RCAF Cyclone Down

[Gannet167]

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wi ... e-70411529

Off coast Greece.

[W5]

Scramble Magazine

Breaking: RCAF Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone crash reported

A Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CH-148 Cyclone helicopter has gone down in the Ionian Sea west of the island Kefalonia in the Italian Flight Information Region on Wednesday 29 April 2020. This is between Greece and Italy.

A CH-148 was onboard the Halifax-class HMCS Fredericton (FH 337), in the Mediterranean as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group Two (SNMG2). The SNMG2 consists of four to six destroyers and frigates. Its role is to provide NATO with an immediate operational response capability. CH-148 148822 (c/n 92-5022) of 12 Wing was reported onboard HMCS Fredericton in January and in March 2020.

NATO search and rescue teams are searching the sea area west of Kefalonia island at this moment. There were six people on board and their fate remains unknown. Updates to follow when we have more news.

[Walker]

Edit:

Family is being told hard impact with the sea at night. No signs of the wreckage with the exception of a beacon which is designed to detach/jettison.

This hits too close to home.

[rigpiggy]

one body found so far. My condolences Pig
https://fighterjetsworld.com/latest-new ... aly/21497/

[Old fella]

So very sad to hear, CTV has identified one casualty from down our way, suspect there will be more. We are still reeling from the devastating shooting other week and now this. Rough times in the Maritimes for sure and certain.

[Walker]

Names have been published:
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/c ... udeau-says

[Daniel Cooper]

I hope it wasn't the main gearbox. The government removed the requirement from Sikorsky to supply the CH-148 with a 30-minute run-dry main gearbox.

[AirFrame]

I met Captain Hagen once when he came to my office to visit his brother (who was a co-worker of mine). The two of them (and I think their sister as well) were all in the RCAF, and were a very close family. I'm sure they're reeling from this.

Condolences to all the families involved.

[Walker]

I met Captain Hagen once when he came to my office to visit his brother (who was a co-worker of mine). The two of them (and I think their sister as well) were all in the RCAF, and were a very close family. I'm sure they're reeling from this.

Condolences to all the families involved.

This is beyond devastating... Kevin was transferring to 443 this summer after this deployment (most of the family are now in Vic/Saltspring).


From CAFINUS: https://twitter.com/CAFinUS/status/1256242636362399746

[karmutzen]

Military operation, not civilian public transport or utility work, meaning the prime objective is the mission, not safety. Loss of life in a military environment, while still tragic, is part of what you sign up for. Sounds like a night operation CFIT. Cyclone is a highly modified fly-by-wire S92, if cause is ever made public it would be an interesting read. Part of the software programming of “autopilot” systems is to save the aircraft from pilot error. Like drone tech that returns and lands. We also lost a very capable Cormorant off Nova Scotia years ago due to some control confusion.

[Eric Janson]

According to the news websites contact was lost at 6:52pm.

That's still daytime in that region - not sure why this was being reported as happening at night.

[Heliian]

Military operation, not civilian public transport or utility work, meaning the prime objective is the mission, not safety. Loss of life in a military environment, while still tragic, is part of what you sign up for. Sounds like a night operation CFIT. Cyclone is a highly modified fly-by-wire S92, if cause is ever made public it would be an interesting read. Part of the software programming of “autopilot” systems is to save the aircraft from pilot error. Like drone tech that returns and lands. We also lost a very capable Cormorant off Nova Scotia years ago due to some control confusion.

You couldn't be more wrong, this wasn't a wartime accident, it was training, they are extremely safe. The aircraft was reported missing @ 18:52, that is still daylight.

The cormorant accident was due to night/black hole conditions, the only confusion was in the cockpit.

If they find the cause, it will for sure be made public.

[AuxBatOn]

There is still an inherent higher operational risk to military operations. The Acceptable Level of Safety definition is different than you’d find in civil aviation and some of the operational maneuvers military aircraft do routinely would not be acceptable from civilian operators.

[lownslow]

There is still an inherent higher operational risk to military operations. The Acceptable Level of Safety definition is different than you’d find in civil aviation and some of the operational maneuvers military aircraft do routinely would not be acceptable from civilian operators.

I would have thought that in peacetime you guys would have been enormous pansies with regards to safety. I know I would. After all, your stuff is expensive. Is it not?

[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.

[AirFrame]

According to the news websites contact was lost at 6:52pm

I think this is the first time i've seen an actual time reported. I have seen a number of reports referring to it as an "evening" flight, which would be correct. I think other reporters are embellishing that and taking "evening" to mean "night". Incorrectly, at this time of year.

[7ECA]

According to articles, the five remaining crew are presumed as deceased and the rescue has become a recovery operation.

[boeingboy]

They have reported the FDr and CVR were recovered. I didn't think military aircraft had FDR and CVR's. Usually when I've read the odd report - they never mention these, admittedly They are mostly Hornet reports that I see.

Do most military aircraft have these recorders?

What about the high performance stuff like the Hawks and Hornets?

[Walker]

They have reported the FDr and CVR were recovered. I didn't think military aircraft had FDR and CVR's. Usually when I've read the odd report - they never mention these, admittedly They are mostly Hornet reports that I see.

Do most military aircraft have these recorders?

What about the high performance stuff like the Hawks and Hornets?

Cant say for other AC but for the Cyclone the breakaway beacon has a data unit which includes FDR and CVR clones.

[AirFrame]

Cant say for other AC but for the Cyclone the breakaway beacon has a data unit which includes FDR and CVR clones.

Thanks for that... I was wondering how they recovered them if they hadn't recovered the aircraft as well. This makes a lot more sense now.

[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?