Did the Chinook have operational problems? I mean, a million of those things have flown around the globe, for a huge number of different militaries. I figured that the fact that they’re still being upgraded and are in service today was a testament to their effectiveness, but maybe I’m just unaware of some safety issues that you had encountered in your experience with them.
Or maybe it’s just because it looks like it’s gonna rip its own rotors off.
It has useful capabilities, which explains why it’s still in service. At the time I was riding around in them, they had racked up 7 major accidents in about 16 years. It probably seemed like a lot at the time.
Oh, I wasn’t referring to anything you said. I too have heard the stories about the Osprey. I have no doubt it has had issues. I do not know what its status is now, or how it compares to other fundamentally unsafe forms of transport!
I think the Sikorsky are the tried and true powerhouses, from the retired Sea King to the Black Hawk to the newer Patriots are all supposedly very reliable. So much so that the Presidential version of all of them has the No-Fail parameter as a mission. I don’t know if that just means you keep enough and service them enough to keep them in top shape or if they are engineered with failover in mind.
But I’ve never see numbers on how man accidents that they really have. I agree with the above comment, every aircraft fails.
My Dad was a telecommunications and computer expert warrant officer back in the day. He was generally shore based but working on systems for carriers and got called / sent out to one or another all the time. They would send him on whatever aircraft was going out to the carrier. He’s always telling stories about carrier landings and takeoffs in shitty conditions.
Heart rate, perspiration and other stress level measurements peak about as high on a carrier landing as they do in mortal for real defensive combat situations. Ie landing on the boat is as scary as getting shot at in anger.