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

A Sad Waste of Life - Lynx Crash 2014 Kandahar.

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.

A Sad Waste of Life - Lynx Crash 2014 Kandahar.

Old 15th Jul 2015, 16:33
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: at the behest of the Queen of Canada.
Posts: 810
A Sad Waste of Life - Lynx Crash 2014 Kandahar.

Daily Mail report here. Hopefully a decent newpaper will print something better written soon...

RAF pilot who crashed in Afghanistan killing 5 caused by human error | Daily Mail Online
Hueymeister is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 17:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,334
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-april-2014--2
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 17:33
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 80
Posts: 30
If it was a pilot it can only be the RAF......
Rosevidney1 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 18:27
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Vienna
Age: 36
Posts: 454
A Sad Waste of Life - Lynx Crash 2014 Kandahar.

So you didn't read the report about it being an Army Air Corps pilot then?

In any case a tragic event.
Dash8driver1312 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 18:47
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 52
Posts: 1,051
Dash.
Check the headline, that's what 'must be RAF' refers to.
barnstormer1968 is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 19:31
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,923
"Uncomfortable reading.." Indeed!
ShotOne is online now  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 21:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Warrington, UK
Posts: 3,489
If it was a pilot it can only be the RAF.
Although the link says that, there's no reference to the pilot being RAF in the Headlines or story. Perhaps they were corrected.
MightyGem is online now  
Old 15th Jul 2015, 23:13
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SW UK
Posts: 181
Very sad indeed. It can't be easy for the families, especially of the 2 pax.

Having read most of the report I think that the convening authorities comments are particularly to the point and pertinent.
switch_on_lofty is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 08:25
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 57
Posts: 2,000
When it first aired, the story mentioned RAF pilot. Readers comments must have spurred an amendment.
It's sad, but a military service demands a personality profile that requires a pilot to go to war. The spinoff is that you produce a pilot who is prepared to take (calculated) risks. The full circumstances of HOW the crash happened are not clear, just that the crew were messing about.

Nowhere near the first, sadly probably not the last
jayteeto is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 09:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 49
Posts: 1,011
Read the news article comments section; it makes you weep that people just ignore the facts and make up their own version of what happened. It was a cover up, they were avoiding enemy fire etc. The thought that this may well have happened because somebody was not doing things as they should is not at all pleasant, but it does happen.

Ultimately, it was a tragedy that was avoidable.
Martin the Martian is online now  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 10:25
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
The story names the pilots rank as 'Captain'..
Hempy is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 10:28
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Right here, right now
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by Hempy View Post
The story names the pilots rank as 'Captain'..
That's because he was.
MFC_Fly is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 10:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Hence AAC, which was my point
Hempy is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 12:49
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: E MIDLANDS
Posts: 284
Sadly it does sound like this has some of the hallmarks of the Catterick Puma crash and the RN Sea King crash off Bangladesh in 1991.
andyy is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 13:58
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,923
Let's imagine for a moment that this aircraft had been operated by a private contractor and five servicemen had died after the series of issues which occurred in the lead-up to this crash. Of course this was both "Sad" and "tragic"...but are these really the words which would first come to mind? How about "rage" or "disbelief"?

As Jaytee says, it's clear the crew were "messing about" what's also clear is a long list of minor infringements, short-cuts and "tolerations" which had obviously gone on for some time prior. One of those killed had recently survived another major lapse of professionalism at the hands of another service aircrew.As a ppruner said in another context, perhaps we need to look more closely at the qualities which are encouraged. Service pilots are generally good guys, get along, keen to respect and be respected by their peers. Perhaps that's part of the issue. Maybe we need people who are prepared to challenge, ask the difficult question, say "no". The guy who would refuse to leave a flight deck while his colleagues seat was fully back, object if he wound the rad-alt alarm down to 25', even if it did cause some difficult moments in the bar later.
ShotOne is online now  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 14:19
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Maybe we need people who are prepared to challenge, ask the difficult question, say "no".
Only use pilots who say "no" in a combat environment? Really? How well would that have worked in say..........the BOB?
KenV is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 14:51
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
KenV,

You pitch up everywhere with your expert opinion and constantly misquote people. You're either trolling, walting or just trying to start arguments.

Originally Posted by KenV
Only use pilots who say "no" in a combat environment? Really? How well would that have worked in say..........the BOB?
You even quoted the phrase you refer to, although, as usual, you failed to indicate who or what you were quoting, but here it is:

Originally Posted by Unattributed by KenV
Maybe we need people who are prepared to challenge, ask the difficult question, say "no".
Just show us all where the phrase 'Only use pilots who say "no"' appears in the unatributed quote you made.


Mighty Gem,

You're absolutely right. Following an outcry in the comments section the DM made some amendments.

Last edited by Mach Two; 16th Jul 2015 at 15:01.
Mach Two is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 17:17
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by KenV
Only use pilots who say "no" in a combat environment? Really? How well would that have worked in say..........the BOB?
This thread is about a very sensitive topic. There is a very good chance that those who died in this crash were friends with some of the members here. A little compassion and respect by not being so confrontational when it isn't necessary wouldn't go amiss.
JointShiteFighter is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 17:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
Just show us all where the phrase 'Only use pilots who say "no"' appears in the unatributed quote you made.
Hmmmm. On the subject of more complete quotes, lets look at more of the statement by ShotOne:

...perhaps we need to look more closely at the qualities which are encouraged. Service pilots are generally good guys, get along, keen to respect and be respected by their peers. Perhaps that's part of the issue. Maybe we need people who are prepared to challenge, ask the difficult question, say "no".
the implication is clear. We should screen pilot candidates and screen out those who "are generally good guys, get along, keen to respect and be respected by their peers" and screen in "who are prepared to challenge, ask the difficult question, say "no"."

I believe that "saying no" is NOT necessarily a good trait for a military pilot and that being "generally good guys, get along, keen to respect and be respected by their peers" ARE good traits for a military pilot. How in the world is that trolling?
KenV is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2015, 17:52
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
No, what you inferred to yourself is clear. There is no recognisable implicacation in Shot One's statement; the statement is as clear as a bell to anyone not trying to make an issue out of nothing (that's basically what trolling is).

So, as usual, you avoided the question very well. Without using get out clauses like "on the subject of...", can you ever answer a question?

I doubt you're one to take advice here (to be frank why should you?), but if you took the trouble to say who you're quoting and give a reasonably full account of the point you're trying to make, you might find people understand you better. If you didn't come across like you know everything and drop the attitude, people might be more receptive.

Just saying.
Mach Two is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.