Smart pics from Benson

[Thud_and_Blunder]

The Oxford Mail has posted 4 pictures of the 3 heli operators' aircraft currently flying from Benson; my PPRuNe skills are distinctly lacking when it comes to linking directly to their images but they are available on their website here:

Oxford Mail pictures of Benson-based aircraft

Although it's a shame their sub-editor decided to use the word "chopper" in this context - it's not as if he/she is writing about kids' bikes from the 1970s.

[minigundiplomat]

You can't beat tax payer funded publicity for AH.

[[email protected]]

Hmmm - mixed close formation with different types and a mix of mil and civ.....wonder who authorised and justified that.

[PANews]

As that last image was taken over Oxford Airport it may have been an Airbus sponsored thing.... but wasn't....... RAF I understand...

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Hmmm - mixed close formation with different types and a mix of mil and civ.....wonder who authorised and justified that.

Probably flown by civvie pilots before customer handover to the RAF.

SND

[Sky Sports]

So.........is NPAS skint or not?

[PANews]

I am unsure where the statement "Probably flown by civvie pilots before customer handover to the RAF" is coming from. These images are MoD and available for download from their site. There is also aPDF press release produced by the RAF PR people.

The police aircraft and air ambulance are operational at Benson and the rather mucky Puma is not anywhere near concours condition [as I might suppose Airbus might deliver it!] the exhaust stains cover the whole of the boom area.

It is simply a quite effective RAF PR stunt for promoting all the air assets at Benson.

[[email protected]]

Then there must have been an absolute mountain of staffwork, risk assessments, poring over bow tie charts and great ignoring of the major risk to life on everyone's risk register -mid air collision (MAC) - before someone very high up was forced into accepting the responsibility for this.

The glory that is MAA...............

[PANews]

And in answer to Sky Sports question..... even though surely it is in the wrong thread?

Minor complaints here about the cost and resources pumped into this tri-ship effort produced by an MoD PR Department.... at least they produced something! There are a number of stories each week.

NPAS has a two person PR department that must cost at least £55,000 a year and have so far produced just two negative press stories for their web site covering base closuresand the departure of the MD900 this year despite two terror attacks a memorial flypast and associated highlights [and low]. So they must be rolling in it to be able to afford that class of service!

[llamaman]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Then there must have been an absolute mountain of staffwork, risk assessments, poring over bow tie charts and great ignoring of the major risk to life on everyone's risk register -mid air collision (MAC) - before someone very high up was forced into accepting the responsibility for this.

The glory that is MAA...............

I would suggest that the risk of mid-air collision in a well briefed close formation sortie is minimal. The fact that they were mixed types flown by civilian and military crews is irrelevant so long as the guys were competent/current etc. I've no doubt that somebody senior was more than content to initial the auth sheet.

[minigundiplomat]

It is simply a quite effective RAF PR stunt for promoting all the air assets at Benson.

Where is the Chinook?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Then there must have been an absolute mountain of staffwork, risk assessments, poring over bow tie charts and great ignoring of the major risk to life on everyone's risk register -mid air collision (MAC) - before someone very high up was forced into accepting the responsibility for this.

The glory that is MAA...............

Crab;

I spend a day a month in the company of the MAA. I get on my knees afterwards and give thanks for the CAA

SND

[Rotate too late]

Originally Posted by minigundiplomat

Where is the Chinook?

It's the new stealth chinook, very hush hush!!

[minigundiplomat]

It's the new stealth chinook, very hush hush!!

Stealth as in 'non AH product' stealth I think.......

[[email protected]]

I would suggest that the risk of mid-air collision in a well briefed close formation sortie is minimal. The fact that they were mixed types flown by civilian and military crews is irrelevant so long as the guys were competent/current etc. I've no doubt that somebody senior was more than content to initial the auth sheet.

you haven't had to deal with the MAA recently I would guess - they have taken the term risk-averse to a whole new level.

Additionally, when so many military crews are bouncing off currency limits and civilian pilots (ex-mil or not) are unlikely to have anything but the bare minimum close form trg (or any other trg for that matter) paid for, I suspect that competency and currency might be a serious concern.

If you think close formation is safe, well briefed or not, you clearly were never party to the massed approach at Middle Wallop back in the day.

SND - yes, in a choice between the two I think you are correct

[llamaman]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

you haven't had to deal with the MAA recently I would guess - they have taken the term risk-averse to a whole new level.

Additionally, when so many military crews are bouncing off currency limits and civilian pilots (ex-mil or not) are unlikely to have anything but the bare minimum close form trg (or any other trg for that matter) paid for, I suspect that competency and currency might be a serious concern.

If you think close formation is safe, well briefed or not, you clearly were never party to the massed approach at Middle Wallop back in the day.

SND - yes, in a choice between the two I think you are correct

Been involved with many different variations of helicopter formation thanks Crab; day, night, mixed-type, mixed-nations, tactical, flypast, display, role-demo, Operational, instructional etc. I stand by my comment. I'm aware of the Wallop incident, it doesn't bear comparison to a 3-ship formation like the one in question. You seem, as ever, to be disdainful of anything remotely challenging involving civilian aviators. Maybe you could just give the guys some praise instead of taking a negative angle?

[[email protected]]

I am not disdainful of the pilots involved - my comments refer to the hoops that have to be jumped through nowadays to authorise such a formation - all military authorisers are told the same horror stories about formation flying and how often it features in accidents - hence my comment about who signed this off.

There was no operational imperative, which is usually a way of circumventing the rigid rules and such a PR stunt would have had to have been signed off by at least Gp Capt/Colonel.

BTW - there wasn't a Wallop 'incident' - just a hundred or so helicopters at half a rotor span distance in line abreast making a downwind approach to the hover - it happened every couple of years at the airshow - I did 3 of those, 2 in a Gazelle and 1 in a Lynx - all very exciting

[minigundiplomat]

You seem, as ever, to be disdainful of anything remotely challenging involving civilian aviators.

Not all, my main question is why?


In a world full of bean counters and regulators, where just getting airborne is a test of patience and commitment, why was this arranged, by who and for what purpose?


It's not to capture the Benson based fleet for posterity as 78 Sqn are missing.... so why?


I am pretty sure I have an idea.....

[[email protected]]

Surely not a senior officer looking for a revolving door into a position at AH?????

[Nige321]

Maybe not as tight a formation as it looked...