Whatever happened to the Chinook HC 3s?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Defense News reports that the IAB has finally approved the necessary mods to the special ops wokkas to bring them into service. Future Lynx and MCSP also reportedly approved.
(No specific mention of whether the approval is dependant on QinetiQ keeping a distance of at least 250 feet from the aircraft at all times...)
I/C
(No specific mention of whether the approval is dependant on QinetiQ keeping a distance of at least 250 feet from the aircraft at all times...)
I/C
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to hear that after 3 years a final (in-)decision has been made. Let's hope it actually is the final decision and the aircraft can eventually get sorted. A shame though that the RAF will still end up with a bespoke fleet within a fleet.
I hope that the modifications fully take into account what has already been learnt about the systems and the good that is there is kept and not replaced with just more inappropriate displays generically designed for a passive flying environment.
I hope that the modifications fully take into account what has already been learnt about the systems and the good that is there is kept and not replaced with just more inappropriate displays generically designed for a passive flying environment.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The relevant bits © Defense News.
U.K. Helicopter Acquisition Strategy Clears Hurdle
Defense News 07/18/05
The British MoD’s powerful Investment Approvals Board (IAB) has green-lighted the development of a new generation of Lynx helicopters, upgrades to naval EH101s, and steps to finally bring into service eight much-needed Chinooks sidelined since their 2001 delivery.
The chiefs of defense procurement and logistics and the vice chief of the Defence Staff are among those on the five-person IAB — the senior committee at the MoD responsible for investment decisions that includes the ministry’s chief scientific adviser.
Recommendations coming out of the July 6 IAB talks would set in motion a process of governmental approval that, if things go according to plan, could culminate in the fourth quarter of this year with an MoD procurement announcement on a number of programs. For now, though, the outcome of the deliberations remains under wraps. An MoD spokesman even declined to confirm the July 6 meeting took place.
“The Merlin update [Merlin Capability Sustainment Plus] got through, although with question marks over whether the entire fleet would be upgraded,” one industry source said. “Future Lynx development for the Army and Navy was approved, subject to various conditions, particularly whether AgustaWestland can demonstrate value for money; and the Chinook modification work looks like it won the IAB’s approval.”
The statement was echoed by several others in industry. All cautioned, though, that the IAB was only the first of several significant hurdles the projects would have to overcome before gaining government approval, and are therefore subject to change.
It also seems as though the eight Chinook HC3s marooned for several years at the MoD airfield at Boscombe Down will be modified for service. Although the delivered helicopters met the contract specifications, the British were unable to demonstrate that the avionics software met local standards.
I/C
U.K. Helicopter Acquisition Strategy Clears Hurdle
Defense News 07/18/05
The British MoD’s powerful Investment Approvals Board (IAB) has green-lighted the development of a new generation of Lynx helicopters, upgrades to naval EH101s, and steps to finally bring into service eight much-needed Chinooks sidelined since their 2001 delivery.
The chiefs of defense procurement and logistics and the vice chief of the Defence Staff are among those on the five-person IAB — the senior committee at the MoD responsible for investment decisions that includes the ministry’s chief scientific adviser.
Recommendations coming out of the July 6 IAB talks would set in motion a process of governmental approval that, if things go according to plan, could culminate in the fourth quarter of this year with an MoD procurement announcement on a number of programs. For now, though, the outcome of the deliberations remains under wraps. An MoD spokesman even declined to confirm the July 6 meeting took place.
“The Merlin update [Merlin Capability Sustainment Plus] got through, although with question marks over whether the entire fleet would be upgraded,” one industry source said. “Future Lynx development for the Army and Navy was approved, subject to various conditions, particularly whether AgustaWestland can demonstrate value for money; and the Chinook modification work looks like it won the IAB’s approval.”
The statement was echoed by several others in industry. All cautioned, though, that the IAB was only the first of several significant hurdles the projects would have to overcome before gaining government approval, and are therefore subject to change.
It also seems as though the eight Chinook HC3s marooned for several years at the MoD airfield at Boscombe Down will be modified for service. Although the delivered helicopters met the contract specifications, the British were unable to demonstrate that the avionics software met local standards.
I/C
U.K. helicopter acquisition strategy clears hurdle
The British Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) powerful Investment Approvals Board (IAB) has green-lighted the development of a new generation of Lynx helicopters, upgrades to naval EH101s, and steps to finally bring into
service eight much-needed Chinooks sidelined since their 2001 delivery
Source: Flight International, 19 July 2005
The British Ministry of Defence's (MoD's) powerful Investment Approvals Board (IAB) has green-lighted the development of a new generation of Lynx helicopters, upgrades to naval EH101s, and steps to finally bring into
service eight much-needed Chinooks sidelined since their 2001 delivery
Source: Flight International, 19 July 2005
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very disappointing to notice that in last weeks Flight Intl an In Brief comment noted that the UK MoD is still only'continuing discussions' of whether to conduct the 'fix to field' on the Mk3s. Will the MoD ever make its mind up over these 8 aircraft (one of which by May 05 had still never made it back from the factory)? It is over 3 years since the MoD woke up to the problems which it had been trying to ignore and yet there is still no solution on the horizon.
And have any of them flown since the last currency trip in January?
And have any of them flown since the last currency trip in January?
“It is over 3 years since the MoD woke up to the problems which it had been trying to ignore and yet there is still no solution on the horizon”.
I’m not sure the MoD has entirely woken up, as there have been no obvious changes to personnel, recruitment and project resourcing policies; which are some of the main underlying factors. However, the new CDP has refreshingly different views to that of his predecessor on this score, which should reduce the chances of it happening again in the future. Bear in mind the main players are now long gone, and their successors are probably struggling manfully to find a fix, but have other more pressing problems.
I’m not sure the MoD has entirely woken up, as there have been no obvious changes to personnel, recruitment and project resourcing policies; which are some of the main underlying factors. However, the new CDP has refreshingly different views to that of his predecessor on this score, which should reduce the chances of it happening again in the future. Bear in mind the main players are now long gone, and their successors are probably struggling manfully to find a fix, but have other more pressing problems.
A really irritating PPRuNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Just popping my head back up above the parapet
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the delay in posting. I had to find the piece of paper!
1 Nov 05
Parliamentary Question:
Mr Arbuthnot : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects the Chinook Mark 3 helicopter, including the six aircraft delivered to the UK during 2001–02, to enter service before the planned phasing out of the Mark 2 and Mark 2a Chinooks.
Mr Ingram : The Ministry of Defence is working towards resolving the problems of the eight Chinook Mk 3s. A study last year recommended a 'Fix to Field' solution as the probable best value for money solution. We are working with Boeing to ensure the proposed solution is mature and robust before taking the final decision on whether to proceed. If we do decide to proceed with the 'Fix to Field' solution I anticipate that the aircraft would be in service well before the Chinook Mk 2/2a fleet reaches its out of service date.
So there you have it. It's a definite maybe!
Regards,
Brian
1 Nov 05
Parliamentary Question:
Mr Arbuthnot : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects the Chinook Mark 3 helicopter, including the six aircraft delivered to the UK during 2001–02, to enter service before the planned phasing out of the Mark 2 and Mark 2a Chinooks.
Mr Ingram : The Ministry of Defence is working towards resolving the problems of the eight Chinook Mk 3s. A study last year recommended a 'Fix to Field' solution as the probable best value for money solution. We are working with Boeing to ensure the proposed solution is mature and robust before taking the final decision on whether to proceed. If we do decide to proceed with the 'Fix to Field' solution I anticipate that the aircraft would be in service well before the Chinook Mk 2/2a fleet reaches its out of service date.
So there you have it. It's a definite maybe!
Regards,
Brian
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Brian, a travesty that even the acceptance air tests have never been completed for all of the machines. As for entering service within the lifespan of the 2/2A fleet that is an unbelievable statement as these aircraft were meant to augment the 2/2A fleet by freeing up aircraft back to the Op Sqns. Perhaps if the aircraft are ignored for long enough the problem will go away or at least in to someone elses time in government.
Thread Starter
Another year on, and nothing.
Are all eight really still sitting in a hangar at Boscombe (as 'File on Four' alleged on Monday)?
Are any of them regularly flying?
And more importantly, if the problem is UK MoD validation of software, does this imply that Boeing and the US DoD would have passed them 'fit to fly'?
If not, then they're plainly unfit for purpose, and Boeing should be punished (not awarded new Chinook support contracts, for example).
If they are, however, then is there even a possibility that our own validation standards are too high?
Is anyone suggesting that Boeing or the US Forces would have flown them happily.
I'm a huge admirer of Boscombe Down, but even I have to ask a difficult question.
There was a lot of talk about not clearing the Jag upgrade at one stage, with Boscombe Down expressing concerns over 'issues' that the frontline were 'easy' with.
Is there any possibility that frontline Chinook aircrew would be similarly relaxed about flying these aircraft?
Are all eight really still sitting in a hangar at Boscombe (as 'File on Four' alleged on Monday)?
Are any of them regularly flying?
And more importantly, if the problem is UK MoD validation of software, does this imply that Boeing and the US DoD would have passed them 'fit to fly'?
If not, then they're plainly unfit for purpose, and Boeing should be punished (not awarded new Chinook support contracts, for example).
If they are, however, then is there even a possibility that our own validation standards are too high?
Is anyone suggesting that Boeing or the US Forces would have flown them happily.
I'm a huge admirer of Boscombe Down, but even I have to ask a difficult question.
There was a lot of talk about not clearing the Jag upgrade at one stage, with Boscombe Down expressing concerns over 'issues' that the frontline were 'easy' with.
Is there any possibility that frontline Chinook aircrew would be similarly relaxed about flying these aircraft?
The aircraft are due to be rewired and a new Thales avionics suite installed. The work will be carried out at Fleetlands with the 'bent' one done back at Boeing (TI).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you have a source? Drayson was talking about a possible Boeing fix over the weekend. He wants helos in place in Helmand for the start of the fighting season next year. Would the HC3s be fixed by then?
In answer to JNs question I understand that the Chinners are flown regularly by test pilots.
In answer to JNs question I understand that the Chinners are flown regularly by test pilots.
Last edited by nigegilb; 12th Oct 2006 at 08:04.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: England
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that the Mk3s were being flown reqularly on trials flights, air tests and occassional limited currency trips but (checking my log book) i believe the last flight was 19 Jan 05.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks crabbo. Can you explain why the flights stopped? I listened carefully to Drayson on the File on 4 prog the other day. He stated that the reason why the Chinners have not been fixed to date is because the MoD were not convinced that the fix on offer would actually work. I don't understand this statement at all. Can you enlighten us, please?
Thread Starter
"It may be that the aircraft don't actually NEED fixing per se.
I believe that the actual technical problems found with the aircraft are remarkably trivial, and could (should?) be worked around, improved, or even quietly acccepted.
The core, underlying problem is more serious and is related to clearance policy and to the 'philosophy' of flight safetly criticality.
The bespoke cockpit software can not be proven to the level currently required because it was written before the current Class 1 safety critical software assessment requirements came into force.
It would be fascinating to know when the new standard was introduced, and thus how much the HC3 'missed' the old standard by......
It is not that the unvalidated software doesn't work, nor has the software been shown to have particular problems. It's just that it can't be proven to the standards required.
Presumably (and I'd welcome confirmation of this) the software did meet (or would have met) the previous standard required - or that it was (or could have been) validated to those standards. Certainly some of the supposedly 'problem' displays are used without drama on other users' Chinooks and on commercial airliners. Boeing were entirely happy with the aircraft, and I'm informed (fairly reliably, I think!) that the Boscombe TPs were broadly satisfied - apart from the software validation issue.
Though the US Army did not take the aircraft back, as was once expected, this had nothing to do with any reservations about the software.
But with current requirements the flight safety critical cockpit and display software simply cannot be proven to the level which Boscombe Down are required to prove, and thus Boscombe Down will never be able to issue a recommendation for a Military Aircraft Release. Judged by the current standard, this software will always be 'unacceptable' by definition because it cannot be validated to the right level. But don't blame the TPs, Boscombe are just doing exactly what they are there to do.
A Military Aircraft Release could still be signed, of course (there are plenty of examples of senior officers going against Boscombe Down's advice - isn't that what happened when the TPs seemed to be a little over-cautious about a very remote risk of what the papers called 'catastrophic failure' on Typhoon?).
If the decision was taken to accept the hypothetical software risk then an MAR could have been signed (against recommendation) and the aircraft could have been in squadron service three years ago. But after the Mull of Kintyre, no-one is going to accept any risk on a Chinook (of all aircraft types) no matter how hypothetical or improbable that risk may be.
It's hard to see that changing.
You then have the problem that these aircraft lack much of the vital kit that all current frontline Chinooks enjoy as a result of five or so years of intensive UOR activity - a decent DAS, Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder, HUMS, cockpit armour, etc.
When he opined that the a reason that the aircraft "have not been fixed to date is because the MoD were not convinced that the fix on offer would actually work", perhaps Drayson merely meant that if all of this kit were to be procured and installed (in a more permanent and robust fashion than via UOR/STF/SEM) then the underlying problem would still remain?
As to why they haven't flown? I believe that many of the HC3 qualified TPs have moved on, leaving only two at Boscombe, neither of whom are current, and leaving the aircraft unflown.
I remain uncertain as to where the aircraft are, physically - some suggest that all eight are at Boscombe (a view I incline towards), while others say that one is still in the USA.
I believe that the actual technical problems found with the aircraft are remarkably trivial, and could (should?) be worked around, improved, or even quietly acccepted.
The core, underlying problem is more serious and is related to clearance policy and to the 'philosophy' of flight safetly criticality.
The bespoke cockpit software can not be proven to the level currently required because it was written before the current Class 1 safety critical software assessment requirements came into force.
It would be fascinating to know when the new standard was introduced, and thus how much the HC3 'missed' the old standard by......
It is not that the unvalidated software doesn't work, nor has the software been shown to have particular problems. It's just that it can't be proven to the standards required.
Presumably (and I'd welcome confirmation of this) the software did meet (or would have met) the previous standard required - or that it was (or could have been) validated to those standards. Certainly some of the supposedly 'problem' displays are used without drama on other users' Chinooks and on commercial airliners. Boeing were entirely happy with the aircraft, and I'm informed (fairly reliably, I think!) that the Boscombe TPs were broadly satisfied - apart from the software validation issue.
Though the US Army did not take the aircraft back, as was once expected, this had nothing to do with any reservations about the software.
But with current requirements the flight safety critical cockpit and display software simply cannot be proven to the level which Boscombe Down are required to prove, and thus Boscombe Down will never be able to issue a recommendation for a Military Aircraft Release. Judged by the current standard, this software will always be 'unacceptable' by definition because it cannot be validated to the right level. But don't blame the TPs, Boscombe are just doing exactly what they are there to do.
A Military Aircraft Release could still be signed, of course (there are plenty of examples of senior officers going against Boscombe Down's advice - isn't that what happened when the TPs seemed to be a little over-cautious about a very remote risk of what the papers called 'catastrophic failure' on Typhoon?).
If the decision was taken to accept the hypothetical software risk then an MAR could have been signed (against recommendation) and the aircraft could have been in squadron service three years ago. But after the Mull of Kintyre, no-one is going to accept any risk on a Chinook (of all aircraft types) no matter how hypothetical or improbable that risk may be.
It's hard to see that changing.
You then have the problem that these aircraft lack much of the vital kit that all current frontline Chinooks enjoy as a result of five or so years of intensive UOR activity - a decent DAS, Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorder, HUMS, cockpit armour, etc.
When he opined that the a reason that the aircraft "have not been fixed to date is because the MoD were not convinced that the fix on offer would actually work", perhaps Drayson merely meant that if all of this kit were to be procured and installed (in a more permanent and robust fashion than via UOR/STF/SEM) then the underlying problem would still remain?
As to why they haven't flown? I believe that many of the HC3 qualified TPs have moved on, leaving only two at Boscombe, neither of whom are current, and leaving the aircraft unflown.
I remain uncertain as to where the aircraft are, physically - some suggest that all eight are at Boscombe (a view I incline towards), while others say that one is still in the USA.
Last edited by Jackonicko; 12th Oct 2006 at 15:08.
Thread Starter
I wish Saintsman would give us a bit more detail about this, it's new to me.
I'd assumed that there were REAL problems beyond merely validating software, but I'm beginning to wonder. Could this be a case of the aircraft being grounded more by red tape and over-caution than by real technical problems?
I'm a HUGE fan of Boscombe, but I remember the fuss surrounding Typhoon's clearance - where there were risks, but these were deemed acceptable by the user. One wonders whether the Mull of Kintyre crash hasn't led to much more risk aversion where the platform is a Chinook?
I'd assumed that there were REAL problems beyond merely validating software, but I'm beginning to wonder. Could this be a case of the aircraft being grounded more by red tape and over-caution than by real technical problems?
I'm a HUGE fan of Boscombe, but I remember the fuss surrounding Typhoon's clearance - where there were risks, but these were deemed acceptable by the user. One wonders whether the Mull of Kintyre crash hasn't led to much more risk aversion where the platform is a Chinook?
Jackoniko,
The company I work for put in a bid to do the work earlier this year (we didn't get it). We would have been sub-contracted from Boeing.
With Tone's pledge to give the Forces 'whatever they need', I'm sure this will be happening.
The company I work for put in a bid to do the work earlier this year (we didn't get it). We would have been sub-contracted from Boeing.
With Tone's pledge to give the Forces 'whatever they need', I'm sure this will be happening.