Posted on 03/04/2002 4:12:08 AM PST by RCW2001
MSNBC reporting unknown casualties, CNN reporting multiple casualties... Developing...
Bad argument. You're essentially talking about a transmission failure, synchronization shaft (which is a drive shaft) failure, or a drive shaft failure. Any single rotor aircraft can have a transmission failure or a drive shaft failure. The major difference is that when a Chinook crashes it usually kills more people and puts a bigger hole in the ground. I'll say this again, Chinooks have one the best safety records of aircraft in the Army inventory. It's a workhorse and in the hands of a competent pilot a true asset to the units it supports. But not just every Joe Blow Pilot can fly that aircraft and do a good job of it.
I find that hard to believe considering the fact that the Marine Corps has never had Chinooks in it's inventory. Sounds like my earlier posts went in one ear and out the other. I'm certain you are referring to the CH46 Sea Knight. At MCAS New River the CH46E outnumbers the other aircraft on station roughly 2/1. It's understandable that there would be more incidents involving the busiest aircraft.
No helicopter can survive surface to air and not go down
I know a few Vietnam Veterans that would be interested in this fact...considering that their own experience disproves it. Your dad was a Corpsman, great. That does not make you an expert. My son's father (ME) was a CH46E crewman, and my son knows little to nothing about the airplanes other than "Hey look daddy, there's a Phrog." At least he identifies them correctly.
Oh indeed, but that dual rotor design, while having some very real advantages does have the one big disadvantage.
The syncronization shafts on a tandem rotor plane are no more vulnerable than the tail rotor drive shaft on other helicopters. What's your point?
I have never claimed to be an expert, All I have said is the propensity of the dual rotor helicopter to crash was higher in my personal experience. Yes, it was the most prolific vehicle at the airstation. And maybe my stepfather and I both witnessed nothing more than a bubble, and perhaps the marines and navy personel's mythos regarding the helicopter is incorrect.
I find the odds of any helicopter surviving Sam/Sidewinder or other other missle strike without going down dubious at best. I am sure it has happened, but I would bet you statistically you are in better shape of winning the lottery. I have seen photos from every scene my stepfather had to visit, many in NC, some in Cali and some in Va... with 1 exception, which involved an collision, they were all dual rotor.
I don't claim to know why, or how... I am just saying that was my personal experience, nothing more. I firmly believe they were shot down in Afghanistan and so really don't know why all this hubub is going on anyway.
You fell victim to one of my pet peeves. As the H47 has the best safety record in the Army, so too does the H46 in the Marine Corps. These are the facts, and they can not be disputed. The Navy has had better luck with the H60 than the Army, but the records are the same. The H46 has fewer mishaps per flight hour than anything else. You'd have to be on the inside and witness just how much of the "load" is carried by these planes to understand why that is true. Their safety record is nothing short of amazing considering the condition some of them are in.
Can you prove that more H46s have crashed than anything else??? Probably. But I can prove that more Honda Accords were involved in crashes than Bentleys. What does that prove? Simple. There are more of them on the road.
One thing I did notice, and it is a non expert observation based on maybe 15 crashes... when the twin rotors go down, they appeared to go down much harder than the not dual rotors.... at least from the damage in the photos I have seen... Is this statistically a safe statement or more of a bubble as well?
That is entirely possible. Pilot error can really make a mess of things. I have only seen 2 H46 crash sites firsthand. One was a mid-air collision. Obviously, all bets are off here. The other was a major snafu on the part of a young pilot combined with an engine failure. Both crashes killed good Marines, both were hard ground impacts. As others have mentioned, these things are not forgiving at all when it comes to inexperienced pilots. Most of the H46 crashes have either been pilot error, or catastrophic failure of a major component. In the case of pilot error, as stated earlier, all bets are off. In the case of major component failure, well...that would mean rapid descent is inevitable in most cases. That might explain the "hard crash" phenomenon. Having had friends describe the dynamics involved in the "breakup" following impact, I can certainly say that there are better airframes to hit the ground in, but I'll take my chances.
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going...
When I went through the CH-47 pilot qualification course many moons ago my instructor told me something that has stuck with me over the years and always kept me on my toes. "It doesn't do any good worrying about dying in the Chinook because if it's going to kill you it's going to kill you quick, you don't have time to worry about it." Kind of a fatalistic attitude, but it sure made me conscious of every little vibration, whine, or click and probably saved my butt more than once.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.