Apache Crash in Afghanistan

This is why you don’t hotdog…

Some NSFW language.


11 thoughts on “Apache Crash in Afghanistan”

  1. Naval Aviation calls it flat hatting (for reasons I don’t know), but hot dogging fits well. That clip alone will cost him his wings. Perhaps a court martial. Most likely he’ll be put out as well.

  2. Being a 64 driver myself, it is called “Combat Maneuvering Flight” it is an ATM task. I nor any of you know the details of this accident. We had two similar type accidents in Afghanistan back in OEF6 – NO ONE LOST THEIR WINGS, or went to the “brig” (by the way that is Navy, not Army. So if you don’t know what you are talking about, or indentify the rotor droop or the coning, maybe you should keep your armature comments to yourself, especially when it isn’t 100% clear the condition of the crew. “It is better to have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain

    1. I’m a Marine. I use terminology I am familiar with. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem. By the way, what are “armature comments”.

    2. Play nice, gentlemen.

      RWH, the clip tells us the crew came through with no injuries. I presume they mean no MAJOR injuries, because I’m certain there were some at least. Nonetheless, we certainly hope they are all right.

      I find it somewhat astonishing that a crew could fail a training task so spectacularly and face the consequences of losing their wings. To be honest, I don’t know what the Army equivalent of an FNAEB is, but I’m sure there is one. And if Dan pops back into the comments, perhaps he’ll enlighten us.

  3. I am a retired ’64 driver, and I used to be in that unit. I know a little something about the story behind this video, so that’s why I made the comment I did.

    Flight Evaluation Board (FEB) is what it is called in the Army.

  4. What unit was that? Anybody got any info on the accident? It looked like the aircraft tried to take off again after the initial crash but spun 4 times clockwise and crashed again (which almost certainly means loss of tail rotor thrust, as the counter-clockwise rotating main rotor exerts clockwise torque on the airframe, and the sole purpose of the tail rotor is to counteract main-rotor torque.)

  5. NO, and I mean NO Army ATM (Aircrew Training Manual) calls for that kind of approach, NONE. And if your doing an approach with concern of hostile fire, you don’t gain altitude like that to expose yourself, then come into your FOB hot, or at least not knowing what the performance of your aircraft is, that’s what the Army taught us. THINGS MAY HAVE CHANGED!!! It is obvious from the audio no one was concerned about hostile fire. Aviators, you know exactly what happened. Thankfully, they were not injured. Thankfully, neither of them will have another opportunity to injure anyone else. At least not in the Army! Reminds me of the AH-64 driver who asked his co-pilot think we can make it through the trees, co-pilot says no, pilot say “oh ye have little faith”, 30 seconds later smacks the trees. Different accident, same mind set!!!!!

  6. This is a very interesting video. My background is helicopter theory (not a pilot). Though not all facts have been recovered (or made public), this doesn’t look good for the pilots.

    Amongst the undesirable flight characteristics: dramatically high angle of attack before the turn (affects the blade aerodynamics, the vibratory loads, and can hear effects thanks to the acoustic signature), the exaggerated coning response (as mentioned earlier by someone, which is a consequence of rapid descent), rapid tradeoff of forward flight speed with vertical climb, the high elevation as indicated by the terrain and a quick lookup of the Paktika Province (increased difficulty to extract thrust from thinner air, performance is a function of your altitude), etc. In general, a pilot should know their limits so they can push them appropriately, but rotorcraft are specifically sensitive to dramatic changes in flight condition, specifically yielding unsteady (and often unpredictable) results.

Comments are closed.