Gents / ladies,
I don't often get involved with PPRuNe threads as I tend to find the speculation and gross over simplification of matters such as this a little off putting sometimes but in this instance some of the comments really need some reigning in
.
Firstly, I worked in this Sqn (prior to it being "re-badged" as 171 Sqn) in the mid to late 90's in the role that was being performed on the day. I say this only to lend a little credibility to my comments below.
Suffice it to say, the personnel involved were / are all very well trained but the roles they perform can be extremely demanding and varied. Like anything in life, they were (and never will be) infallible. That should never detract from the fact, one can assuredly assume they have had a considerable amount of training and would have been assesed as being suitably experienced (this is often considerably less than what civvies would consider suitably experienced).
In addition to the above, the exercises performed are generally extremely well briefed, rehearsed by day and then flown at night if applicable, and debriefed. They take what I would consider all "reasonable" steps to assure a desirable outcome. It doesn't mean errors or omissions can't occur.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but should not be abused.
Comments such as "what were they thinking?" and the like again illustrate how enthusiatic some of us are to criticise without actually having a modicum of insight into what actually happened on that particular flight. That's why an investigation and then subsequent BOI is carried out.
The footage shows (for the most part) outcomes rather than causes. I find it incredible that fellow rotorheads out there actually think that the resultant flight regime as shown in the footage might be something they were striving for - clearly that would be ludicrous. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were after a different result.
It does appear from initial reports that the weather conditions of day (particularly the wind strength and direction) may have played a significant role and if so, the assertion that vortex ring may have been involved seems plausible if not highly likely.
Looking at the footage (as ugly as it is), it appears the aircraft is not actually under control given its attitude, RoD, aiming point etc which would support the VR claim. Some of the comments provided seem to suggest that some of our brethren believe the handling pilot was actually "flying" the aircraft at this point. Hmmm...
What is or will be more interesting to find out is whether the crew was aware of the conditions (one would hope so). If not, then a causal factor would have been identified. If they did know, and discarded this information, then things start to get really interesting. Let's have the investigation / BOI run its course to determine the real causes behind this. Experience suggests it's rarely just one factor a la James Reason's Swiss cheese model.
As far as whether the footage should be made public or not, not everyone will be happy regardless of what stance you take. I myself would have preferred it to be released but after the BOI was complete. It would then serve the role of actually educating us all much more effectively than it does at the moment. In its present guise it's just "cannon fodder" for uninformed criticism.
I acknowledge it must be distressing for those involved and their families and my condolences go out to them. However, my belief is if the issue of VR is again highlighted (assuming that it is in fact what has occurred), and it re-educates just one of us out there to think twice about the prevailing wind on finals (or indeed our finals profile), that must be a good thing.
P68