# Canadian Sea King crashes off Denmark



## Guardian (2 Feb 2006)

Not much out yet, other than that the crew survived:

Sea King helicopter on a Canadian warship has crashed off Denmark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 17:44 on February 2, 2006, EST. 

HALIFAX (CP) - A Sea King helicopter on a Canadian warship has crashed off Denmark. All five crew rescued, a navy source says.  

©The Canadian Press, 2006  

Source: http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n020257A.xml

I can't think of a better bookend to the Liberals' time in power. They began by cancelling the Sea King's replacement, and they finish with another one down.

How fitting.


----------



## CallOfDuty (2 Feb 2006)

HMCS Athabaskan Sea King Incident 
    OTTAWA, Feb. 2 /CNW Telbec/ - At approximately 1:34 p.m. EST this
afternoon, HMCS Athabaskan's Sea King helicopter, with a crew of five on
board, ditched approximately 50 kilometres off the east coast of Denmark. All
five crewmembers were recovered by the ship and are safe. All have been
examined by the medical officer and have returned to their quarters. Their
families have been advised of the incident.
    The accident occurred while the aircrew practised night landings with the
Sea King off the back of the ship
    The helicopter is in 16 metres of water, marked by a buoy. Salvage
operations may be undertaken pending sea state. Currently the sea state is
calm with half-metre waves and wind speed of less than 10 knots.
    A full investigation into the incident is underway. No further details
are available at this time.

    Background
    ----------

    HMCS Athabaskan, commanded by Captain (Navy) Dave Gardam, is deployed
with the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG 1), a squadron consisting of
destroyers and frigates from the alliance nations. Canadian Commodore Denis
Rouleau took command of the SNMG 1 on Jan 26. HMCS Athabaskan is Commodore
Rouleau 's flagship for SNMG1 - one of four standing elements of NATO Response
Force Rotation 7 (NRF 7).
    HMCS Athabaskan carries a crew of about 300 all ranks, including flight
crew and maintenance technicians


----------



## gnplummer421 (2 Feb 2006)

Well thank god the crew is allright. Sooo how much longer for replacement choppers? I will read all the posts related to this issue, but man, it sure is taking a long time eh? Maybe this will be a reminder to the minds in charge to do something proactive...mmm sounds like wishfull thinking..


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Feb 2006)

> Sooo how much longer for replacement choppers?



Fall 2008.

Night Deck Landings were never my favourite.  Good to hear that egress training paid off, yet again.

Cheers.


----------



## BOSNwife (2 Feb 2006)

My husband is on that ship right now. 
He also experienced the crash on IRO in 2003.
Give us new Helo's NOW!!


----------



## Inch (2 Feb 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Fall 2008.
> 
> Night Deck Landings were never my favourite.  Good to hear that egress training paid off, yet again.
> 
> Cheers.



Too bad we only do it every 5 years. Should be every other year, alternating with wet dinghy. 

But that's just my opinion.

Glad the boys got out alright.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (2 Feb 2006)




----------



## Inch (2 Feb 2006)

Cannoneer No. 4 said:
			
		

>



Nice picture, wrong ship type. That looks like the deck of a tanker, as the lack of tracks on the deck would indicate.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Feb 2006)

Good to hear crew's all right and all families advised!

Inch, you guys only dunk once every 5 years?  Last time I checked, tac hel has to dunk once a tour, which often is less thanfive years.  I would think you guys would dunk annually, or at least bi-annually!  SKT, weren't you on AthaB?

I hope more of this makes its way out to the press again...nothing like freshinging up everybody's recollection of things, courtesy of political cartoonist Graeme MacKay!  ;D






Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Inch (2 Feb 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Inch, you guys only dunk once every 5 years?  Last time I checked, tac hel has to dunk once a tour, which often is less thanfive years.  I would think you guys would dunk annually, or at least bi-annually!  SKT, weren't you on AthaB?
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



I'm in total agreement. What's really screwed up is that we have to do NBCD refreshers every 3 years and dunker every 5 years. When was the last time anyone was gassed? Considering we spend the large majority of our flight hours over water, I can think of 5 guys in addition to us here that would agree dunker is a lifesaver and should be at least bi-annually, but alas, the almighty dollar wins again.


----------



## Gunnerlove (2 Feb 2006)

So are our rescue EH-101s still imitating Ferrari's?

Looking sexy while parked in the garage waiting for parts. On the plus side can't crash when tied up at the ranch.


----------



## DBA (3 Feb 2006)

Good to hear the crew got out ok. As for refresher training the frequency should also be based off how the skills degrade over time and not just more important equals more often. If they can perform the procedures up to the desired standard with refresher training every X years then your fine.


----------



## Cannoneer No. 4 (3 Feb 2006)

_Montreal's_ Sea King.  The other pic was _Athapaskan_'s Sea King landing on the _Frankfurt Am Main._


----------



## Armymatters (3 Feb 2006)

Is the Sea King repairable?   I am hearing from the CBC that the Sea King is under 16 metres of water. Good luck to whoever is going to try to recover it.    

At least the crew is ok...


----------



## Acorn (3 Feb 2006)

I'm surprised no one has associated the fact that this occurred off _*Denmark*_

Coincidence?


----------



## Armymatters (3 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has associated the fact that this occurred off _*Denmark*_
> 
> Coincidence?



Probally.  : The CBC is reporting Athabaskan was acting as flagship of the NATO Standing Naval Force in the region. Wonder how the mission is going to be affected, now Athabaskan is short of a helo. Are we going to ferry a new Sea King to her, or continue without a helo?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (3 Feb 2006)

When I heard about this,  I didn't care about who misappropriated funds, for personal/political reasons, or who's lack of a moral-backbone which would rather risk lives than maybe be embarrassed by admitting a mistake.... 

" All five crew rescued, a navy source says. "
Thats what I cared about.  Lets hope we're all as fortunate in the future.


----------



## Spr.Earl (3 Feb 2006)

Thank God the lad's were rescued!
Yup and the Gov. is being hit with a Billion $ Court action now for the last nixed choppr deal.
Thank God our boy's are well trained to fly and maintain the old machines.


----------



## Slim (3 Feb 2006)

I think that Cretien and everyone of his thief political cronies aught to go and have a ride on a malfunctioning SeaThing ending with a crash into 16 meters of water...Just before the lot of them drown someone can casually mention that new choppers would've been great when they were origionally contracted, wouldn't they?!

Glad the crew all got out without serious injury.


----------



## ChopperHead (3 Feb 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060202/seaking_crash_060202

"The single-rotor helicopters were first purchased in 1963, and in 2004, 28 were still in use. They often experience flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures, and have been described as "flying coffins" by members of the military.

I liked this little tid bit of info. Has anyone actually heard someone call them flying coffins?
I hope this is a kick in the ass for the new government to get those helicopters and get them as quick as possible and dont let what happened before happen again.


----------



## Inch (3 Feb 2006)

Cannoneer No. 4 said:
			
		

> _Montreal's_ Sea King.  The other pic was _Athapaskan_'s Sea King landing on the _Frankfurt Am Main._



I see you're plucking pictures off the internet, I thought for a second you might have actually been there. The picture you posted of Athabaskan's helo isn't the one that ditched, wrong tail number, that helo in the picture is alive and well in Shearwater.

Somebody care to fill me in with the Dennmark comment? They were in International waters and Dennmark happened to be the closest point of land, point is what exactly?



			
				ChopperHead said:
			
		

> http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060202/seaking_crash_060202
> 
> "The single-rotor helicopters were first purchased in 1963, and in 2004, 28 were still in use. They often experience flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures, and have been described as "flying coffins" by members of the military.
> 
> ...



Never heard it myself though I've only been flying them for a little over a year. I love how the media embellishes things, They "often" experience..., BS! I haven't once had a major problem, sure there's been a lot of small problems but I wouldn't qualify that as often. Generator failure is no big deal, the system will automatically transfer all critical systems over to the functioning Generator, mind you, your mission is pretty much over at that point, but it certainly won't put you in the drink unless they both go and it's a pitch black night.


----------



## Slim (3 Feb 2006)

> Never heard it myself though I've only been flying them for a little over a year. I love how the media embellishes things, They "often" experience..., BS! I haven't once had a major problem, sure there's been a lot of small problems but I wouldn't qualify that as often. Generator failure is no big deal, the system will automatically transfer all critical systems over to the functioning Generator, mind you, your mission is pretty much over at that point, but it certainly won't put you in the drink unless they both go and it's a pitch black night.



Never let the truth get in the way of a good story! I swear that they must teach that at journalism school these days.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2006)

Inch, totally guessing here, but perhaps the Denmark comments are about Hann's Island, which folks knowing where the SNFL was sailing will also know was thousands of nautical miles away...heck Hann's Island is probably closer to Alert than these guys were to Copenhagen (well, almost?)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Devlin (3 Feb 2006)

First off good to hear the crew is allright.

Let me qualify my comments below by stating that I am reserve member (Army) who knows pretty much bugger all about choppers.

I was watching a documentary a few weeks back on the 10 best Helicopters of all time. I think the Sea King came in at number 5 on that list. Given what I have read on them here in Canada I was really surprised to see the Sea King on the show as the #5 all time best helicopter.

It showed the British Navy flying them for the show, and the Brit pilot went on and on about what a great helicopter it was.

Is the Sea King's reputation/image in Canada of being a lemon unwarranted?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2006)

Devlin said:
			
		

> Is the Sea King's reputation/image in Canada of being a lemon unwarranted?



It has a very fine reputation......it is just so old that there are problems keeping the Airframes airworthy.


----------



## Devlin (3 Feb 2006)

So it's just a matter of a piece of equipment that has put in it's time and is showing it's age then. 

I have a rule I apply when dealing with what the media puts out, believe none of what you "hear", half of what you read and all of what you know. 

Just seems anytime a Sea King is involved the press jumps all over them as being thousands of loose parts flying in close formation, that can come apart at anytime. 

I've never been in one or even seen one in person to make any sort of judgement so thought I would put the question to those in the know. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Gunnar (3 Feb 2006)

The problem with our Sea Kings is the same problem we have with most of our military equipment.  Canada has a history of buying very good equipment, but not buying the proper maintenance packages or service contracts and/or spare parts that are required to keep them in fighting trim.  Good examples include the CF18's, and our Sea Kings.

Good helicopter, but ours are OLD.  Same as our Hercs.  The Herc is the de facto military standard, but ours are old, and I believe they are looking for replacements right now.

Just out of idle curiosity, which government was it that last brought in effective equipment?  The libs gave us leaky subs, and NO helicopter replacements, the conservatives gave us trucks you can hear braking formiles...what was our last really kewl purchase?  Frigates?


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Feb 2006)

Devlin said:
			
		

> I have a rule I apply when dealing with what the media puts out, believe none of what you "hear", half of what you read and all of what you know.



Well now, aren't we living that right now, eh?


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Feb 2006)

Gunnar said:
			
		

> The problem with our Sea Kings is the same problem we have with most of our military equipment.  Canada has a history of buying very good equipment, but not buying the proper maintenance packages or service contracts and/or spare parts that are required to keep them in fighting trim.  Good examples include the CF18's, and our Sea Kings.
> 
> Good helicopter, but ours are OLD.  Same as our Hercs.  The Herc is the de facto military standard, but ours are old, and I believe they are looking for replacements right now.
> 
> Just out of idle curiosity, which government was it that last brought in effective equipment?  The libs gave us leaky subs, and NO helicopter replacements, the conservatives gave us trucks you can hear braking formiles...what was our last really kewl purchase?  Frigates?



Gunnar, I couldn't agree more.  This idea that "now we have the kit, we're good to go 'ad infinitum'..." is just wrong.  How many examples out there...5/4's, M113s, Sea-King, 18, Aurora, Frigate, BHP 9mm, the list goes on.  Ironically, one of the few capabilities I can think of that never made it past mid-life was the Chinook...removed from service after only 13 years...but, at least "we" (the CF) chose to cease operations with it vice upgrade properly and carry on...in a perverted way, at least that didn't drag out another 15 years of improper support.  

IMO, the Liberals should have immediately approved a mid/end-life upgrade to the Sea King as soon as Uncle Jean signed, "No helicopters, zero, zip" on the bottom line in 1993.  Some improvements came along, including upgrading the T-58 engines to a -100 capability, but without an upgraded main transmission to handle the increased power, the full potential of the upgrade was never met.   That the old gal has lasted as long as she has is a testament to the maintainers to keep them flying and the operators who climb aboard something that, in the majority of cases, is older than any of the aircrew themselves.  BZ folks!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Feb 2006)

Not true, Duey.  We got a 25K series gearbox to go with the -100 engines.  IMHO, we have a pretty solid drivetrain/powerplant combo going on right now.  We have just let the spare parts situation and sensors/avionics slide for so many years, we are hopeless behind the power curve.

The Sea King is/was a brilliant design leap in helicopters.  Alot of the stuff old Igor Sikorsky did in designing it (with a slide ruler, mostly) has never been bettered in 40 since.  It is a class act as a helicopter and will always be my favorite.  But alas, ours are old and getting tired.  Time to jump two full generations of technology in one single bound!

And I have never heard a serving Sea King crewmember refer to the aircraft as a "flying coffin".  The reporter is talking out of his @$$.

Cheers,


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Is the Sea King repairable?   I am hearing from the CBC that the Sea King is under 16 metres of water. Good luck to whoever is going to try to recover it.
> 
> At least the crew is ok...



Are you high?  Leave the friggin thing down there and get these guys some reliable equipment!  God will only give so many freebee's to us in the way of non fatal crashes.  
If it has to be recovered, maybe one of our ultra useful subs could find it... :


----------



## Armymatters (3 Feb 2006)

Apparantly, the military are thinking about grounding the entire Sea King fleet until they figure out what went wrong... 
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/03/seaking060203.html


----------



## Inch (3 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Are you high?  Leave the friggin thing down there and get these guys some reliable equipment!  God will only give so many freebee's to us in the way of non fatal crashes.
> If it has to be recovered, maybe one of our ultra useful subs could find it... :



Yes, you're quite right, leave it down there so that we can't find out what happened to it. I know that as a Sea King pilot, I wouldn't want to know what the problem was so that it can happen again to more of my friends or even me. Good thinking.  :

Armymatters, 

I know your posting habits on this site, so I'll tell you that grounding a fleet after a crash is only prudent. If this is a systemic problem, why endanger more aircrew? This is standard practice after any aircraft accident. We grounded the Griffons after that one lost the tail rotor in Goose Bay, we grounded the Sea Kings after #401 crashed on the deck of the Iroquois, and I'm sure there's multiple examples of this practice. The only time I would think that grounding is unwarranted would be aircraft accidents due to weather.


----------



## Panther (3 Feb 2006)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one has associated the fact that this occurred off _*Denmark*_
> 
> Coincidence?





			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Somebody care to fill me in with the Dennmark comment? They were in International waters and Dennmark happened to be the closest point of land, point is what exactly?



The Muslim world is outraged because a Danish newspaper published offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad, then European media published them again as a show of free speech.  The Muslims are now burning Danish flags.  These two events followed one another on the CTV news last night, and I too wondered about the coincidence of Denmark being in both stories.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Feb 2006)

Please leave the speculative conspiracy theories out of the discussion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Feb 2006)

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060203/sea_kings_update_060203

Crashed Sea King recovered and raised onto barge

CTV.ca News Staff 
  
Updated: Fri. Feb. 3 2006 4:26 PM ET 

A Sea King helicopter that crashed into the ocean off Denmark Thursday has been recovered and raised onto a barge.

Cdr. Chris Dickinson said the downed aircraft was hoisted from about 16 metres of water late Friday afternoon.

The Sea King is expected to be ferried to the Danish port of Arhus, where it will be met by a Canadian flight safety investigation team which is en route to Denmark and due to arrive sometime this weekend. 

The Sea King went down 50 kilometres off the east coast of Denmark after trying to land on HMCS Athabaskan.

The five crew members were recovered safely before the chopper sank, and they were taken to the Athabaskan, which serves as the base to the helicopter and its crew.

The crew was treated for "minor injuries" but are otherwise fine, according to officials in Halifax.

Over the weekend, military officials will assess what happened to cause the helicopter to crash.

The commander of the Sea King squadron, Col. Al Blair, will consult with personnel at the Shearwater air base near Halifax whether to ground the entire fleet of aging Sea Kings.

For now, the air force is not flying any of the choppers, and training exercises will be delayed likely until next week while the investigation is underway.

"These three days are giving us a chance to take the information we have and assess where we're going to go in the future," a spokesperson from Shearwater told CTV.ca

"We've got to look at all options. There are options of replacing aircraft for the ship, or replacing the crew on the ship; and also whether we are going to be flying, and if so, when?"

The incident occurred during a night operation while the crew practiced landings at the rear of the Athabaskan. The navy says the Sea King tried initially to land on the warship but flew off to try again. It was making a second pass when it suddenly went into the water.

Speaking at a news conference Thursday, Blair said the "aircraft was making a standard night approach to the ship when it contacted the water and rolled inverted." 

"It was quite dark when the incident happened," Cmdr. Chris Dickerson told CTV Newsnet, speaking from the Athabaskan.

The Athabaskan has a crew of about 300 military personnel, and is the flagship for a NATO squadron of five destroyers and frigates from five different nations.

The decades-old Sea King fleet has been fraught with problems for years. 

The single-rotor helicopters were first purchased in 1963, and in 2004, 28 were still in use. They often experience flameouts, engine stalls, generator failures, and have been described as "flying coffins" by members of the military.

In 1993, Jean Chretien's newly-elected government cancelled a Tory plan that would have replaced the Sea Kings by 2000. 

The Liberal government said the plan was too expensive, but pulling out of the deal cost Canada $500 million in cancellation fees.

Last year the government contracted to purchase 28 Cyclones to replace the Sea Kings, but the first aircraft won't be delivered until late 2008.

The last Sea King is expected to retire in 2011.

With files from Canadian Press


----------



## ChopperHead (3 Feb 2006)

heres another link regarding the SeaKing.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20050529/seaking_report_050529?hub=Canada&s_name=&no_ads=


found this one kinda interesting. Not about the one that when for a swim but still it's relevant.


Just out of curiosity here. how does a Sea King sink anyway? I thought they were supposed to float?


----------



## Acorn (3 Feb 2006)

Panther said:
			
		

> The Muslim world is outraged because a Danish newspaper published offensive cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad, then European media published them again as a show of free speech.  The Muslims are now burning Danish flags.  These two events followed one another on the CTV news last night, and I too wondered about the coincidence of Denmark being in both stories.



Oy, don't sprain anything jumping to conclusions.

My "Denmark" comment was a tongue-in-cheek reference to our late dispute with the Danes over a piece of rock up North. I shouldn't be suprised that the humour didn't take - it's the Internet, after all.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 Feb 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Yes, you're quite right, leave it down there so that we can't find out what happened to it. I know that as a Sea King pilot, I wouldn't want to know what the problem was so that it can happen again to more of my friends or even me. Good thinking.  :



Easy, there Captain Sensitive.  I meant junk the things and get you guys some new kit that doesn't break.  By all means, pull it out of the water and find out that the duct tape holding the patch onto the replaced whatzahoozits came loose.  But by pulling it out, I would hate that to mean that it was going to be fixed and put back in service.  
Is the problem not simply they are old and need to be replaced?  I don't use them, so I don't presume to know anything about them.  I just read about them when they go splash or crunch.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Feb 2006)

it can sink if it flipped over


----------



## Armymatters (3 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Easy, there Captain Sensitive.  I meant junk the things and get you guys some new kit that doesn't break.  By all means, pull it out of the water and find out that the duct tape holding the patch onto the replaced whatzahoozits came loose.  But by pulling it out, I would hate that to mean that it was going to be fixed and put back in service.
> Is the problem not simply they are old and need to be replaced?  I don't use them, so I don't presume to know anything about them.  I just read about them when they go splash or crunch.



I think we can all agree that the Sea Kings, although excellent airplanes in the past, are now more than overdue for replacement. The ageing airframes, although well designed, are nearing the end of their service lives. Unlike armoured vehicles, which you can continuously refurbish, or ships, which can stay afloat almost indefinitely with a little maintenance, airplanes have set life spans, and once they hit the end of their life spans, they start falling apart, and become unflyable, eventually.


----------



## WannaBeFlyer (3 Feb 2006)

> I think we can all agree that the Sea Kings, although excellent airplanes in the past, are now more than overdue for replacement.



Definitely. 

Glad to hear the crew was allright.


----------



## 3rd Herd (4 Feb 2006)

Moved to proper thread


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

I think that was my fault and armymatters got left in the wind.  I made a comment about Leo's and how beat up they were as a comparison about the Sea Kings, and it got a bit hijack-ish.  We got bumped to our own thread in armour for discussion on the Leo (not my intent) and I will check over there to see how bad it is getting flamed by the real armoured guys.  
If a mod wanted to just disappear it...you wouldn't hurt my feelings 
I was however, curious as to how many maintenance hours a Sea King incurs as a ratio to hours in the air.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not true, Duey.  We got a 25K series gearbox to go with the -100 engines.  IMHO, we have a pretty solid drivetrain/powerplant combo going on right now.  We have just let the spare parts situation and sensors/avionics slide for so many years, we are hopeless behind the power curve.
> 
> The Sea King is/was a brilliant design leap in helicopters.  Alot of the stuff old Igor Sikorsky did in designing it (with a slide ruler, mostly) has never been bettered in 40 since.  It is a class act as a helicopter and will always be my favorite.  But alas, ours are old and getting tired.  Time to jump two full generations of technology in one single bound!
> 
> ...



-1 for me...

SKT, did the series 25 MGB come at the same time as the -100's?  My last discussion of the engine/MGB combo, I must admit, was dated...I was talking with Stinger 25's Nav many moons ago...and he was intimately familiar with the -8's flexshaft as you'll recall.  I was under the impression at the time that you guys only got the -100....not a tranny upgrade -- I stand corrected on the issue.  I suppose what I was hoisting aboard were pilots' comments that the engine input quills of the MGB were not rated to the 103% emerg rating of the individual -100 engine and thus, the crew was not able to employ Max Conting/Emerg engine power under OEI conditions.  Update to memory banks completed.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Feb 2006)

Duey,
The only answer that I can give you is... that it depends.  All of our Sea Kings are upgraded to T58-100 engines/25K gearboxes now.  This happened between 2000 and about 2003, I think.  I was on the Det that took the first fully upgraded aircraft to the Gulf in '00.  As we were receiving upgraded engines and gearboxes at different rates, we had (for awhile) a situation there were aircraft on the line with a variety of combinations of engines and gearboxes.

I don't recognize your reference to the Flex shaft on Stinger 25.  PM me if you want to give me more details.  Perhaps my tiny memory will be jogged!

As for issue of OEI conditions, what I'm guessing you mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we must detune our engines to perform OEI training, in order to avoid overtorquing the MGB by accident.  That only applies in training.  As you are well aware, AOI limits only apply if you feel the aircraft might have another flight left in it.  If you are in such a position where another flight seems unlikely, pull as much torque as you need to stay alive.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2006)

SKT, no PM necessary, public records...I was thinking more back to the summer of '94, after Stinger 25 crashed outside St-John on 28 Apr 1994 (RIP Majs Wally Sweetman and Bob Henderson   ) on its way to HS 443 lines in Pat Bay.  The nav and FE survived, nav was at 443 ops when I and others flew in support of the Victoria Commonwealth games.  The nav (sorry, can't remember his name) was mentioning at the time that the -100's were on their way to the fleet, but he hadn't mentioned the gearboxes.  As an aside, while my squadron was out in Victoria, I had to conduct a test flight after replacing two of three main flight hydraulic actuators...I took the Twin for a scoot around the block with all the maint crew techs with me (about 6 or 7).  The 443 techs stared in disbelief as our techs happily climbed on board for the test flight with me.  I don't blame the 443 techs, I think the investigation into 425's crash was still going on...  Perhaps the MGB upgrades came later...not sure, but I'll hoist aboard what you're saying SKT about the -100 and new tranny's.  

Hey, wanna have a side bet who flies their respective new machines first?   (Cyclone or TALC?)

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Feb 2006)

> Hey, wanna have a side bet who flies their respective new machines first?   (Cyclone or TALC?)



No.


----------



## trucker00 (4 Feb 2006)

I might have missed it, does anyone know who was on the chopper?  I have a friend who flies Sea Kings out of Sherwater, not sure what ship he's on right now.


----------



## Inch (4 Feb 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Easy, there Captain Sensitive.  I meant junk the things and get you guys some new kit that doesn't break.  By all means, pull it out of the water and find out that the duct tape holding the patch onto the replaced whatzahoozits came loose.  But by pulling it out, I would hate that to mean that it was going to be fixed and put back in service.
> Is the problem not simply they are old and need to be replaced?  I don't use them, so I don't presume to know anything about them.  I just read about them when they go splash or crunch.



No problem amigo, I was a little quick on the gun there.

The problem is that the systems are older than I am, example, our heater doesn't use bleed air like most turbine aircraft, it uses JP-8 and it's its own little engine sort of thing that burns the fuel and pumps the heat into the cabin on two settings, hot and really hot. 

I thought it was great that we've got new engines, until I talked to an S-61 maintainer in Ottawa this past weekend who scratched his head and said "You mean -110 engines?" because he didn't know anyone still used -100's. 

So yes, they're old, the systems on them are old and they need to be replaced to make us way more useful for whatever role we end up doing in the future.

As for hours of maint to hours flown, that's a number the media likes to fling around. I have no idea how much maint time is required per hour flown. It's not like we go flying for an hour and then shut 'er down for 30 hours of maint. I took a Sea King to Ottawa on a cross country trainer this past week, we flew a little over 17 hrs flight time and the only maint we did on it was a scheduled inspection that took about 3 hours to do plus our daily preflight and post flight checks. Keep in mind that 30hrs of maint per 1 hr of flight is man hours, ie 5 techs working for 6 hours = 30 hrs of maint. Included in the maint totals are our preflight inspections which take maybe 10 min, but there's 3 of us doing them so there's 30 min of maint right there.

whatzahoozits is a common term, the correct term is doey-do or chummy.  ;D



			
				trucker00 said:
			
		

> I might have missed it, does anyone know who was on the chopper?  I have a friend who flies Sea Kings out of Sherwater, not sure what ship he's on right now.



Names have not been released to the media yet, PM me the name and I'll let you know if he was on it.


----------



## Devlin (4 Feb 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Well now, aren't we living that right now, eh?



Too true Too true 8)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> whatzahoozits is a common term, the correct term is doey-do or chummy.  ;D



Roj--Air lingo dictionary updated accordingly


----------



## ChopperHead (5 Feb 2006)

would do-hickeys and thinga-ma-gigs also make that list?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Feb 2006)

> would do-hickeys and thinga-ma-gigs also make that list?



No.  The supplier closed his factory in 1997, so we were forced to replace them all.  I haven't seen one of those in an aircraft since... 2001?


----------



## Pearson (5 Feb 2006)

Strange question from left field..... 
They still make Sea Kings yes?
They have been constantly updated...yes?

Why not just buy new Sea Kings?

What do i know .. just an ex-grunt asking a question.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (5 Feb 2006)

Sikorsky stopped making Sea Kings- late 1970's (or so)

Westland stopped making license-built Sea Kings in the late 1980s.

There is no one who makes Sea Kings today.

The whole trouble is that we have not been constantly updating our Sea Kings.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Feb 2006)

Maybe we should have the plans sent to Bombardier for a two year feasibility study--$4.8 million
Put together a purchasing committee for a year--$750,000
Approve a purchasing agreement with Bombardier--$450 million with 45 million penalty clause
And then...


You know it's coming....



Wait for it.......



CANCEL THE CONTRACT. Hahahahahaha!  It's brilliant!  And it helps the economy (well, at least Quebec's economy).  
And they already have the experience with that, so it should go off without a hitch.  

Then get 15 more years out of the Sea Kings. :blotto:


----------



## Pearson (5 Feb 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sikorsky stopped making Sea Kings- late 1970's (or so)
> 
> Westland stopped making license-built Sea Kings in the late 1980s.
> 
> ...


Thanks fo rthe information.... referring to the Sea King in general being upgraded, not ours. 
As i said, thought from an ex-grunt.. 
now back to your regularly scheduled thread


----------



## M Feetham (6 Feb 2006)

Hi all,
I too am glad the flight crew got out safe, well done to the boats crew. I just recently left the Athabaskan, posted out in July 05, and have sailed on 280's for five years. As a ships diver I have closed up many times with the rescue watch for emergency flying stations. Usually it is a chip detect light or low pressure alarm or someone in the cockpit smells fuel. I have heard a myriad of reasons for the aircraft to call a pan and have to land. I have also seen the helicopters fly for up to three weeks and have nary a problem. Well done to the maintainers. As far as recovering the Aircraft, most likely one of the two Fleet Diving Units, with support from another country, US or UK will be tasked with the recovery mission. Once again glad the Aircrew is alive and well, god speed to all those on Athab. Big hi to any sailors/nciops on the site.
Take care all. 
Marc


----------



## Inch (6 Feb 2006)

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/news/2006/02/grfx/IMG_0079.jpg

For all the lookie-loos, here's what's left of her. 

As the media pointed out, it's blades are gone, like they're really going to stay on there when they impact the water while still spinning.  : I am surprised the tail stayed attached, usually a helo will "ball up" when it crashes due to the torque on the tail rotor drive shafts.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Feb 2006)

ah that will buff right out.


----------



## Armymatters (6 Feb 2006)

From the looks of that airframe, it looks like the bird maybe a total loss... oh well.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> From the looks of that airframe, it looks like the bird maybe a total loss... oh well.



Is that your expert opinion ?


----------



## ChopperHead (6 Feb 2006)

alittle spit and polish and it'll be good as new. or at least as good as was


----------



## Inch (6 Feb 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> From the looks of that airframe, it looks like the bird maybe a total loss... oh well.



Wow, I was actually going to say it didn't look that bad.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Wow, I was actually going to say it didin't look that bad.



i'm gonna go with armymatters on this one.  What do you know anyways   ;D


----------



## Pearson (6 Feb 2006)

ChopperHead said:
			
		

> alittle spit and polish and it'll be good as new. or at least as good as was



don't forget the duct tape...never foget the duct tape


----------



## big bad john (25 Feb 2006)

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/486142.html

Replacement chopper loaded onto ship



A Canadian Navy helicopter meant to replace a chopper that crashed off Denmark earlier this month was due to leave Halifax late Thursday.

The Sea King was loaded on board the freighter Roxanne which is headed for Malaga, Spain, to meet up with HMCS Athabaskan in about two weeks.

The new Sea King replaces one that crashed suddenly into the sea off Denmark while practising night landings.

It is needed to help the ship complete current NATO exercises.

All five crewmen escaped when the helicopter flipped upside down.

A spokesman for 12 Wing Shearwater said sending the replacement chopper would not cause any major disruptions to domestic operations.


----------



## sneak and peek soldier (25 Feb 2006)

Who wants to bet that the sea king that they sent won't work once it gets there....Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if that crashed to (even though i hope it doesn't for the safety for our guys) but like honestly they're in there 30's for god sakes....just go without the chopper.


----------



## Armymatters (25 Feb 2006)

sneak and peek soldier said:
			
		

> Who wants to bet that the sea king that they sent won't work once it gets there....Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if that crashed to (even though i hope it doesn't for the safety for our guys) but like honestly they're in there 30's for god sakes....just go without the chopper.



Heck no.

Athabaskan's job requires a helicopter, otherwise, she won't be able to do her job as NATO standing task force leader. Our Sea Kings are fairly safe, accidents can and will happen. When they happen, you find out why and learn, then move on.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Feb 2006)

sneak and peek soldier your way off the mark and apparently haven't read any of the posts by the actual Sea King pilots.


----------



## big bad john (25 Feb 2006)

sneak and peek soldier said:
			
		

> Who wants to bet that the sea king that they sent won't work once it gets there....Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if that crashed to (even though i hope it doesn't for the safety for our guys) but like honestly they're in there 30's for god sakes....just go without the chopper.



Back in your lane.


----------



## darmil (25 Feb 2006)

They are not safe, time for a new helo.Stop writing mindless banter.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Feb 2006)

MikeH said:
			
		

> They are not safe, time for a new helo.Stop writing mindless banter.



i think this applies to you as well MikeH :



			
				big bad john said:
			
		

> Back in your lane.


----------



## Bograt (25 Feb 2006)

Based on my experience, (20 minutes of stick time) the Sea King is a good platform. It is made so by the professionalism of its aircrew and ground crew. Regardless, there is an inherent risk that can never be mitigated to zero.

Accidents happen occasionally. Tutors, Harvards, Hawks, Hornets, Griffons, have all been lost within the last 3 years. Some occured with tragic results.

The new airframe will be a giant leap in capabilities for MH. But I am sure that they are going to have their incidents. Why? Well, imagine landing one on the back of a moving ship, at night, in miserable wx, with 15 feet separating the tips of your rotor from the hangar, and essentially dropping your 18K pound aircraft 2 feet onto the deck. Could someone tell me which aircraft would accomplish this with zero risk?

Sign me up.

I am proud to have a Sea King Patch on my flight suit.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Feb 2006)

Well said Bograt. Time for a few people to stay in their own lanes methinks. Right army matters and sneak and peek soldier?


----------



## Inch (29 Mar 2006)

Flight Safety aircraft occurrence summary is out. Preliminary findings are that there was no mechanical failure and the investigation is shifting to human factors and aircraft life support equipment.

Link to Aircraft Occurrence Summary: http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/Fti/CH12438_e.asp

From Canoe: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/02/02/1423469-cp.html



> Sea King crew under scrutiny
> 
> By ALISON AULD
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2006)

> ....He [Maj Paul Dittmann] added that officials are also considering whether night vision goggles would have aided the crew.



I know some guys in the SK community have tried to get NVG's brought in for quite some time...no success to date, but maybe this will change things?

FWIW, with "a few" NVG hours under my belt, including water insertion/extraction ops, I can't for the life of me wonder why anyone would want to fly over deep blue water in the middle of the night WITHOUT NVGs!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Strike (30 Mar 2006)

> FWIW, with "a few" NVG hours under my belt, including water insertion/extraction ops, I can't for the life of me wonder why anyone would want to fly over deep blue water in the middle of the night WITHOUT NVGs!



Duey,

It's quite simple.  They would rather not know how much deep black nothing there is below them.   ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Mar 2006)

So if it is pilot error, what would that mean for the pilot?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Mar 2006)

Duey, please tell me that there is some operational reason that pilots don't have NVG's trying to land at night on a dark floating platform.  It can't be that no one was interested in buying them, right? ???


----------



## Inch (30 Mar 2006)

CFL, to my knowledge, it doesn't mean anything for the pilot as long as he wasn't hot dogging, which he wasn't.

Zip, for the last 15 years the SK community has been expecting a replacement and AFIK, it is purely a money thing with respect to making the SK cockpit NVG friendly, always put on the back burner in anticipation of the new helo coming on board. At least that's my understanding of the resistance to equipping SK front enders and the helo itself for the use of NVGs.

By the way, night deck landings are stressful, but night sonar dipping is by far the most stressful flying I've ever done. On approach all you can see is the ship's lighting and everything else around you black. In the dip, everything is black around you, you can't see jack. A poor coupler makes the whole event that much worse since it over corrects and makes for an unstable approach and unstable hover until it sorts itself out.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (30 Mar 2006)

Thanks Inch.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Mar 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> Zip, for the last 15 years the SK community has been expecting a replacement and AFIK, it is purely a money thing with respect to making the SK cockpit NVG friendly, always put on the back burner in anticipation of the new helo coming on board. At least that's my understanding of the resistance to equipping SK front enders and the helo itself for the use of NVGs.



Brutal.  Well, maybe that is another thing Uncle Stephen can set right.  What a sink hole that guy has inheritted.  :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Mar 2006)

NVGs and Sea Kings...  I could go on and on and on...

Since this is a public forum, let's just say that this issue has been pushed since about 2002 (and maybe earlier), to the point where 443 Sqn sent an aircraft to Cold Lake for several weeks of trials.  The whole thing was then binned.  The "official" answer (if there is such a thing) that I received when I asked "why?" was that there was not enough test/engineering support available in the CF to manage a change like that.  There were also concerns about the pilot training bill, in a time when Sea King flying hours are falling through the floor due to maintenance issues.  Of course, this was pre-SCTF.  Now we look a bit dumb not having gone through with all of the design and test work, at the very least.  Duey can probably back me up when I say that getting an Operational Airworthiness Certification for anything these days is not a simple, quick or easy process, so I can understand the decision to abandon the whole thing in about 2004, when it did not look like it would bear any fruit until 2007-2008.

Inch is right- NVGs and ship landings are not really the issue here.  Our ships are not NVG compatible (we are violating a STANAG or two, probably) at this time.  On approach to our ships at night, the drill is: flying pilot is on the dials and the non-flying pilot is looking out for the ship.  Once the non-flying pilot calls visual (usually under 1/2NM) he will give conning to the flying pilot and then slowly take control when he has the deck environment.  He will then enter the "delta hover astern" (about 30 yards on the port or Stbd quarter) and wait for the signal from the LSO to slide over the deck and begin the landing process.  At this point, the pilot has excellent references, including deck lights and gyro stabilized horizon bars which help him to not "follow" the ship's motion.  NVGs don't help you to land better in this environment- they allow you to land with the lights on the ship "out".  This is more, not less dangerous than what we do now, but it is more "tactical".

Inch is also right, night dipping would be much easier and safer on googles.  At the very least, the pilots would always have a visible horizon, no matter what happens in the aircraft.  Right now, if you are dipping at night and you lose your electrical systems, you have very little choice but to ditch the aircraft.  I don't know too many pilots who would try "freestreaming" with 400 feet of cable out and only a small, not very accurate SAIS for a horizon.  I doubt I would even have time to get a Mayday out...


----------



## Strike (30 Mar 2006)

> Inch is also right, night dipping would be much easier and safer on googles.  At the very least, the pilots would always have a visible horizon, no matter what happens in the aircraft.



There wouldn't be much of a horizon if it's overcast and raining.  When the mlx is less than 1.0, anything outside of the IR light is just a shadow, and a dark one at that.

You're are right though.  It certainly would be a nice thing for you guys to have.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Mar 2006)

Fair enough- but we don't generally night dip in the rain- the freakin cockpit usually leaks too much!  Water+electrons=bad

Anyway- next helo, we get NVGs for the whole crew (not just the back end).

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Mar 2006)

Then again, hearing Rob Dalhiwal and Jabba talk about the time they lost an engine in the dip at night, I'm not sure I'd want to see what I almost augered in to!  

SKT is right, I think the guys didn't want to be bothered with the whole effort knowing that the SK replacement was "just around the corner"...kind of like not doing anything to improve the Buff, knowing that it was leaving service in 1990, 1993, 1997, er...some time in the past.  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Strike (31 Mar 2006)

Yup, it's a great time to be HS, er, MH!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Mar 2006)

> Yup, it's a great time to be HS, er, MH!



You mean- CHF (Combat Helicopter Force)?


----------

