RCAF Cyclone Down
Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
It's not uncommon to take additional non crew members for a ride. There's nothing unusual about it.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.
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
- Rank 6
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
The civilian Cougar Air crash in Hibernia Oilfield with the same type of aircraft the Captain had 6000 hour and the FO 3000 hour.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 1:05 pm The civilian Cougar Air crash in Hibernia Oilfield with the same type of aircraft the Captain had 6000 hour and the FO 3000 hour.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
How do you define experience?
Going for the deck at corner
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2386
- Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.
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.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Perhaps the military should force all pilots to work the ramp for 2 years at poverty wages so they can become real pilots.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Not sure why this seems odd... They were flying off a Navy ship.Eric Janson wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:25 amThe question nobody seems to be asking:- Why were there 2 sailors on board?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... 9A0016.pdf
- Daniel Cooper
- Rank 6
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
- Location: Unknown
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5927
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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 thatgoldeneagle wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:58 am
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.

Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
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.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 11:06 amYup, 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 thatgoldeneagle wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 8:58 am
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.![]()
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1294
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
HAHA. I was handed a copy of the QR&O's, photocopier and an unlimited supply of paper and empty binders. Was told 'we need 40 copies'. Single sided copier so got really good at refeeding the paper to put the second side on.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 11:06 am 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![]()
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Do they use a tethered buoy?
Would it be possible for one to hit the tail rotor?
Would it be possible for one to hit the tail rotor?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
When I was waiting pilot training, I manned the Ops Desk (dispatch) and flew regularly (about once a week) and got to travel everywhere in North America. All that being paid ~50K a year. Beats any ramp jobs.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Experience is something you acquire a fraction of a second after needing it.
58
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Pray tell, what has the accident rate in the military been for the past 20 years? One or maybe two Snowbird accidents - always dangerous work - I can't think of any SAR aircraft or helicopters, a Hornet or two - again, dangerous work - no transport accidents, a few training accidents, etc. Considering the low number of accident given the flying rate, "experience" level and the dangerous nature of the flying, I would have to say that it is pretty damn safe.
Everyone is inexperienced at the beginning. The issue is how do you manage it until enough experience is gained either through training or scaring oneself. A pilot with a fresh set of wings doesn't fly operationally immediately; if they are lucky they are off to an Operational Training Unit immediately and will spend months learning a new aircraft then years flying under supervision either as an FO in multicrew aircraft or as a wingman in single seat operations.
The system works well in managing the risk and that is demonstrated by the safety record.
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 6
- Posts: 473
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Luckily there is some overlap between civilian and military so we can compare apple to apple. Like would you rather get in the back of a twin otter and go to the north pole with a 20000 hour Kenn Borek captain or an RCAF twin otter pilot with "excellent training"?
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
How much do orders play into PDM in the military. Does "I order you to do this mission", take precedence over "I don't feel safe doing this mission under these conditions"? Or is that the end of it, and you fire up the bird and take your chances?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Ultimately the AC makes the final call to fly or not. We utilize a MALA (Mission Acceptance Launch Authority) matrix to determine risk and if risk is too high for the AC to self-authorize, he/she must seek higher authority. I’ve routinely had SAR pilots call me at night asking for authority to launch due to variable X.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
No disrespect, but are you sure that’s a question you want to ask after 2013?Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 2:36 pm Luckily there is some overlap between civilian and military so we can compare apple to apple. Like would you rather get in the back of a twin otter and go to the north pole with a 20000 hour Kenn Borek captain or an RCAF twin otter pilot with "excellent training"?
FWIW, I wouldn’t hesitate to ride with 440 Sqn or Borek. Now, can you show some respect and stop with the military/non-military pilot nonsense?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
The two naval officers on board were MARS I believe. Part of their job on board the ship would have been directing the helo during operations, (i.e. they would be the ones on the ship telling the aircraft where to go and look for an enemy submarine, etc...). I don’t know the exact details of MARS officer training, but training programs for similar jobs usually include familiarization with how related trades work, (i.e. pilots visit the terminal control facility and tower during training). The idea is to give the trainees a more concrete understanding of the bigger picture. These officers were on board the helo so that they could get a better understanding of one of the inner workings of one of the key assets they control.Eric Janson wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:25 amThe question nobody seems to be asking:- Why were there 2 sailors on board?