|
|
Post by machpants on May 23, 2014 8:26:14 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 23, 2014 10:50:10 GMT 12
Oooooh bugger
|
|
|
|
Post by komata on May 23, 2014 11:14:16 GMT 12
Oh dear, 'Carpet time' for someone it would seem.
A Dollar to a doughnut that some 'polly' (no names, no party), will demand a public enquiry....?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 23, 2014 14:31:57 GMT 12
Air dropping parachutes is always unpredictable as to where the chute/s will actually land despite all the best intentions and science involved. No need for any repercussions I don't think.
This has always been the case. Food and ammunition being air-dropped by Mustangs and Kittyhawks to Allied troops at Cassino continually fell on the German lines. And famously the same happened at Arnhem. It's never easy to pinpoint the dropzone.
|
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on May 23, 2014 17:37:00 GMT 12
The usual drama from the press.
I watched a drop exercise near Waipukurau in the '90s.The chute with the landrover got caught up in a large Macrocarpa tree.The Matbro and soldiers had fun extracting that.A few fences were damaged, but all put right after the exercise at army/air expense.The farmer seemed quite happy for the drop to be on his land.
The drops of cargo were always going to be 'in the area',as opposed to 'on the target'.
The French AF were involved with that exercise, with the CN235,they only dropped 1 load, a small parcel about .50m3. The soldiers reckoned it was a day supply of wine,crackers and condoms!.
|
|
|
|
Post by machpants on May 23, 2014 19:34:04 GMT 12
Air dropping parachutes is always unpredictable as to where the chute/s will actually land despite all the best intentions and science involved. No need for any repercussions I don't think. This has always been the case. Food and ammunition being air-dropped by Mustangs and Kittyhawks to Allied troops at Cassino continually fell on the German lines. And famously the same happened at Arnhem. It's never easy to pinpoint the dropzone. I think air navigation and met assessment has moved on a bit since then Dave  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 23, 2014 19:43:16 GMT 12
A GPS is not going to help the unpredictable opening characteristics of a 100 foot canopy chute. It will still go where it wants after the canopy opens, not where you want.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 23, 2014 19:58:06 GMT 12
No need for any repercussions I don't think. Normally I would totally agree , but the article states " One of the loads narrowly missed a parked car - thought to belong to one of the workers at the vineyard." It would seem that there were ( or at least could have been ) workers in the vacinity . So no harm done , right ? Well no , not really . To put this event into perspective ( as a workplace incident ) , a farm worker was recently find by OSH ( or whatever they call themselves nowdays ) $15000 ( thats right - 15 grand ) for the offence of riding an ATV without a helmet !( its not even a legal requirement to do so - just an OSH requirement to do so whilst at work ) Biggest load of BS I think I have ever seen , but in comparison to not wearing a helmet , dropping heavy loads on someones workplace seems pretty serious ? |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 23, 2014 20:11:16 GMT 12
hey, it MISSED the car. No case to answer. If it hit the car, maybe so. Was the car actually meant to be there is another matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 23, 2014 20:27:48 GMT 12
Asside from the car , the article defintly suggests there were workers in the vineyard .
No point saying that it didnt hit anything - what if it did ?
The guy not wearing his ATV helmet didnt hurt a fly either , but it cost him $15,000. Surely if Govt departments are going to make rediculous rules , there needs to be some consistency ?
|
|
sfb
Sergeant
Posts: 14
|
Post by sfb on May 23, 2014 21:48:02 GMT 12
Its great to see a bunch of armchair critics commenting on this in a number of forums. What's not so great is the mis-information and the negativity from those who have absolutely no idea about what an airdrop is, let alone how its conducted. To put things in perspective:
Take your mobile phone. Tie 1-2 hankies to it. Mark a 1m diameter circle on the ground. Climb onto your roof, and drop your phone with a slight forward motion. Even in still conditions, how many times do you think you'll end up in that circle? And how confident would you be that your phone would remain undamaged.
Having been on board during numerous drops, both observing and actively on the flying crew, I can tell you that missing the DZ doesn't happen very often, especially with the avionics systems of the upgraded aircraft. All controllable aspects of the drop are at least double-checked ie. everything the crew calculates. Throw in some other factors such as current weather, the intel on the DZ (who's to say that the Army pers that did the recce provided correct/accurate information?) or to take it left-field; the chutes not correct sizes for the load, and the accuracy drops. May I remind people of the Russian trawler Sparta, disabled in Antarctic waters a couple of years back; the same procedures got that load within 100 feet, on an iceshelf, in some of the most inhospitable conditions known to man. That wasn't training, it saved lives, and yet people forget that "the norm" for us is pretty damned accurate!
|
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 23, 2014 22:27:04 GMT 12
Its great to see a bunch of armchair critics commenting on this in a number of forums. What's not so great is the mis-information and the negativity from those who have absolutely no idea about what an airdrop is, let alone how its conducted. To put things in perspective: Take your mobile phone. Tie 1-2 hankies to it. Mark a 1m diameter circle on the ground. Climb onto your roof, and drop your phone with a slight forward motion. Even in still conditions, how many times do you think you'll end up in that circle? And how confident would you be that your phone would remain undamaged. Having been on board during numerous drops, both observing and actively on the flying crew, I can tell you that missing the DZ doesn't happen very often, especially with the avionics systems of the upgraded aircraft. All controllable aspects of the drop are at least double-checked ie. everything the crew calculates. Throw in some other factors such as current weather, the intel on the DZ (who's to say that the Army pers that did the recce provided correct/accurate information?) or to take it left-field; the chutes not correct sizes for the load, and the accuracy drops. May I remind people of the Russian trawler Sparta, disabled in Antarctic waters a couple of years back; the same procedures got that load within 100 feet, on an iceshelf, in some of the most inhospitable conditions known to man. That wasn't training, it saved lives, and yet people forget that "the norm" for us is pretty damned accurate! Okay , great comments - but seriously ? Would you really risk killing somebody if " your mobile phone didnt land in that circle " just for a training exercise ? People are quick to blame " procedures " when fatalities occour ( as happened a few years ago ), but equally as fast to say " no harm done " when they dont . |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 23, 2014 23:10:46 GMT 12
So are you suggesting, Grant, that the RNZAF should not be practising air drops? or are you saying they need to be given a big fine because circumstances were against them on this one?
Either way, I don't agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by 11SQNLDR on May 24, 2014 0:12:12 GMT 12
To be fair that IS a great headline from the Herald! But - it was a training exercise, no harm no foul in my view. The key thing is that some valuable learns will come from all this & quite frankly if this was on an Op & not an Ex the guys on the ground would be bloody glad to receive the 'mana from heaven' even if they had to walk through a vineyard to retrieve it  |
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 24, 2014 9:16:24 GMT 12
But - it was a training exercise, no harm no foul in my view. True , but would you have said the same thing about the ANZAC day helicopter crash ? If it had made it , it would have been no harm no foul - right ? ( quite likely - until next time ) Hey , I know these folks need to train and I know they are very good at what they do , but do they need to train in a situation that resulted in loads heavy enough to " break fence posts " landing on somebody's workplace ? Couldnt the " target "have been further away , with a bigger saftey zone ? In a real emergency the benefits would very likely outweigh the risks , but for a training exercise , Im not so convinced . Just my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by suthg on May 24, 2014 9:21:00 GMT 12
Perhaps the drop zone was on the day, in a strong crosswind, not quite planned for and hence the need to learn from this issue. It is very lucky no-one was injured or killed on a normal working day for some - ie there was more than one "pallet" that missed the DZ I believe, judging by the photos.
|
|
|
|
Post by scrooge on May 24, 2014 9:34:33 GMT 12
Normally I'm happy to go with the 'it's PC gone mad' crowd. But this time the nature of the incident, the potential outcome if it had gone truely wrong and the fact that it was a training exercise mean serious questions should be asked- in a training exercise the Air Force managed to drop several heavy objects onto private property near civilians. That's way up there in the no-no stakes.
As it was a training exercise the risk assessment should end up much closer to 100% safe. Any threat to civilians should carry a much higher loading than in a real time incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on May 24, 2014 10:08:08 GMT 12
do they need to train in a situation that resulted in loads heavy enough to " break fence posts " I'd guess yes, for two reasons. They are training in air supply dropping of loads. If Mr PC decides they are only allowed to drop light loads in training, then when push comes to shove they won't have any practical training in dropping heavy loads when it's actually needed - and believe me it is needed. Dropping light loads uses smaller chutes with different characteristics, calculations etc. Also, don't forget this is a full military exercise. It's not just about air supply dropping. The stuff in those loads will likely be needed by the grunts on the ground so they can complete their own exercise objectives too. It's not just fun and games. |
|
|
|
Post by lumpy on May 24, 2014 10:42:54 GMT 12
do they need to train in a situation that resulted in loads heavy enough to " break fence posts " I'd guess yes, for two reasons. They are training in air supply dropping of loads. If Mr PC decides they are only allowed to drop light loads in training, then when push comes to shove they won't have any practical training in dropping heavy loads when it's actually needed - and believe me it is needed. Dropping light loads uses smaller chutes with different characteristics, calculations etc. Im not saying they shouldnt train with realistic loads , just that for training purposess there should be no realistic chance of a load landing on someone . People have commented about how difficult these drops are , and about how winds may have changed etc etc , but the reality is the fact that loads did land where civilians could have been working , proves that there simply wasnt a big enough margin for saftey . I think hard questions should ( and probably will ) be asked , rather than just saying " no harm no foul " |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on May 24, 2014 10:48:35 GMT 12
I don't know if I would have so much faith in the military, a lot of this stuff is training. Training because they have no idea otherwise,- many of these guys are just a few years out of school. I can recall a classic on an exercise I was on. Here we all were in the middle of no-where setting up camp and generally getting established. Now I knew that the maintenance and provision of portable generators and the likes had just changed hands, I think MT had assumed responsibility for all motorised ground equipment. The Electrical Section of Tech Sqdn had some of it previously. Anyway here we all were everything running sweet except for one thing, all the power leads associated with the generators were nowhere to be found. No power, no radio comms, indeed not so much fun. Later that night I had a sly word with the CO and in the dead of night a Landrover made it's way out of the camp. I knew of a public phone box at Springs Junction, in the Lewis Pass, and also knew it worked. Anyway a quick call to the Officer's Mess, Orderly Officer, or whoever and snuck back to camp. Well next morning, surprise, surprise..... an Iroquois dropped into the camp with the missing power leads and many cartons of DB Draught. Perhaps there were a few other items that I thought we were short of as well but anyway with the resupply we were all back to 'situation normal'. I am sure many of the 'campers' just assumed that it was all a coincidence, or did MT realise the predicament we were in and organised the flight, throwing in the beer as recompense or apology.... hmmm. |
|
