quote:

Originally posted by Dave1960:
I don't have access to data like that but I can tell you that platform pickups were a great option to have

quote:

Originally posted by jadeel:
Check-Six.com lists seven.

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave1960:
I don't have access to data like that but I can tell you that platform pickups were a great option to have

They sure were. I picked up 5 Cubans near Havana harbor with it. Used it on at least 5-6 different times. Never flew twin helo but not knowing any better i would rather have boat hull than another motor.

quote:

<http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/>

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:

quote:

<http://uscgaviationhistory.aoptero.org/>

Missing my point. AIRFRAME losses only. The Ptero only shows fatal accidents.

quote:

Originally posted by joedepilot:
Thanks MC ( stationed tvc 60-62 AD3 )

quote:

John,

Great question - one that I wanted to do some checking of my records before I answered.
Went back and checked my notes - those that I cound find - and can pretty well report that we opted out of reporting accident or mishap classifications for at least 3 reasons.

1. We wanted to stay away from anything related to the wording "ACCIDENT" or "MISHAP"
based on the fact that we had no access to such items/info and could only guess at the airframe and/or lives lost in such events.

2. On several of the "MISHAPS" that were termed Class A regarding hull damage with NO lost of life, the remains of the airframes were actually rebuilt by the outstanding and talented folks at ARSC and continued to serve long lives as viable rescue platforms that eventually were retired from USCG service due to old age. Likewise, we have come across cases where the injury level as well as the airframe damage would qualify an event as a CLASS A mishap, the remains of the airframe were rebuilt and continued to serve with active Coast Guard units. Several of these were the H-3 and H-52 airframes.

3. We found several CLASS A mishaps that involved "NO" damage (dings or otherwise) to USCG machines but proved either fatal or disabled a crew member in the process. One case comes to mind wherein a young AD exited an aircraft to extinguish a stack fire on a fixed wing asset and walked into a rotating propeller. He suffered fatal injuries while the airframe suffered no damage at all.

Hence, we opted very early on, at the suggestion of some of the old-timers, to not mention the subject of MISHAP or ACCIDENT. Our main purpose was to document the entry and exit of aircraft in USCG service, and if, in the process, an accident caused the loss of an aircraft, to simply mention the loss date of the aircraft and the number of fatalities involved.

Even though ths above does not answer your question, I hope it explains why we do not have the info broken down by mishap class. My best guess is that the Aviation Safety Shop would have the info broken down by individual airframe type.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave1960:
the closest I came to being involved in a Class A in the -52 was when the pilot flew past a perfectly good airport when the Low Fuel light was illuminated. The second time he did it, I started taking my name off the flight schedule when his name was on it. He flew under bridges, too, for what might have been classified as "fun". Thankfully, after he demolished the tail wheel assembly by driving it up into the transition section via a failed autorotation, he seemed to have learned his lesson. He turned into a pretty good dude.

quote:

Originally posted by 7342765:
Humm seem to recall a guy... maybe went by the name No Hover (fill in last name here)

Rebuilt the aft bulkhead with 3/4" plywood and lagbolts and towed it to the museum.

Ahh the good old days. Dave, the low fuel light was just an advisory, doesn't mean anything. "Tim" the skiing/mule driving dummy told me so