why did the second helicopter crash in the bin-laden raid?
May 2, 2011 7:33 PM Subscribe
why did the second helicopter crash in the osama bin-laden raid?
has anyone heard happened?
has anyone heard happened?
"The worst was when one helicopter landed too close to a brick wall, shattering a rotor."
posted by ericost at 8:37 PM on May 2, 2011
posted by ericost at 8:37 PM on May 2, 2011
Thank you for that link, ericost. That was a good run down of what happened.
posted by deborah at 10:46 PM on May 2, 2011
posted by deborah at 10:46 PM on May 2, 2011
Helicopters are considerably less reliable than fixed-wing aircraft, at least by my understanding. Additionally, what everyone else has said.
posted by Juffo-Wup at 11:06 PM on May 2, 2011
posted by Juffo-Wup at 11:06 PM on May 2, 2011
What happened to the people in the helicopter? I'm assuming since everyone is saying there are no american casualties that they got out? Or is it some hinky technical thing where those people died but weren't killed in the fight?
posted by nile_red at 12:30 AM on May 3, 2011
posted by nile_red at 12:30 AM on May 3, 2011
What happened to the people in the helicopter? I'm assuming since everyone is saying there are no american casualties that they got out? Or is it some hinky technical thing where those people died but weren't killed in the fight?
All the reports I've seen have indicated that they got out. They left in another helicopter and they destroyed the damaged helicopter with explosives, presumably to avoid leaving potentially valuable and/or secret technology/intelligence/weapons behind.
Helicopters are considerably less reliable than fixed-wing aircraft, at least by my understanding.
In fairness, people don't generally try to land fixed wing aircraft next to brick walls, so that particular failure mode is really only a problem for helicopters. Helicopters tend to get used for lots of unusual tasks that are potentially more dangerous and often involve maneuvering at low altitudes. Helicopters can be called upon to land in all sorts of improvised landing sites while fixed wing aircraft tend to operate airport to airport. There's a lot more risk involved in trying to land a helicopter without spotters someplace where no one has ever landed an aircraft before. It's kind of like saying that ATVs are considerably more prone to rollovers than Honda Civics. That's certainly true, but you aren't getting vary far off-road with the Civic either.
That being said, helicopters are more or less inherently unstable. They are comparatively hard to fly under good conditions and are generally not very forgiving when it comes to recovery. Since helicopters spend a lot more time maneuvering at low altitudes, there may well not be enough time to attempt a recovery from a precarious situation.
Here's some information on helicopter accident data from NASA Ames that might be of interest (link to the full report is dead, but I bet it's out there along with many other studies).
posted by zachlipton at 2:26 AM on May 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
All the reports I've seen have indicated that they got out. They left in another helicopter and they destroyed the damaged helicopter with explosives, presumably to avoid leaving potentially valuable and/or secret technology/intelligence/weapons behind.
Helicopters are considerably less reliable than fixed-wing aircraft, at least by my understanding.
In fairness, people don't generally try to land fixed wing aircraft next to brick walls, so that particular failure mode is really only a problem for helicopters. Helicopters tend to get used for lots of unusual tasks that are potentially more dangerous and often involve maneuvering at low altitudes. Helicopters can be called upon to land in all sorts of improvised landing sites while fixed wing aircraft tend to operate airport to airport. There's a lot more risk involved in trying to land a helicopter without spotters someplace where no one has ever landed an aircraft before. It's kind of like saying that ATVs are considerably more prone to rollovers than Honda Civics. That's certainly true, but you aren't getting vary far off-road with the Civic either.
That being said, helicopters are more or less inherently unstable. They are comparatively hard to fly under good conditions and are generally not very forgiving when it comes to recovery. Since helicopters spend a lot more time maneuvering at low altitudes, there may well not be enough time to attempt a recovery from a precarious situation.
Here's some information on helicopter accident data from NASA Ames that might be of interest (link to the full report is dead, but I bet it's out there along with many other studies).
posted by zachlipton at 2:26 AM on May 3, 2011 [3 favorites]
As zachlipton said, I heard it described as the "helicopter was damaged" and then intentionally destroyed when they left. Very different than saying it "crashed"...
posted by tomswift at 3:24 AM on May 3, 2011
posted by tomswift at 3:24 AM on May 3, 2011
I remember once at university having a conversation with a (British) marine officer (he was taking a furlough to study for a degree) about how he would conduct a (theoretical) raid on a nearby building. One thing I distinctly remember was him saying how difficult it would be to bring a helicopter in close to the building (which to my uneducated eyes looked perfectly feasible) due to all the nearby telephone wires and the slight slope to the ground which would stop you landing. Because basically life isn't as easy as in the movies.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:40 AM on May 3, 2011
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 4:40 AM on May 3, 2011
One military tactic that has been used in the past is to purposefully semi-crash a helicopter inside walls you want to get soldiers into. In some cases there may be space to get some or all of the fuselage inside, but not enough space for the rotor or tail. The pilot jams the aircraft into the space and allows the rotor or tail to strike the obstacles and break off. They tend to fly away from the aircraft because of the centrifugal force. You then have soldiers inside the walls and don't have to breach them, but you do lose the aircraft. I don't know that is what happened here (and news reports contradict it) but it was the first thing that came to my mind.
posted by procrastination at 4:57 AM on May 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by procrastination at 4:57 AM on May 3, 2011 [1 favorite]
I read that the helicopter rolled onto its side, but all aboard were safe.
As in the botched Eagle Claw rescue attempt in Iran in 1980, there was one more helicopter along than if all the others were loaded to capacity, which provided enough extra seats to carry the passengers if it failed. (Which it did: see markl Bowden's 2006 Atlantic article for more details.)
posted by wenestvedt at 9:06 AM on May 3, 2011
As in the botched Eagle Claw rescue attempt in Iran in 1980, there was one more helicopter along than if all the others were loaded to capacity, which provided enough extra seats to carry the passengers if it failed. (Which it did: see markl Bowden's 2006 Atlantic article for more details.)
posted by wenestvedt at 9:06 AM on May 3, 2011
how difficult it would be to bring a helicopter in close to the building (which to my uneducated eyes looked perfectly feasible) due to all the nearby telephone wires and the slight slope to the ground which would stop you landing. Because basically life isn't as easy as in the movies.
Ah yes, that's the other thing I intended to mention. I am sadly not British nor am I in the military, but it is my understanding that helicopters can't generally land on all that much of a slope. Slopes make things a lot more complicated, and wind and turbulence near the ground make the aircraft harder to control right when control is needed most. Once the helicopter has reached too high an angle of roll, its own power can easily cause a rollover (near miss video; crash). The FAA says a slope of around 5ยบ is the maximum for most helicopters. While military helicopters aren't most helicopters, they can still only handle so much of a slope. Here's a little bit from them about confined area operations that I found interesting as well.
In some cases, helicopters can do a toe-in maneuver or hover temporarily with one skid on the ground while passengers jump on/off. This can allow for operations on steeper slopes, but it's my understanding that it carries its own risks too.
This amazing video of a CH-47D landing in the mountains of Afghanistan gives a tiny sense of how difficult this kind of thing can be, and they don't have walls or power lines to worry about.
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2011
Ah yes, that's the other thing I intended to mention. I am sadly not British nor am I in the military, but it is my understanding that helicopters can't generally land on all that much of a slope. Slopes make things a lot more complicated, and wind and turbulence near the ground make the aircraft harder to control right when control is needed most. Once the helicopter has reached too high an angle of roll, its own power can easily cause a rollover (near miss video; crash). The FAA says a slope of around 5ยบ is the maximum for most helicopters. While military helicopters aren't most helicopters, they can still only handle so much of a slope. Here's a little bit from them about confined area operations that I found interesting as well.
In some cases, helicopters can do a toe-in maneuver or hover temporarily with one skid on the ground while passengers jump on/off. This can allow for operations on steeper slopes, but it's my understanding that it carries its own risks too.
This amazing video of a CH-47D landing in the mountains of Afghanistan gives a tiny sense of how difficult this kind of thing can be, and they don't have walls or power lines to worry about.
posted by zachlipton at 10:25 AM on May 3, 2011
Response by poster: thank you everyone.
this article speculates on the subject.
the whole thing is so risky.
posted by alcahofa at 12:49 PM on May 3, 2011
this article speculates on the subject.
the whole thing is so risky.
posted by alcahofa at 12:49 PM on May 3, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
the compound wall.
posted by timsteil at 7:41 PM on May 2, 2011