Bearing in mind the fallibility of witness evidence this detail suggests there may have been some mechanical issue with the heli prior to the ditching. Initially it seemed a little confusing as to whether 'sparks' occurred at the ditching itself, but later in the clip the witness appears to say it was at the apogee of the flight?

Somewhat more useful than the ABC's video at least, that was a waste of bandwidth from which I learnt nothing...

An accountant!!!

You are such a Dag ozbiggles.

If you are looking for a gun fight, then I’m afraid you are pointing your pistol at the wrong fella, as I merely highlighted the managed risk the USN has for its Sea Hawk crews egress in the event of a survivable entry into water.

The USN is by a mile, the world’s largest operator of the Sea Hawk and has been for well over 30 years now, and from their own experience, they considered that rather than giving the crews a little extra time, the EFS set-up on the SH-60B Sea Hawk was more likely to impede egress, rather than assist, as such the EFS system was subsequently removed, so the USN looked at other methods to preserve life, regular HUET training being one of them.

If you don’t agree with their risk management assessment after close to 40 years of operating the Sea Hawk, that’s your prerogative, but don’t shoot the bookkeeper.

It's not that simple. The H-60 family are very "dense" aircraft, and sink faster than a rock with a stone tied to it. Floatation on the classic Seahawk merely reduced the sink rate (and they were filled with helium!). Not to mention the fact that unless the aircraft was inverted while sinking, the bags were just as likely to obstruct the doors/prevent jettison.

This is turning into a vs thread, It wasn't my intention. Australia has real reasons to retire the nh90. The AU$50k CPFH is just one of them. However the US replacement isn't perfect either. We will see what the next gen brings.

The nh90 and Australia
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/du...l-but-why-now/
The MRH-90 has been costing $35,000 per hour to operate. Last financial year that ballooned to $50,000 and it was probably the final straw.

Maybe they should have another crack at the Seasprite?

We had a chap who had a hydraulics failure in a fixed float B205 and he put it in the most convenient body of water, the local sewage farm. No harm done.

Wessex had a unofficial procedure re popping the floats, last man out stuck his knife in.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...licopter-crash

This is what happens when accountants do risk management.

Why didn’t he put it on the ground?

So not fit for purpose for over water ops then?

The US Navy, US Coast Guard, and the USAF along with several other Militaries might challenge that view.

With AAR kit the USAF conducts very long range SAR Ops using the 60.

I still remember the HUET course I did in HMS Dolphin in the early eighties. The exciting wet bits were preceded by a seemingly endless briefing going into great detail about exactly how we would die in every helicopter in NATO's inventory. One highlight was how fast the Lynx would sink. ISTR the lecturer talking about 'sinking trials' of a Lynx in a Scottish loch with divers aboard. Under certain conditions it sank so fast the divers could not physically extract themselves from their seats.

Not a Scottish Loch per se. A tank at Glen Fruin near Faslane. Now derelict. And indeed your lecturers spoke the truth. Once that forward compartment filled up with water the thing sank like a rock, floats or no. STAS was ( and is) a great bit of kit…draconian briefs aside.

You'd have to ask him, having many hours in the identical configured aircraft I'm not sure how a running landing on roughish ground would turn out. Anyone?

Having flown other helicopters with fixed floats I would prefer doing an autorotation (take that was the case here) to "water" rather than the ground so that would be my guess as well.

If you search for, and read, the Australian board of inquiry report into the SF Blackhawk accident where it bounced off the back of a boat, it’s enlightening. One of the survivors described the hydrodynamic forces as like “sticking your head out of an express train window doing 100 mph”.

So you would be happy to sit in a hover over the water below MinSELf/VToss, at high AUM due to all the troops and weapons such that you have no chance of diving on the speed, in an aircraft that you know will sink like a stone and has no flotation gear at all?

I suspect 60 on the long range SAR jobs gets to the casualty with a low enough fuel state to hover OEI, AAR on the way home and mitigates the risks that way - not so much of an option on MCT Ops.

Not much in the news that I can find. Has it been removed from the water yet?

Crab.....you have any accident stats to support your opinion or is it. just 60 envy that prompts your comment?

How many instances of Emergency Float systems not working as advertised and to what sea state are they rated?

Modern day engines are pretty reliable and most modern helicopters do pretty well. on one engine at sea level.

Perhaps hovering over an Alpine Lake in the heat of Summer might offer a problem for an OGE hover.

If I had a four engined. helicopter that would hover on one....I might still want a fifth just for insurance.

Sometimes you do have to trust the Engineeers and Safety Mafia when they offer decisions made upon the Laws of Probability as there is. no perfect helicopter yet to be invented.

Look back the the USAF H-3 Jolly Greens and what they did using AAR while doing Combat SAR missions....and later with the CH-53's.

As always in aviation....there is a certain amount of risk in everything we do.....and never is there zero risk even if the aircraft never leaves the ground.

It is bizarre to see these hawk lovers all up in arms when clearly EFS was undoubtedly valuable in this incident. Is this whatever on NH90 is bad mentality healthy, if at all?

Yep.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-...ence/102143148
https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn...862&height=485