Talk:Boeing Chinook (UK variants)/Archive 1

NAO Copyright (HC3 section)
© UK National Audit Office The material featured on this site is subject to National Audit Office copyright. All material may be downloaded, copied or reproduced free of charge in any format or medium without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the sources and copyright status should be acknowledged.

Title
This page should really be titled RAF Chinook Variants, the present title RAF Chinook implies that it is an RAF-Built Chinook !! MilborneOne 19:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Boeing Chinook (RAF) would be a suitable alternative, more closely following the company-name pattern for British military aircraft. -- BillCJ 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with a slight modification as Boeing Chinook (RAF variants). MilborneOne 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. However, we might also follow your suggestion for the Harrier II, and use Boeing Chinook (UK variants). While all UK variants are operated by the RAF at this time, it would make it more uniform, and conform to the Harreir II pattern. In addition, it's been "rumored" that the Army might one day gain control of the Chinooks; this would save us from a name change in the future, and would apply if an addional branch began operating them also. -- BillCJ 22:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That would work for me too. --Guinnog 23:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I created this article. I was only going by what had been created before, such as RAF Tornado... etc. I fully understand the points raised above and I agree. I have changed the title as per the consensus above, i.e. to Boeing Chinook (UK variants). Due to the organisation of the UK's helicopter force I can never forsee a "Royal Navy Chinook" variant. However there is a very outside possibity, so "UK variants" covers all the bases. If anyone disagrees let me know, or probably better for further discussion, add a comment below. Mark83 00:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. THanks --BillCJ 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinooks' Avionics
I read that the BAE Systems Multi Sensor Turrets (MSTs, forrunner of the Titan 385 Multi Sensor Turret System) is fitted on Royal Air Force Chinooks. Do you know if these turrets are fitted on HC.1s, HC.2s, or only on 7 Squadron's HC.2s ? Rob1bureau 11:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just variants or UK use of Chinook?
Is this article just intended to be about the UK variants or is it also intended to cover the use of the Chinook in the UK? Either way, I do not feel this article is living up to potential as it seems to be missing information peculiar to how the UK determined to replace the Belvedere with the Chinook. It spends an inordinately disproportionate amount of time on the procurement problems of the HC.3, but no mention is made as to why there is a 9-year gap between the Belvedere's retirement and the purchase of HC.1s.

I would also recommend that it carry a at the top and that the CH-47 article carry  in its variants section. Currently rated as a B-Class but I will be assessing the B-Class criteria in the template and feel that it falls short in the first two criteria. This should really be a Start-class article until some gaps are filled. --Born2flie 15:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the Bristol Belvedere helicopter not replaced by the Westland Wessex during the 9-year gap referred to above?

Dean Armond 02:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

RAF has 48 airframes
this is taken from the official RAF website: The RAF operates the largest fleet of Chinook Support Helicopters after the US Army, with a total of 34 HC2s, 6 HC2As and 8 HC3s  (the HC3 has yet to enter operational service). The Chinook Wing, which forms the heavy-lift element of the Joint Helicopter Command (JHC), is based at RAF Odiham in Hampshire. Odiham supports three operational squadrons, No 7 Squadron, No 18 Squadron and No 27 Squadron, and the Operational Conversion Flight The HC3s will be turned into HC2s or HC2As by 2009

Chinook rescuing Sea King
I added this to the external links again, as it was originally there, then got moved to the text, then got removed. I think it should be in the page somewhere as it shows the amazing things that Chinooks can do, and I think people should be able to see as well as read about it. 86.137.139.82 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry it not an amazing thing that Chinooks can do it is something that Chinooks do all the time - it is not the first time and want be the last that a Chinook has lifted another helicopter (or even a Sea King) that is why it is called a heavy lift helicopter. If they was anything unusual about this particular rescue - which doesnt look to be the case, then please explain. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this would be alright if it were stated as Milb1 describes. A normal type lift operation for a Chinook.  It'd be better to put that in a Design section but one of the Chinook HCx sections will do.  But we don't know what type (HC1, HC2, etc) it was.  The BBC page only says Chinook.  I think the link being in the Ext. links is acceptable.  That's my take anyway... -Fnlayson (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added the external link back although not notable but as Fnlayson says it does show the Chinook in action. It is a Chinook HC2 serial number ZA680, I have added that info to the link. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced minor incident
I've removed the fowwing unsourced item from the article (twice!):


 * On 10 June 2003 a RAF Chinook HC2 pilot flew low over horseriders in rural Lincolnshire. The emotional trauma to one horse caused it to behave uncontrollably and resulted in the death of the rider. At a subsequent inquest, the death was blamed upon the actions of the pilot while operating under inappropriate low flying rules from the UK Ministry Of Defence. The UK MOD undertook a review of their policies and raised the minimum flight height as a result.

Any such incident needs to have reliable sources, especially when the event can seem dubious. In this case, it's not really notable at all to the Chinook itself, as it could easily have been any helicopter. According to the blurb, the UK MOD changed its flight rules, but it doesn't state whether it applied to all its helicopters, all its aircraft, or just its Chinooks. Also, I had originally removed the section by itself, but that edit got caught in an edit conflict, and the summary was lost. Please be careful with vandalism accusations. - BillCJ (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of any entry should have been raised in this section before autonomously being censored and removed - you accuse of vandalism but readily admit to having taken destructive action in the first instance.

You opinion is that the topic is not relevant - it is the opinion of others that it is. Please exercise 'common sense' before imposing your will.

For your information: the accident victim was my sister...and I find your statements personally insulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.172.239 (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My apologies for your loss, but your personal connection hardly makes your opinion neutral on this matter - you should defer to other editors on this matter (and I don't mean just me). Vandalism is the intentional "damaging" of an article, none of I did in this case. Third, we get all kinds of "dubious" material added to WP - none of them bother to add a source. This is why having sources is so important, it's the best way to prove one's additions are for real. I'm not say the incident shouldn't be on WP, just not in this article - it's not notable TO the helicopter. - BillCJ (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and it is not a repository of news stories. I, too, have no firm opinion on whether there's a place on Wikipedia for noting this incident, but the fact that it involved a Chinook is quite incidental, so if there's a place, it's not here. As BillCJ says, it could as easily been any other helicopter or perhaps a fixed-wing aircraft. Relating this incident in this article doesn't aid in the reader's understanding of this helicopter type. On the other hand, if the revision to the minimum height rule applied specifically and exclusively to Chinook operations, then perhaps this would be the place. --Rlandmann (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not notable here. The RAF article might be a fitting place for it due to the minimum flight height policy.  -Fnlayson (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find an article related to "Helicopter safety", though we do have a small section in the Helicopter article on the "Hazards of helicopter flight". We do have an article on the Safety of emergency medical services flights, which relates mostly to helicopters. Pehaps we could combiine some aspect of these sections/articles, and add in info on saftey around helicopters, such as tail-rotaor hazards, and but togetehr one article entitled Helicopter safety. As this incident has had effects on UK MOD helicopter operations, I think this incident would be notable to such an article. We'd have to find more sources on the impact of the incident, but it's possible it might be notable enough for its own page, thnough it seems unlikely at this point. It's definitely one of those freak accidents that sometimes happens in life, made more tragic by the unfortunate loss of life. - BillCJ (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A few remarks here:
 * i. The name of the victim is never mentioned - the statement regarding 'a memorial' appears to be irrelevant to the matter at hand and somewhat antagonistic.
 * OK poor choice of words, but the intent is proper. An article on Chinooks is not the place for an article on the death of a horse-rider. Write an article on Accidents caused by low-flying aircraft!!!Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ii. I see only four credible references here with a global statement that there is an implication that all 'other' text comes from a single source - by the discussion here, I assume there would be no objection whatsoever to mark this entire article as not citing it's sources. There can be no 'catch all ' here. It either is or it isn't. All documents here need to be presented for the masses as credible - by the statements made here this entire article is now questionable. I can find many statements not cited here.
 * I think 63 references are plenty, Don't you?Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * iii. A simple google search by those who have any serious interest in this discussion, would reveal that there is a relationship between; low flying, all aircraft types, the helicopter, the Chinook specifically, the Chinook flight recording technology, the flight policies of the Chinook, simulators of the Chinook and application of the Chinook in modern military forces - I would gladly support an individual willing to create a new article on these aspects with citations, evidence and scientific matter as supporting credibility - this whole matter is now an ongoing investigation of the serious crime squad as a result of corruption of evidence in this specific case.
 * As I said before, write an article on accidents caused by low-flying aircraft. There is no conspiracy here, the article is about the aircraft, and accidents are secondary.Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * iv. Based on the statements here, the existing item regarding a Chinook incident 'happened' to involve a Chinook - again - no double standards here; it either is or it isn't. The incident involved a Chinook or it didn't. Pedantic comes to mind if a differential is being made here.
 * See previous replies.Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * v. I'm feeling somewhat overwhelmed here, that Wikipedia markets itself as a communication device of the community, but the reality is that that community is in fact very restricted, limited and censored to a narrow minded 'clique' - please don't confirm that stereotype. Allow the community to offer information - do not delete information based on personal opinion or a casual belief or internet search that extends to the first page of a google listing - question all information, validate every piece of data, but do no impose a belief based upon an 'I know better than you attitude' for fear you not only lose your own credibility but damage the reputation of the very medium that supports your voice......our voice.
 * I'm afraid you're wrong. Wikipedia is NOT the voice of the people, it is an encyclopedia, nothing more nothing less!Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me know - I'm no expert at this, but I sure as hell can overload somebody willing to co-operate, listen and help inform the masses with an important and credible article. I have no time for arrogance.
 * Unfortunastely the only person exhibitting arrogance is yourself. Calm down and read the arguments dispassionately, and write your sisters memorial in a more appropriate place, I'm sure she would prefer to be remembered somewhere other than an edit war.Petebutt (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.174.172.239 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 April 2008


 * That's better i can actually read what you've written now.Petebutt (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not notable
"In July 2009, the British government stated that a Chinook helicopter was rebuilt by combining the front of a crashed British Chinook and the rear of an Argentine one captured during Falklands war. The rebuilt helicopter was used in Afghanistan.[13][Notable event? discuss]"

This is a fairly routine event in aircraft maintenance. Notwithstanding the ignorant spin put onto the incident by some in the yellow press, I don't believe this belongs in the article. What do others think? --John (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not that routine, but most of that is not notable, which is why I tagged it. At least for the reasons the press point out, imo.  Making a new aircraft from 2 different halves is briefly mentioned in SR-71 (SR-71C), EA-6B and F/A-18 Hornet (so called Franken Prowler/Hornet on last 2) articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While not as unusual occurance of a "cut and shut" as say HMS Zubian, it probably is worth some sort of mention (particularly if the composite aircraft got a new serial). What it probably doesn't deserve is as much coverage as is given and where it is - perhaps integrate with the sentence about the other ex-argentine Chinook and move to design and development with the rest of procurment issues -  smething like:


 * "One Argentine CH-47C was captured during the war and placed in RAF service as an HC2.[] The rear fuselage of a second ex-Argentine Chinook was combined with the remains of a crashed RAF Chinook in 2003 to create a flyable helicopter."
 * Nigel Ish (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * ^ That's a fine plan. Thanks Nigel. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Concur. Good rewrite. - BilCat (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ae you sure! Perhaps we might need to check the sources, only one Argentine Chinook was returned to the UK AE-520 which becane ZH257 it was never converted for RAF use and the aft pylon was used to repair the damaged HC2. The rest of AE-520/ZH257 was stripped for usable spares and then scrapped. I believe the Cockpit was donated as a training aid to help the United States Missing in Action/Prisoner of War recovery project. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The source in this article now only mentions a damaged RAF Chinook and one captured Argentine Chinook. It describes the 2 parts just as front and rear. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a ref for the one captured, just to note the Argentine Army had two CH-47Cs on the island, AE-520 was found abandoned by British troops and returned to the UK, AE-521 was destroyed by a Harrier. The Argentine Air Force also had two CH-47s on the island H-91 and H-93 both made it back to Argentina before the end of the conflict. But as they are all CH-47Cs only the use to repair a HC2 is notable to this article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Rewrote Operational History
I've just completed a major rewrite of the Chinook's UK operational history, as well as dashed in a dozen or so refs throughout. This hasn't covered all the conflicts that the UK been a part of in full detail, but I believe it to be a drastic step up in terms of quality and information provided. Any thoughts on this heavily modified section? Should this style be continued, with more events covered, or should this suffice? Kyteto (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Some good work Kyeto, i would suggest it could be expanded in time to give more details on operations like Lebanon. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No of Chinooks on order (2010)
The UK's Strategic Defence Review (pp. 25–26) mentions "12 new Chinook Helicopters..." Are these in addition to or instead of the 24 announced in the 2009 Future Helicopter Strategy as currently discussed in the article? Nigel Ish (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears the review reduced the number in the previous order. Flight International says it is a reduction in the previous Chinook order here from 24 to 12 now. -fnlayson (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, thought it probably was - now reflected in the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Falklands
nothing on the destruction of chinooks when SS Atlantic Conveyor was destroyed by the Argentine air force?--Mongreilf (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * When the article became a GA there was, but somebody has since removed it. I have replaced it now. Kyteto (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Mongreilf (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent additions
The following paragraphs have recently been added. There's probably some good stuff here, but work is needed to fix grammar/spellings, citations and blend with the existing text.


 * When first procured, the main role of the RAF Chinook force (initially Nos 7 & 18 Squadrons) was to provide heavy lift and battlefield logistic outload and support to the British Army of the Rhine as then based in Northern West Germany as part of the UK's NATO contribution facing the Warsaw Pact during the "Cold War". 18 Squadron was to be based at RAF Gutersloh West Germany, while No 7 Squadron was to be based at RAF Odiham in the UK with a deployable role on to the Continent.


 * In 1983, three Chinooks self-ferried in a pioneering long range tranist for the type across Europe to reach RAF Akrotitir in Cyprus as their base to support the British Army unit (BritForLeb) in Beirut who were assiting in stability and peace keeping ops following the civil war there (operation Pulsator). This operation also involved night low level use of ANVIS NVG to minimise the threat (when neccessary) from the large amount of small arms. Manpads and radar guided anti-aircraft weapons deployed in and around the Beirut.  All flights in and out of the Lebanaon included close cooperation with the US 6th Fleet stationed just off the Lebanese coast, including many deck landings and refuels on a variety of naval vessels. This operation continued well in to 1984 when following a major attack on the US Embassy, the UN Force was withdrawn and the Chinook detachment, assisted by RN Commando Sea Kings, carried out a rapid evacuation of BritForLeb and UK nationals on to the waiting UK vessels and back to Akrotiri, including all their equipment and vehicles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexDor (talk • contribs) 11:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You must have missed the "citation needed" tags that were after each of these paragraphs. -fnlayson (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw the cn tags (and the comment you put on IPs page), but the paras need so much copyediting as well as citations that I thought it best to move them out of this GA, but I won't take offence if you tell me I was wrong and put the paras back - I'm still learning. DexDor (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)