“The article eludes to some very, very accurate rumours about both “aircraft accidents”. Not to blame anybody on either aircraft, as all aircrew make mistakes every time they take to the skies. Shutting down the incorrect engine, is not an aircraft issue. Flying into the Ocean, is not an aircraft issue. I’ll emphasise again, everybody makes errors.”
Absolutely correct regarding crew errors and accidents, I don’t believe anyone would dispute this. However, I can’t find where the ADF have chosen to end their NH90 usage based solely on accidents.
“However , for an organisation to utilise those events to discard a platform and not get to the real causes of the events, means they are doomed to repeat the events again, this time in their shiny Blackhawks, just like the first time they had them. Sadly, the innocent will die and the hierarchy will abandon them and their maintainers and support staff.”
Again, I’ll agree with you here that blaming the aircraft would not serve to correct accident trends and those issues would still occur whatever aircraft was in service. But i also don’t think it could be argued that lack of availability of training time in the actual aircraft is also a big contributor to accidents
Since the accident report for the latest incident isn’t even out yet, how are we so sure that this is what is happening within the ADF? How do we know what measures are being taken within those organizations? Are we privy to what is being discussed by the crews and their commanders in their briefing rooms?
As I understand it, Australian Army aviation is a very close nit group, whose members were all likely to have been closely, even personally affected by the loss of life from the latest accident.
Once again, I may be proven wrong in the future, but there are a lot of allegations of cold, callous actions by ADF leadership that may be wholly unfounded.
FltMech