USMC CH-53 Crash Report

[SASless]

A USMC CH-53 crashed during training with no loss of life a while back.

The report is out....and raises issues with the Crew and other Factors.

Pilot Error Caused Super Stallion Rollover, Investigation Shows | Military.com (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/09/04/pilot-error-caused-super-stallion-rollover-investigation-shows.html)

[Lonewolf_50]

SASless:
As usual, Mil.com doesn't disappoint with its crap coverage of an accident. Photos of the crash site, obtained by Military.com through a Freedom of Information Act request, show the propeller completely sheared off, parts of the landing gear broken off, and holes in the body of the chopper. FFS, you'd think they could get the terminology right for once. :ugh:

"The investigation ... reveals a breakdown in mission planning that is underpinned by inadequate risk management, inattention to detail, lack of understanding of aircraft systems and aerodynamics, and violation of [Angle of Bank] limitations and [Training and Readiness] program manual hard deck altitude for defensive maneuvering," the commanding officer of Marine Aircraft Group 16, Col. Craig LeFlore, wrote in an endorsement of the investigation. Well that's not good to hear from the USMC official spokesman. :uhoh:

[SASless]

The Marines are having some bad days recently....the question begged is what is the underlying causes for the uptick in aircraft accidents and loss of lives.

The Army seems to have a similar increase....or perceived increase in Blackhawk losses.

[MikeNYC]

73 degree angle of bank mentioned in the report. That's a steep angle for a big machine, at 50' off the deck.

[Rotate too late]

I flew in support of the marines on many missions in Afghan, they were thoroughly professional and decent people. Tempo and fatigue seem to be factors in a lot of incidents these days. I wonder what their experience levels were like.

[westhawk]

Lack of recency of experience has been cited in a number of Marine Corps accidents of late. Clearly, fewer flying hours can result from lack of equipment availability due to mx backlog, budgetary limitations or a whole host of other logistical factors. Moreover, personnel are known to be stretched thin in many areas of the military, with competing priorities leaving less time and resources available for ongoing proficiency training. This situation has been noted by training, safety and even command authority, but still the mission is the mission and the personnel at the point of the spear just do what they always do: The best that they can with what they have.

The Navy investigations regarding recent warship collisions at sea follow a similar vein with respect to conclusions reached. Without regressing into a political discourse, it may be fair to say that the entire military chain of command has lived with the "make due with what you have, but get ALL the missions done" mentality for too long. It's become normal to "upsell" readiness evaluations and be a "doing more with less" type of "manager" in the prevailing circumstances of the last decade or so. In short, "can do" may lead to more serious training accidents with greater frequency until such time as resource availability matches demand. Unfortunately for everyone from the top of the command chain to the mere taxpayer, that means mission commitments must decrease and/or more resources must be allocated to the mission. Further "efficiencies" will not solve the problem all by itself.

The guys I've been speaking with are thinking more and more that they are ready to get out. They are willing to risk their selves for others, but not to make some "manager" look good while they fly broken equipment on missions they feel inadequately prepared for. Who can blame a dedicated professional military aviator for insisting that command authority value readiness even more than appearances? Patronizing words and a modest pay bump won't fix the problems the military is encountering today. Leadership had best step up and lead!

[Lonewolf_50]

Westhawk, reminds me of some of the problems in the early and mid 90's do more with less mantra. (And no surprise, ten years later Rummy made the same demand until that second war strated up ...)

[westhawk]

reminds me of some of the problems in the early and mid 90's do more with less mantra.

Yeah, I had gotten out of the Army by then, but we saw that mentality everywhere in civilian aviation too. "No time or money to do it right the first time, but plenty of time and money to do it over!" was how we expressed the situation where I worked then. Helluva way to run a _________!

[[email protected]]

It has a lot to do with trying to import business ideas, strategies and methods into the military. You end up with 'yes-men' trying hard to please their bosses to gain approval and promotion and turning the screw on their workers. Meanwhile, the next stage upwards of management (can't call it leadership) can point to their greater efficiencies and claim the kudos - more promotion - it is a self-licking lollipop and we shouldn't be surprised when it goes wrong.

[Two's in]

On the day of the hard landing, they were set to participate in training that included rotary-wing defensive measures, fixed-wing defensive measures, and ground threat reduction training.

Or "wazzing and zooming" as it used to be known.

[[email protected]]

Or "wazzing and zooming" as it used to be known.one ofthe few fun things left (in some places) in the military:ok: