combat safest flying !!

[widgeon]

From rotorhub article today

Here are some helicopter loss figures in GWOT operations from a talk by BG Joe Smith, head of the Army’s Combat Readiness Center. AH-64s (all types) combat losses are eight, non-combat 41; UH-60, losses in combat six, non-combat 21; CH-47 combat five, non-combat 11, OH-58D, losses in combat eight, non-combat 21. Total aircraft lost in theater (class A through C) is 121, lives lost 187, he said. Here are main underlying causes in order of importance: poor crew co-ordination; poor mission planning, false assumptions about risk, and ‘indiscipline’.’ All these are now being hit hard with revised procedures and training emphasis; the problem (as always) is there are still insufficient data collection devices in he helicopters that can be used to help analyse and fix accidents.

[maxeemum]

The DOD put CVR's and FDR's in our machines for this very reason. In the 4 major accidents/incidents since fittment, the data collected was useful in corroborating other evidence (eye witness testimony etc) and added value to lessons learnt.

FDR and CVR are available in the market place for commercial operators. Very use ful and almost bullet proof.

Max

:ok:

[SASless]

I guess BG Smith is saying there were no mechanical or engineering failures the way I read that initial post. Somehow I doubt that.

We have to remember as well the majority of these crews are inexperienced young folks.

[emergov]

In the history of conflict, more soldiers, sailors and especially airmen have been killed by non-combat accidents and illnesses than have been killed by the enemy / threat / bad guys.
Those figures speak really strongly to me about the need to fly in peacetime training the same as you would in war. After all, an aircraft crashes just as well at home as it does in a hostile country. There are some elements of risk which are non-negotiable - if we can/can't accept those risks at home because we will crash, then equally we can/can't accept those risks on ops.
We should fly in war as we have trained in peace, so the only variable factor is the guy with a gun.

[MightyGem]

The Defence Aviation Flight Safety magazine, Aviate, published these figures a year or two ago:

During WW2 RAF and Luftwaffe lost 40-45% of aircraft due to accidents. Soviets 57%. In GW1 33 accidents to 42 combat losses. GW2, 9 accidents, 7shot down.

[NickLappos]

The thing to remember is that, in the military, pilot error accidents are directly tied to the operational demands of the system, so that the CAPABILITIES of the aviation system is directly tied to the FAILURE rate of the system. In other words, we crank up the capability until accidents start happening too often, then we drop back one notch.
The typical "normal" US Army operation involves night, NVG operations in uncharted terrain, with formation and sling loads. You can call a mishap in that environment an "accident" if you wish, but in fact, it is statistically predicted and grudgingly anticipated.

To compare these events with civil accidents is unfair and unwise. Recall that the military has to make the Hobson's choice of deciding how many lives a beach or a hill must cost. Watch the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan again to get my point.