Dili Black Hawk

[eagle 86]

In principle, giving the BlackHawks to the Army appeared to be a good move. As a third, interested party looking on at the time the C&C issue was simplified by having the "General" say to the "Major" - "just do it!". Which could lead to "but Sir we can't - we haven't - not current etc". Which in turn could lead to "what part of DO IT don't you understand!" At least with an Air Vice Marshal here and there some of the undue pressure could be blunted. I remain ambidextrous on the matter.
I witnessed first hand the Army turn a perfectly good Air Force HCC into no more than a co-pilot course - very little captain time - very little chance to consolidate airbourne leadership skills. Contributing factors perhaps?
GAGS
E86

[topendtorque]

I think the main issue is to have those that do the 'telling' as below, are invoked with the responsibility to do it in a way that preserves saftey.

put them in a helicopter that they have been told is the ferarri of the skies and load up a dozen of the meanest and most dangerous men in the world, then tell said pilot to do a hot maneuver to get the guys in, and you have a recipe for disaster

Quite apart from the C&T and experience levels, it's the steeped disregard for knowldge of safety requirements, or perhaps the disownership of any "problem" by those in the upper echelons of command that should be addressed by the BOI findings.

Otherwise we may see plenty of the next quote.

I hope the Australian Army changes its attitude to the way it flies especialy the Spec Ops role because if they try and fly a NH-90 like a Blackhawk they will roll a lot more into balls as the NH 90 will not handle the abuse a Blackhawk has taken.

Well maybe not too much; the OZ taxpayer will burr up big time when too many people get hurt during "routine" saftey training and too many expensive machines get creamed.

At the expense of who else will it be before we get change?