Comments on: My three military advisors said that the helicopter crash that killed 15 soldiers was due to command error?

By: bravozulu

bravozulu — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

It is always easier to be a Monday morning quarterback. In the end the problem is always a command error because they are responsible for whatever happens. I wouldn’t second guess the decision though. If it had turned out differently, it may have saved the 15 soldiers.

By: D the tiger!

D the tiger! — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

No matter what has caused it, they have to protect our roles in the force. Who ever is in caused can not change what ever has been decided by the power above (the big dogs). Making the decision in combat isn’t easy either, sometime we may bend the rules in order to save more lives. So the big dogs goal is to avoid tax payer problems and more cuts or follow higher commands order. It like being step on as we are the ants. Sometime we need to be the fire ants to bite back who we are and show them we can, the can do just like the cat in the HAT.

By: faulty_cortex

faulty_cortex — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

What a distinguished group of Military veterans! Lack of spare parts is chronic in Iraq, and sending a helicopter into action when the maintenance schedule has been ignored isn’t really a "command error." In the USA it’s called negligent homicide.

By: Spartiate

Spartiate — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

You can’t really predict mechanical failure though. A helicopter is made up of thousands of parts and the majority of them are inside the chopper and cannot be seen during a routine inspection. The gauges most likely didn’t tell the pilot that anything was up since the damaged part at the time was still holding. Its like a wooden bridge it looks fine, a few people cross it and it holds but suddenly of the blue a plank gives way and one unlucky dude falls thru. So no one knew it would break since most crossed okay. Know what I mean?

By: john_galt0

john_galt0 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

Your experts leave a lot to be desired…

For the so-called experts out there I was in the navy during the Carter years. We went to sea without repair parts for vital systems. I personally found a leak in the hull just above the waterline on the reefer flat because we couldn’t go into the shipyard for repairs. We fixed it with a patch and a HT on a boatswains chair. The rescue operation in Iran went too few helicopters (the military was asked by Carter what was the absolute minimum and eight was the answer) and the helicopters had the wrong air filters so they clogged their engines.
I say this before anyone tries to blame Bush.
Marines follow orders.
My experts; three uncles (82nd airborne, special forces, Green Beret Sargeant Major), my sister (air guard E-8), two cousins (infantry Iraq tours of duty), one cousin (Army Major in Iraq now), his wife (Army Capt. MD, one tour in Iraq) and myself ( career Navy)

By: jonn449

jonn449 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

Don’t you just love the armchair Generals?

By: young one

young one — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

I hope not.

By: conranger1

conranger1 — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

Were your dad and two grandfathers deployed in the second chopper at the scene or on the ground beneath??

If not then with all due respect they can only offer their opinions.

A chopper on the ground is an R.P.G. Magnet.

By: Ag by birth

Ag by birth — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:47 +0000

I am an Army helicopter pilot, and i am in the same unit as the helicopter that recent crashed. It has been told to us that it is believed to be a mechanical failure of some sort. But as to the maintenance i can attest to the extreme scrutiny an aircraft get prior to take off. It is checked and checked again many times. I would have to say that this failure was probably the result of a flaw that was not visible to the inspectors. If an aviator sees something he does not like about the aircraft he is not obligated to take it. It his and his crew and passengers lives he concerned with. As for the crew I knew them and they were professional there could have been nothing they themselves could have done about it nor any maintenance person on the ground prior to the flight. As for speculation as to the why they were flying we may never know. Until we see the OP-Order or the safety Center report we can only guess.
My initial guess was this. They were flying at extreme low level known as NOE. This is done to mask your route the enemy can hear you but not see you as easy the hills and trees if any block this. At this altitude at night with night vision goggles the terrain at the speeds they were traveling its alot of data for your eye to take in. Now you have an dual engine failure and your altitude is already low you have almost no time to react. This is my first impression.

Speculation is garbage

Truth is truth, wait for it.

By: Honza_Urban

Honza_Urban — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:08:46 +0000

hi zour advisors would be right with the russian helicopters, but not american ones. the modern attitude to the maintenance is "failure safe" "failure tolerant" it means that you do NOT make routine checks every 100 hours, like it is done with the russian types. this helps to save human resources of ground personnel and prevents human errors while demonting and remounting the devices checked.

The problem gets noticed and repaired in flight – it malfunctionates, but the helicopter/lane is able to bypass the failure, and the dead component is replaced. the probability is done so that you return safely. Most of the critical helicopter falures appear suddenly after all, regardless of how often you perform the routine checks.

we lost one helicopter Mi17 in Bosnia due to the sudden material attrition – leading to the screwing of the tailboom transmission and crashlanding of the departing helicopter.

edit. the problems are observed and bypassed inflight, they are repaired after the flight. there is not enough McGyvers around who would repair them in flight