Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Nottingham Lynx Ditching

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Nottingham Lynx Ditching

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Mar 2005, 23:30
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: can't see for the fog
Age: 53
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well done to the SAR/pinger boys. Whatever their contribution was, it appears to have been far more worthy than all of 'our' shiny arsed efforts combined.

Concur with Fagin that 15 hours seems to be the target rther than the minima. Hmm, Is this is a good thing? Discuss.

Spanks
spankymonkey is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2005, 23:42
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that this time last year 15 hrs was the limit but things have changed and most Lynx guys get a lot more. In fact they are positively encouraged to fly. Certainly on my outfit the average is over 20 per month.
totalwar is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 06:31
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fagin,

I believe that you are the one that is closer to the truth. Whatever the BoI comes out with in the wash there is a worrying trend over the last few months that is sadly exceeding the usual DASC post leave increase in accident/incident statistics.

In the last week I have seen the MoD web report Tornado leaving runway, Army Lynx on SPTA and of course the Lynx ditching. Has anyone begun to correlate the reduction in flying hours (currency v competency), the reduction in exercises (i.e. lets not go to say the west coast of Africa for an exercise but lets stay in the familiar and well worked terrain of Scotland) and of course the continued exodus of experienced aircrew because the FRI fails to outweigh civilian balance of life and the Professional Employment Spine (Aviator) is not given early enough to prevent those with +2000-3000 hrs (rotary mates-not truckies)! and loads of 'I's' from leaving.

My point being, taking into consideration the number of reported incidents and accidents (and we all know that a number are sorted by post flight in house de-briefs or Unit Inquiries) I wonder if any of the hiearchy actually recognise the implications to Flight Safety by the cutting of Flying Hours and reduction of exercises, but still want the same quality, and Operational Performance.

Too many coincidences for my liking - even with something as simple as a running out of fuel we all know that there is usually a chain of events in there somewhere....I wonder if the BoI will link that chain back to Fleet and the Treasury?

And before the Staff Officers start to rant and rave, I wonder if they actually ask the question to themselves that maybe their 10 second signature to a policy paper (i.e. reduction in flying hours or spares support or exercises etc) would have any impact on the competency of front line crews.

Last edited by MaroonMan4; 5th Mar 2005 at 07:03.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 06:33
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the sun
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Whilst I completely agree with Divergent Phugoid about waiting for the BoI results this is a "Rumour" forum so wild speculation should be encouraged, especially as the crew are all safe and sound and back in the clutches of the RN.

Well Done 771 for whatever your role was, obvioulsy tourist doesn't apppreciate the individual challenges of each SAR, nor the complexities of maritime winching, nor the reassurance factor of seeing the ace of clubs, credit where credit's due.

So, a controlled ditching near a Merch with mother almost 40 miles away? Seems to suggest fuel issues which is supported by the rumour network in the Dark Blue. Contamination?

Let rumour commence!
Dancing Bear is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 08:47
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"obvioulsy tourist doesn't apppreciate the individual challenges of each SAR, nor the complexities of maritime winching, nor the reassurance factor of seeing the ace of clubs, credit where credit's due."

As an ex 771 and Gannet man myself, I would say I have a fair understanding of the difficulties of taking off in a flat sea state, flying to a merchantman and lifting some crew from the deck in broad daylight. i suspect that the crew involved would be a tad embarassed about the attention. As to the relief of the crew at seeing the ace of clubs, I strongly suspect that as they stood warm and safe on the deck of the ship clutching a cup-a-soup, the thought of flying home to explain their sudden lack of their angry palm tree to the captain was not a positive experience at all!!
Tourist is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 08:49
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Firstly I have to comment on the superb post by Maroonman4.....you have hit the nail on the head there fella...lets hope the BOI do indeed recognise it.

Secondly can we please please get away from the self admiration society and stop praising 771. Now, normally, when disembarked they perform heroic and admirable work helping the community of the SW. But on this occasion they conducted a winch transfer of 3 aircrew (trained in winching) from a big ship in a Sea state 2 on a Blue-Blue day - easy peasy.

Not sure the fuel was contaminated as that would have led to them ditching before they reached MLA. Nope, I think on this occasion they were hoodwinked into thinking mother was closer than she actually was. They T42 has a well documented problem of nav slippage and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the position the ship was telling the aircrew that they were at was completely B*****ks.
totalwar is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 08:51
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
So far we have someone saying the crew ditched because they ran out of fuel, another saying they were picked up by a ship, then another states that 771 aren't even on the carrier.

What a shambles.

How about:

Lynx crew cocked up fuel calculations on a cavok day? ditched peacefully alongside the next nearest boat, boat helps them onboard. SAR cab launches from mother ship to merchant boat and winches up crew, RTB!

The merchant ship should have kept steaming south if you ask me...pilot might be better off down there
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 08:59
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lynx crew cocked up fuel calculations
Not true my friend. They knew exactly how much fuel they had.

How about:

Navy ship cocks up navigation calculations resulting in the loss of a £7million aircraft
totalwar is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 09:24
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: the Port Wait.....again
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They knew exactly how much fuel they had.
They should do, its easy to count to zero. But are you suggesting that knowing you've run out of fuel makes it all OK? The aim must still be to land on Mum wherever she may be, not monitor your fuel burn rate, right up until there is none left.

Lets face it, most Pussers grey funnel line steamers are not exactly 100% reliable when it comes to land on position
And there is more to this than the "T42 doesn't know where it is" argument.

Totalwar you have a very hyd3failure way of putting things don't you? Doh, another rebrief in bound on Monday

Last edited by Duncan Bucket; 5th Mar 2005 at 09:39.
Duncan Bucket is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 09:36
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SE490618
Age: 64
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. They didn't run out of fuel

2. They knew exactly how much fuel they had

3. when mum passed her position (Via a Bag) the ship was not where they it was supposed to be

4. The crew then decided that they couldnt make it and so in order to save 3 lives the AC decided to put the aircraft in the water and get out.

"Lets face it, most Pussers grey funnel line steamers are not exactly 100% reliable when it comes to land on position"

- actually the T22 and T23 are pretty good. But the T42 has a nav system which Vasgo de Gamma invented and then ditched because it was obsolete. The T42 is renowned for nav slippage, so much so that the last time I operated on a T42 (after a similar incident) I refused to go outside of 50 miles from the ship.
rafloo is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 09:52
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: the Port Wait.....again
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agreed, they are pretty good these days, but as I said, not 100% reliable, even 22s and 23s. That said, I understand there are procedures in place to mitigate against exactly this occurrence on the 42s. And if the plot slippage is a known problem, maybe a more prudent MLA could be applied - just a thought.

Still, its only a machine, and wether the SAR boys had any effect on procedings or not, the main thing is that the 3 crew are OK
Duncan Bucket is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 10:32
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks MaroonMan4 and TC for some reality. Ship not being in correct posn is a FAA occupational hazard; there are ways around this as many know. I re-stress the issue of aviation currency - not just the aircrew but also ship's command teams, particularly in the 'A' level stuff such as long-range silent ops.

PS For those not in the know, all RN helicopter crews are quite capable of picking up 3 bods from a ship.... not rocket science, just part of the job so let's leave the 71 heroics for when they do the business back at Culdrose.

PPS Anyone know why the Lynx had 3 POB? Staff/NFSF visit? A trapper in the 3rd seat would be fun would it not!!! Not sure if the Mk 8 can carry full fuel and 3 pob, but if not, wonder if the 3rd man's weight of AVCAT would have got the aircraft back to a deck??
fagin's goat is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 10:33
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gents

Just remember that the incident is still sub-judice and subject to BOI findings. Those claiming to have seen the signals would do well to consider whether releasing the information is in the best interests of any of the individuals and units involved.

BATS
BATS is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 10:52
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bit confused about all this 'nav slippage' talk about the ships - don't they use GPS?
gravanom is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 11:02
  #55 (permalink)  
Suspicion breeds confidence
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gibraltar
Posts: 2,405
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
I find it very hard to believe that they ran out of fuel due to a nav error by the T42. Its the Navigating Officer's responsibility to ensure mother is in a position to recover the ship's flight if no flight deck is to hand. The Lynx would be on the 1022 plot for almost it's entire flight. It may be true but if so someone should get a serious roasting for this.

Glad the crew are safe, not an easy decision to make.
Navaleye is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 14:28
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Mk8 can carry 6 pax in the back. The Mk3 can carry up 9.

The guy in the back would probably have been the flight winchman, normally carried for SAR duties but also used as the Gunner and more often than not he wouild fly as the Extra pair of eyes on a surface search sortie.
totalwar is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 14:34
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Mind boggling: The RN in the 21st century unable to plot the position of thousands of tons of heavy metal - accurately.
I fly around with a £10,000 nav system which is accurate to 1 metre anywhere in the world????

When I flew S61's off canadian frigates in early 80's, we always catered for 'mum' buggering off the wrong way - it was called R-A-D-A-R.

What a load of bollocks you chaps talk!

Tell it as it is - professionals losing their edge.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 15:31
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gravanom raised a fair point. If I served on board a ship with a known dodgy nav system (slippage?...), I think I would have dug into my pocket and spashed out the £200 or £300 to buy a basic GPS - just to cross-check my kit.

Or is that beyond the wit of man? Anyone in the know care to comment and enlighten an ex-light blue?
FJJP is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2005, 18:17
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With all this talk about the ships poor ability to know precisely where it is at any given moment, one has to wonder whether the same ships unfortunate meeting with a big rock off Australia not all that long ago is related.......

Out of interest does anyone in the know know whether the bag was simply relaying a radio message from ship to lynx or was it provididng the lynx with a FIS?
Spanish Waltzer is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2005, 01:57
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LFA 3
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Spanish Waltzer

Different Lynx crew, different Ships crew, how could the incident with the Ship running aground and the Lynx ditch be related??

Purely a coincidence that it involved the same Ship I feel

Also, please expand on your point as to whether the 849 cab was relaying a message from Nottingham or providing a FIS??

Thanks

240
jEtGuiDeR is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.