Jump to content
Crusty

CH148 Cyclone missing on ops

Recommended Posts

 "the aircraft did not respond as the crew would have anticipated"

 

is this information recovered from the voice and data recorders?

if it is, they should be clear on that.

if it's an assumption, then they shouldn't be publishing that, because its not fact. but it follows the typical form of information release, misleading and redirecting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read the helicopter did a fly by on the left side of the ship and then did a left turn to line up with the rear of the boat...I take it the pilot in command was sitting on the right side of the helicopter...why would you turn away from the boat especially if this was at night...I would have turned to the right and kept the boat in sight...not sure if anyone else agrees but I have a few thousand hrs spraying and a right turn would be easier than a left turn and at night down low I would not want to loose sight of that boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GrayHorizons said:

 "the aircraft did not respond as the crew would have anticipated"

 

is this information recovered from the voice and data recorders?

if it is, they should be clear on that.

if it's an assumption, then they shouldn't be publishing that, because its not fact. but it follows the typical form of information release, misleading and redirecting.

You have hit the nail on the head, DND and Parliament have screwed the TAXPAYER from day one on any purchase for the Military.

On any Major Military procurement there should be an industry over site committee formed with the Military prior to issuing an ITQ, and from there form a realistic requirement for an RFP. 

The Military and the patronage ridden politicians always seem to get together to screw every purchase possible.

The only ones that are not screwed up are the ones purchased on a Sole Source Basis.

Has anybody questioned the following:

The length of time it took to replace the  Sea King with the Cyclone (including Mods to the original proposal), The modifications to the original FAA approved B412 (griffon), patronage contract to update a useless machine, in guess whose riding, the actual purchase of Aussie aircraft and rebuilding, instead of of buying the Boeing Hornet, and the list goes on.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO WAKE UP    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GrayHorizons said:

 "the aircraft did not respond as the crew would have anticipated"

 

is this information recovered from the voice and data recorders?

if it is, they should be clear on that.

if it's an assumption, then they shouldn't be publishing that, because its not fact. but it follows the typical form of information release, misleading and redirecting.

The recorders were recovered, everything is on there.  From the data they can recreate the entire sequence within minutes of download.  I'm guessing that they already know exactly what happened, not to mention all the eyewitnesses and radar data.  This well be the last we hear of it for a year though at least.  Since it's military they can just bury it anyways and we may never hear about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read an article that was in the Cape Breten Post...they were interviewing the former commanding officer of 423 squadron...very good read...pretty much tells it all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is why hasn't this article hit main stream news? I only saw it on the google for a real short period...I would say someone is trying to kyboosch it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fellow that was interviewed was a retired Colonel and former SeaKing pilot as well as the former Commanding Officer of 423 squadron. I don't think they can crack down on retired military folks but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do these "leaks" leaks hurt the reputation of the military?

or do they put the lying CO, or the MP who speaks for them, in a precarious position about transparency?

IMHO, its obvious who is hurting the reputation.  and it's not the witness' or the retired guys. 

Sajjan needs to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...