Task & Purpose: More Troops Have Died In Aviation Mishaps Than In Afghanistan Combat Over The Past Year
More U.S. military service members have died in aircraft mishaps over the past year than have died while serving in Afghanistan under the Operation Freedom’s Sentinel mission.
That terrible sentence makes me think there is a definite crisis in military aviation. It should give Pentagon leaders pause that a junior soldier can be more confident of their safety downrange, receiving imminent danger pay, than sitting in the back of a helicopter stateside.
Pentagon leaders, apparently, disagree.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This says it all .....
.... That’s 47 service members dead, in just one year. Over that same time period, 31 service members died in Afghanistan.
Update: No kidding .... After 5 Deaths In 2 Days, US Military Aviation Is In A Full-Blown Crisis (Task & Purpose).
12 comments:
You could have a military twice as large with the same mishap or accident rate and and thus get the twice as many deaths and injuries.
Would such a military be twice as bad?
Remember it has the the same mishap rate.
Here is where you want to start.
www.public.navy.mil/NAVSAFECEN/Pages/statistics/mishap_def.aspx
Are we talking about an increase in deaths per vehicle mile or passenger mile?
Maybe we are just logging moire miles and thus getting more deaths.
miles * deaths / mile = more deaths
What are we blaming here?
I am very disappointed with Task & Purpose" >>> "What the hell is going on?"
They are simply counting. A grade schooler could do that.
Is the deaths per vehicle mile going up?
Typically, I would blame ops tempo, deferred maintenance / logistics (funding (D.C.)), training, etc.
Material object only last so long. A spring can only be flexed so many cycles. That said we should be keeping an accurate count. I would say that D.C. as an aggregate whole is to blame.
"Cuts by Congress and the White House to funds used by the Marines and other services to pay for flight time and helicopter repairs means that there may not be enough air-worthy aircraft available for nondeployed units to train safely."
- Stars & Stripes 2016
Note the EFFING DATE!
Obama and the go along get along Congress (because they do not want to be accused of being racist)
www.stripes.com/slew-of-military-helicopter-deaths-raises-question-of-whether-budget-cuts-endanger-troops-1.390587
you dwell in the past. that was then. this is now
"U.S. Helicopter Accidents Decrease"
"The overall accident rate fell to 3.19 accidents per 100,000 flight hours in 2016 compared with 3.67 accidents in 2015. The fatal accident rate fell slightly to 0.51 accidents per 100,000 flight hours in 2016 compared with a 0.52 rate in 2015. However, the rate is down from 0.65 in 2014 and 1.02 in 2013."
https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=87406
It would be fair to compare & contrast civilian & military helicopter accident rates.
But we must note the differences such as tempo, funding, environment and more.
Corrosion is a big problem for the military compare to civilian interests. More of their fleet sees problems due to operating in the littoral or above the ocean.
"Twelve helicopter crashes in 2015 killed 30 service members — three times as many deaths as in 2014. ...
For the Marines, for example, almost one-fifth of their helicopters aren’t available due to maintenance requirements."
We need a run chart of accidents versus year.
We could have partisan fun with it.
Anon,
I like how you are tenacious like an amoeba automatically keeping up the good fight, because you lack education and intelligence to do otherwise.
When you do trend analysis, you look at the past.
There are techniques that equally weight past observations and there are techniques that do not.
One that does not is exponential smoothing. With this technique the near past, the last 4 years are still important.
I mean come on you, despicable or very unpleasant person, are you serious?
You cannot report accident rates in any meaningful way unless you count the past and compare to the past (at least the recent past).
I will blame Obama. I will blame the Democrats. I will also get into statistics and make my point. I'll also peel the onion more than once or twice. That is I will not be some cutesy liberal tard reporter dabbling in a little bit of statistics, get the results I want, move On, but not drill down into the data all the way(Ask Why 5 times).
"that was then...this is now" - Anomalous
"Used as a management speak put down for those who resist change and hark back to the good old days."
Really? All you have is an aphorism?
I like aphorisms. I do. But for every aphorism there is a counter aphorism.
The wisdom comes in their judicious use.
Do you want to debate or do you want to read the Democrat playbook?
Debate? no thanks. You are predictable: all is the fault of Obama and the Democrats...and how long has he been out of office? And yes, the past matters. But not for you. You are not dealing with trends but placing blame. That is the pattern of all your posts for the past 6 months. Always blame the Obama administration. Debate with your better self. But see if you can locate that missing entity
Obama started the trends by cutting the military all the while placing operational requirements on it.
Bombing Libyans to death (without a Declaration of War) is a lot of wear and tear ion an airframe.
Your 1st response was a trite saying uttered by a person with a hackneyed mind.
Post a Comment