SKASaC crash Gulf 03

Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by buggerit84, Apr 9, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As part of my preparation for BRNC I was reading Armed Action recently, and one of the incidents James Newton recalls was the collision of 2 SKASaCs off Ark Royal. Both went down killing all on board. I was wondering if the cause was ever discovered? He said it was still under investigation at time of publishing but that was a few years ago.
  2. In plain English what are SKASaCs.

    Do I assume, (I know - never assume), they are early warning radar fitted Seakings from 849.
  3. Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control

    You are correct, assume away ;)
  4. [PDF] MILITARY AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT SUMMARY ROYAL NAVY Aircraft Type Sea ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
    22 Mar 2003 ... 0422 on 22 March 2003, Sea King XV650, launched with a crew of 4 from. ARK ROYAL. The aircraft was due to relieve Sea King XV704, ... - Similar pages Sadly when many pilots are killed in accidents,the board of inquiry put it down to pilot error :roll: :roll: :roll: We had one, the cause "Over exuberance" :cry: :cry:
  5. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

  6. Tread carefully Buggerit, there are a few rumrationers who lost oppos in that incident. There are also a few lads with experience of AAIB work, Lockerbie, Mombasa etc so don't be afraid to ask around, just be mindful thats its still upsetting to some of your fellow RR'ers.
  7. That is very true. I was involved first hand in one of the examples you give. At the time it's all part of the job but after is when reality kicks in.
  8. Please be respectful when posting on this subject, this is still very sensitive and i have already deleted one post.

    remember OPSEC please and understand why we have it.

  9. The Board of Inquiry concluded the cause was indeterminable, although listed some contributory factors and made a number of recommendations. The only suggestion of pilot error was made, wrongly, by Adam Ingram, when he chose to be highly selective when “quoting†the BOI. See here;

    The most obvious thing that emerges from the BOI report is that, while noting contributory factors like NVG and Interoperability, there was no obvious effort to establish if these issues were known about beforehand, which would have pointed to more deeply rooted problems in other parts of MoD; further protecting the reputation of fine men.

    It has now emerged that most were indeed identified many years before, and corrective action either rejected or cancelled (in the case of contracts already underway). It is unclear if the BOI was informed, but I think the report would have said so.

Share This Page