# 5 Aug 10:  Hard Landing for CAN Chinook in K'Har Province



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

Hope everyone's OK, and if anyone's hurt, a speedy and full recovery to them....

This from ISAF ....


> International Security Assistance Force helicopter made a hard landing in Kandahar province, near Armarah village. The helicopter caught fire after landing. Five crew members and five passengers have been recovered and there were no injuries. The site of landing has been secured by Afghan National Police and ISAF forces.
> 
> The cause of the hard landing is under investigation.



.... and this initial report from the Canadian Press, shared with the usual disclaimer:


> A Canadian Chinook helicopter has made a hard landing and caught on fire in Kandahar province.
> 
> Canadian Maj. Daryl Morrell said the Chinook landed near the village of Armarah, about 25 kilometres southwest of Kandahar city, causing only minor injuries to those on board.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (5 Aug 2010)

Slight more info ref fire from National Post:


Canadian chopper makes ‘hard landing’ in Afghanistan
Postmedia News  August 5, 2010 – 7:52 am 

By Brian Hutchinson

KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — A Canadian Chinook helicopter with five crew members and five passengers aboard caught fire after making what military officials have termed a “hard landing” in dangerous Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar City.

The CH-147 medium-lift helicopter came down hard at 2 p.m. local time Thursday near Armarah village, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City.

Reasons for the abrupt landing and the fire were not immediately known and an investigation is now underway, according to Canadian military spokesman Maj. Darryl Morrell.

There were minor injuries to some of those aboard, but the exact nature of those injuries has not yet been determined, Morrell added.

An Afghan government spokesman said that Afghan security forces have secured the area around the Canadian Chinook.
Meanwhile a Taliban spokesman has told reporters in Kandahar that the insurgents downed the helicopter and that there were casualties. The Taliban routinely invent stories and make false claims of victory on the battlefield.



Read more: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/05/canadian-chopper-makes-%E2%80%98hard-landing%E2%80%99-in-afghanistan/#ixzz0vjVHzHRd


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2010)

Our MSM seem to believe the Taliban, to some extent:
Canadian chopper downed in Afghanistan, none hurt
NATO helicopter goes down in southern Afghanistan

Glad to hear that anyone hurt was only lightly hurt.


----------



## danchapps (5 Aug 2010)

Just when I was going to switch to CTV news they publish that pile of junk. I'm going to have to continue my search for a decent news source. Hope all are ok.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

A bit more detail from Postmedia News:


> A Canadian Forces Chinook helicopter with five crew members and 15 passengers on board caught fire after making what military officials have termed a "hard landing" in dangerous Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar city.
> 
> The CH-147 medium-lift helicopter came down hard at 2 p.m. local time near Armarah village, about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar city.
> 
> ...



Latest from ISAF:


> .... Five crew members and 15 passengers have been recovered, with eight people receiving minor injuries. An earlier report indicated there were only 10 people on the helicopter and no injuries, however, following further reporting from the ground, the additional passengers were accounted for ....


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2010)

Wow, look at that.

First report said ten people.  The first report was wrong: there were more people.  Where is the inquiry?  (Just illustrating a very current example of inaccurate initial reporting as we've seen in the so-called "Wikileaks" case).


----------



## George Wallace (5 Aug 2010)

Don't worry.  I am sure, in five or so years, Wikileaks will come out with the inaccurate reports.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Wow, look at that.
> 
> First report said ten people.  The first report was wrong: there were more people.  Where is the inquiry?  (Just illustrating a very current example of inaccurate initial reporting as we've seen in the so-called "Wikileaks" case).



Exactly.  First report likely based on the initial aircraft crew/passenger manifest.  Then you add and take off passengers and cargo, probably a few versions of the manifest at various times.  Reports collated, and by the time someone inaccurately added up all the manifests, the helicopter would be carrying over a hundred people...

Good to hear that there were only minor injuries, because as someone said, aviation isn't inherently dangerous, just not particularly forgiving.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> First report said ten people.  The first report was wrong: there were more people.  Where is the inquiry?


What WERE they trying to hide?  The truth is out there somewhere....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Aug 2010)

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/international/article/89756--canadian-helicopter-crashes-in-afghanistan

Canadian Helicopter Crashes In Afghanistan
2010/08/05 | Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press
 | 
A Canadian Chinook helicopter was forced to make a hard landing near a remote village in Kandahar province Thursday, bursting into flames and causing minor injuries to eight soldiers.
"About 2pm Thursday a Canadian Forces CH147 Chinook helicopter had a hard landing about 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar city. There were minor injuries,'' said Maj. Daryl Morrell, senior public affairs officer for Task Force Kandahar.
The Associated Press reported that Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi claimed insurgents shot down the aircraft with a rocket. Morrell said the investigation into the incident was too early in its progress to say whether the claim was true or not.
"What we're doing right now is we're looking into causes. So this will be investigated and we'll get more details," Morrell said.
"Right now all that we know is it was a hard landing. We want to confirm and that's what we're doing now."
A shopkeeper in the area said he heard a loud bang, then saw smoke and the helicopter falling into a field. A witness said the helicopter was still on fire a couple of hours after it came down.
The Chinook landed near the village of Armarah.
The site of the landing was immediately secured by Afghan National Police and NATO forces.
The five crew members, including two pilots and three door gunners, as well as five passengers were recovered from the Chinook.
Morrell couldn't say how many of those on board were hurt.
It's not the first time a Canadian helicopter has crashed in Afghanistan.
On July 6, 2009, Master Cpl. Pat Audet, 38, of Montreal, and Cpl. Martin Joannette, 25, of St-Calixte, Que., died in Zabul province when their Griffon CH-146 helicopter crashed on takeoff. Three other Canadian Forces members were injured, one of them seriously. A British officer was also killed in the crash.
The crash last year was believed to have occurred when the chopper clipped a security wall while trying to manoeuvre in a blinding cloud of dust.
The six aging CH-47D Chinooks, purchased from the United States with a price tag of $292 million a couple of years ago, have done yeoman's service since they began flying in Afghanistan early last year.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Aug 2010)

Good job to the pilot for doing what you could to make the best of whatever the situation was.


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

Didn't they say in WW2 that any landing you can walk away from is a good one?

Good job on keeping SA while putting her down as gentle as possible.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2010)

Thread from Airforce.ca/Rotoheads merged into this thread.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Aug 2010)

A couple of images of the crash site.






  

Canadian soldiers walk towards a burning Canadian Forces CH-147 Chinook helicopter after it made a hard landing near the village of Bazaar e Panjway, in the Panjway district west of Kandahar August 5, 2010. Canadian military officials said there were minor injuries to the eight crew and passengers and that the cause of the accident is still under investigation.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

*Breaking new: US helicopter shot down in Kandahar, 30 US invaders killed* - Screen capture of full statement at Scribd.com


> Thursday, 05 August 2010 21:35 Qari Yousuf Ahmadi
> KNADHAR, Aug. 05 – A US invading troops helicopter got shot down in Sothern Kandahar province today (Aug. 05) at about 2:30 pm, killing as many as 30 US invading troops and crew members, according to a recent report from the province.  The enemy attack helicopter was brought down by Mujahideen rocket fire while on lower attitude over the district center, causing the helicopter to be set on fire in Panjwaii district of the province where the enemy copter fell down.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Aug 2010)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...Breaking new: US helicopter shot down in Kandahar, 30 US invaders killed...



Pretty interesting choice of photos.  I'm no helicoptologist but I don't think 30 of anything are fitting in there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Aug 2010)

A chinook can pack alot of troops into it if they are seated on the floor. We never want one of those birds to come down.


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Aug 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A chinook can pack alot of troops ....



Well aware that a Chinook can.  The propaganda website has this as a photo, stating that 30 were killed in it:






Added:  Sorry for how it comes up, the entire website is a screen capture.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

Just like the numbers and (often) the grammar, the Taliban's web site photo editor isn't exactly spot-on with his photo picks


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2010)

...they get points for creativity, though.


After a long search, we found a photo of the 30 servicemen:


----------



## SeanNewman (5 Aug 2010)

I would not have mentioned money had anyone been killed or seriously wounded, but since it would appear that there were only minor injuries, this will be an extremely expensive month for the CF in terms of losses.

First a CF18 is destroyed, and now we just spent almost $300 million I believe on these six CH47s / 6 = $50 million loss.

Of course the fact that lives were *not *lost is the real story, but losing a Chinook budget-wise is like losing a Company's worth of LAVs...just...gone.


----------



## REDinstaller (5 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> and now we just spent almost $300 million I believe on these six CH47s / 6 = $50 million loss.



Minus what the support portion of the contract cost, on some contracts the support portion can be 25-50% of the overall cost.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2010)

$292M to put the whole capability in place and maintain until end-of-mission, including initial training, re-currency training, aircraft, ancillary systems, spare parts, tools, consumables, etc... all go into the overall cost.  The airframes themselves were not $50M.

As with other systems/hulls/vehicles/etc..., if a system can be repaired, it is; if not, it is a cost of doing business.  My flight instructor on jets would always tell me as we armed the ejection sets preparing to taxi for take off, "Remember, this aircraft is already paid for.  If it stops working, we keep the ejection seats and give the rest back to the taxpayer."  It was a way of reminding ourselves that people are the most important, and that mechanical things can be replaced (or not, if so decided).

In this case, after getting likely thousands of troops off the road and millions of pounds of cargo out to the soldiers, the machine got the crew and passengers safely down on the ground.  Money well spent IMO!  

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Jammer (5 Aug 2010)

Who really cares about the cost.
Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
It can be replaced, lives can't.


----------



## armyvern (5 Aug 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Who really cares about the cost.
> Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
> *It can be replaced, lives can't.*



True that.

Glad to hear that all made it out of this one alive.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In this case, after getting likely thousands of troops off the road and millions of pounds of cargo out to the soldiers, the machine got the crew and passengers safely down on the ground.  Money well spent IMO!


Here here!  And also glad, like the others, that _only_ hardware was lost on this one.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Aug 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Who really cares about the cost.
> Military eqpt is meant to go into harms way, and loss is inevitable.
> It can be replaced, lives can't.



Well said. Thank you for summing up my feelings.

I'm glad the troops got out alive.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (6 Aug 2010)

While I agree that the cost is irrelevant, and that having all the men and women survive this is absolutely priceless......

I also understand what Petamocto is saying; For a small airforce, with a very few number of these aircraft the loss of even just one can give a real blow to the capabilities of a (relatively) small wing. Even just one of these aircraft is a (relatively) large chunk of a budget for a small military.

That being said, I'll go back to saying that it doesn't matter what the cost was, because the money spent on the equipment and training the crew is always worth it when it saves the lives of those on board.


----------



## REDinstaller (6 Aug 2010)

And it keep counless of trucks off the IED laden road and routes further protecting our soldier.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2010)

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> While I agree that the cost is irrelevant, and that having all the men and women survive this is absolutely priceless......
> 
> I also understand what Petamocto is saying; For a small airforce, with a very few number of these aircraft the loss of even just one can give a real blow to the capabilities of a (relatively) small wing. Even just one of these aircraft is a (relatively) large chunk of a budget for a small military.
> 
> That being said, I'll go back to saying that it doesn't matter what the cost was, because the money spent on the equipment and training the crew is always worth it when it saves the lives of those on board.



This batch of Chinooks will not be going to Canada when the mission ends. They will probably be left for the Afghans.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This batch of Chinooks will not be going to Canada when the mission ends. They will probably be left for the Afghans.



The CH147D fleet can still provide the capability it was procured to provide.  There will, however, be greater pressure on the remaining aircraft, but still within the achievable.  Point is valid that one less machine = 17% fleet size reduction, so that is a greater relative impact than say, one LAV III at a time.  However, for the period the aircraft we knew it would be operating, and for the risks we knew we were accepting getting back into the heavy lift business directly into a theatre of war, the crews and machines have greatly exceeded all guarded exectations.

T6, I'd wager that the Afghan Flying Corps sticks with the Mi-8/17, and that someone else buys and operates the relatively complex/expensive Chinook.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## REDinstaller (6 Aug 2010)

Or they will get traded back to Boeing as a cost reduction on the CH147Fs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Aug 2010)

Latest on the fate of the Chinooks as of a couple of weeks ago.....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/57659/post-956858.html#msg956858


> Six aging Canadian Chinook helicopters that have become the pride of the air force in Afghanistan may not be headed to the scrap heap when the mission is over but they are not coming home either.
> 
> The CH-47D Chinooks, purchased from the United States with a price tag of $292 million a couple of years ago, have done yeoman's service since they began flying here early last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The CH147D fleet can still provide the capability it was procured to provide.  There will, however, be greater pressure on the remaining aircraft, but still within the achievable.  Point is valid that one less machine = 17% fleet size reduction, so that is a greater relative impact than say, one LAV III at a time.  However, for the period the aircraft we knew it would be operating, and for the risks we knew we were accepting getting back into the heavy lift business directly into a theatre of war, the crews and machines have greatly exceeded all guarded exectations.
> 
> T6, I'd wager that the Afghan Flying Corps sticks with the Mi-8/17, and that someone else buys and operates the relatively complex/expensive Chinook.
> 
> ...




I had forgotten that they might be swapped back to Boeing.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2010)

The actual detail of how the aircraft would be sold is more up to the US Dept. of State, in keeping with ITAR policies and all.  The Minister is referring to one of a number of possible options.  Technically, the aircraft are fully owned by the Govt of Canada, with the associated restriction that any agency the GoC wishes to sell the aircraft to after our use, requires USG/DoS approval.  That's how all FMS agreements work when it comes to ITAR-controlled systems.

Other options include selling back to the USG (from which we originally purchased them) or selling to another US-approved nation.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## REDinstaller (6 Aug 2010)

Boeing would strip the airframe down and rebuild them into F models. The initial availabilty of airframes is what first delayed the introduction of the F series in US service.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Boeing would strip the airframe down and rebuild them into F models. The initial availabilty of airframes is what first delayed the introduction of the F series in US service.



Actually it wasn't.  It was the deliberate delay of the F build line by Congress to effect the rebuild of all MH-47E's and D's to MH-47G configuration.

G2G


----------



## REDinstaller (6 Aug 2010)

I thought i read at one point that many of the upgrades to the F and G models would only progess as previous airframes came available for upgrade.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2010)

You are right, T18A, in that initial plans called for substantial use of D-model airframes, but now, the F has a new-build airframe.  It's called 'monolithic-machining", meaning it's stringers and bulkheads are machined/milled from solid pieces of metal, as opposed to riveted structures.  It makes for a much tighter airframe.   All the dynamic gear from the D's was kept (engines, rotors, shafts, transmissions, etc...) but the D's frame is recycled.  The dynamic parts are then mounted onto the newly-constructed airframe, and in concert with the upgraded digital avionics, make an 'F'.  Aside from a few prototype F's, the G's were actually the first production Chinook to use the US Army's Common Aviation Architecture System (CAAS), the digital avionics that are shared between Chinook, BlackHawk, Little Bird and Lakota helicopters.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## REDinstaller (6 Aug 2010)

And hasn't the RAF sidelined the MH's they bought due to Avionics issues?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> And hasn't the RAF sidelined the MH's they bought due to Avionics issues?



They were reverted back to the same standard as the other Chinooks they have.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Aug 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They were reverted back to the same standard as the other Chinooks they have.



Indeed, the so-called HC.3 Chinooks (meant specifically for SF-use) were 'reverted' backwards to pretty much a HC.2a Chinook.  The procurement represents and extreme case of "best intentions."  MoD wanted to keep the cost down, so the aircraft were not built to full SF-standard...at the time, the US 160th SOAR(A)'s MH-47E Chinook.  The avionics were different as were a number of other sub-systems.  Not mentioned often in the investigatory material was that UK MoD also revised its generic software specifications/standards between when the HC.3's were ordered and when they were delivered.  The net effect was extreme difficulty to certify the HC.3's to the MoD's s/w std of the day.  Huge amounts of money were spent above and beyond the original authorized levels in order to revert the aircraft back to a known/confirmed/certifiable standard, the HC.2a

This lesson was considered very carefully when Canada came to work its own new Chinook program.  For all the criticism that DND had thrown at it for wanting gold-plated coffee holders and fancy leather seating and radically different configurations, this has been far from the truth.  Information released by DND indicates that many of the so-called "unique" capabilities notes that design basis comes from systems already in service.  By way of example, the CH147F MHLH will share its CAAS avionics with its sister US Army CH and MH-47 Chinooks so that all software upgrades will be essentially identical to the largest fleet of Chinooks operating in the world...no HC.3 for us.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Aug 2010)

The CF has confirmed the Chinook was shot down by small arms fire. 

The following story from the National Post web site is posted under the Fair Comments provision of the Copyright Act.


Postmedia News · Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010

A Canadian Forces Chinook helicopter was struck by small arms fire, forcing it to make an emergency landing Thursday in dangerous Panjwaii district, west of Kandahar City, Canadian Forces confirmed on Saturday.

The helicopter was carrying five crew members and 16 passengers. It caught fire after making what military officials termed a "hard landing," 20 kilometres southwest of Kandahar City.

Eight people aboard sustained minor injuries, but the exact nature of the injuries has still not been disclosed.

The Chinook caught fire and was destroyed after it landed.

"Although a helicopter has been lost, this incident highlights the skills of Canadian aircrews deployed in Afghanistan," Brig.-Gen. Jon Vance, Commander of Task Force Kandahar, said in a statement. "The fact that no one was seriously harmed during the emergency landing speaks to the ability of our aircrews to perform under pressure."

Following the landing, a Taliban spokesman told reporters in Kandahar that the insurgent group downed the helicopter, and that there were casualties.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for an incident in 2007 the saw an American Chinook downed in Helmand province, a claim that was publicly dismissed by International Security Assistance Force.

In 2009, Canadian CH-147 helicopters — the type that went down Thursday — flew roughly 3,000 flying hours, transporting over 30,000 passengers and delivering over 1,000 metric tonnes of cargo, Canadian Forces said.

Canada's Chinooks in Kandahar ferry troops and supplies to volatile regions in the province and, like other low-flying aircraft, they can at times be exposed to enemy fire.
.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Aug 2010)

I was wondering when that would come out....

At least we are being honest as to the cause I mean it could so easily be spun into Mechanical Faliure etc etc. Nope the CF manned up and said Yup the enemy brought it down

BZ to the Pilots and Crew who from my insider info says did an outstanding job saving the lives of themselves and their passengers.


----------



## GK .Dundas (7 Aug 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Indeed, the so-called HC.3 Chinooks (meant specifically for SF-use) were 'reverted' backwards to pretty much a HC.2a Chinook.  The procurement represents and extreme case of "best intentions."  MoD wanted to keep the cost down, so the aircraft were not built to full SF-standard...at the time, the US 160th SOAR(A)'s MH-47E Chinook.  The avionics were different as were a number of other sub-systems.  Not mentioned often in the investigatory material was that UK MoD also revised its generic software specifications/standards between when the HC.3's were ordered and when they were delivered.  The net effect was extreme difficulty to certify the HC.3's to the MoD's s/w std of the day.  Huge amounts of money were spent above and beyond the original authorized levels in order to revert the aircraft back to a known/confirmed/certifiable standard, the HC.2a
> 
> This lesson was considered very carefully when Canada came to work its own new Chinook program.  For all the criticism that DND had thrown at it for wanting gold-plated coffee holders and fancy leather seating and radically different configurations, this has been far from the truth.  Information released by DND indicates that many of the so-called "unique" capabilities notes that design basis comes from systems already in service.  By way of example, the CH147F MHLH will share its CAAS avionics with its sister US Army CH and MH-47 Chinooks so that all software upgrades will be essentially identical to the largest fleet of Chinooks operating in the world...no HC.3 for us.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> I was wondering when that would come out....
> 
> At least we are being honest as to the cause I mean it could so easily be spun into Mechanical Faliure etc etc. Nope the CF manned up and said Yup the enemy brought it down
> 
> BZ to the Pilots and Crew who from my insider info says did an outstanding job saving the lives of themselves and their passengers.



Indeed, BM!  The aircraft commander and his crew did a fantastic job getting the Hook down on the ground!  As noted earlier, the aircraft provided an excellent platform in getting back down on the ground asap.  Well done to all involved! 

Concur that there is no attempt whatsoever to avoid admitting the cause of the forced landing.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (8 Aug 2010)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> This lesson was considered very carefully when Canada came to work its own new Chinook program.  For all the criticism that DND had thrown at it for wanting gold-plated coffee holders and fancy leather seating and radically different configurations, this has been far from the truth.  Information released by DND indicates that many of the so-called "unique" capabilities notes that design basis comes from systems already in service.  By way of example, the CH147F MHLH will share its CAAS avionics with its sister US Army CH and MH-47 Chinooks so that all software upgrades will be essentially identical to the largest fleet of Chinooks operating in the world...no HC.3 for us.
> 
> Cheers
> G2G



You sure seem to know a lot about this.  Maybe we should post you to Ottawa to work on acquisitions for the rest of your career!


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You sure seem to know a lot about this.  Maybe we should post you to Ottawa to work on acquisitions for the rest of your career!



And we have a precedent in an aviator in a key position in CLS. G2G would be just the guy to sort out the CTS organization.

On a more serious note, BZ to the aircrew for a job well done. Can you imagine the shock if we had lost 21 personnel in a crash? 

This, by the way, is the first CF aircraft lost to ground fire since Gray's Corsair was shot down in August 1945. (I am not counting the Auster flown by Captain Joe Liston in Korea as it was a British aircraft or the Buffalo downed by a Syrian missile.)


----------



## SeanNewman (8 Aug 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... is the first CF aircraft lost to ground fire since Gray's Corsair was shot down in August 1945...



Since then, have there been any others at all other than the Buffalo 461 peacekeeping one (3 x Syrian missiles)?


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Aug 2010)

I was illogical in my post above. Gray was flying a Fleet Air Arm Corsair, so Liston, who was flying an aircraft belonging to a British unit, should count as our last Canadian shot down by ground fire in war. 

There are accounts of the latter incident in both the RCHA and the Air OP histories. Liston was wearing a parachute and managed to bail out, although he was captured shortly after landing. He was a battery commander in 1 RCHA in Gagetown when I joined the regiment in 1961. After that, he disappeared into where ever the army filed old non-staff college graduate majors until he reached CRA.


----------



## Dog Walker (8 Aug 2010)

Wasn’t there a helicopter shot down in Vietnam in 1973? It was part of the force monitoring the ceasefire following the American pullout. Two or three members of 12RBC died in that one.


----------



## armyvern (8 Aug 2010)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Wasn’t there a helicopter shot down in Vietnam in 1973? It was part of the force monitoring the ceasefire following the American pullout. Two or three members of 12RBC died in that one.



Capt Charles E. Laviollette, CD
12e Regiment blinde du Canada
7 Apr 1973 



> Canada’s role with ICCS was non-combatant, yet losses were suffered. One Canadian, Capt Charles Laviolette, was killed when the helicopter he was flying in was shot down while on a reconnaissance mission to Lao Bao, in Region One.



Just one Canadian was killed in the helicopter, however, Canada did lose another soldier (also part of the ICCS) there:

LS Ned W. Memnook
HMCS Terra Nova
15 Mar 1973


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Since then, have there been any others at all other than the Buffalo 461 peacekeeping one (3 x Syrian missiles)?



Nope.  Buffalo 461 was the last CF aircraft to be shot down, in their case by 'beligerants' while supporting the UNEF/UNDOF peacekeeping missions.

DAP, hey, I paid my dues in Ottawa!  :nod:  Maybe next rank they'll have an argument to drag me back, but I figure I should get one more kick at the cat before they put me out to staff officer pasture!  ;D

The crew of the "Magic Bus", the fond nickname for CH147202, did a phenomenal job getting the beast down on the ground, and getting everyone of safe and sound!

Regards
G2G 

CF Combat Camera photo of '202' back in January 2009, 'hot-closed-circuit refueling' during a mission.
(photo link)


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2010)

This from the Canadian Press:


> The Canadian military has confirmed that hostile fire forced down a Chinook helicopter in August, but remains uncertain about what weapon the insurgents used.
> 
> Initial reports from Task Force Kandahar suggested the helicopter, which was carrying 21 people including crew, had taken small-arms fire as it flew over the Panjwaii district.
> 
> ...



Initial ISAF statement here, Taliban's version of events (via non-terrorist page) here - more Taliban anti-air OSINT here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2012)

Bumped with the latest.....


> A final report into the crash of a Canadian battlefield helicopter outside of Kandahar city in the summer of 2010 has concluded that CH-147 Chinook helicopters need “crash-worthy seating” and restraints for passengers.
> 
> The helicopter, which was on a routine supply mission and had just departed a nearby base, was reportedly shot down by Taliban ground fire.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 18 Dec 12

DND news release here, investigation reports here.


----------

