Malaysian navy helicopters collide mid-air

[probes]

The rehearsal for a naval parade, Malaysia.

[CharlieOneSix]

Seven in one helicopter and three in another. Why seven? Surely for air displays you should only have minimum crew. This accident comes two days after two Japanese Navy anti-submarine helicopters crashed during a night exercise. The flight recorders were found close to one another so presumably another mid air collision.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/2 ... c-exercise

EDIT: Back in 1981 two Royal Navy Sea Kings of 820 Squadron collided during an exercise...
https://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/2 ... -cornwall/

[probes]

Why would such an accident happen? Don't they/ doesn't anybody see another helicopter close around? Do they have some determined flight ... dunno, paths or something that they have to fly, threfore don't notice if someone has diverted or has problems?

[Ex-Ascot]

Why would such an accident happen? Don't they/ doesn't anybody see another helicopter close around? Do they have some determined flight ... dunno, paths or something that they have to fly, threfore don't notice if someone has diverted or has problems?

They were rehearsing for a parade. Maybe they were supposed to be in close formation but not that close. Yes it is quite ridiculous that there should be 7 in one. On a jolly I guess.

[FD2]

Back in 2003, seven were killed when two AEW Sea Kings collided in the Gulf. The seventh man was a USN officer observing the AEW versions in action. The controller thought the two pilots were visual with each other - one inbound and one outbound.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jan ... q.military

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 75266.html

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

After the break from formation, the second to outside helo on the right seems to collide with the outside right helo.
The basic reason for the collision is that the second to outside pilot failed to keep separation from the outside helo after the break from formation.
Looks like the main rotor disc collides with the other fuselage/tail rotor.

Prior to the break, the outside pilot is responsible for separation from the helo inside.
As soon as the break happens, the inside pilot is now responsible for separation, since the outside pilot now can't see the inside helo.
It's behind him and through the floor, relatively-speaking.

However, the inside pilot has to immediately transition during the break from looking across, forward, and to his left at the next helo inside him, to looking up, back, and right for the outside helo.
Looking up and right in a fighter is easy because the canopy gives an unobstructed view , but this is not normally the case in most military helos, which have mostly solid ceilings.
Normally in a formation break from echelon, the leader breaks first and away, and then in sequence, so that none of the problems of changing responsibilities, or which aircraft to look at, or changing direction of look, happen.

Assuming the pilot handling was the Captain in the right hand seat, the Co- in the left seat wouldn't be visual with the outside helo at all, before or after the break, so can't assist.
The helos on the left side of the formation don't have this problem.

Two key questions will occupy the Inquiry.
1. How did the formation manoeuvre planning deconflict the aircraft after the break?
2. Did the inside pilot lose visual (or never acquire it) on the outside pilot?

If the outside pilot pulled less 'g' than planned/expected, and/or rolled on less bank before pulling that 'g', then it would place his aircraft not only not where the inside pilot was expecting, but also where it would be difficult or impossible for the inside pilot to acquire it. It would also reduce the planned/expected separation.
If the inside pilot failed to acquire the outside aircraft and pulled anyway, and especially if the inside pilot pulled harder than normal whether he had visual or not, then this would increase the risk of collision.