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

If it was a pilot it can only be the RAF......

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.

Dash.
Check the headline, that's what 'must be RAF' refers to.

"Uncomfortable reading.." Indeed!

Although the link says that, there's no reference to the pilot being RAF in the Headlines or story. Perhaps they were corrected. :rolleyes:

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.

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

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.

The story names the pilots rank as 'Captain'..

That's because he was.

Hence AAC, which was my point

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.

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.

Only use pilots who say "no" in a combat environment? Really? How well would that have worked in say..........the BOB?

KenV,

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

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:

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.

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. :ok:

Hmmmm. On the subject of more complete quotes, lets look at more of the statement by ShotOne:

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?

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.