicopter can do....something must be right about it.
I have lost friends in the Chinook...the Huey, Cobra, Bell 212, Bell 412, the 76,109, 61, and 206, so in my view flying any helicopter carries some risk with it.
On two occasions I refused to fly a Huey that had been used in Logging and a some Bell 212's that were just plain junk.
At that time, the Chinook had a bad reputation within the RAF. Main gearbox failures was a worrying problem. The USA lost one in Germany, whilst flying a load of parachutists, causing multiple fatalities. The RAF lost one sometime later after the rear gearbox seized and came off the airframe, taking off the entire roof as far as the cockpit. Thankfully that was in the low hover and miraculously caused only minor injuries to the crew. I was later given details of that incident by the pilot himself. A good friend of mine, a very well respected crewman, was severely injured after a training trip went badly wrong (a practice engine failure was given and the second engine failed to respond). He never fully recovered from his injuries and died well before time, apparently from lung complications caused by inhalation of jet fuel. At the time of my concern, gearbox and engine chip lights were very common.
I still stand by my personal decision.