Counting Down to the Next Air Crash

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by Sven, Jan 9, 2006.

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. On another forum I posted the following statement an a thread about military helicopter crashes

    "IN the British forces, the statisticians work out when the next aircraft crash is going to happen, and then as the date approaches the air safety people put out posters raising the awareness of aircrew. This happens with ALL aircraft types, not just helicopters.

    You cannot judge the aircraft and personnel of any armed forces against the equivilent civilian types. These are special people doing extraordinary jobs in ways that wouldn't even be considered by those not in the forces. As a result, accidents are inevitable"

    Can anyone tell me if the countdown still goes on, indeed, did it ever?? My time in the Corps was through the eighties
     
  2. errrrrrrrrrr Sven, do you believe that? Flight safety is taken very very seriously all year round, whilst not speaking for professionally qualified personnel, I do know that it is ingrained from top to bottom. What you may be thinking of or told, that the stats are never wrong, that statistically, this may happen etc but trust me, nothing makes people shudder more than flight safety. Me, a veteran too of going on COs as escort with REEM tech types who havent got it right who are very few and far between, trust me on that too.

    safe landings
     
  3. I saw a report in the Press yesterday that the C130 that was shot down last year may have survived if it had been using a fuel additive that the US and Canada have been utilising in their Hercs which prevents helps combustion due to fuel tank damage etc. An MOD spokesman said there is no evidence that it would have helped. Or in English, it would have cost money so we thouht we'd save a few quid by risking lives again.
     
  4. Unless the fuel was made out of a huge bouncy castle and acted like a massive forcefield to deflect the 'missile', I very much doubt it.
     
  5. Aircraft crash as and when. It's not statistical. It just happens. I am sure that in my time we had one year where there was no fatel accidents and on other occasions it's was one two three in one day (3 Gaz in Norway?). It's a fact of life not Numerology.
    john
    Fly on safely.
     
  6. Wasn't it Automatic Fire that brought it down? I thought that the original damage was tothe fuel tanks... Some Anti Aircraft misslies also detonate with a proximity fuse anyway so that it is the fragmentation and not the explosion that is the biggest danger in many cases. However I may be wrong in this case?
     
  7. Aviation Standards Branch do keep track of accidents in statistical terms (eg number of fatal accidents per 10000 flying hours by type). However, this isn't a "count down" but more of a trend indicator.
     
  8. The suggestions on what brought the Herc down are wide and varied. The most popular however is that the ac was hit by a medium/large calibre unguided system. The warhead was fairly large and I belive it impacted near the wing root............would be a pretty expensive "and bloody amazing" system to defeat that with a bit of foam in the tanks!.
     
  9. What a nice cheerful thread - i look forward to my next trip!!!
     
  10. You can always walk :p
     
  11. (Sideways?)
    john
     
  12. Do you not get trained to elimintate the risk and paid to take the risk ? Oh No here we gooooooooooooo . . . . . . . again . .
     
  13. I'm probably being stupid but I would have thought that any additive to make fuel less likely to combust would also make it less likely to do its job i.e. combust in the engine? Inflamable fuel is a bit like a solar powered torch - useless!
     
  14. The additive turns the fuel into a gel if the fuel tanks are ruptured whilst not affecting combustion under normal circumstances. I saw a test video from civil aviation in which they used the stuff and it prevented a fire withing the aircraft. I'm not 100% on the exact technology but the fact that our allies are using it indicates to me that it should at least be looked at. Some risks are unavoidable in war but would you stop wearing your body armour just because it won't stop all high velocity rounds? You cant get round every risk but where the kit is available and it is practical to minimise the risk, you would be a fool not to want it available. The additive may not stop a missile bringing you down, but it may stop a luck round or warthead fragmentation from bringing down the aircraft. Given the choice would you rather fly with it or without it?
     
  15. The yanks filled a 707 with this stuff (or something that was supposed to do the same thing) and flew it (radio-controlled mind) into the ground to simulate a wheels-up forced landing. It disappeared into a huge fireball. Hence the lack of interest.

    More pertinently if my memory is working properly the effects of the additive on engine life, reliability and fuel consumption are imperfectly understood. If it decreases reliability for instance it could end up causing crashes.