The wrong way to land a Chinook+Carrier Troubles

[TX-EcoDragon]

Yikes!!!!! Bad Chinook landing!!
(language)

Many more images from WWII era in the second link.


See the thread at UBI here:  http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=7201001522

S!

TX-EcoDragon
Black 1
TX-Squadron XO

[TX-Kingsnake]

Whoa the ubi link to the movie is http://anonym.to/?http://content.collegehumor.com/media/movies/navyhelicopter.wmvintersesting url, notice the two http:. Notice that http://anonym.to/? works for any url? For example the url to this page?  http://anonym.to/?http://www.txsquadron.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1814

[TX-Gunslinger]

Not to be picky or anything, but that's not a carrier the CH-47 is landing on .....Somewhere around here I have a much more gruesome looking CH-47 accident from the back of a Destroyer.  As soon as I find it, I'll post it.  This is how I usually get aboard small ships when I go to sea, but I fly SH-60 B's and F's more often than CH-47's.A clue that this is not a Carrier (Link actually says it's an Oiler (AO/AOE)) is the location of the Helo pad.  On a real CV/CVN the helo pad is not that close to the water, it's located a bit more inboard because they have the room.Thanks for the link.....Black 2

[TX-CUDA]

.....you beat me to it Gunslinger.I noticed right offf the bat that the spot the '47 was trying to land on was not on a carrier. It looked that the deck to the water might have been only 50ft or so...much to low for a carrier. The deck of the Forrestal was 92ft off the water....I know as I was blown off spot 3 in '78 by a Phantom!   One thing to notice on this clip is the apparent lack of a plane captain on the deck as the helo came in..He would have noticed that the left hand main mount was caught in the net...Also look closely at the crew chief/crewman that is visible on the port side of the aircraft..as the plane starts to roll over he can be seen trying in vain to get out of the plane via the opening where he is seen.........not sure if any one was lost in this mishap but one thing they had going for them were the two boats that were already in the water behind the fantail of the ship they were trying to land on.TX-Cuda

[TX-EcoDragon]

The UBI thread contained this reply, it answers those questions. . . see it here:http://navysite.de/planes/ch46.htm"On Dec. 9, 1999, a CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter, with 18 people on board, crashed while attempting to land on the Navy tanker PECOS (T-AO 197) during a training exercise. The chopper's landing gear apparently snagged a metal safety net and the helicopter flipped over into the water and quickly sank.Eleven Marines were rescued by special warfare crewmen on two nearby boats. But six Marines and a sailor drowned, their bodies recovered later from the sunken wreckage by an unmanned submersible vehicle."S!TX-EcoDragonBlack 1TX-Squadron XO

[TX-Gunslinger]

Yeah Cuda,You know when you land on any of the carriers in a helo, especially after you've taken of from a DD/FFG/DDG/CG, you immediately notice two things:1) You can't see over the side anymore, as soon as the helo passes over the flight deck2) It's gonna be a long walk to the ATO officeOn the other hand, when going in the reverse direction (from CV/CVN to small boy), no matter how many times you've done it, there is this re-occuring panicy thought of:"This bird won't fit on that little landing pad".....but most of the time it does....sometimes after a few bounces....I personally hate the CH-47 when going to AO/AOE (oilers/oilers-ammo ships) or DD/FFG/DDG/CG, and don't quite prefer the SH-60F models due to lack of RAST system.  The SH-60B as you know, has the cable system which reels the helo in and can be used in high sea states.  Can't count the number of times I've flown into a small ship in 12-18 foot seas.  Never in a CH-47!Second thing about the CH-47 that scares me is the thought that I'm being flown around by the "bottom of the barrell" out of Navy Flight school.  The pecking order as you know goes...... 1) 'Pointy' noses with Afterburner 2) any other jets 3) P-3/E-2C 4) COD 5) SH-60B/F 6) CH-47Occasionally of course, a top graduate from flight school will opt for helo's or prop aircraft but it's kinda rare.  Not enough to give me any security.On a second note, I followed up the thread and there were casulties in this CH-47 accident.  As I recall, about half the dudes drowned.  Funny thing is, if I can ever find the other CH-47 accident that I was referring to earlier, it looked much more gruesome.  The rotor blades impacted the ships deck, the helo fuesalage acctually strikes the flight deck, and the wreckage 'bounces' down to the main deck.  But, nobody died.Black 2

[TX-CUDA]

....while looking for this one I came across an accident that involved an SH3 that is almost as you describe. Rotor impacts the deck...fuselage starts to spin tearing off the tail rotor boom...and the helo breaks apart apparently as there is a fire erupting from a burst fuel cell as the helo goes over the side. A bad one indeed...TX-CudaMinister of Information