Chinook Heavy Landing in Iraq

[Guzzle]

Does anyone have any info on the Chinook heavy landing in Iraq: crew? damage?, etc
It seems awfully quiet on the subject.:uhoh:

[TURNBULL]

Have a look at these, it'll tell you a little but not all of the facts, thankfully it appears no one was injured.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F03%2Fwcrash03.xml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F05%2F09%2Fnmoore09.xml

[Tourist]

Nice incident signal!!
Whoo Hoo!:O

[Guzzle]

Turnbull, thanks for your shortcuts. An interesting piece by the Torygraph (can't believe they put a bloke in the jumpseat- wouldn't have happened in my day!), but I'm intrigued that mil sources are looking at mechanical problems when the broadsheet refers to fuel pressure collapsing. Hmmm, and looking at Tourist's subtle reference to the incident signal, methinks there is something rather interesting going on here. Well, am I wrong? And yes, thank goodness nobody was hurt but I guess there must be some mighty large laundry bills in downtown Baghdad.:E

[KPax]

So it is true then, no fuel in a Wokka and you don't glide. Not very good. Glad to here everyone ok, maybe some dented pride.

[Guzzle]

KPax, was this a fuel starvation problem?:sad: And how many times have the words " But double-engine failures never happen" been uttered when at the sim! Any idea what the Nr got down to and was the cab a write-off?:(

[KPax]

Not for me to speculate. There are plenty of better qualified people out there who could give you better info. Damage to ac did not sound too good.

[Lu Zuckerman]

But double-engine failures never happen" been uttered

The president of Airbus Industrie was addressing a convention in the United States petitioning for ETOPS for the A-310 and he stated that the loss of all engines at the same time was extremely improbable (1 10 9). Within a short time later there was the Gimli Glider, An L 1011 that lost two engines and was about to lose a third, A DC-9 that was misfuled and more recently an Airbus A-330.

:(

[SASless]

Was this a case of "air contamination" to the fuel system.....single engine failures are one thing....a second (subsequent) engine failure another.....but dual...like simultaneous dual engine failures.....errrr....ahhhh....one can only conjure up a couple of scenarios for that....and they each signal "Aw ****s!" for someone. Like if you happen to be feeding both donks from one source of fuel....and it gets shut off....develops an airy mix....gremlins are evil but they are not omnipotent!

[Tourist]

Lets just say that the signal was emailed to me with the title "the worlds longest career suicide note":E

[Guzzle]

Tourist/SASless, sounds like it was one of those avoidable accidents, possibly as a result of press-on-itis and may be a breakdown in crew coop. Still, I do sympathise with the guys. I have twice landed on fumes in the Wokka, once at the refuel site and once in the middle of a field on a far away island in the south. That time I was pressured to do the task against my judgement (but I was just the sprog) and subsequently proven right: fat lot of good that did me as I pondered a night in the bondue with my crew. The lesson is an age-old one- don't press, it's never that important. Reminds of the Jeff Barber Puma in Spain story, when he ignored the crew and actually ran out of fuel in flight, executing an EOL into a parade square; the crew were not impressed!
Anyone else got any 'Gosh, that was close' dramas to relate?:\

[TURNBULL]

Guzzle, old chap, wasn't it 'John' Barbour in 'Portugal'? Hate to spoil a good story with the facts.

[FEBA]

our fall was braked by the rotation of the blades
What sort of English is this then; and from the Torygraph too!!

[Cornish Jack]

Guzzle
Re. the 'any more stories'? , you might care for the introduction of the Whirlwind (Mk4) into SAR ops at XXXXXXXX. Marine Craft laid on for Press and TV cameras to view demo of deck winching.
Lined up nicely for a pick-up from the rear deck and, about 40 yards out, the engine stopped and the resultant ditching was, probably the most minutely recorded such event in history. Cause? - lack of go-juice. Crew complement was interesting! :O

[Guzzle]

Turnbull, you are far too cunning to be deceived by my flimsy attempt at protecting the priva...oh, heck, you got me! I prostrate myself at your feet in humble and abject...then again, I was taking a lead from the fine Torygraph, as highlighted by FEBA. If inaccuracy is good enough for them it's a weak but good enough, excuse for me!
Cornish Jack, a fine example of zero-juice intolerance! You must tell who the crew was, as your cryptic comment has got me all agog- it wasn't CINC STC, was it? Or maybe an Uncle of mine by marriage, who was on the fleet at the time.
Do tell!:}
There must be more howlers out there- come on you lot, confess!

[TURNBULL]

Guzzle, I believe the aforementioned Whirlwind captain was named Ivan, do you have a relative by that name?

However, back to the main story, has anyone ever heard of any other CH47 engine(s)-off?

[Fox3snapshot]

Most of the occassions that I am familiar with, were at the completion of a sortie.....Gafaww...Gafaww

Sorry mate..I will try to be constructive, I think I had to much sun today

:ouch:

[Spot 4]

....twas a single engine stoppage I hear, on the grounds that the other was already turned off!

[Cornish Jack]

Guzzle
Re. the Whirly crew - let's just say that a certain amount of self-chastisement would have been required...... sort of, 'don't do as I do, do as I say'. Just realised that that could be misinterpreted - t'was not I !!! :eek:

[12 PSI]

I seem to remember something from groundschool about the uselessness of runway behind you in a fixed wing , does the same apply to fuel in the tank that you haven't used? :eek:

[Guzzle]

Cornish, self chastisement? Was it Ivan Callotte? And no, my relative wasn't Ivan. 12PSI, yes I guess it does. Good to see some pointy-nose banter in the thread- thought you guys were too busy counting up your shoot-downs from the War to see who the best Ace was!:D

[sarboy w****r]

Well, I'm sure the Sqn execs will forgive the pilot.:ok:

[Cornish Jack]

Guzzle
No comment!
sarboy w****r
right in one! :ok:

[Klingon]

I understand that engines get cross when they're not fed!:ouch:

[Tigs2]

Guzzle and the rest of you chaps on this thread!
The comments on this thread have turned to complete drivvle! The incident concerned involves one of the best loved chaps in the chinook world, my thoughts go out to him. They ran out of fuel 6 miles from Baghdad International airport after passing both on-route FARPS which were inexplicibly(SP!) closed. i.e the boys had planned to re-fuel there but could not. The captain did a magnificent job of landing the ac with both engines shut down. What is wrong with having someone in the jump seat? Yes if I was in good old Blightey I would have landed by the road side.. but under these circumstances can you really blame the boys for pressing on? There is a whole host of human factors issues that I cant be bothered to go into as I have just got back from the middle east and it is 5 o'clock in the morning (maybe I will put in these on this thread later today) I really hope that the chap concerned does not have his career affected, as he is A1. For the Man concerned I hope you read this give me a private e-mail, we know each other really well!
regards
Tigs2

[BEagle]

“They ran out of fuel 6 miles from Baghdad International airport after passing both en-route FARPS which were inexplicably closed. i.e the boys had planned to re-fuel there but could not. The captain did a magnificent job of landing the ac with both engines shut down.”


“Yes if I was in good old Blighty I would have landed by the road side.. but under these circumstances can you really blame the boys for pressing on?”


I wasn't there and have no idea of the circumstances, so won't comment on the cause - except to say that, notwithstanding the undoubted piloting skill of the aircraft captain, your statements make rather uncomfortable reading.

[Spot 4]

He took a perfectly serviceable aircraft to the scene of the `incident`, when he should have closed down at a FARP and awaited fuel. Not quite in the same leaque as John Barber, but pretty dam close. Unless the FARP had moved leaving an unmanned insecure landing point which would gain a little sympathy and understanding.

[Tigs2]

BEagle
YES they were shut down and insecure!! Have you ever flown those small things in an operational environment. I guess you have just flown large things at FL300. maybe operational but never in the relms of small arm or hand held anti ac misile fire. I normally have respected your posts over the last few years but frankly after your response to my last I consider you a complete T**t. You were not there, I was, you are not informed to make a judgement on the crew. As it happens the human factors incident was that a switch was selectwed off in stead of on (The fuel cross-feed!) When they hit the deck they still had 17 mins worth of fuel on one side. The error was entirely human. However there would be no way that I would have shut down at either of the INSECURED, SHUTDOWN, EMPTY OF FUEL BOWSERS FARPS. So before you start being judgemental on people who are making operational decisions whilst flying below the co-ord level at 50 ft get some credibility in that arena first!

Spot4
John Barber was an arse who ran out of fuel on a jolly in Portugal. He could have landed at any time but chose not to, despite the protestations of the crewman. His incident is no way comparable with this one. And by the way he was in a Puma - not a Chinook!Would you land at an insecure site if you knew the locals would slit your throat whilst you slept? I doubt it!

There will be an inquiry so until the facts come out why don't the pair of you just P**s off with your ill-informed judgemental statements.:( :( :(

[BEagle]

Have the courtesy to re-read what I said.

I repeat, I have no idea of the circumstances so do not wish to comment upon the cause. However, your own statements do not make comfortable reading.

There is no call for personal abuse on this thread; I expect an apology.

[Tigs2]

BEagle
I offer you an unresearved apology.Please accept it. You must consider that the conditions surrounding this peticular incident were rather out of the ordinary.Please read the meat of what I have said, You really should not feel uncomfortable with what I have said.It would be easy for me to delete my entry on this thread but i wil not! I am sorry but i was a little tired and emotional. Please respond/ I apologise publicly.
Kind regards
Tigs2

[BEagle]

Thank you - water under the bridge!

Information regarding the status/availability of the FARPS seems to have been an issue here. Out of interest, if you plan to go from point A to point C, refuelling en-route at a FARP at point B, are you expected to have enough gas upon arrival at point B to be able to return to point A if the FARP is unavailable? Or would that be too limiting in the nature of your ops?

[JellyWopter]

Here we go again, another loss of taxpayers money caused by the (suspect) actions of pilots. Is this going to turn out like the other (unexplained) chinook crash, running out of fuel is NEGLIGENCE (gross or otherwise). as BEagle states, there should be enough fuel to TURN ROUND and go back. This is not cowardice, but a bl**dy good idea.

[BEagle]

I most certainly did NOT say that; neither will I comment on specifics. Comment in this thread is getting perilously close to pre-judgement

In FW Ops, you keep sufficient fuel for an alternate.

But this is entirely different. If the first pre-planned FARP was unavailable, the decision as to whether to go on to the next or whether to return to the point of departure would surely need to be made based upon the situation at the time - which only those there at the time could possibly know and which armchair theorists certainly don't. Hence, if the decision to go on to the second was made in all good faith based upon the pre-flight brief that fuel would definitely be available, that was a tactical decision which must have been made based upon the credibility of that information. However, to find that the second FARP was also dry must have been as bad as the situation of diverting to your alternate, only to find it closed when you got there would be for a FW ac commander. Up $hit creek without a paddle - it's then a question of doing the best you can with what you've got left to you armed only with your own experience and skill....

[TURNBULL]

Tigs 2,

I wholeheartedly support your comments on the individual involved - can't say enough in praise of the guy!!! However, don't sink to the low level tactics of slagging someone off just because they haven't been there, done it, etc, no matter how tried and emotional you are.

The guys raise some valid questions, which will, in due course, be answered by an inquiry - our job should be to try and put into context the difficulties of SH operations in an operational environment.

[Tigs2]

Turnbull
I agree with you thanks and sorry!

BEagle your last post has put thole whole situation in to perspective, Thank you! The guys were told that the FARPS were open and subsequently did have to make some difficult decisions. They could not control what happened outside the cockpit, but they fcuked up inside. A classic human factors incident which I am sure they will kick their own arses for years to come

[Dunhovrin]

And before anyone goes off chasing the cross-feed goose and castigate the crew for that - I'm curious. What length of duty period were the boys on that day? or the preceeding days? What was their accom like? How much distraction was there with a VVIP on board along with assorted flunkies who are noramlly all over the crew....? As Tig2 sez - a classic human factors incident compounded by the high profile nature of it. Well done the crew. I'm off to my books to lurn to be a perfect pilot like JellyWopter.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Jelly, congratulations on your first post. Suffice to say that your opinions have been noted, and remember - first impressions count. Now kindly poke off.

[Training Risky]

If I were making my first ever post on a site for aviation professionals, I would be very careful when making casual comments about a particular crash that is very sensitive to the SH community.

I don't yet know all the details of this INcident (note the use of 'IN', not 'AC'), so you would not see me bandying the term 'negligence' around at a time like this......

...... silky ladies nighties have nothing to do with it anyway:cool:

[JellyWopter]

If this subject is very sensitive to the SH community, then why is it being openly discussed in a public forum. Surely some matters are better left 'in limbo' such that Joe Public is unable to make comments to the actions of the Pilots in such matters.

If the pilots acted correctly then it would be better to publish a final accurate report, so that FACTS are known and mistruths laid to rest.

Anyone who flies in such conditions (ie war) are proven heroes so why let joe public taint the truth.

[Training Risky]

Wow Jellywopter!

After your first post at the top of the page I assumed you were an ignorant intruder into this topic. With perhaps 20 or so hours on an R22? Maybe a PPL(H)?

But your last offering above must mean you have so many nuggets of wisdom to pass on after a lifetime of flying rotary, yes?Due to your intimate knowledge of Chinook ops, I must assume you fly the beast?

Please come again.

[jayteeto]

Beagle, an ability to carry enough fuel to get back if the FARP is unavailable is fine in a jet. Unfortunately this is just not possible in some SH. If we can, we do. Launching with less than 1 hr fuel was a regular occurence on ops in the Puma. If the TSW kit went u/s, you would shut down and wait until it was fixed.

[Guzzle]

When the cat's away, the mice will...slag each other off? That's not what this forum or thread is about, Gents. Tigs2, your points are well noted. Be assured that I consider all of the crew (now I know who they are) to be good friends of mine and, yes, my heart goes out to them. After months fighting a war and wallowing in SH muck, an avoidable incident is regrettable and unwelcome. Lets hope that things don't get out of hand and careers aren't blighted by what I assume to have been a cognitive failure.
Also chaps, it is very easy to have a swipe at new boys- remember, we all started out with no experience and no cred. We should honour opinions and comment, when appropriate, on ignorance and naivety in a balanced, sensible but ultimately informing reply.
Oh, and if anyone mentions negligence again, do so with great care and make sure you are prepared to explain your comment and defend your ground.:uhoh:

[Tourist]

I'm sorry, but having just reread the signal, I have to say it

negligence :E

[Flatus Veteranus]

I won't use the dreaded "N..." word, and I appreciate that the crew were under all sorts of pressure to reach their destination, and that they were screwed up by support facilities on the ground not materialising "as briefed". BUT, perhaps some grizzled old SH operator can explain to me how can it be that, although we were all taught at FTS that a precautionary landing when you still have fuel to put it down under full control is better than a "dead-stick" or "flame-out", and when in command of an aircraft that does not need 3,000 metres of concrete, the captain elected to wait until he was "sucking on air"? Its all very well to say "wait for the BoI findings", but they probably will not be published as there was (thankfully) no loss of life or serious injury and the incident did not happen in Scotland. "Joe Public", of which I am a member, does have a legitimate interest. We pay the bills.

On another topic, many on this forum have bleated about the Yanks' cavalier attitude to "blue-on-blue" involving allied forces, and their reluctance to divulge all the relevant information. Well, I wonder whether MOD will send the N of K of the USN exchange officer who died in the collision between two Sea Kings within 5 nm of the Ark a copy of the B of I?

:confused:

[Guzzle]

Tourist, you have access to the signal, maybe you have access to the cockpit. You will probably be aware of the poor fuel panel design- buttons which depress slightly to latch on with internal captions illuminated by twin bulbs which frequently fail. These are very hard to see in bright (desert) light conditions when both bulbs are working. Now note Dunhovrin's comment about crew duty day, cumulative fatigue, stress, anxiety. Finally, note my comment about cognitive failure. Add it all up and I consider that your verdict of negligence is poorly considered. That is my opinion. Now explain your opinion; we would like to see your thought processes.

Flat Vet, you missed the fact that the crew believed that they were fuelling correctly and that they had plenty to reach Baghdad. Without a doubt, this crew WOULD have landed had they thought they were on fumes. This was not strictly a case of press-on-itis.

[Training Risky]

Good call about the bulbs in the fuel ctrl panel Guzzle.

Also, even if the crew were carrying out scan cx every 30 mins, the fuel contents selector switch is not entirely accurate, therefore giving a possible erroneous reading.

(Even if they missed a cx and did not do one for 60 mins, in the heat of operations, a lapse like that is understandable. Anyone who says they have never missed a cx is lying)

[Tourist]

Ok guzzle.
they tried to save some fuel by putting one to flight idle. My tech is sh1t, but even i know that that doesnt work.
After making the correct choice to shut one down late, they then failed to monitor fuel close enough to notice that they were about to run dry in the tank that fed the one working engine. And the bit about pressure from senior blokes on board is bull. No excuse for not landing. Its all very well to not want to land because of nasty baddies on the grnd, but rather that than autoing into the desert
Any help?

(bound to go land with the gear up now! thats fate!)

Fuel cx every 30 mins!! with one shut down for lack of fuel! every 30 secs more like

[EnnArr]

Keeping it brief.........4 crew in a wokka, two in the front to look at the cross feed switch selection, a no. 2 crewman to stick his head past the jump seat occupant and check the cross feed switch selection and a no. 1 crewman down the back to check the cross feed valve motors..........4 people missed it. Oops.

But hey, it happens, just like it always does........at exactly the wrong time and in exactly the wrong place. At least the crew deserve a well done for landing and all walking away along with their pax. Cabs can be fixed - people sometimes not.

Tigs, slagging someone off with one breath and then apologising wholeheartedly with the next does not gain you much credibility. I humbly suggest that we would all be well advised to carefully consider responses on here before launching into an attack on a fellow pruner.

Nuff said, I'm off to the bar, anyone fancy a pint?

[Mmmmnice]

Bit late to this one chaps - too busy buying things and looking for smut! Nice to see some people still don't know how a dictionary works. All seems like classic SH (the 'discussion', that is) - why bother to wait for the full story when you can have an online kangaroo court. I just hope some of you don't end up in my cockpit - special sauce anyone?.
Another bag of stones for the man in the greenhouse please..........bah

[DummyRun]

GUYS PLEASE......

I,m not SH but I am a mil ac Capt, if I overheard this 'chat' in a barI would'nt know which one of you to swing for first!. Anyone posted who was actually there?..... no, thought not.

P.S. Tourist, would you accuse the Capt of negligance to his face, on the basis of a signal, without hearing his side of the story?, -
could you be a bluntie, brand new Flt Cdr or a complete tw*t, or possibly perm two from three!

[Tourist]

Not just any signal, but one he wrote.
ie, HIS SIDE OF THE STORY
But no I wouldnt, he has one whole more ring than me.
At least I respect his complete honesty in saving himself no blushes.
and the answer is no, no, sometimes:p
incidentally, if you cant hurl some abuse after a f@ck up where nobody gets hurt and its happy ever after, when can you?

[high spirits]

I have just got back from TFD(that f****n det), and I am disgusted by some of the crap that has been banded around on this thread by people who have no knowledge of ops out there. Yes, the crew admit they made a mistake. Probably compounded by long hours, no sleep, pump tasking, a lack of reliable info from the US forces, and working/sleeping(!) in temperatures in excess of 43 degrees. Anyone who has been there will understand exactly why and how mistakes like that one occurred. To those of you who have never made a mistake in the air, I salute your ability to lie. To those of you who have got away with landing on minima (or below?) lucky you. To those of you in the flying world who don't understand how we operate fuel sites/div minima in SH, find out or shut up. To use the word negligence in the operational environment is just damn wrong. Just do what I did and thank your lucky stars that noone came home in a wooden box.

[BEagle]

Well put, high spirits! And welcome back to a bit of peace and quiet, I hope. You deserve it.

One aspect of this incident is that the pressures which you rightly describe would, I venture to suggest, probably add up insidiously to create an environment in which errors might be more likely to occur. Hence those under such pressures might quite understandably not even be aware that their individual or corporate performance had reached such a state.

The main thing is that no-one was killed.

[DummyRun]

Tourist, if you drive the twin tubdeathbanana then fair one fella,they frighten the cr@p out of me!, more than happy just to park up somewhere and give you the gas, sorry could'nt help this time.
Yeah, div fuel and deja-vu is great. Never been subject to a PPrune BOI ,must be a humbling experience to learn so much from so many who were'nt there........


Load Moving.........

[high spirits]

Thank you for one of the first sensible replies I have seen on this thread BEagle. I am sure some of the aforementioned factors compounded the situation for that crew. Now JHC about those air conditioning units that you still haven't ordered for the Basrah det......

[grimfixer]

Having just got back from the said theatre and had the details from both ends of the incident.....
1. Nice to see the guys are still here to learn from it
2. Negligence is a very heavy word and used out of context at times
3. Maybe avoidable is more appropriate
4. If TIGS2 represents them at the BOI they are home and dry!

and yes, I was below 50 feet and do have an appropriate background.

Nice to be back in our particularly green and pleasant land again.

Three cheers for the pistol packing Colonel:}

[animo et fide]

I am another of the bally heroes just returned from that det. Most of the threads here are posted by ill informed so called military aviators. The crew carried out there duties professionally throughout the whole det and were totally honest about the incident. The call on what each member of the crew should have been doing was also way off the mark cos they all monitored the situation as they should of. All switch selections were made and checked. Maybe you should all just wait for the final report!