You should enter the above in the “Top Tenuous” category. A colleagues son who saw a Chinook near Chiv is enough for you to have it on “good authority” and then try and smear the crews who’ve been through a traumatic experience on a public forum? Embarrassing.

I assume when your “report” is proved to be the dog toffee it is you’ll apologise as publicly as you’ve slated?

I repeat - you should know better.

and when it does, you can come on and make a full apology. We do possess more than one Chinook in the UK orbat......

A pilot of your experience knows way better than to take the opinion of a ‘colleague’s son’ and chuck it up here. That’s just doubling down on the first comment about ‘stunting and bunting’.

I don’t know what the Chiv crew were doing and neither do you. All I do know is that authorised advanced handling can take place anywhere where it is deemed safe to do so. A flat airfield seems entirely reasonable to me. That doesn’t imply ill discipline as per the Catterick Puma.

So when the SI exonerates the crew I will apologise but while doubt exists (you can try and deride my source as much as you like) I stand by my comments.

You will understand that 'a pilot of my experience' doesn't put things like that on forums lightly. I have seen too many accidents in my time caused by overconfident pilots trying to show how good they are to worry about offending someone if it prevents the same happening again.

Authorised advanced handling is one thing - display manoeuvres is another.

Even in isolation, the wire-strike asks questions about operating heights unless this set of triple 11KvA was strung across a valley.

I just get the feeling you are protesting too much.

And I get the feeling you are now just embarrassed about what you wrote. Like all these events, let’s leave it to a properly constituted SI.

Which bit of 'I stand by my comments' did you not understand?

I can apologise to the wirestrike crew for the allegation of stunting and bunting at Chiv - it was a completely different crew according to CADS but the Captain's name (Chiv aircraft) didn't come as a surprise.

The location of the wirestrike is rather obvious due to the SAROPs red circle centered on it - their min height has been blocked out though................

To be fair the wires are strung across a valley but they are marked.

So much for your impeccable sources then. Quite sad really.

I have acknowledged the wirestrike aircraft was not the 'stunting' aircraft but my colleague's son has photographic evidence of the aircraft 'manoeuvring' at Chiv so my source stands.

What will be sad is if there is the same 'cowboy' culture that existed in the Puma force not so long ago.

I'm sure the SI will determine if the wirestrike aircraft was operating legally or not.

You’ve just thrown a second crew straight under the bus. Perhaps if you have ‘evidence’ and you are that concerned, then you should report them rather than post on an anonymous public forum? To quote one of your earlier posts you are not ‘getting it out there’ by accusing crews on Pprune....

Ahhh demonstrating a Chinook to the locals... My first recollection was a certain Australian arriving at Upavon from down in the valley and then cranking it around the big house.... I seem to remember that got the phone ringing... sorry bit of a drift :)

I really hope you are not eligible for jury service.

This is a rumour network not a court of law but plenty of senior people read these pages - if there is nothing to see here then what is the problem?

Throwing the crew under the bus??? really? If I were still in the military I might be tempted to ring a mate or two to pass on a gypsy's warning but Pprune can fulfill the same function. far better to get someone to have a quiet word than make a formal complaint that can't be withdrawn.

what a strange comment - don't you think Flight Safety is important then? If you saw a picture of an aircraft that had clearly hit very low wires, would you not ask questions of the crew? Similarly, having done plenty of 'advanced handling' as well as display manouevres, I know how easy it is to blur the boundaries between the two and let enthusiasm get the better of good judgement.

If you are flying low level in the modern military and don't assume that everyone watching has a camera then you are very naive.

I was referring to your propensity to convict/condemn without factual evidence.

that's because you assume I don't have any evidence for the Chiv aircraft. The picture of the wirestrike aircraft asks far more questions, as does the removal of their min height on CADs for the legs.

However, as I said, the SI will exonerate the crew if there is nothing to criticise so why get so out of shape about a fat old crab taking an interest?

So let’s see the evidence.....(That will hopefully be absolutely comprehensive and prove that they busted an auth and not solely consist of photos of a helicopter at a wacky angle)

Or put in a formal complaint....

Or apologise for the second time today....

Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone.

Still a whole lot of protesting from those who believe neither crew did anything wrong - if you are so sure, why keep going on about it?

Not quite so - I acknowledged the Chiv aircraft was not the wirestrike aircraft but that was after confirming that through CADs. Any photographic evidence will remain in the private domain - would you defenders of the crew really want a video posted on here?

My colleague's son (who has grown up around helicopters all his life) actually said to his dad 'Was it a display crew practising their routine?' And this is a young man who has seen a few Chinook displays.

If there is nothing to see here, stop protesting their innocence.

If there is something to see, then have a word with the crew not to be so stupid - North Devon is full of grockles all armed with phones who would like nothing better than to post some 'punchy' helicopter flying on social media.

Read post #96 again.

3 options.......

Crab is not eligible for jury service due to things he's done in the past. A good mate told me so.

At least he thinks it might have been Crab - it certainly looked quite like him.

I think it's important to get this out there - if i'm wrong then i will apologise (sort of)

But if there's nothing to see here I'm sure Crab will not protest.

(To be clear - This is a tongue in cheek post to point out certain double standards)

I'd like to see an answer to the most pertinent post here, Distant Voice's question about the ALARP statement. From other posts it's obvious that the "reasonably practicable" bit hasn't been pursued with any vigour, with many years between seemingly ad hoc trials. Why no structured approach to 'pulling through' the technology? (It's ok, I know the answer, and it's nothing to do with money).

Meanwhile, perhaps the mods could shut down once and for all those who habitually play the man, not the ball. It's spoiling the forum. Banter is fine, but personal attacks divert from what could have been a tragedy.

Remember, 'rumours' first mooted here have explained many accidents/incidents over the years.

I too would like to see an end to the cancelling culture on this forum. It's supposed to be for Professional Aviators (and all the others mentioned in the title). The post that tuc refers to in #105 from Distant Voice is this one (#17) :-

If fingers need to be pointed and tongues wagged wouldn't it be more productive (and professional) to consider DV's post and its Flight Safety implications? Remind me, what is the latest planned Chinook OSD?

Just out of curiosity has the wire cutting chopper been recovered yet and if so how?

Chugalug2 - I mentioned the tablet and its shortcomings earlier in the thread as I am pretty sure it is the same one foist upon the SAR Force.

We couldn't have a proper moving map because the platform was getting close to OSD and UKSAR takeover but no-one would pay the costs or do the paperwork to allow a proper integration of the tablet with the existing aircraft systems. So it ended up as a carry on device with no audio that had to be worn on a kneepad forcing more heads-in - great for avoiding wires!

How many times have we seen MOD use OSD for a reason not to add equipment to platforms and then extend the OSD again - not really in the spirit of ALARP is it?

This could easily have been yet another tragic fatal accident thread. The Hercules was not fit for purpose as a tactical transport aircraft because the default ESP fitted into all USAF C-130s was not fitted into RAF ones, yet both fleets were expected to carry out low level tactical operations and hence be liable to ground fire. With or without tablets the Chinook is at a risk exceeding ALARP by having to routinely operate at low level avoiding numerous and assorted high tension cables.

Given their vulnerability to wire strikes, helicopters need incorporated reliable warning systems in order to avoid them. Such technology exists and should be fitted. If the MOD is unable or unwilling to do so then low level training in the wire infested UK is not acceptable and should be carried out in a more wire benign environment. Either way costs money. What isn't acceptable is it costing yet more lives in avoidable fatal accidents.

I am irritated that due the usual parsimony and short sightedness HMG is not protecting my frequent overhead visitors (and my power supply (n.b. this last is an attempt at humour)). Oddly though I haven't heard any wokka-wokkaring for some days.

Apologies if this is mentioned above but apparently the Canuck Chinook Fs have wire stike protection fitted, so its not unknown on H-47s. See page 14 of this: A 2010 Industry Briefing given by the Canadian Director Air Requirements

The cancelled HH-47 CSAR-X had WSPS (Wire Strike Protection System) included in its requirements.

Given the successful history of WSPS on the US Army's light to medium aircraft it should beggar belief that it hasn't been rolled out generally across military RW fleets with low level over land as part of their operating profile, Unfortunately history teaches us there will have to be multiple fatalities before anything is done.:ugh:

This 2008 study makes interesting reading.
FAA - SAFETY STUDY OF WIRE STRIKE DEVICES INSTALLED ON CIVIL AND MILITARY HELICOPTERS

Well the canopy structure has been stress tested up to whatever the breaking strain of the cables were.

That’s a pretty old set of slides and if you look at pictures of the CH147F there no little spikey bits underneath the chin. I guess that Mr Boeing put it into the TFD drawer.

You will find this an interesting read especially the systems to warn you now. One lights up the pylons as you approach then transmits a warning on all channels!

http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/ar0825.pdf

If I may. ..fixed wing thicko here so have to ask..I assume these wire detection thingies work by sensing the RF emissions produced by AC HT power lines?

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ea1509514.jpeg

Surprised they haven’t even got protection for the power levers, anyone remember the Puma strike where the wire shoved the fuel shut off levers back?

Yes and no, , the link above your post shows a load and how they work.

It has been well known since 1971 that a big bird will go through the windscreen and close your fuel levers.

Thanks......

I recall that there was a multi-fatal S-76 loss in the GOM a few years back due to a big bird coming through the screens and taking out both throttles whilst at the same time stunning the crew. (If i further recall correctly this was just after they had changed the screens from glass to plexiglass to save money and weight, but i'm not certain of that).

MG :-
The MOD hasn't the inclination to provide for the duty of care that the Military Covenant, not to mention the law, calls for. Military Air Safety in the UK is in the parlous state that it is because of the MOD's disinclination to do anything about reforming Military Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation. Both are held in check by the MOD and have been since the late 80s. Thank goodness that this thread wasn't about yet another avoidable fatal military air accident. It certainly had the makings of it and like all the others; Sea Kings, Mull, Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado, etc, predictable and predicted.

If this nation needs Air Power then it must pay for it or do without. The peacetime cost of not doing so will pale into insignificance when set against an enemy fielding Air Power itself. It will be the Battle of France once more, without the benefit of five further years to make up for not being fit for purpose or airworthy. Air Regulation and Air Accident Investigation must be reformed and made independent of each other and of the MOD (the MOD itself must be reformed but who will ever manage that?).

MG, "my bad" teaches me to check for a confirming source. Made the assumption on the naive basis this was correct as it was after the contract was signed.:O Anyone out there who can tell us why it was dropped? Given all the other Candian specific mods, many driven by the need to operate over the wide spaces of Canada far from base support, seems a bit strange to me.

Maybe it was to have been developed for the HH-47, which was cancelled around the same time. Or maybe the proximity to the radar and FLIR on the CH-147F made it too f@*&ing difficult:confused:.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....48c598a375.jpg
Source: Vertical

At this point of time ( unless anyone knows what has happened with the wire strike ? )
Well We do not know .
I am more of a lurker on here , but Chugalug always gets a hard time over safety issues , Why ?
I can understand in wartime risks are taken and always have been , there will always be risks in anything We do and more so in aviation , it’s a case of reducing the risks in training and peacetime , although not an easy task .
But as always the MOD want to save money from their budget and there is many instances where they have saved the money , lives have been lost numerous times , for the want of updating systems or new technology.
Stay safe .

kind regards to all .

Paul

It amazes me that with the hazards of wire strikes known, new helicopters coming to the market do not have a Wire protection facility built in. You think the various authorities would make them mandatory.

That’s like buying a car without airbags and one does wonder if the manufacturer could be liable for deaths that could have been saved by such devices.


..

Gents & Crab, the aircraft was flown back last night. I’ve just looked at it in the hangar the damage is superficial now the windscreens have been replaced. The OSI being conducted at Stn level will discover what lessons there are to learn but at this time it appears to be a gap that had developed in the move from paper to electronic mapping. But let’s wait shall we...
As for what I was doing at Chivenor we planned and authorised a period of GH during a gap in a longer sortie. We practised the exercises that we fly by night during the Combat Ready Captain workup, guess what Crab the aircraft’s capabilities have moved on in the decades since you were a SH Pilot. I’ve seen the photos Josh took and can understand how they’d look exciting to a child son of a SAR pilot. The inference to Catterick is interesting, that’s the VERY reason we train our ‘youngsters’ to fly these manoeuvres; so they, when tempted, know how to do them safely and therefore avoid the tragic outcome seen there. As for the personal implication (I’m not surprised), I’ve actually grown up a bit in the more than 25 years since we last flew together! You should try it.

As Master of None says:

Forces News: Chinook Flies From Welsh Field After Forced Landing (Includes video)