AAC aircraft losses due to recklessness/negligence??

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by stab23, Nov 4, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I'd be grateful for help from your collective memories.

    I've been through every UK aircraft loss since 1956 on this site:
    (click on "losses").

    I didn't come across any AAC aircraft losses that were due to reckless stupidty or negligence.

    Yet there are numerous RAF and RN losses due to both causes (recent RAF Puma, Hawk and Typhoon losses all fall firmly into these categories, plus many others - in the RN there are losses due to reckless wazzing and zooming, plus one where the instructor was trying to hover a helicopter with his arms crossed). I'll post the exact references if anybody interested.

    But I find it quite striking that there are no crashes that I am aware of due to negligence and stupidity in the army. Is that just because the site I quote is not a full and accurate record?
  2. Look at 2008 and i can see an apache straight away

  3. Where are you getting the terms 'reckless stupidity or negligence' from?

    working_with_choppers, I'd suggest you haven't a clue what you are talking about unless you're a member of the BOI and you've seen fit to publish your findings on Arrse first?
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Point taken!

    Wasn't reckless or negligent.

    Will wait till the BOI until I comment.

  5. "03/03/2005 XZ695 NM-417 Lynx HMA8 815 NAS Ditched and sank in Indian Ocean after running out of fuel. The crew were rescued safely"

    God i bet that was a bastard to explain to the boss, i would of lied and told him the tail detached mid-air :twisted:
  6. Its the benefit of having non officer ranked aircrew - makes for a more mature flying crowd amongst other things.

  7. Would that be the one where 'mother' fecked off elsewhere and an aircraft in the vicinity didnt pass the info on to the Lynx? Lynx tried to get back to where BFS (Big Feck-off Ship) was supposed to be and there was nothing but ogg-splosh? They pushed on as much as they could until they took the 'option' to go for a swim. At first sight, it may appear to be 'negligent' or 'stupid' but with a couple more facts, its not as clear cut :wink:

    (BTW, I believe a Seaking pilot had a broken nose a few hours after the Lynx crew were rescued....)
  8. What were your findings on this?

    Oh and by the way 661 lost a cab in 80/81, forget the year now. It's not listed.
  9. "24/02/1982 XW234 CO Puma HC1 33 Sqn
    24/02/1982 XW905 Gazelle AH1 2 Flt
    24/02/1982 XX378 Gazelle AH1 2 Flt
    During exercises in Norway the Puma suffered a whiteout. It force-landed near Voss suffering only slight damage. XW905 was sent with ground crew to he Puma but also suffered a whiteout and crashed. XX378 was sent out to assist but suffered the same fate. XW905 was written off, while the others were repaired."

    Now THAT is perseverance.
  10. Ah...dont mention 2 Flt in Norway....1990.

    Biggest loss in one day for the AAC. I think the final tally was 4 Gazelles written off after an 'interesting' hover taxi to the refuel point at Floro. :roll:
  11. "recklessness/negligence??"
    One hell of a statement.
    From what I saw years ago, even IF the Board/Court of Inquiry Knew, The result will be the Political Solution.
  12. Unsure if it was an aircraft loss so I'll happily be corrected, But a gazelle in Bosnia, i believe, was caked in ice. So a certain technician was asked to de ice it.

    Hit a panel and the ice came off in 1 nice pretty sheet. He then applied this method to the remainder of the airframe. After it resembled a golf ball. I know a lot of hobnobs and crates were bought. Still, didn't affect him to much, Last check, was a WO1.

    • Like Like x 1
  13. There was a Lynx at STANTA late eighties that was essentially wazzing and zooming with no censure. Huge CRM falllout from this one.

    And our finest hour, Sooty from GW1 fame.
  14. Fugly

    Fugly LE DirtyBAT


    Yes, he is!