"Not In My Lane!"

[SASless]

The Accident investigation of a Blackhawk Helicopter at Fort Hood, Texas raised some serious problems with SAR at that installation.

Are we too complacent when an Aircraft is Overdue and not in Radio Contact?

It appears at least one Unit was when it responded to a request to launch an Aircraft to conduct a Search for the missing Blackhawk.

Their reply was "That is not in our Lane! That Unit (the missing Blackhawk's Unit) is responsible for searching for their own aircraft."

What has happened to the Army Aviation I used to know....where we immediately responded to any such request or report with every asset available?

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/fort-hood-helicopter-crash-reveals-major-flaws-in-search-and-rescue-response?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Early+Bird+Brief+10.19.2016&utm_term=Editorial+-+Military+-+Early+Bird+Brief

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, guessing, in a word - budgets.

We have constraints, not in SAR, whereas in the old days one unit would help another without question knowing they would get help if they needed it in turn

[Rosevidney1]

The corrosive effect of the bean-counters...............

[Bigbux]

The corrosive effect of the bean-counters

Absolutely, it's the beancounters again - the B***ards. Who in their right mind would ever want to match the resources available to the task in hand to make sure you could actually achieve it? - well, apart from the NHS, but there again they are largely oblivious to the resources they consume.

How would that work in the cockpit? You could try ignoring the amount of fuel you had left in your tanks when presented with a new task, or prosecute an attack against a target, despite having no ordnance left. What fun!

But no, you you are right. Those sodding beancounters should be stopped from making the decisions on capability...no, wait, that's politicians. OK, they should be stopped from advising politicians to scrap capability in order to save money, No, wait again... that's the Service Chiefs. Somebody should educate them that delaying delivery actually costs more money...no, my bad...Service Chiefs again. Anyway, utter w*nkers, every one of them.

[abgd]

well, apart from the NHS
?!!!

I find that comment quite odd. One of the major problems with the NHS is that financial provision is often independent of financial obligations. e.g. if a new drug is invented, found to be effective, and supported by NICE guidelines, then hospitals risk legal action if they refuse to prescribe it on cost grounds. Yet typically no additional resources are linked to the rising costs of healthcare. Our population is ageing (and getting more expensive to look after) and our capability to do expensive tests and treatments is rising, and the costs are rising far faster than NHS funding.

I am well aware that people in the military are unhappy and underfunded - I'd be hard pushed to think of anyone in the public sector who isn't. But it's certainly not those of us in the NHS.

[JohnDixson]

SAS, there was also the following paragraph:

"He banked at an angle of 70 degrees, 10 degrees over the recommended limit, causing a stall that he couldn't recover from. The helicopter crashed into some trees before splitting in two, instantly killing the two pilots and two aircrew inside, according to the investigation. "

I'm guessing you didn't mention that because there is already enough " comment " re blade stall in the Nick L thread.

But it might be worth adding some history. Prior to delivery of the first production UH-60A's, in fact well prior ( see below ), the US Army Flight Standards Chief, Charlie Crawford directed that we modify the standard Flight Loads Survey test plan to include getting data at bank angles up to 120 degrees. So we did. For the fly-off competition with Boeing, we were both required to write an Operators Manual, along existing Army format at the time, for the ships that would be flown for the fly-off. In Chapter 7, Operating Limitations, there was/is* Fig 7-8A Angle of bank vs indicated airspeed chart, and it clears those pilots to a max bank angle of 90 degrees ( 30 degree margin ).
*That's the only Hawk manual I still own.
Uh-oh.

[Gnd]

and the costs are rising far faster than NHS funding.

Stop being greedy then and be realistic on profit/wages/returns!:mad:

I bet most UK units would drop everything to help out fellow aviators.

[heights good]

I'm pretty sure that is in contravention to international aviation law...

[Pontius Navigator]

How would that work in the cockpit? You could try ignoring the amount of fuel you had left in your tanks when presented with a new task, or prosecute an attack against a target, despite having no ordnance left. What fun!

I see what you are driving at but I know instances where crews have pressed on below fuel minimums or without weapons to achieve a necessary level of support.

One famous instance was Guy Gibson drawing the fire from the bombing aircraft. Another was tankers in the Gulf Wars, particularly GW1, giving fuel to whoever pitched up or going hot, or bombers doing show of force. An accountant would argue that hazarding a multi million pound asset to save a few 'cheap' soldiers is wrong. Fortunately logic comes second.

[Bigbux]

I find that comment quite odd. One of the major problems with the NHS is that financial provision is often independent of financial obligations.

I quite agree that there is a mismatch between funding and demand. My beef, not articulated well in my post, is that there are many in the NHS who are profligate with the resources. I'm not taking aim at the hard-pressed front line, rather the higher echelons that control spend. Personally, I've never understood how a Chief Exec on £250k could think it good practice to understaff wards, fail to tackle the stovepipe nature of secondary care or not wish to challenge single tender awards for clinical services provided by the awarder of that same contract.


I see what you are driving at but I know instances where crews have pressed on below fuel minimums or without weapons to achieve a necessary level of support.

One function of accounting attributes a common value to any action or commodity using money as a unit of measure, so that the value of a transaction can be calculated. The decision on whether an exchange is worth carrying out or not, should rest with the SMEs/affected groups/finance providers/operators etc and will take into account many other factors that are not so easily priced.

So, in your example, although I'm sure no-one would have produced cost-estimates for all the possible outcomes, informed decision makers would have decided that the potential benefits outweighed the potential risks of loss. The value of the losses would not simply have been the direct ones - but also the legacy of inaction or failure. On the one hand, you have a book price for equipment, plus another value for the lives of the crew - on the other hand, you have a value that is variable, depending on circumstances, opportunities, wider effects and appetite for risk.

The challenge for senior military commanders is always to interpret the data provided by "the bean counters" and ask themselves how they can leverage the allowable expense to maintain or even increase the value of the output. To help them, they could enlist economists and management accountants - and not simply accept the figure provided by financial accountants and conclude that a cut is the only solution.

It's about how creative you can be in making the biggest bang for your buck, and what timescale you consider to be appropriate for the return on capital employed; certainly not about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. But a financial accountant won't tell you that - it's not their purpose.

[Pontius Navigator]

BigBux, accept all you say, just to point out that the instances I quoted were generally done by the crew alone and no referral to higher authority. "Better to seek forgiveness . . . "

Certainly at the higher level they would balance a cruise missile with no human factors or aircraft risk against an LGB. Where there is negligible risk to aircrew the LGB might deliver a bigger bang at lower cost. That be different.

On your other NHS response, how and can chief executives of NHS or County Councils justify salaries double that of a man or woman who runs the country? The argument that you need to pay big bucks as you are in competition with industry doesn't hold when you consider that your Government ministers are also sourced from a similar pool.