News reports 2 crew injured: http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...opter-makes-emergency-landing-Japan-2-injured
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
MH-60S hard landing in Tokyo
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
Hope all is well...helo looks pretty gnarly like that.
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...opter-makes-emergency-landing-Japan-2-injured
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20...opter-makes-emergency-landing-Japan-2-injured
Glad no one was killed.
Break break
(Edited)
Break break
(Edited)
Last edited by a moderator:
Wouldn't that fall under analysis as he was commenting on a picture? Or are we supposed to maintain radio silence on everything Mishap related no matter how mundane?
Glad everyone survived...
I hope rapid recovery for those injured. That said, why is it that almost every helo crash is called a "hard landing?" If it winds up on its side with the tail and all the blades snapped off, it crashed. A hard landing is a debrief point. A destroyed aircraft is a mishap.
He missed a lot of the real interesting stuff from the picture anyways.
Which does bring up a good point: try to get to ASO school, it is still one of the best classes in the Navy, and is worth something to lots of aviation/aerospace jobs in the real world.
The concern isn't how you or I would talk about the (non-privileged) picture in the comfort of our own Ready Room, but whether some young go-getter at the Navy Times who hangs out on Airwarriors starts to quote some various aviators about what they think happened when none of us really know.
Praying's observation is spot on (something that was mentioned at a meeting today that I was in), but going much farther than that here has the potential to cause problems.
Concur with this. However, for the reporting command and the Navy in general, "hard landing" sounds better for the news and for your mishap reporting. It even follows through to the safety center mishap statistics. So you can skew numbers a ways down the line just by selectively wording the initial report.
My bad guys. Just said what I saw from the picture.
Problem solved. It's not anything you or I wouldn't have said to each other face to face, just trying to protect the site.
Probably for the same reason when a jet departs the prepared runway and does major damage it is described as such. There's a lot of factors in play even after a helo is on the ground that can cause major damage. Heck you can destroy a helo sitting still while spinning on the ground. They are characteristically unstable, so you could make a textbook emergency landing or autorotation only to have the aircraft eat itself once on the ground.
Just about any aircraft can "eat itself" if it crashes. I just think it's strange that the mishap posters I see list fixed wing aircraft that crashed, and a bunch of helo's that had "hard landings", no matter if they wound up a smoldering pile of rubble or bent a landing gear. If I ever crash a harrier (known for their stability) I'm going to call it a hard landing and see where that gets me.