RCAF Cyclone Down

[Heliian]

We follow our rules and our airworthiness standards. Even in peacetime, the mission profiles we conduct are riskier than what a civilian operator could do. We adhere to all our safety standards. But you have to train like you fight as much as possible.

Like I said however, our Acceptable Level of Safety is different.

If you're talking about scudrunning around at night under the nvg's then yes, few civilian operators do that, few civilian operators land on ships too. Literally every other "profile" is the same and civilian operators don't have the money to burn for all the added layers of safety that the military takes. Now lets get into field work and slinging, which the civilian side has the most knowledge of. Not to mention the hundreds of civilians that were flying their civilian helicopters over different theaters to support the military.

Maybe the military has a lower acceptable level of safety due to their low time actually at the controls.

The military should have zero excuses, you have the tools and the training.

[AuxBatOn]

We follow our rules and our airworthiness standards. Even in peacetime, the mission profiles we conduct are riskier than what a civilian operator could do. We adhere to all our safety standards. But you have to train like you fight as much as possible.

Like I said however, our Acceptable Level of Safety is different.

If you're talking about scudrunning around at night under the nvg's then yes, few civilian operators do that, few civilian operators land on ships too. Literally every other "profile" is the same and civilian operators don't have the money to burn for all the added layers of safety that the military takes. Now lets get into field work and slinging, which the civilian side has the most knowledge of. Not to mention the hundreds of civilians that were flying their civilian helicopters over different theaters to support the military.

Maybe the military has a lower acceptable level of safety due to their low time actually at the controls.

The military should have zero excuses, you have the tools and the training.

The certification standard of a military aircraft has a lower threshold for safety. That is well documented in our airworthiness manual. The threshold vary depending on the general role and configuration of the aircraft . I am not talking about scudrunning on NVGs.

In general, some of the maneuvers what we conduct carry an increased risk compared to what a civilian operator would be allowed to do. For example, a civilian operator would not be allowed to carry and employ weapons (even in peacetime). This is one of many example of military-specific profiles that carry an inherently greater risk. We also delegate operational risk acceptance to a lower level. Some functions, albeit limited, are delegated at the Squadron Commanding Officer level, which, in some units, is a Major, without going back to our “regulator” for approval. We merely inform our Standards and Eval Team (which would be the equivalent of a POI).

I have had to deal with both TC and DND for airworthiness functions of a specific civilian operator and I can tell you that TC is a LOT more anal about things than DND can be.

[L39Guy]

Literally every other "profile" is the same and civilian operators don't have the money to burn for all the added layers of safety that the military takes. Now lets get into field work and slinging, which the civilian side has the most knowledge of. Not to mention the hundreds of civilians that were flying their civilian helicopters over different theaters to support the military.

Maybe the military has a lower acceptable level of safety due to their low time actually at the controls.

The military should have zero excuses, you have the tools and the training.

The military performs many roles and functions for which there is no civilian equivalent or "profile". The obvious one is fighters with high g, weapons, air combat, low-level, high speed flight, etc. In the helicopter world they do wild and woolly stuff with the army such as night ops, nape-of-the-earth, etc. The Search and Rescue helicopters do stuff that no civilian helicopter would do such as hoisting SAR techs out over the middle of the Atlantic on a dark and stormy night.

In the fixed-wing world there is SAR, particularly in the mountains for which there is no civilian equivalent. Or how about operating aircraft at higher gross weights than their civilian equivalent - the C130E's and H's had a 155,000 MTOW; for war exercises it was 175,000 pound which lead to very poor take-off and climb performance. Even air-to-air refueling in an A310 has no civilian equivalent but has increased risks.

The military has a lower level of safety because the tasks it is called upon are simply more risky than any civilian equivalent. When one considers what they do, often with antiquated equipment, it's remarkable that it is as safe (accident free) as it is.

[Gannet167]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclon ... -1.5555308

[Eric Janson]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclon ... -1.5555308

The question nobody seems to be asking:- Why were there 2 sailors on board?

[Gannet167]

It's not uncommon to take additional non crew members for a ride. There's nothing unusual about it.

[7ECA]

Latest report from the CBC, the Cyclone was 2 miles from landing on the Fredricton - meaning there were numerous witnesses to the crash.

Difficulty in finding the wreckage is being attributed to the fact that the Med. is around 3,000 metres deep in the area - nearly 10,000 feet.

[Jean-Pierre]

The civilian Cougar Air crash in Hibernia Oilfield with the same type of aircraft the Captain had 6000 hour and the FO 3000 hour.

[7ECA]

With the latest release (the CBC article saying the helo was on approach, numerous witnesses on the ship), what other possible causes could there be for the rapid descent/crash other than a MGB failure/loss of oil pressure?

[AuxBatOn]

The civilian Cougar Air crash in Hibernia Oilfield with the same type of aircraft the Captain had 6000 hour and the FO 3000 hour.

The S-92A and the Cyclone are not the same type. The are from the same lineage but the flight controls, amongst other things, are very different. Also, the MGB has been re-designed since the 2009 accident.

[Dry Guy]

I sometimes wonder if military pilots realize how inexperienced they really are. Does it worry them that they are sent out on such dangerous missions without much seat time? Or does the military pump them up enough that they don't think it's an issue?

[AuxBatOn]

I sometimes wonder if military pilots realize how inexperienced they really are. Does it worry them that they are sent out on such dangerous missions without much seat time? Or does the military pump them up enough that they don't think it's an issue?

How do you define experience?

[goingnowherefast]

Military pilots have significantly higher quantity and quality of training compared to civilian pilots. It's also training to the military mission and that aircraft type. A civilian Commercial Multi-IFR is pretty non-specific training and only 250hrs. Do 5 hours of additional training in a King Air, a ride, then at 257hrs, your cut loose as a FO on a high performance turbine twin. I bet a C-130 "PPC" is more than 8 sim sessions, then first day on the line is a tactical mission in Afghanistan to get shot at. Probably isn't night SAR in crap weather either.

Yes, the hours in a military logbook are low, but most of those hours are training for the specific missions.

Another way to put it would be civies train very little with lots of operational flying. Military does lots of training, and little operational flying.

[kevenv]

I sometimes wonder if military pilots realize how inexperienced they really are. Does it worry them that they are sent out on such dangerous missions without much seat time? Or does the military pump them up enough that they don't think it's an issue?

How do you define experience?

Perhaps the military should force all pilots to work the ramp for 2 years at poverty wages so they can become real pilots.

[AirFrame]

The question nobody seems to be asking:- Why were there 2 sailors on board?

Not sure why this seems odd... They were flying off a Navy ship.

[BMLtech]

Appears to be a sudden and catastrophic event. They will need to recover the wreckage for sure. As we know the Sikorsky gearbox has been implicated in previous accidents.
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... 9A0016.pdf

[Daniel Cooper]

If Canada was smart they'd save their money and get the Americans to perform the recovery for them. They are planning to use this type for the next Presidential helicopter so I'm sure they are dying to know why it went down.

[goldeneagle]

Perhaps the military should force all pilots to work the ramp for 2 years at poverty wages so they can become real pilots.

Plenty of folks did a year or two of OJT after basic training before they saw the inside of an airplane. I know everybody in my cadre did. That was 40 years ago, maybe things have changed, I've been out of touch with that group for a long time.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Perhaps the military should force all pilots to work the ramp for 2 years at poverty wages so they can become real pilots.

Plenty of folks did a year or two of OJT after basic training before they saw the inside of an airplane. I know everybody in my cadre did. That was 40 years ago, maybe things have changed, I've been out of touch with that group for a long time.

Yup, most newbies will do a stint as the SLJO ( Shitty Little Jobs Officer). Some of the "work" assigned would make being a rampie rather appealing as apposed to say updating paper copies of QR&O's, been there done that

[kevenv]

Perhaps the military should force all pilots to work the ramp for 2 years at poverty wages so they can become real pilots.

Plenty of folks did a year or two of OJT after basic training before they saw the inside of an airplane. I know everybody in my cadre did. That was 40 years ago, maybe things have changed, I've been out of touch with that group for a long time.

Yup, most newbies will do a stint as the SLJO ( Shitty Little Jobs Officer). Some of the "work" assigned would make being a rampie rather appealing as apposed to say updating paper copies of QR&O's, been there done that

I guess the sarcasm was lost in my post. The difference between being forced to work a ramp job to prove yourself before you can start applying the $50000 or so worth of training you paid for and awaiting a course in the military are two entirely different things. The ramp is often portrayed on here as a rite of passage, as a way of proving you have what it takes. I guess it was lost in my post that I disagree with the post about the quality of military pilots. Apologies.