Post by: Spook on November 16, 2005, 12:29:04 pm
Post by: Spook on November 16, 2005, 12:32:32 pm
Post by: Dublin Spotter on November 16, 2005, 01:28:04 pm
Post by: pilatus on November 16, 2005, 04:11:03 pm
Post by: pilatus on November 16, 2005, 05:08:02 pm
Post by: Fouga on November 16, 2005, 08:48:19 pm
Is that a Barracks she is going into or just training?
Post by: Spook on November 16, 2005, 09:39:13 pm
Post by: sealion on November 16, 2005, 11:17:57 pm
| Quote (Dublin Spotter @ 16 Nov. 2005,13:28) |
| It will be a sad day to see these leave the fleet... |
It was a sad day when the Spitfires left the fleet, It was a sad day when the Vampires left the fleet...It was a sad day when the Fougas left the fleet, but the fact is the Air Corps is attempting to be a modern military air wing, and the mistake that was the SA365Fi is in the way of that progress.
Good bye to the 4/5. If we lived in a fair society they should all have been grounded and immediately replaced post July 99.
RIP Crew D248
Post by: SousaTeuszii on November 17, 2005, 09:55:12 am
Im afraid that is like tarring all helicopters with the same brush. Any helicopter utilised in the wrong role is a mistake and is a problem with its user, not the aircraft. As I stated before the 365s were bought as Naval support aircraft. It was government fast footing that ended up with the 365 on SAR. Unfortunately on that sad day there were many mitigating circumstances as laid out in the final report by the AAIU. Ultimitely the 365s lack of range proved critical and in my opinion should never have been on SAR. What annoys me is that it is very conveniant to blame an aircraft type for the failings of people who never even received a slap on the wrist.
Post by: Tech Crew on November 17, 2005, 10:04:57 am
I was a member of No. 3 Spt Wing when that crash took place and i certainly don't remember any major feeling that the type should be removed from service.
Every time there are fatal air crashes should all of the type involved be automatically grounded permanently?
Ther is nothing wrong with the SA365fi as an aircraft. The problem is its unsuitability for some of the roles it was used for. For you to say it should have been grounded permanently in 99 is over simplifying the situation
Post by: GoneToTheCanner on November 17, 2005, 09:51:00 pm
I agree with the thrust of what you say.Hasty grounding is of no use to anyone.Personally,I've always regarded the Dauphin as being overloaded for far too many of it's tasks.In the desire to show off how useful it was, they tasked it with every job going.There was never any point in using it for VIP or troop dropping or routine liaison, dragging around a deck harpoon,winch,SAR gear,search radar,etc,etc.I always believed that it's cabin was too small from day one...It was a real case of trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot.
With regard to 248's loss,I remember the shock pervading the Don, as if the reality of aviation's hazardous nature had finally hit home, more so than any other crash in the Don's history.It also brought home the institutional weaknesses in the Don, from a technical/aeronautical/structural/management point of view.If it did nothing else, it set the ball rolling to get real change happening in the place.
regards
GttC
Post by: Tech Crew on November 18, 2005, 09:30:21 am
We all know that the Dauphin was not suitable for medium range SAR. It is ironic that the sar off Waterford in which D248 was lost was in fact an in shore, short range job. It proves no matter what ac you have that a combination of circumstances and bad luck can unfortunately lead to a disaster.
Gttc, you are correct in your comments on the mood around the Don after the trgedy. In Helis, we have had our crashes over the years and since d248, but the shock within the unit to lose four members was something that had never been felt before.
Outside of this the Dauphin as an ac was quite enjoyable to work on as a Tech. I can't speak for the pilots who flew her but I certainly considered her a good ac when used suitably
Post by: John K on November 19, 2005, 08:33:53 pm
Post by: SousaTeuszii on November 20, 2005, 07:36:25 pm
As said a number of times already, the Dauphin was selected for Naval Support not SAR. The government decided that it should go on SAR not the pilots and if you could show me a pilot that would prefer to fly a Dauphin over a Puma ill show you a fixed wing pilot!
Post by: sealion on November 20, 2005, 08:29:56 pm
Someone, on a visit to Aerospatiale, saw the Dauphin 2 and decided(or was convinced) that it could do the job ot both.
Jack of all trades, master of None.
Post by: SousaTeuszii on November 20, 2005, 10:47:14 pm
Post by: pilatus on November 21, 2005, 12:05:53 pm
| Quote (SousaTeuszii @ 20 Nov. 2005,13:47) |
| Again the Government. Like buying the Styer with butter the Dauphins were offered at a discount for Irish votes in an EU (EEC?) Vote. Clever French never mentioned that they were once off avionics testbeds, just played on the fact that they were the worlds first five screen EFIS helicopters. Frankly i dont think the government would have cared, but ask any tech what the main proplems were A&P or avionics? |
where they actually the first 5 or are you just saying that?would have they not have got the pumas cheaper also as they were made by the same company?!
Post by: SousaTeuszii on November 21, 2005, 06:17:43 pm
Believe it or not these actually were the worlds first 5 screen EFIS helicopters! however remember that these were bought as Naval support helis therefore the Puma was unsuitable, the SAR role was tagged on later.
These Dauphins were also cheaper as they were avionic testbeds, hence only 5 of this fit ever existed making spares procurement for the avionics a nightmare. There were also suspicions that one of the airframes had been used in floatation tests for the USCG Dolphins, they got extra rear floats, hence the corrosion in 244 i think.
Post by: Tech Crew on November 22, 2005, 09:56:25 am
Post by: pilatus on November 22, 2005, 09:05:09 pm
Post by: Tech Crew on November 23, 2005, 09:47:31 am
You can't beat a good conspiracy theory!!
Post by: GoneToTheCanner on November 23, 2005, 01:12:41 pm
I'm not so sure about the Dauphins being the first 5-screen EFIS helis.Maybe so, in Ireland....I did hear that the avionic fit was unique to Ireland and that the only customer with anything similar were the Saudis....The story I heard was that the Don's Dauphins had the first fully integrated computer system, driving the avionics (NADIRs,ADIRUs?), which was similar to the set-up in Airbuses.The stuff is old hat now but at the time, it was brand new and the Don was, in effect, the testbed.Stupid for such a small air arm,really.
regards
GttC
Post by: Tech Crew on November 23, 2005, 01:43:22 pm
maybe he could have told us if we had got shafted with dunked airframes!!!!
Post by: SousaTeuszii on November 23, 2005, 02:03:42 pm
You are correct that the Irish Daupihns are modeled on the Saudi F models, even down to the weapons hard points on the aircraft but the Irish aircraft are full five screen EFIS, unheard of at the time.
As for the dunked airframes it only relates to 244. Unfortuately I have no proof of this as it was just talk amoungst senior techs. I believe however that 244 has suffered from a lot more corrosion problems then even 245 which was the other Naval variant. Perhaps you could check it out and let us know?
Post by: Tech Crew on November 23, 2005, 07:07:36 pm
I've been out of the Don for a few years now so I have to rack my brains to try and remember stuff. I can't think off hand of specific corrosion probs with 244. A huge percentage of the ac was composite which made running repairs a disaster as we didnt have a composite repair shop.
As regards exposure to a saltwater environment the naval variants had no extra exposure over the non naval ones. This was due to the fact that all ac were used for marine SAR and suffered equal exposure to saltwater.
When on a stint in Finner we would do an engine wash on the ramp after the last planned flight of the day before the the ac shutdown.The airframe would then be hosed down with freshwater before hangering. Great fun at 1.00am in january!!
Post by: GoneToTheCanner on November 23, 2005, 10:32:57 pm
TC, I remember seeing the heli lads trying out repairs on damage to the doors.They were trying to get the repairs to set in the open hangar floor, which was a complete waste of time.Such repairs are very temperature-critical.It led to a lot of parts being scrapped, that might otherwise have been repaired.
Another thing that puzzled me about the Dauphins was the replacement rate of oil tanks.They seemed,to my untutored eye, to be scrapped at a fierce rate.Any clues, TC?
regards
GttC
Post by: Tech Crew on November 24, 2005, 09:43:22 am
Dauphin panels were stronger and took less abuse from vibration and during maintenance so less repairs were required
I 'm trying to remember about the oil tanks. I think the way the were affixed the transmission deck sometimes caused chaffing which over time caused leaks. I stand to be corrected on that
Post by: GoneToTheCanner on November 24, 2005, 08:40:24 pm
The oil tanks were made of very light-gauge "aloominum" and were dented very easily.I remember the welders being asked to try and repair them and failing.
regards
GttC