Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
RAN Sea King Down In Sumatra  
User currently offlineStealthZ From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5688 posts, RR: 44
Posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3481 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A Royal Australian Navy Sea King helicopter has crashed while engaged in Earthquake relief work in this devastated region.

A sad day for a mission that should be about bringing smiles to hungry and homeless people.
5 Navy,3 RAAF and 1 Army personnel sadly lost their lives. RIP

an early photo of "Shark 02"...

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © George Canciani




If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

My Condolances to all affected...

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

A real shame, you can in some sort of way justify death when in contact with the enemy but to pass away on a humanitarian mission is just sad.

How old are these Sea kings?

The NH-90s can not come fast enough!


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3167 times:

"How old are these Sea kings?"

Too old. 30 at a guess. They should have been replaced after they lost that one off HMAS Tobruk south of Weipa in 1995 (or was it 96? - can't remember must have a look at the photo album for notes as I must have one of the last photos of that bird before it crashed as I took photos of it the day before).

A replacement could have been in service much earlier if the ADF's procurement process wasn't so stuffed up.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineCheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3129 times:

hear hear TSV. ADF procurement procedures in all branches are a debacle. Take the case of the HMAS Kanimbla itself - a rust bucket that cost over $200 million to repair and refit. The US Navy wouldn't let us on the ship to inspect it, but we bought it anyway. Department of Defence, take a bow.

As for the Sea King crash, it looks like engine failure was the cause.

This is a really sad day for our brave, dedicated, tireless defence force personnel. Our thoughts are with you.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 4):
Take the case of the HMAS Kanimbla itself - a rust bucket that cost over $200 million to repair and refit. The US Navy wouldn't let us on the ship to inspect it, but we bought it anyway.

Don't forget the SeaSprites, a billion dollars for aircraft that are 20 years old! The list could just go on and on. When will the DoD realize that quality equipment is required that will work the first time every time and should not be run into the ground over a 40 year period before it is replaced.

IMO it's what you get for employing finance people in the DMO, more interested in numbers that capability.

Excuse the Rant.


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3101 times:

"Excuse the Rant."

No you and all of us are quite entitled to rant and we should maintain the rage. After all it's our tax dollars that are being wasted and our fellow country men and women being put at risk.

I honestly hoped back in the 70s/80s after the Wamira debacle (not criticising the design here but the dod's administrative effect on project management) that they'd get their shit together but obviously not.

That could have been a real winner especially the A-20 version instead of buying a hotted up turboprop version of a 50's trainer with fat tyres.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

Excuse the rant? I thought you were writing from Canada for a second there! Our Sea Kings would've been replaced about a year ago if our Government hadn't turned it into a big political thing when they got elected. We haven't lost anyone yet, but I think that's just good fortune. There have been some pretty high profile crashes that everyone walked away from. They finally selected the Sikorsky S-92 over the EH-101 (which they'd cancelled earlier). Most people figure the bottom line was more important than capability, not to mention how stupid they would've looked for buying a helicopter they had said was a "Cadillac".


Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineCheshire From Australia, joined Aug 2001, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Missed Approach,
It's almost heartening to see that botched defence projects are not unique to Australia. In this country, the imcompetence of DoD bean counters knows no bounds. They've made a disaster out of everything from the purchase of combat boots:

http://www.mil-kit-review.com/

to our Over the Horizon Radar Network:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/jindalee.htm

In between there's the Collins Class subs, Bushmaster utility vehicles, ANZAC frigates, Steyer rifles, to name but a few.

And yet there's one weapon system working beautifully that the bureacratic bozos want to get rid of- the F-111. We can operate a fleet of 24 of these unmatchable strategic deterrents for less than one third the purchase price of a Collins class sub.

Military procurement in this country is a joke. Exactly what Krusty the Clown College did our DoD bureaucrats study at? Can any other match our track record of disastrous defence projects?

[Edited 2005-04-06 14:17:31]

User currently offlineMissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 713 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3013 times:

Oh man, you guys are just like us, but with the steering wheel on the other side! Lol! We've even had problems with combat boots, including not enough to equip new recruits. We've also bought trucks that catch fire, & ex-Upholder subs that catch fire (to be fair to the Brits, those subs did sit dockside for 8 years while the politicians waffled). Every now & then something good sneeks by though. The latest mistake is rain wear that actually keeps out water.
Everyone seems to have these problems, but it hits harder when the troops die because of tight-fisted politicians, plus the willingness of military leaders to just shut up & make do with what they have.
Has any progress been made in the crash investigation?



Can you hear me now?
User currently offlineDeskPilot From Australia, joined Apr 2004, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2976 times:

Quoting Cheshire (Reply 8):
one weapon system working beautifully

Ahh, the F1-11 was considered a dog for while; late, redesigns/retrofits, overrpiced, etc. After the initial problems were ironed out, it's performed well.

The Collins class had problems at the start but are performing well now. Ditto with Anzac. Time will tell with the Sea Sprites.

The Sea-Kings have provided good service around the world. Let's wait for the accident report before damming this type. The media loves to beat a situation up and will find evidence to support their stories.

Finally, it's always a tragedy to loose any ADF member.



By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2975 times:

Quoting DeskPilot (Reply 10):
Ditto with Anzac.

What is there really to go wrong? (other than running them onto reefs as a friend of mine did with Ballarat) They are bare basic under equipped and under gunned vessels that are entirely too heavy, have a small pad and small storage for a helo.

Who honestly builds a frigate these days with an anti-air missile quantity of 8? Even if you put the extra cell in it it will only add up to 16. The problem is as has been stated that weapons systems procured by Australia, and others we have been told, often take entirely too long to be either brought into service or up to the level where they should perform. They are also procured with future capability upgrade in mind but with little thought to the bare bones present system.

I would hazard a guess that the ANZAC class have a survivability of about 30 seconds in a war zone!


User currently offlineAussieAMEgirl From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2852 times:

Well here is my two cents worth, as an AME employed to maintain Army helicopters, and in turn have also been employed in my last job to maintain F111 G aircraft at Amberley. I must say that regardless of age all these aircraft are maintained to a very high standard (My background is airline NOT general aviation so I have a good idea about standards). Every single member of the Australian Army's aviation mechanics pass through here and are trained by very experienced people from all walks fo life. Yes that's right we are all contractors. Regardless 30 years old when talking about aircraft isnt that old. We have had the Blackhawks for nearly that long as are the F18's, Orions, etc etc and the average C182 in Australia is older than that. As for the F111, when I was at 6SQN I was told that the concept was designed in 1947 (or thereabouts) and they are still doing wonders. As for the Seaking, why did the Navy put more tail rotor blades on a gearbox and drive shaft designed for less? Not that this was a problem here. Yes we do have issues when it comes to procurement for Defence, but look at the Iroquois...nothing is even coming close to replacing that, same as the Caribous. Now to finish my disjointed comment (LOL!) We have the new Tigers here, and well they are a nice piece of kit, so were many other aircraft the ADF have operated. Just ask the guys that maintained them or flew them......

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2851 times:

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
I must say that regardless of age all these aircraft are maintained to a very high standard

Few I think would argue with you, it is a credit to the ADF and it's employees that you can maintain these airframes so well.

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
We have had the Blackhawks for nearly that long as are the F18's, Orions, etc etc

Again the issue is regarding correct replacement in correct time. Why fly these aircraft beyond their useful service lives?

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
As for the Seaking, why did the Navy put more tail rotor blades on a gearbox and drive shaft designed for less?



Had not heard about this, what is it rated for and what does it now carry?

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
We have the new Tigers here, and well they are a nice piece of kit

A long needed addition to the army which will really come in handy! Can't wait to see one up close.

Ps- Welcome to A.net


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
I must say that regardless of age all these aircraft are maintained to a very high standard (My background is airline NOT general aviation so I have a good idea about standards).

What/which standard/s are you referring to?

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
Regardless 30 years old when talking about aircraft isnt that old.

Pardon?

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
We have had the Blackhawks for nearly that long

No we haven't.

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
As for the F111, when I was at 6SQN I was told that the concept was designed in 1947 (or thereabouts) and they are still doing wonders.

I assume you are referring to Barnes-Wallis' "concept" and not the F-111 per se?

Quoting AussieAMEgirl (Reply 12):
As for the Seaking, why did the Navy put more tail rotor blades on a gearbox and drive shaft designed for less?

Ask the Poms.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineAussieAMEgirl From Australia, joined Apr 2005, 61 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2796 times:

I am referring to the 059 standard of maintenance. And yes the Blackhawks that I work on here are over 20 years old...and yes they are Australian ones. ex RAAF ones to be exact. The only aircraft we have on base that are younger than that are the Tiger.
Oh and as for age they Huey/Iroquois is yet to be replaced....

Beleive me there is a big difference when you go from working at an airline for 8 years then have a brief foray into general aviation maintenance as to maintenance practices and attitudes. It was almost scary...then again I might just have exceptionally high standards.....

And after discussing this post with several of my work collegues, many of whom have been involved with aviation maintenance for over 30 years themselves, still stand by the comment that 30 years for an airframe isnt the same as comparing it to a 30 year old car.

Any aircraft maintenance engineer will tell you that. Just look at some operating Boeing aircraft or your average Cessna 182.

As for the F111 I must ask what your background and experience is TSV in regards to them as maybe you can shed some light on them for me as I only spent 12 months on type.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 846 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Just an update on the issue.

The entire fleet have now been grounded indefinitely. Apparently two components of the flight control run, which are normally connected together were separated and the hardware that connects them has not been found, even after an extensive search. Flight controls will be further analyzed.

After this initial review of the incident pilot error and engine failure have been eliminated.

The aircraft are now grounded and there will be a public review convened in the next couple of months.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic RAN Sea King Down In Sumatra
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Another Canadian Sea King Down posted Fri Feb 3 2006 01:17:44 by WrenchBender
Nimrod MR2 Down In Afghanistan posted Sat Sep 2 2006 20:40:13 by RichardPrice
Dutch F-16 Down In Afghanistan posted Fri Sep 1 2006 11:18:07 by Ptrjong
Chopper Down In Afghanistan posted Thu Jul 27 2006 00:41:29 by EHHO
Libyan Plane Down In Cameroon posted Sun Apr 23 2006 13:27:23 by JoKeR
F-16 Down In Utah From Hill AFB posted Fri Mar 31 2006 03:17:38 by Mason
US Military Plane Down In Japan posted Tue Jan 17 2006 04:10:53 by AR1300
US Helicopter Down In Iraq posted Sun Jan 8 2006 14:35:13 by Sean377
Helicopter Down In Afghanistan posted Tue Aug 16 2005 17:10:40 by NORTHSEATIGER
Chinook Down In Afghanistan 16 Death posted Wed Apr 6 2005 20:09:42 by Arniepie

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format