The Media "Good Safety Record"
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc bangs on about safety cases as if they were the sine qua non of military aviation. They are an important part, but not critical.
It’s a day for semantics! The safety analyses that inform the design and form the Safety Case are indeed the sine qua non of aviation not just military aviation. I suspect when you refer to the Safety Case you mean the Safety Case Report that summarises the safety case and reports the residual risk related to the operation of the platform. Whilst that could be argued to be ‘not critical’ (after all it’s a report), the compliance evidence and safety analyses generated through the design and build that form the safety case certainly are critical.
Otherwise you are just building aircraft to prevent yesterday’s accidents and not to prevent the foreseeable but as yet non experienced accidents.
to highlight lazy journalism rather than imply any inherent fault with the Lynx.
melmoth, if only some other posters (self included) maintained such a good ratio of well-considered posts to lurking
Well said dervish! I would have thought that military aviation might reasonably expect to be supplied with airworthy aircraft so that it had only to concentrate on an enemy trying to destroy it. It seems that others nearer home should be taken into account too...
As an army pilot for 25+ years I always considered one day, I just might have an accident? I believe the type of flying we did, in some very in-hospitable places - it was likely. But what I never considered was that I'd end up as one of those statistics through no fault of my own why; because something fell off like a rotor blade or a door which wrecked the tail rotor or an AFCS computer decided it wanted to go another way much faster the the airframe could cope with. That's why everytime I was posted back to a Lynx Squadron I made damn sure my other half knew that if should something catastrophic happened through no fault of my own she should sell everything (if necessary) and sue the barstuards that built it because anybody that thinks Lynx (Army) has a good safety record is sadly deluded. We can all say Mk 1/7/9s are different but using that to hide statistics is crass.
I can't speak about the 9A because I never flew one.
As for Paul Beaver making comments on the TV - he is obviously using his LACK of thousands of hours experience on type to qualify the crap he talking! He has never been an Army Pilot to my knowledge, unless of course like several other senior officers the AAC gave him a badge for turning up one day and doing his media bit.
Who actually gives a stuff how many hours it's flown in a such a short time in Afghanistan - if it isn't up to it - it should not being doing it full stop.
I can't speak about the 9A because I never flew one.
As for Paul Beaver making comments on the TV - he is obviously using his LACK of thousands of hours experience on type to qualify the crap he talking! He has never been an Army Pilot to my knowledge, unless of course like several other senior officers the AAC gave him a badge for turning up one day and doing his media bit.
Who actually gives a stuff how many hours it's flown in a such a short time in Afghanistan - if it isn't up to it - it should not being doing it full stop.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 29th Apr 2014 at 15:53.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Otherwise you are just building aircraft to prevent yesterday’s accidents and not to prevent the foreseeable but as yet non experienced accidents. "
We should be building aircraft which kill the enemy effectively not to keep aircrew safe.
Safety is nice to have, but not as essential as being operationally effective.
RN lynx is very effective. It also filled most of an entire hangar of the old RN air accident investigation dept.....
We should be building aircraft which kill the enemy effectively not to keep aircrew safe.
Safety is nice to have, but not as essential as being operationally effective.
RN lynx is very effective. It also filled most of an entire hangar of the old RN air accident investigation dept.....
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist. I'm not sure I've ever read more bollox on PPRuNe than that.
These are mutually exclusive. One is different, completely, from the other.
Of course a "warplane" must do it's job, but not to the exclusion of the crew's safety.
Having flown in the mob for 24 years, I have never, never found anyone that thinks they'd get in an unsafe aircraft because they felt the operational necessity outweighed their lives.
Have a word...
These are mutually exclusive. One is different, completely, from the other.
Of course a "warplane" must do it's job, but not to the exclusion of the crew's safety.
Having flown in the mob for 24 years, I have never, never found anyone that thinks they'd get in an unsafe aircraft because they felt the operational necessity outweighed their lives.
Have a word...
We should be building aircraft which kill the enemy effectively not to keep aircrew safe.
Safety is nice to have, but not as essential as being operationally effective.
Safety is nice to have, but not as essential as being operationally effective.
You, too, are an idiot.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: London
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Context and balance.
I have long been a non-contributing observer, and fan, of this website. However, I feel compelled to finally write as I feel that this is exactly the type of thread that brings out the worst in PPrune. For background, I have >1000 hrs on Lynx and >2500 hrs as an Army Pilot. I slept on the decision to post, and still will.
The Lynx, and I have flown 7/9/9A on operations, is not different to any other military type. It has its moments, but as do all aircraft. Having spent some serious time in Aviation Effectiveness, and in particular Measurements of Effectiveness and Performance, I can say with some authority that it has a good safety record. It does. Compared to what you might ask? I can state that in terms of incidents and accidents per flying hour, incidents and accidents per taskline and overall incidents per year of service it is in the top third of UK helicopter types. For obvious reasons, I will not state the entire list in order.
Some deluded individuals seem to believe that we can live in a perfect world with no risk at all in military flying. Clearly this must be reduced to a sensible level, but not to the cost of losing military effectiveness. In a deployed operational sense, not putting the aircraft in harms way is safe, but will lead to the death of others, those who ultimately we fly for. Infantry are not less valuable than aircrew. The taxpayer, and Defence, have not bought your aircraft as a safe toy for you to enjoy. It is a machine of war to be used like any other. If you want the safest flying in the world, do not join the Armed Forces. This is so obvious I can't believe that I am actually writing it. We are in serious danger of making military flying so absurdly audited, supervised and constrained that we simply transfer the risk of aviation to those on the ground by not supporting them in the manner that we can and should.
I seriously hope that there is no single-service agenda with some on this site deriding Lynx. It is no secret that the RAF are unconvinced with Lynx/LUH/Wildcat. Please do not let this colour normally impeccable judgement. It is my belief that the Army and Armed Forces desperately need a Light ISTAR and liaison helicopter. If this is not your belief then please don't exploit this incident for your own gain.
Please also remember the context in which you post. Do you really want people, including journalists, to see one aircraft type derided at a time when 5 servicemen have yet to be repatriated? Do you really feel those comments to be wholly appropriate in the circumstances? MOSTAFA, if you feel so strongly about flying Lynx, then don't do it. Leave. Threatening retrospectively to sue for something that you are not compelled to do is retarded, childish and smacks of pathetic self-imposed martyrdom.
We are privileged people as military aircrew. Please let's remember how to act and why we are employed. Not selfishly to make our own lives safe, but selflessly to serve those we fly over and for.
I won't post again. RIP Pies, Spen and Bungle. You were Lynx aircrew, and I am proud to stand alongside you as such.
The Lynx, and I have flown 7/9/9A on operations, is not different to any other military type. It has its moments, but as do all aircraft. Having spent some serious time in Aviation Effectiveness, and in particular Measurements of Effectiveness and Performance, I can say with some authority that it has a good safety record. It does. Compared to what you might ask? I can state that in terms of incidents and accidents per flying hour, incidents and accidents per taskline and overall incidents per year of service it is in the top third of UK helicopter types. For obvious reasons, I will not state the entire list in order.
Some deluded individuals seem to believe that we can live in a perfect world with no risk at all in military flying. Clearly this must be reduced to a sensible level, but not to the cost of losing military effectiveness. In a deployed operational sense, not putting the aircraft in harms way is safe, but will lead to the death of others, those who ultimately we fly for. Infantry are not less valuable than aircrew. The taxpayer, and Defence, have not bought your aircraft as a safe toy for you to enjoy. It is a machine of war to be used like any other. If you want the safest flying in the world, do not join the Armed Forces. This is so obvious I can't believe that I am actually writing it. We are in serious danger of making military flying so absurdly audited, supervised and constrained that we simply transfer the risk of aviation to those on the ground by not supporting them in the manner that we can and should.
I seriously hope that there is no single-service agenda with some on this site deriding Lynx. It is no secret that the RAF are unconvinced with Lynx/LUH/Wildcat. Please do not let this colour normally impeccable judgement. It is my belief that the Army and Armed Forces desperately need a Light ISTAR and liaison helicopter. If this is not your belief then please don't exploit this incident for your own gain.
Please also remember the context in which you post. Do you really want people, including journalists, to see one aircraft type derided at a time when 5 servicemen have yet to be repatriated? Do you really feel those comments to be wholly appropriate in the circumstances? MOSTAFA, if you feel so strongly about flying Lynx, then don't do it. Leave. Threatening retrospectively to sue for something that you are not compelled to do is retarded, childish and smacks of pathetic self-imposed martyrdom.
We are privileged people as military aircrew. Please let's remember how to act and why we are employed. Not selfishly to make our own lives safe, but selflessly to serve those we fly over and for.
I won't post again. RIP Pies, Spen and Bungle. You were Lynx aircrew, and I am proud to stand alongside you as such.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 62
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
Either this is a fairly obvious troll or a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’ll assume the latter and try to address the point. OK, let’s reduce the aircrew to the status of equipment to fight the enemy. Would you accept that a shoddy small arms weapon that jammed regularly would fulfil its functional requirement to fire bullets but may get its operator killed? Why would you place an aircraft in operation that had an inherent risk that may kill the operators thus significantly reducing the operational effectiveness. Maintainability, Availability, Cost, Operational Effectiveness and Safety are all part of the trade-off but within the framework of ensuring that a justifiable ALARP argument can be made. Operational commanders given the information on which to assess risk can of course consider individual risk assessments based on a specific operational imperative.
Either this is a fairly obvious troll or a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’ll assume the latter and try to address the point. OK, let’s reduce the aircrew to the status of equipment to fight the enemy. Would you accept that a shoddy small arms weapon that jammed regularly would fulfil its functional requirement to fire bullets but may get its operator killed? Why would you place an aircraft in operation that had an inherent risk that may kill the operators thus significantly reducing the operational effectiveness. Maintainability, Availability, Cost, Operational Effectiveness and Safety are all part of the trade-off but within the framework of ensuring that a justifiable ALARP argument can be made. Operational commanders given the information on which to assess risk can of course consider individual risk assessments based on a specific operational imperative.
Lynx lurker.
If you feel I am in any way at all trying to be derogatory to the crew of the recent accident you are sooooooo wrong.
My comments come from my >7000 hrs of army flying and I stand by everything I said. As for 'leave' I did, 10 years ago to the North Sea hence I have never flown a 9A. I equally feel your loss sadly as I have too many times before.
Please feel free to PM me should you want further clarification.
If you feel I am in any way at all trying to be derogatory to the crew of the recent accident you are sooooooo wrong.
My comments come from my >7000 hrs of army flying and I stand by everything I said. As for 'leave' I did, 10 years ago to the North Sea hence I have never flown a 9A. I equally feel your loss sadly as I have too many times before.
Please feel free to PM me should you want further clarification.
Last edited by MOSTAFA; 29th Apr 2014 at 15:49.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1961, Kennedy stated that America would be on the moon before the end of the 60's.
He was correct.
Recently, America has stated that they would like to go back to the moon but have given themselves a longer timescale.
I wonder why?
Is it because we have gone backwards in materials technology, computers, jet propulsion theory and all other areas of relevant science?
On the contrary, we are light years ahead in all those areas.
So why is it more difficult to get to the moon?f
It is because of chisellers demanding that it should be "safe."
This has reduced the US to piggy-backing on Russian rockets which are scarcely more than the ICBM's they derived from.
Many on here and in military aviation in general fail to see the big picture, perhaps because we have not had a war in a while.
By war, I mean those big fights that you don't get to choose to be involved in and opt out of when they get sticky. The sort of war where hundreds of thousands of civilians get killed and raped, not the sort of war where the greatest loss of life is accidents and post conflict suicide.
Yes, accidents are bad for operational effectiveness if there are too many of them, but it is a balance.
If every time aircraft A gets airborne it crashes unrelated to enemy action, then bad for effectiveness.
If however, aircraft A crashes once a year in peacetime accidents, but is absolutely devastating to the enemy in wartime, a real war winner, then perhaps it is worth it.
Every safety feature fitted to an aircraft has a performance penalty and/or a cost penalty. When it comes to war, that tiny tenth of a percentage point in increased payload, speed, range, height or being able to buy more might just make the difference between winning and losing a war.
Winners get to fight on the losers territory. If we are not willing to accept the same level of risk as the enemy, then we will lose because we hand him an advantage.
Not lose as in lose a few aircrew who volunteered and in general accept the risk, but lose as in lose our loved ones, our homes and our culture.
Militaries need to accept loss of life in peacetime in the interests for minimising loss of life when the big one comes.
He was correct.
Recently, America has stated that they would like to go back to the moon but have given themselves a longer timescale.
I wonder why?
Is it because we have gone backwards in materials technology, computers, jet propulsion theory and all other areas of relevant science?
On the contrary, we are light years ahead in all those areas.
So why is it more difficult to get to the moon?f
It is because of chisellers demanding that it should be "safe."
This has reduced the US to piggy-backing on Russian rockets which are scarcely more than the ICBM's they derived from.
Many on here and in military aviation in general fail to see the big picture, perhaps because we have not had a war in a while.
By war, I mean those big fights that you don't get to choose to be involved in and opt out of when they get sticky. The sort of war where hundreds of thousands of civilians get killed and raped, not the sort of war where the greatest loss of life is accidents and post conflict suicide.
Yes, accidents are bad for operational effectiveness if there are too many of them, but it is a balance.
If every time aircraft A gets airborne it crashes unrelated to enemy action, then bad for effectiveness.
If however, aircraft A crashes once a year in peacetime accidents, but is absolutely devastating to the enemy in wartime, a real war winner, then perhaps it is worth it.
Every safety feature fitted to an aircraft has a performance penalty and/or a cost penalty. When it comes to war, that tiny tenth of a percentage point in increased payload, speed, range, height or being able to buy more might just make the difference between winning and losing a war.
Winners get to fight on the losers territory. If we are not willing to accept the same level of risk as the enemy, then we will lose because we hand him an advantage.
Not lose as in lose a few aircrew who volunteered and in general accept the risk, but lose as in lose our loved ones, our homes and our culture.
Militaries need to accept loss of life in peacetime in the interests for minimising loss of life when the big one comes.
It is because of chisellers demanding that it should be "safe."
Thread drift.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And you are an arse for making that comment.
Trying to involve emotion to cover up your weak argument is crass.
Yes more people will die in peacetime if we do military properly, but if we don't intend to do it properly, then why don't we save even more lives by not having a military at all?
Same result in the end, but you lose a war a lot more cheaply and with less lives lost if you don't fight at all rather than fighting a losing battle.
Trying to involve emotion to cover up your weak argument is crass.
Yes more people will die in peacetime if we do military properly, but if we don't intend to do it properly, then why don't we save even more lives by not having a military at all?
Same result in the end, but you lose a war a lot more cheaply and with less lives lost if you don't fight at all rather than fighting a losing battle.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love the "patronisation". Just great.
Look, I'm just saying that we should try and make the craft that we fly in as safe as possible. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
There's frankly no need for your sarcasm.
Look, I'm just saying that we should try and make the craft that we fly in as safe as possible. That's all. Nothing more. Nothing less.
There's frankly no need for your sarcasm.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty
Reread your own contributions to this thread, and then ask yourself whether some sarcasm was in fact warranted after your flouncing out of the thread taking your Barbie dolls with you.
Reread your own contributions to this thread, and then ask yourself whether some sarcasm was in fact warranted after your flouncing out of the thread taking your Barbie dolls with you.