Yet another Sea King crash.

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:28 pm

A Canadian Navy Sea King helicopter crashed 50 kilometres off the coast of Denmark on Thursday night. The five crew members were not injured.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 60202.html

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:49 pm

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:25 pm

The news article says Ottawa is buying 28 cyclones to replace the Sea King

I never heard of a cyclone let alone the purchase of 28 of them. What happened to the eh101 / comorant. are they only for SAR?

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:59 pm

Edo wrote:The news article says Ottawa is buying 28 cyclones to replace the Sea King

I never heard of a cyclone let alone the purchase of 28 of them. What happened to the eh101 / comorant. are they only for SAR?

Cyclone: Sikorsky H-92 SuperHawk's. The EH-101's are SAR aircraft only.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:59 pm

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/ ... ntro_e.asp

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 7:31 am

We're probably going to wind up paying for the EH-101's anyway. Agusta-Westland is sueing the Canadian government because they claim the Sikorsky contract was skewered.

Lessee...455 mil to cancel the original contract, an extra 250 - 300 mil incurred in extra maintenance and upgrades on the Sea Kings, a billion in lawsuits .. thanks Gene.

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:18 am

edo the cormorant is only for SAR because it is too big for our ships.

Brewguy · Post by **Brewguy** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 8:22 am

Thankfully the crew was ok this time, but it could have easilly gone the other way!

I have nothing but the highest respect for the guys & gals in our forces... but ground and replace that bag of bolts already! The amount of work that the maintenance people put into keeping the Sea Thing flying is admirable - but to keep sending crews airbourne in that aircraft, at sea...???

I just don't see that the benefits of having helos onboard those ships is worth the risk. A modern, reliable, airworthy helicopter - for sure it's worth having. But the newest Sea Thing in service was built in 1969! Flying that thing of the pitching deck of a friggate in the middle of the ocean is as stupid an act as sending the army into the field with the iltis.

Those poor bastards.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:58 am

ahramin wrote:edo the cormorant is only for SAR because it is too big for our ships.

I remember touring a new city class frigate in 1993 or early 94. They told us then that the ships not yet built were going to have larger hangers and the ships just completed were going to be retrofitted so the 101 would fit.

I dont know if any retrofits were done but don't any of the frigates have larger hangers? If so chalk this up in the extra cost column.

FlyInverted · Post by **FlyInverted** » Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:21 am

The hangars in all 12 of the Frigates are the same size. No matter what maritime helicopter we end up with the hangars will require some major retrofiting. It all falls within the Frigate Life Extension Plan anyway so it's not really that big a deal. Just some extra work for the shipyards who score the contract!

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:14 pm

No kidding, these things need to be retired pronto. Some of the older ones even have vacuum tube avionics! The CF Air Command has one manouver, called the bear trap (used for landing a helo on a ship in heavy weather, really interesting to read up on too if you've never heard of it). Anyways, apparently when a bear-trap landing is executed on these old birds, every vacuum tube in the beast gets shattered from the hard landing and has to be replaced...

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:29 pm

Maybe the SKs should be named "Chretiens" so that when one is lost the headline could read "Chretien goes down"

If he feels bad about that he should remember he's the guy who caused it.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:54 pm

If the Sea King is so bad, why does Bush use it for his personal transport?

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:04 pm

Anonymous1 wrote:If the Sea King is so bad, why does Bush use it for his personal transport?

It is not the airplane itself, it is how OLD they are. And besides, Bush's Sea King is being replaced by the EH-101 in a few years.

motox415 · Post by **motox415** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:08 pm

Are the Brits still using Sea Kings. Are they having the same problems? If so you do not here much of it from them.

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:10 pm

You should do your homework before making an ignorant statement like that. Look into when the US presidential Sikorsky VH-3D's were built and the total airframe hours on them compared to our CH-124 Sea Kings. Our machines were good too...when they were new.

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:27 pm

linecrew wrote:You should do your homework before making an ignorant statement like that. Look into when the US presidential Sikorsky VH-3D's were built and the total airframe hours on them compared to our CH-124 Sea Kings. Our machines were good too...when they were new.

*Nodds*

Our Sea King's are very early build Sea Kings. On top of that, we fly them in the most punishing conditions to fly a helicopter.

CH124 Driver · Post by **CH124 Driver** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:01 pm

Lommer wrote:No kidding, these things need to be retired pronto. Some of the older ones even have vacuum tube avionics! The CF Air Command has one manouver, called the bear trap (used for landing a helo on a ship in heavy weather, really interesting to read up on too if you've never heard of it). Anyways, apparently when a bear-trap landing is executed on these old birds, every vacuum tube in the beast gets shattered from the hard landing and has to be replaced...

You ever landed on a ship with a Sea King? Didn't think so.

That has got to be the most incredibly blatant BS I've ever seen, where the hell did you find that tripe?

A little info from someone who has landed on a ship.....

The bear trap is used to secure the helo to the deck within 3 seconds of landing. It does not pull the helo down to the deck, despite popular belief. There are three types of landings that are done on the ships, Cleardeck (no bear trap), Freedeck ( w/bear trap), and Hauldown (bear trap and hauldown cable). Freedecks are the most common since the bear trap is also used to traverse the helo into the hangar so having it already out and under the helo saves a lot of time. When the deck motion exceeds 3 degrees of pitch and 10 degrees of roll, the hauldown is necessary. All it does is provide a centering force on the helo which helps us keep it over the bear trap. In all cases, you come to the low hover, 4-6 ft over the deck, and wait for the steady period, when it comes, you lower collective and land it firmly on the deck.

The maximum descent rate is 8 ft/s, I have never once heard of anything breaking on the helo when you land within limits. Anything else you may have heard is pure BS. What do you think oleos and tires do to absorb shock?

EI-EIO · Post by **EI-EIO** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:36 pm

from what I read on pprune, the british sk's find their way home by the oil slick they left on the way

Say Altitude · Post by **Say Altitude** » Sat Feb 04, 2006 11:35 pm

CH124 Driver wrote:
Lommer wrote:No kidding, these things need to be retired pronto. Some of the older ones even have vacuum tube avionics! The CF Air Command has one manouver, called the bear trap (used for landing a helo on a ship in heavy weather, really interesting to read up on too if you've never heard of it). Anyways, apparently when a bear-trap landing is executed on these old birds, every vacuum tube in the beast gets shattered from the hard landing and has to be replaced...
You ever landed on a ship with a Sea King? Didn't think so.

That has got to be the most incredibly blatant BS I've ever seen, where the hell did you find that tripe?

A little info from someone who has landed on a ship.....

The bear trap is used to secure the helo to the deck within 3 seconds of landing. It does not pull the helo down to the deck, despite popular belief. There are three types of landings that are done on the ships, Cleardeck (no bear trap), Freedeck ( w/bear trap), and Hauldown (bear trap and hauldown cable). Freedecks are the most common since the bear trap is also used to traverse the helo into the hangar so having it already out and under the helo saves a lot of time. When the deck motion exceeds 3 degrees of pitch and 10 degrees of roll, the hauldown is necessary. All it does is provide a centering force on the helo which helps us keep it over the bear trap. In all cases, you come to the low hover, 4-6 ft over the deck, and wait for the steady period, when it comes, you lower collective and land it firmly on the deck.

The maximum descent rate is 8 ft/s, I have never once heard of anything breaking on the helo when you land within limits. Anything else you may have heard is pure BS. What do you think oleos and tires do to absorb shock?

Good post and good clarification. From someone who spent many hours off watch in Flyco.

"Hover tension, Max Tension"