Helicopter/Cyclone discussion (split from HMCS Fredricton thread)

[OldSolduer]

This is a reason that I believe the CDS decision to not release preliminary crash information is the right one.  Wait until the report is done and all the rocks have been turned over.  Then inform the families of what happened, then the public.  This way forward feels right.

Agreed. All kinds of people ask me what brought that chopper down- I'm infantry  (red crayons are the tastiest)- so I politely tell them that is not my area of expertise and I refuse to speculate.

 

[Scoobs]

I worked in the Directorate of Technical Airworthiness and Engineering Support (DTAES) upon my retirement this past January.  During a portion of my time at this unit, I was responsible for the section that approved any out of scope maintenance program changes that the Senior Design Engineer (SDE) could not approve.  This was for all RCAF fleets.  Part of my duties also involved working on the certification (minor role) of the Cyclone.  Thus, I know of potential problems that this helo had and I have my theories as to what some cause factors of the crash could be, but I will not share them for the following reasons, nor will I respond to any private messages about this issue:

1. There is an ongoing FS investigation.  All former and serving RCAF mbrs damn well know better not to speculate on causes prior to DFS completing their investigation.  There is a process.  It exists for a reason.  Part of this reason is to avoid speculation.  Part of this reason is to avoid the so called "experts" coming out of the woodwork, being quoted in the media, and Joe Q uneducated public forming a misinformed opinion.  Joe Q public barely knows his ass from his elbow, so how do you expect him to differentiate between one ex-military guy that knows diddly about a/c and investigations or someone that actually does?  They don't.

2. Out of respect for our fallen.  I've already been successful at correcting a so called "expert" who was quoted in one of the first CBC articles.  I emailed him and expressed my displeasure at his remarks.  To his credit he contacted the CBC reporter, who actually adjusted the story.  Reinforcing my point 1 above, there HAS been speculation on pilot error.  No one knows this, especially at the start of the FS investigation and just stating this to the press (which makes it into their stories) drags the good names of the aircrew through the mud for no reason, with no factual basis.  Just imagine how the family feels when they see this speculation in the media. 

Summary:  stay in your lane.  Stop speculating.  Let DFS do their investigation.

Some clarification from different posts in regards to the "Jesus" nut:

-most of my career was spent in Tac Hel, not MH, but most helos don't actually have a "single" Jesus nut.  For example, the Griffon had one assembly that resembled a Jesus nut, but in fact it was attached to the mast/head via many bolts that are all lockwired in.  For the life of me I cannot remember its name as per the CFTOs.

 

[Underway]

The only Jesus nut that I know of is the homeless strung out guy who yells at me  "I am Jesus" on my way to work in the morning.  But I digress....

 

[Good2Golf]

-most of my career was spent in Tac Hel, not MH, but most helos don't actually have a "single" Jesus nut.  For example, the Griffon had one assembly that resembled a Jesus nut, but in fact it was attached to the mast/head via many bolts that are all lockwired in.  For the life of me I cannot remember its name as per the CFTOs.

“Retaining nut” on all Bell teetering rotors: CH118, CH135, CH136.

 

[observor 69]

Flight control software glitch haunted Cyclone helicopter during trials
The CH-148 Cyclone helicopter has what the air force calls a "triple redundant" flight control system — and during a 2017 training mission off Nova Scotia, all three of those computers momentarily failed at once.

It was a major software glitch, alarming enough to ground the fleet for nine weeks.

At the time, the military described the incident publicly as a "severe bump" which reset the controls and caused the aircraft to briefly and suddenly lose altitude. The pilot managed to recover and land safely.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/SOMNIA-1.5566656

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I, for one, wish Mr Byers would stick to what his UBC profile suggests he is actually knowledgeable in;  there is no indication he's flown or crewed so much as a paper airplane so not sure how a person with his education and experience is dubbed an 'expert' in anything aviation-related.

Example:

"If you are just a few hundred feet above the water, you have no time to respond," he said.

Having flown 'just a few hundred feet above the water' and had emergencies happen at low level before, I can assure him, from personal experience, that is not a factual statement.

:2c:

 

[NavyShooter]

I worked with a group in the RCN called "Route Survey" a few years back.  We were responsible for side-scan SONAR systems and Q-route surveillance.  I have awareness that there are systems available to the Canadian Government that can reach down to 3000m that have been used for deep sea recoveries in the past. 

I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the crash - the report will come out eventually.  I hope the recovery efforts find the aircraft quickly and brings closure to the families of the fallen.

NS

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Flight control software glitch haunted Cyclone helicopter during trials
The CH-148 Cyclone helicopter has what the air force calls a "triple redundant" flight control system — and during a 2017 training mission off Nova Scotia, all three of those computers momentarily failed at once.

It was a major software glitch, alarming enough to ground the fleet for nine weeks.

At the time, the military described the incident publicly as a "severe bump" which reset the controls and caused the aircraft to briefly and suddenly lose altitude. The pilot managed to recover and land safely.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/SOMNIA-1.5566656

Just to be clear, ANYTHING written or said about this accident that does not come from the Directorate of Flight Safety is, by definition, speculation.

I realize newspapers/media got to sell stories. But if you are actually interested in what really happened, you have to wait  until the investigators report. Until that happens, you are not helping anybody by speculating.

 

[dimsum]

Just to be clear, ANYTHING written or said about this accident that does not come from the Directorate of Flight Safety is, by definition, speculation.

I realize newspapers/media got to sell stories. But if you are actually interested in what really happened, you have to wait  until the investigators report. Until that happens, you are not helping anybody by speculating.

This statement should be in big, bold, flashing neon letters.

 

[observor 69]

1. I thought this article by the CBC looked reasonably creditable or at least contributed some background to the situation.

2. The odds on me as a retired serviceman/civy of ever hearing the results of the Flight Safety Report are slim.

 

[Baz]

This statement should be in big, bold, flashing neon letters.

Yep.

1. I thought this article by the CBC looked reasonably creditable or at least contributed some background to the situation.

2. The odds on me as a retired serviceman/civy of ever hearing the results of the Flight Safety Report are slim.

http://flightcomment.ca/

 

[observor 69]

Thanks for the link, much appreciated.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

1. I thought this article by the CBC looked reasonably creditable or at least contributed some background to the situation.

2. The odds on me as a retired serviceman/civy of ever hearing the results of the Flight Safety Report are slim.

On point number 2: Not true. The Directorate of Flight Safety posts their reports to the internet. They are publicly available.

That nothing is available now means nothing is ready to be reported. It does not mean anything is being hidden.

 

[dapaterson]

Much as it pains me as a guy with a heavy Army background to say nice things about the RCAF, I cannot say enough good things about the RCAF's continuous work to build and sustain their flight safety culture.  They don't take shortcuts; they build an environment where there can be open and frank discussions about what went wrong to find and fix root causes.

And part of that is letting the professionals do their work.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Directorate of Flight Safety posts their reports to the internet. They are publicly available.

That nothing is available now means nothing is ready to be reported. It does not mean anything is being hidden.

And, here is the link: RCAF Flight Safety Investigation Reports

*note* Recent Flight Safety Investigations summaries: Epilogue, and preliminary information about current investigations: From the Investigator, are available on this page. For the full report or any additional queries contact DFS (dfs.dsv@forces.gc.ca).

 

[observor 69]

And thanks to you Eye In The Sky.
All links bookmarked. Thx to all.

 

[dapaterson]

Anyone looking at building / repairing sustaining a safety program would be well advised to look at DFS publications, for ideas on how to promote the culture, and for discussion articles about errors / flaws / ways to improve.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Anyone looking at building / repairing sustaining a safety program would be well advised to look at DFS publications, for ideas on how to promote the culture, and for discussion articles about errors / flaws / ways to improve.

That's not really the Navy way; we bury and overclassify so that BOI, tech investigations etc never see the light of day.

 

[dapaterson]

That's not really the Navy way; we bury and overclassify so that BOI, tech investigations etc never see the light of day.

See, in the Army we find a convenient corporal to blame, assume it's a one-off, and repeat.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That's not really the Navy way; we bury and overclassify so that BOI, tech investigations etc never see the light of day.

Cough [Protecteur Fire] cough....