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.

Well excuse ME!!! It seems that ShotOne showed no "respect" and had no "compassion" for the pilot and aircrew in this tragedy when he called for "rage" and "disbelief" and accused them of "messing about". And that he showed no respect nor compassion when he accused the entire pilot community of "a long list of minor infringements, short-cuts and "tolerations" which had obviously gone on for some time prior." To my American eyes and ears his post was disrespectful of those who lost their lives while serving their country, and was not compassionate toward the friends and loved ones the dead left behind. I was attempting (and clearly failing) to mildly discredit this disrespectful post. Apparently, Americans and Brits have different cultural views on what/who is being disrespectful.

And on a related note: I think this outcry against the pilot is not only disrespectful, it is wholly unfounded. Performing "a low G descent" into an airfield in a combat zone is standard procedure and ensuring the passengers are properly strapped in in the event of such a maneuver is highly professional. Even the A330 Voyager crew mentioned in the article performed low G descent into what was probably a much larger, more secure facility. And according to the article "there was no way of knowing" 1) if the pilot actually performed a low G descent and 2) even if he did, if it contributed at all to the crash. But there were a few folks here writing not only as if they were certain that he did, but that it directly led to the crash. Again, to my American sensibilities such statements are harsh, disrespectful, and not compassionate. And I honestly and respectfully don't understand how (some?) Brits think such statements are not.

Ken, the reference to the Voyager is in relation to an incident in which an aircraft plummeted thousands of feet and was very nearly lost, not a reference to a low G entry into a combat theatre. The implication being that the passenger who mentioned it was experiencing the same intense negative G in the Lynx.

If you're going to rant and rail, at least do your research.

I fail to see how ShotOne's statement that calls for "rage" and "disbelief" and that accused the pilots of "messing about" had no "recognisable implicacation". And that when he accused the entire pilot community of "a long list of minor infringements, short-cuts and "tolerations" which had obviously gone on for some time prior" also had no recognizable implications? The implications to my American ears are "clear as a bell".

As for "not trying to make an issue out of nothing" calling for "rage" and "disbelief" is not "nothing". Neither is accusing the whole pilot community of "a long list of minor infringements, short-cuts and "tolerations" which had obviously gone on for some time prior". To me, ShotOne's post was disrespectful of an aircrew who died in the performance of their duty while serving their nation in a combat zone and deserved outrage rather than the mild rebuke I provided. Indeed, to me it was exactly the kind of outrageous disrespect that thankfully was cut off in the A400M crash thread. Why some folks tolerate that kind of disrespect for a helo crew in a combat zone totally escapes me.

KenV

I've deliberately refrained from comment so far, but you really need to read the official inquiry report in Wrathmonk's second post rather than the Daily Mail article in the first post.

Just because it occurred in an operational theatre doesn't mean that the pilot didn't make mistakes. Mistakes happen, both in peace time and in war time and the official inquiry report makes it very clear what to their expert military judgement they believe occurred on that fateful day based on experience, radar traces and CVR data. You're right in so much as

But this wasn't a decent into an operational airfield, it was a air-ground gunnery shoot where the final pass went tragically wrong when a whole host of mistakes and contributory and aggravating factors combined into an unrecoverable situation. Pointing out those mistakes and factors is far from disrespectful if it prevents a similar occurrence in future; let that be the only good thing to come out of this terrible incident.

The passenger in the helo was also a passenger on that specific A33O flight? Where would you suggest I "research" to confirm this claim?

A Sad Waste of Life - Lynx Crash 2014 Kandahar.
 

KenV.

Where could you do that research? The aforementioned accident report attached to an earlier post.

I'm not taking sides on a petty squabble such as this. Especially not when it relates to a fatal accident.

Might I suggest that nobody emerges from a thread like this smelling of roses when people start abusing each other. I for one will keep my thoughts to myself

BV

That makes some sense but I still see nothing here that justifies verbally lynching the pilot, especially since no one knows if he did pull a low G maneuver and even if he did, if it was at all contributory to the unrecoverable situation.

Agreed. But implying that factors that MIGHT have contributed to the accident in fact caused the accident and calling for "rage and disbelief" is in my mind "disrespectful," especially if such speculation does not contribute to "prevent a similar occurrence in future" and may even have the opposite effect.

The Voyager incident happened a few months before this incident, and the implication from the report was that while he may or may not have been a passenger, he was certainly aware of it. That was the inference that the investigating panel drew, according to the report, and why he made the comment that he did.

While I have never been on a Voyager flying into theatre, I have been on other large passenger aircraft into Bagram and Kandahar, and on no occasion did I ever experience anything close to a negative G approach.

I will say this once more only - read the official incident report, it's all in there. Unless you know more than the MAA.

I tried earlier to download the .pdf files linked in post #2 and tried again just now. No joy. But my sincere thanks for your reply.

The book 'Sweating the Metal' is all about flying helicopters in Afghanistan (the Chinook in this case) and the rules and restrictions that are imposed on the crews are far more stringent then any I endured during my service. That said, the helo's are often operated at best speed and the very minimum of altitude to avoid fire from the Taliban who have no rules of engagement. Low level training in the UK is limited - so how do the crews practice unless they do it unofficially?

You make an interesting point. One man's "recklessness" may be another man's "aircrew training". It could get interesting when one man is behind a desk at home and another is in the cockpit in a combat zone abroad.

Ken I loiter about here and every contribution you make is both provocative and dull In equal measure
Best wishes
John

"Unofficial" training is usually code for wazzing and zooming. It will kill you on operations just as quickly as in peacetime, and yet there is a tragic and unrelenting history of this type of accident on every major operation. Killing your colleagues or turning a critical theatre asset into a Cat 5 has a major effect on everyone's moral and well being. The masturbatory fantasy of avoiding a SAM or RPG through exploring some heroic, yet untested, corner of the flight envelope is utter tosh.

As for speaking in respectful tones, why yes, the dead deserve respect. But even more respectful is making sure their colleagues who are still alive today avoid the same pitfalls that killed them, even if it highlights personal shortcomings. Better to be blunt and breathing than deferential and dead.

PS. Quite staggering to see that after more than 30 years of service Westland and the MoD appear content for Lynx crews to risk being burned to death any time the aircraft hits the ground. Just about every accident report castigates the fuel cell and fuel coupling design as non-crashworthy, yet apparently it's not "cost effective" to fix. Just look at the full list of Lynx crash related fires - it's unconscionable.

I stand to be corrected, but haven't the last three Lynx fatals included personnel that didn't need to be on board? This one has guys that were along for the ride, I'm sure that the Basra cab had one guy on that was on a "famil" and of course the Czech Republic cab sadly has four from the Artillery on board. It maybe that its size offers that temptation to take someone along for a jolly. We certainly did this in Bosnia and I'll readily admit to playing to the audience....there but for the grace of God.

It is clearly and explicitly stated in the SI that the passenger who made the "Voyager Flashback" remark - recorded on the CVR - WAS a passenger on the Voyager flight in question.

It wasn't exactly difficult to find either; I think reading the whole SI took me well less than an hour .......

Any chance the bunt might have cavitated the hyds?
 

Had an instance when I was in a Wessex that was bunted and there was a significant delay in being able to regain cyclic control in pitch.....luckily this was at height. Could this happen in a Lynx?

HPT

A sad day for all concerned.

The new style of investigation quite rightly forensically analyses all aspects of the operation of crew and equipment at the time of the incident however many of the considerations identified may not be directly attributable to the direct cause of the accident. It is quite right however that as many lessons are learnt as possible.

The direct cause of the accident in this case seems to be a loss of situational awareness with respect to rate of descent and or speed combined with poor external height clues and locally rising ground.

I wonder whether any consideration was given to the possible momentary distraction that concentration on the 'head up display' may have caused taking away awareness of the 'outside world' if indeed it was worn at the time. Ally that to whether the rad alt indication had any lag in any aspect of the system from sensing (in recovering from an angle of bank or high rate of descent) to physical presentation in the eye. It is possible that in this scenario that reliance on HUD to the detriment of external lookout (the brain can only do one thing at a time) might have removed awareness of gently rising ground. The rad alt has a latency in relation to topography at high speed (instantaneous v approaching).

I did read the whole SI but did not note any detailed comment to this effect however standing by to have my lack of attention to detail pointed out to me.

HEDP

If only a few others considered my posts "dull", maybe I would not get the occasional vitriolic replies I sometimes get.

But in one sense something good came out of my recent "dull" posts in the thread. The attacks against the pilots who gave their lives in the service of their nation have stopped. At least for now. I consider that a positive outcome and worth the occasional vitriol directed at me.

Lack of sleep
 

I am surprised that the report did not investigate more the handling pilot's lack of sleep. He had been surfing the internet until 0145 and, if flying at 0800, would likely to have risen sometime about 0630-0700, leaving around 5 hours of sleep. The exact time could have been established, since he shared accommodation with pilot of Lynx 2, but this is not mentioned. Nor is there any mention of the Wing's SOPs for obligatory off-duty rest-time, even though the Squadron OC was Lynx 1 Commander. Nor is there any discussion of the PH's previous day's duties.

Given that the report mentions his lack of sleep as a possibly aggravating factor, it does not seem to have been investigated very thoroughly.