Jump to content

CH148 Cyclone missing on ops

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My comments were only trying to show a little respect for the aircrew that lost their lives far from home.  

It’s a new aircraft, obviously they aren’t going to have many hours on type. Seaking pilots transitioned to the cyclone, how else are you going to implement a new aircraft? Some of the comments a

you're not obligated to share my thoughts at all, and if you wish to call it arm-chairing, go right ahead. I call it speculation, and I welcome all ideas, thoughts and opinions. life is about tha

Posted Images

11 hours ago, DGP said:

You all know the line...don't fly the A model of anything!

I prefer the line: "there are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots."

I still don't think there's anything wrong with the aircraft but more related to the "human factors", they are returning the cyclones to service now without any talks about "fixes".

I wonder how many hours the PIC had on helicopters and on type?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

im trying to wrap my head around what they are saying...

semi autonomous mode ? pilot punched in manual commands? the helicopter software did not recognize the pilot's instructions and chose to ignore them ?

what kind of AFCS design is this? or better yet, what kind of double speak are they trying to sell us?


Atari ST keyboard USB converter [TMK based] - deskthority




  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching that video of the military trying to explain what they think went wrong when a smiple question was asked...did the computer cause the crash...lots of mumble jumbo going on there...they and sikorsky have all the confidence in the soft wear...I would say there are others that don't share their views!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but, didn't Boeing 737 Max 8 have a similar problem, in my book it would be called insufficient training on type, including all emergency procedures. 

At one time a/c were equipped with auto pilots that had to be controlled by the Pilot, nowadays, if the computer chips get into an argument, they crash the Aircraft.

There are not to many  Pilots that I know off that would intentionally do that.

So the answer has to be in the lack of training and computer science.

Boeing Aircraft are re-training (all) pilots on emergency procedures and how to overcome the computer chips from dis-agreeing.

As pointed out by RCAF the Cyclone did not respond to in-puts from the Two Captains flying the A/C, with not enough knowledge of the computer system flying the A/C, would that not indicate lack of training by the RCAF and Sikorsky.

The actual cause of the accident remains with the Federal Government and Department of National Defence, for lack of over site.

Both of those entities have to learn is that is not their money they are spending, but, the Canadian Taxpayer.  


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other part of this story that we would like to know is how many stories did DND dream up before they actually  started this story about computer chips disagreeing and then saying that these chips figuired that the pitch attitude that the pilot wanted could not possible be what the pilot DID want and so they drove this ship into the drink!

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.

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.

  • Create New...