Video released for Aust Army BlackHawk crash
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Victoria
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ease up
What were they thinking, SERIOUSLY!
they were there on a mission, SAS on board, performing mission rehearsals.
they weren't stuffing about, those boys play hard
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents / ladies,
I don't often get involved with PPRuNe threads as I tend to find the speculation and gross over simplification of matters such as this a little off putting sometimes but in this instance some of the comments really need some reigning in
.
Firstly, I worked in this Sqn (prior to it being "re-badged" as 171 Sqn) in the mid to late 90's in the role that was being performed on the day. I say this only to lend a little credibility to my comments below.
Suffice it to say, the personnel involved were / are all very well trained but the roles they perform can be extremely demanding and varied. Like anything in life, they were (and never will be) infallible. That should never detract from the fact, one can assuredly assume they have had a considerable amount of training and would have been assesed as being suitably experienced (this is often considerably less than what civvies would consider suitably experienced).
In addition to the above, the exercises performed are generally extremely well briefed, rehearsed by day and then flown at night if applicable, and debriefed. They take what I would consider all "reasonable" steps to assure a desirable outcome. It doesn't mean errors or omissions can't occur.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but should not be abused.
Comments such as "what were they thinking?" and the like again illustrate how enthusiatic some of us are to criticise without actually having a modicum of insight into what actually happened on that particular flight. That's why an investigation and then subsequent BOI is carried out.
The footage shows (for the most part) outcomes rather than causes. I find it incredible that fellow rotorheads out there actually think that the resultant flight regime as shown in the footage might be something they were striving for - clearly that would be ludicrous. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were after a different result.
It does appear from initial reports that the weather conditions of day (particularly the wind strength and direction) may have played a significant role and if so, the assertion that vortex ring may have been involved seems plausible if not highly likely.
Looking at the footage (as ugly as it is), it appears the aircraft is not actually under control given its attitude, RoD, aiming point etc which would support the VR claim. Some of the comments provided seem to suggest that some of our brethren believe the handling pilot was actually "flying" the aircraft at this point. Hmmm...
What is or will be more interesting to find out is whether the crew was aware of the conditions (one would hope so). If not, then a causal factor would have been identified. If they did know, and discarded this information, then things start to get really interesting. Let's have the investigation / BOI run its course to determine the real causes behind this. Experience suggests it's rarely just one factor a la James Reason's Swiss cheese model.
As far as whether the footage should be made public or not, not everyone will be happy regardless of what stance you take. I myself would have preferred it to be released but after the BOI was complete. It would then serve the role of actually educating us all much more effectively than it does at the moment. In its present guise it's just "cannon fodder" for uninformed criticism.
I acknowledge it must be distressing for those involved and their families and my condolences go out to them. However, my belief is if the issue of VR is again highlighted (assuming that it is in fact what has occurred), and it re-educates just one of us out there to think twice about the prevailing wind on finals (or indeed our finals profile), that must be a good thing.
P68
I don't often get involved with PPRuNe threads as I tend to find the speculation and gross over simplification of matters such as this a little off putting sometimes but in this instance some of the comments really need some reigning in
. Firstly, I worked in this Sqn (prior to it being "re-badged" as 171 Sqn) in the mid to late 90's in the role that was being performed on the day. I say this only to lend a little credibility to my comments below.
Suffice it to say, the personnel involved were / are all very well trained but the roles they perform can be extremely demanding and varied. Like anything in life, they were (and never will be) infallible. That should never detract from the fact, one can assuredly assume they have had a considerable amount of training and would have been assesed as being suitably experienced (this is often considerably less than what civvies would consider suitably experienced).
In addition to the above, the exercises performed are generally extremely well briefed, rehearsed by day and then flown at night if applicable, and debriefed. They take what I would consider all "reasonable" steps to assure a desirable outcome. It doesn't mean errors or omissions can't occur.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but should not be abused.Comments such as "what were they thinking?" and the like again illustrate how enthusiatic some of us are to criticise without actually having a modicum of insight into what actually happened on that particular flight. That's why an investigation and then subsequent BOI is carried out.
The footage shows (for the most part) outcomes rather than causes. I find it incredible that fellow rotorheads out there actually think that the resultant flight regime as shown in the footage might be something they were striving for - clearly that would be ludicrous. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they were after a different result.
It does appear from initial reports that the weather conditions of day (particularly the wind strength and direction) may have played a significant role and if so, the assertion that vortex ring may have been involved seems plausible if not highly likely.
Looking at the footage (as ugly as it is), it appears the aircraft is not actually under control given its attitude, RoD, aiming point etc which would support the VR claim. Some of the comments provided seem to suggest that some of our brethren believe the handling pilot was actually "flying" the aircraft at this point. Hmmm...
What is or will be more interesting to find out is whether the crew was aware of the conditions (one would hope so). If not, then a causal factor would have been identified. If they did know, and discarded this information, then things start to get really interesting. Let's have the investigation / BOI run its course to determine the real causes behind this. Experience suggests it's rarely just one factor a la James Reason's Swiss cheese model.
As far as whether the footage should be made public or not, not everyone will be happy regardless of what stance you take. I myself would have preferred it to be released but after the BOI was complete. It would then serve the role of actually educating us all much more effectively than it does at the moment. In its present guise it's just "cannon fodder" for uninformed criticism.
I acknowledge it must be distressing for those involved and their families and my condolences go out to them. However, my belief is if the issue of VR is again highlighted (assuming that it is in fact what has occurred), and it re-educates just one of us out there to think twice about the prevailing wind on finals (or indeed our finals profile), that must be a good thing.
P68
I'm also genuinely curious as to when a tactical approach to a ship with a helideck would be made. Other than trying to deploy troops to a ship, to attack it (seems an unlikely scenario), the only other reason I can think of would be if the ship were under attack itself, and a dynamic arrival was required to minimise exposure (a bit like the run in and break FW technique). The ship would be manoeuvering fairly aggresively itself, though, in such circumstances: might that explain the downwind approach? (yes, I realise this was training, but for waht sort of scenario?)
I'm aware of the sort of tactics that might be deployed to storm an oil platform that has been taken over by terrorists, but that's a different scenario.
I'm aware of the sort of tactics that might be deployed to storm an oil platform that has been taken over by terrorists, but that's a different scenario.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think all this speculation is healthy.
I'm sure the BOI will come up with the right answer, via the surviving crew's testimony.
Suffice to say that the Blackhawk is a heavy machine which develops a lot of momentum and will bite, under certain conditions...
Let the BOI do it's job.....
I'm sure the BOI will come up with the right answer, via the surviving crew's testimony.
Suffice to say that the Blackhawk is a heavy machine which develops a lot of momentum and will bite, under certain conditions...
Let the BOI do it's job.....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: somedays in a helicopter, other days in a fixed-wing....
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Papa68, well said...
How about everyone drops all the bull**** of being professional aircrash investigators.
Some of you are talking an absolute load of crap and should be ashamed of your self's.
What ever the cause two fine Australians have paid the ultimate price, the loss of there lives. ENOUGH SAID... Let the BOI run it's course but do try and show some respect...
P.S - Thomas Coupling... Settling with power is the same as VRS. Get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off old chap.
it could get you a knuckle sanwhich at the pub!!!!
How about everyone drops all the bull**** of being professional aircrash investigators.
Some of you are talking an absolute load of crap and should be ashamed of your self's.
What ever the cause two fine Australians have paid the ultimate price, the loss of there lives. ENOUGH SAID... Let the BOI run it's course but do try and show some respect...
P.S - Thomas Coupling... Settling with power is the same as VRS. Get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off old chap.
it could get you a knuckle sanwhich at the pub!!!!
The U.S. Navy (and Marines and Coast Guard?) sees the terms as being reversed. VRS=Power settling, and SWP=not enough power to arrest descent.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to continue speculating, but I work around UH-60s every day and am very familiar with what the aircraft can do... and in my mind, the largest risk we run in a tactical operating environment is not the aircraft letting us down, its the aircraft being overflown by the pilots due to overconfidence in the machine. I am in no way blaming the two Australian pilots in this circumstance, however the vast majority of UH-60 pilots I work with have at least a slight feeling that the Blackhawk has been overdesigned to allow for combat situations, and that the aircraft will never bite you back no matter how hard you push it.
Case in point, and (at least in my eyes) a very similar accident, is this video:
http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/vids/uh60vrs.flv
Given having a bunch of "High Speed" troopies in back and doing a tactical exercise, I can very easily see the crew performing a similar flight manuver and thus leading to a simlar incident in Fiji.
Just an idea.
Mike
Case in point, and (at least in my eyes) a very similar accident, is this video:
http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/vids/uh60vrs.flv
Given having a bunch of "High Speed" troopies in back and doing a tactical exercise, I can very easily see the crew performing a similar flight manuver and thus leading to a simlar incident in Fiji.
Just an idea.
Mike
Repeating my question: I can see the need for a tactical, dynamic, arrival onshore, but why to a ship with a helideck?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man.
Perhaps they were pretending it wasn't a ship with a helideck - eg anti terr' ops against hijacked ocean liner or oil tanker?
Whatever - i suggest you don't try it in your nice shiny new 92!
Perhaps they were pretending it wasn't a ship with a helideck - eg anti terr' ops against hijacked ocean liner or oil tanker?
Whatever - i suggest you don't try it in your nice shiny new 92!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Darwin
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whitecaps on the water
Whitecaps on the water - yes.
But do they not suggest a downwind condition? And yes again - the aircraft is nose down, clearly with very considerable power on. Exactly what you would expect to see on a last - minute frantic go-round.
thekite
But do they not suggest a downwind condition? And yes again - the aircraft is nose down, clearly with very considerable power on. Exactly what you would expect to see on a last - minute frantic go-round.
thekite
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... and it wasn't attempting a landing.
nose going forward looks more like a go-round.
sad , for sure very sad.
no conjecture could be had without at least the previous several seconds as well.
at least most of those close will know the irrelevance of some of press comments that went with it.
nose going forward looks more like a go-round.
sad , for sure very sad.
no conjecture could be had without at least the previous several seconds as well.
at least most of those close will know the irrelevance of some of press comments that went with it.
Exactly what you would expect to see on a last - minute frantic go-round.
Conjecture, conjecture, double bubble toil and trouble.
Please don’t shoot the messenger here, his family, colleagues and friends are obviously going through enough as it is, but should they be?
To go back to the Townsville nightime crash, was the system dealt with there or rather a messenger -- ???? --- low hour pilot --- ???.
What of the system that allows an inexperienced pilot into such vulnerability, rather than the messenger who happened to be holding the sticks at the time?
How on earth in that scenario could you have an inexperienced pilot being blamed for anything? I mean putting any rotary pilot with less than a thousand hours in close formation in distracting conditions and extremely limited visibility is like locking a mob of drunken bikies in a small pub with unlimited grog and loose iron bars, and thinking that nothing untoward will happen.
Please don’t jump down my neck; I was close enough to that tragic situation to have known that the night of that accident was merely a practice for a subsequent operation and what that subsequent target was to be.
In this scenario we have no information other than a fleeting video glimpse, but we do know that a BOI is operating. Its tradition is on the one side ‘it’ has a system, the other ‘scapegoats.’ Sorry, messengers or mistake makers, to be ultimately forgiven or unforgiven, be that in the eyes of the media public or the court room purveyors.
But what of the system that put the ‘messengers’ into the public forum?? Do they close ranks?? Or, did they before the public haranguing started.
Lots of experienced heavy metal drivers are on here, would your experience be better put to examine a fleeting glimpse of devastating footage or using your accumulated wisdom to bring to account the operational aspects of the “BOI System,” or more particularly the “system” that allowed the Townsville disaster and possibly this latest aberration to occur?
To conject further, when we talk about “experience” it is all very well, and you can all say it of me if you like, to bask in the ultra world of low level manipulative peril and having survived then come out with some seemingly easy comments, but that is what I am talking about.
This gentleman may be very well experienced in various endeavours of operational flying or his on board systems or his operational systems or whatever, but may NEVER have been put into the scenario that he encountered EVER before.
Experience has to be quantified.
If that is the case will anyone in the BOI process have enough ‘experience,’ to recognise that fact and give it due consideration, further, will it ever surface as a consideration? Perhaps even his closest and dearest will hark with misgivings in this area but be unable to surface with it.
Or, will the “system” close ranks as an endemic protection mechanism and be blind?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) There are white caps on the water suggesting enough wind to perhaps rule out settling with power.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be a rumour network, but serioulsly people if you have no experience in this particular type of flying. How about you shut the F**k up.
These people are at the pinnacle of military aviation, and dont take anything lightly. Mistakes are made, accidents happen its a part of life.
Lets just let the BOI do its job, and lets stop witch hunting a fantastic pilot and a top bloke.
These people are at the pinnacle of military aviation, and dont take anything lightly. Mistakes are made, accidents happen its a part of life.
Lets just let the BOI do its job, and lets stop witch hunting a fantastic pilot and a top bloke.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 man,
Re scenarios requiring such approaches to ships, I agree they would be isolated in nature. Having said that, we did practice such scenarios both as single ship and formation assaults fairly regularly. Why? By way of an example only, ships and the like allow for relatively easy accomodation overflow when all other accomodation options have been utlised e.g. the Sydney Olympics. Lot's of people concentrated together potentially constitute a high profile target for bad guys. There are a number of other scenarios which I won't go into here.
TOT,
I think I get where you were going with your thoughts. I was involved with the '96 accident and subsequent BOI so I won't provide my thoughts on the process then or its outcomes except as to say that elements of the Spec Ops (CT as it was known then) capability have improved as a result. Of note, the '96 BOI was headed up initially by a Brig and the entire board consisted of military officers. Recently, the ADF (as a result of real / perceived transparency within its judicial system) has changed its approach in this regard and the current BOI is being headed up by a civvy. Perhaps this will alleviate you of what I think are some of your concerns.
P68
Re scenarios requiring such approaches to ships, I agree they would be isolated in nature. Having said that, we did practice such scenarios both as single ship and formation assaults fairly regularly. Why? By way of an example only, ships and the like allow for relatively easy accomodation overflow when all other accomodation options have been utlised e.g. the Sydney Olympics. Lot's of people concentrated together potentially constitute a high profile target for bad guys. There are a number of other scenarios which I won't go into here.
TOT,
I think I get where you were going with your thoughts. I was involved with the '96 accident and subsequent BOI so I won't provide my thoughts on the process then or its outcomes except as to say that elements of the Spec Ops (CT as it was known then) capability have improved as a result. Of note, the '96 BOI was headed up initially by a Brig and the entire board consisted of military officers. Recently, the ADF (as a result of real / perceived transparency within its judicial system) has changed its approach in this regard and the current BOI is being headed up by a civvy. Perhaps this will alleviate you of what I think are some of your concerns.
P68
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212Man
The situation as I understand was that the ship was stationed off Fiji whilst a military coup was being threatened and then took place. The role for the ship and embarked roops was to be available if needed to assist with evacuation of non Fiji citizens from the airport and or port if the coup turned into a nasty situation (lots of tourists). Fortunately it was a non violent coup. At the time there was no where on land for the troops embarked to practice/keep skills up/stop boredom. Thus the only place to practice a fast rope tactical approach is on the ship.
I have no direct knowledge but this would seem to be the most likely reason for such an exercie to the helideck.
The situation as I understand was that the ship was stationed off Fiji whilst a military coup was being threatened and then took place. The role for the ship and embarked roops was to be available if needed to assist with evacuation of non Fiji citizens from the airport and or port if the coup turned into a nasty situation (lots of tourists). Fortunately it was a non violent coup. At the time there was no where on land for the troops embarked to practice/keep skills up/stop boredom. Thus the only place to practice a fast rope tactical approach is on the ship.
I have no direct knowledge but this would seem to be the most likely reason for such an exercie to the helideck.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dunnunder
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents. I too rarely post here anymore but I find that, in this case, its either post or punch the computer screen. (so appologies to all if this comes across as "a little terse").
The biggest thing that you people are missing here is that it appears that this was NOT an attempt to land. This appears to be a tactical assault of the ship. Not going into specifics, but the profile (which is performed/practised over and over to every concieveable target) involves low level, close formation and great speed to arrive OVER the target with the most shock and least warning to the enemy at the target. Obviously something in this case went wrong. (It looks like Bingas was trying to go around to me but lets not speculate heh). This is a high risk, no sh_t game these blokes play and I'm sure that reading various drivel on this forum is sorely tempting them to write their own replies (well done for not biting guys).
These blokes do what they do because one day we might thank them for doing it. Their job is highly specialised, and the risks are managed as well as possible whilst still allowing the aim to be achieved. As was said after 96, if we want the blokes to be able to achieve this aim (special ops delivery), then we have to manage and accept the risk involved.
I for one thank the 171 guys and feel for what they are going through. Lets give them a break heh and stop applying our lack of experience of their ops to our speculation.
The biggest thing that you people are missing here is that it appears that this was NOT an attempt to land. This appears to be a tactical assault of the ship. Not going into specifics, but the profile (which is performed/practised over and over to every concieveable target) involves low level, close formation and great speed to arrive OVER the target with the most shock and least warning to the enemy at the target. Obviously something in this case went wrong. (It looks like Bingas was trying to go around to me but lets not speculate heh). This is a high risk, no sh_t game these blokes play and I'm sure that reading various drivel on this forum is sorely tempting them to write their own replies (well done for not biting guys).
These blokes do what they do because one day we might thank them for doing it. Their job is highly specialised, and the risks are managed as well as possible whilst still allowing the aim to be achieved. As was said after 96, if we want the blokes to be able to achieve this aim (special ops delivery), then we have to manage and accept the risk involved.
I for one thank the 171 guys and feel for what they are going through. Lets give them a break heh and stop applying our lack of experience of their ops to our speculation.