Twinact
Associating someone holding a different viewpoint with UFO type rubbish is pretty pathetic cant you handle rational debate?
.
As concisely as I can, I will describe my viewpoint as it stands now:
.
The PLS equipment was fitted as a Service Mod to some of the first HC2s on delivery.
It seems a reasonable assumption that ZD576 could have had it fitted.
The PLS is a useful tool to support helos and is especially useful in spec ops and CSAR.
The system is in itself very interesting and one has to wonder why it is not worthy of debate even on this thread.
Current equivalent systems have enhancements such that there should be no harm in talking about the system from the mid 90s much is in the public domain.
How interesting would it be to the average reader of this site to hear when it was first procured, fitted, trialed, etc and when it was first used in various theatres?
.
And yet when I first mentioned this system on this thread the suggestion of its very existence was ridiculed. Why?
.
.
Doubtless, some of the team on board could have been interested in a demo of the new system.
An opportunity existed for an ad hoc trial in that the ground equipment was available on the Mull at the time (the SEALS who were stationed at Mac had it almost down to a man).
In its normal use the equipment is accurate and trustworthy helo pilots would be inclined to trust the equipment especially with the ground side operator talking them in an overhead pass would impress all.
However, if such a demo was being undertaken, it would only take the ground side operator to be, say, ½ mile further up the hill than expected (whether by human error or by malice) to explain everything that is known, or that can be reasonably assumed from the available data, about this crash.
.
Perhaps the embarrassment of such a debacle has made even the discussion of such a system a taboo subject?