Chinook Crash (Whoops)

[Andrew]

Sorry Copied wrong URL it should be a Video not a picture, hope this URL works

http://www.guzer.com/videos/chopper_crash.php

 

[cheddar cheese]

Oh my god

 

[FLYBOYJ]

ITS NOT A CHINOOK, IT A SEA KNIGHT!

 

[plan_D]

I haven't seen it but...hahhaha...they look completely different!

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

my god that's funny!!

and even better, CC didn't notice the difference!!

 

[cheddar cheese]

I didnt not notice it though , did I

 

[Francesco]

I am Francesco, loggin in for the first time.

All the best to everybody.

Ciao

 

[lesofprimus]

That clip has been around for years, and Ive posted it before here as well...

 

[Matt308]

Frankly not too funny. It sank like a rock and I suspect one or more went to Davy Jones Locker.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeah I have that video on my computer and they showed it to several times during our training.

That was a Seaknight not a chinook.

There is a big big difference between the two. The Chinook is like twice as big!

I hate flying in both though.

 

[kasper]

The twin-rotor CH-46E Sea Knight crashed in December 1999 as the helicopter was approaching the Navy tanker Pecos, which the Marines were going to board assault-style. 11 men were pulled quickly from the waters after the helicopter struck the ocean, but the 7 others were killed.

The Sea Knight Chinook were both made by the same company, Boeing Vertol.

 

[Henk]

What caused the crash?

 

[Matt308]

Lack of proper judgement. Too much momentum, not enough collective, and they missed.

 

[trout12]

it looked like the rear landing gear got caught up in th "safty net" they have surrouning the landing pad....cause he tried to pull up ....but the net on the gear caused the ch-46 to bowl over on its side

 

[Cyrano]

 

[Dolpho]

The Pictures show a C-130 A. The problem was a fatiguecrack in the wingspar. All C-130 are grounde since this accident.

 

[Cyrano]

 

[Graeme]

Must be a lot of frames missing between the first two.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Pictures show a C-130 A. The problem was a fatiguecrack in the wingspar. All C-130 are grounde since this accident.

Wrong!

That was a C-130 A operated by the the US forestry service through a company called Aero Union. When it was acquired by a civilian operator a "TCTO" which is like a civilian airworthiness directive was not done on that aircraft. The TCTO called for a modification on the wing spar and wing box assembly. The aircraft was operated as a tanker for a number of years which placed significant stress on the wing box and inner spar resulting in the accident. After this accident the Aero Union C-130 fleet was grounded until it could proven that the rest of their aircraft had the TCTO for the wing spar modification completed.

There were C-130E groundings for wing box cracks back in 2005 but it had nothing to do with this accident as the cracks on those aircraft were in a different area of the structure, and even then that only affected about 60 aircraft. Wing box cracks have been a problem with C-130s for a number of years, especially when they are used for such operations as gunships and tankers. The USAF does intensive C-130 inspection at Robbins AFB for this condition.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The Pictures show a C-130 A. The problem was a fatiguecrack in the wingspar. All C-130 are grounde since this accident.

No C-130s are grounded any more. This happened several years ago and they were only grounded until they were inspected. I flew on a C-130 three times since this accident.