Uganda Chopper Crash: Was common sense in short supply?

By Peter Nguli

First and foremost, our condolences to our Ugandan brothers and sisters for the diffucult week of pain after the chopper crash in Mt. Kenya area in which two of their colleagues died.

There is no doubt they died in their call of duty to protect their country, our country, Africa and the world in general by targetting Al Shabaab millitants in Somalia and eliminating the threat of global terrorism. Our hearts are with them in these days of mourning.

However, I beg to raise some logical questions regarding basic items which I thought are universal to everyone's thinking. Was common sense in short supply?

Chopper model

Lets first look at this Mi-24 chopper also called Hind see its advantages. According to Wikia website, the Mi-24 Hind is a multirole attack helicopter manufactured by the Soviet Mil bureau, a Moscow Helicopter Plant, based in Moscow, Russia.

The first helicopter to enter service with the Soviet Air Force as a dedicated gunship and small scale troop transport, it was developed with the Mi-8 'Hip' transport helicopter's propulsion system, entering Soviet service in 1972. The NATO name "Hind" comes from the helicopter's distinctive nose area, which resembles that of a female deer, also called a hind. Also the mainstay of the Russian Army, it is highly durable because of its heavy armour, it is also appealing because of the abundance of weaponry loaded on board.

According to Global Security Organisation, it was the most widely used element of Soviet air power in the Afghan war. It was also used in Chechnya. The Hind was an extremely lethal weapon, with machine guns or cannon in the nose turret and up to 192 unguided missiles under its stub wings.

It was widely used by the Soviets for punitive and search-and-destroy missions. The Hind was also used to provide close air support for ground troops, to strike Afghan villages and to conduct armed-reconnaissance missions to detect and attack guerrilla groups. In addition, Total Air Dominance lists the Mil Mi-24 "Hind" is a formidable tank killing helicopter with mean looking design and awesome fire capabilities and in addition, its the backbone of the helicopter fleets of around 19 nations.

The Mi-24 is not only an attack helicopter but also a troop carrier. This machine can provide adequate firepower to while being dropped at their designated landing sites. The helicopter crews in the west work in co-ordination with each other. In the U.S army for example the AH-64 Apaches gives covering fire while the UH-60 Black Hawks deploy troops, but in the case of the Mi-24 both the tasks can be done by the same helicopter.

The concept of the Mi-24 is thus much different from western philosophies. There were many modifications done to the Mi-24 during the early days of the programme. The Mi-24 also played a significant role in the gulf war but did not fair too well in the hands of inexperienced Iraqi pilots and due to the presence of the Apache with its hi-tech weapons and technology.

However, Russian Army Mi-24s are being upgraded with new avionics including thermal imagers. All Mi-24 helicopters can also be armed with rockets and grenade launchers. The helicopter is powered by two Isotov TV3-117VMA turboshaft engines and can travel at a speed of 335 MPH.

Difficult to fly

On the other side of the coin, we can look at the disadvantages of this advanced chopper. According to Dwayne A. Day of U.S. Centennial of Flight Commision, the Hind is a difficult and unforgiving helicopter to fly.

Unless a pilot is very careful, he can cause it to fly out of control or cause the rotors to collide with the tailboom. Although the Hind is fast, it is not very maneuverable, and this is a problem when flying at high speed close to the ground. In addition, a fully loaded Hind cannot hover and has to make a rolling takeoff. The Hind's performance suffered in the hot, thin air of Afghanistan.

The U.S. Army uses several Hinds as threat training aircraft where they are flown to attack U.S. ground forces in training simulations. Usually during the first several days of training, the Hinds "destroy" many vehicles. Once the troops learn how to deal with them, the Hinds become much less effective.

Despite the large numbers of Hinds exported worldwide, the helicopter has never been a complete success. It has rarely been used in the role for which it was intended, as a "flying infantry fighting vehicle." It is unnecessarily large and heavy for use as a gunship and has never possessed the tank-killing power of the U.S. AH-64 Apache. Its biggest drawback is its lack of night vision and precision navigation equipment. At a time when the AH-64 Apache can dominate the night, killing tanks at will, the Hind has trouble operating after the sun goes down.

The Russians themselves have essentially admitted the Hind's limitations and have developed the Mi-28 Havoc and Ka-50 Werewolf attack helicopters, which are smaller and more maneuverable and do not have the large cabin for carrying unnecessary troops. However, with the Russian military severely short of funds, it is likely that the "krokodil", as its commonly known since it almost resembles a crocodile, will serve for many years to come.

What went wrong?
So the question is: what could have gone wrong in the Uganda chopper crash? Was it high attitude? Before you guess, remember that it was in Afghanistan, not Europe, Africa, or Central America, where the Hind became most notable. Unlike Kenya where we have a couple of mountains, much of Afghanistan is a mountainous desert, and the helicopter was the best means of putting troops into rebel "Mujaheddin"-controlled areas.

Hinds often rode shotgun to provide support or were later used to attack ground targets. Indeed, the Mujaheddin soon nicknamed the Hind the "devil's chariot" and realized that their small guns were practically useless against its heavily armored hull.

Was it due to bad-weather? This could be the most likely reason. The Russians noted that the chopper could not operate in poor weather and hence they had to work upgrading it. So, they developed the Mil Mi-28 an all-weather, day-night, military tandem, two-seat anti-armour attack helicopter. It is a dedicated attack helicopter with no intended secondary transport capability, better optimized than the Mil Mi-24 for the same role.

Was it brought down under enemy fire? The answer is an outright no, because even the Ugandans ackowledge that Kenya's airspace is safe unless we consider elephant, leopard and rhino fire if it exists in the dense forests of Mt. Kenya.

And lastly was it pilot error or mechanical problems? The latter can not be answered until full investigations are contacted. The former can be discussed though. Were the pilots not aware that Mt. Kenya is the second highest in Africa and hence it is bound to be foggy, misty and cloudy?

Even a standard three pilot of a toy chopper would know the second highest mountain in Africa must be very foggy and cloudy especially in tropical Africa. So, why couldn't they find a different route? Must you fly over 5000 metres to face fog, mist, clouds and strong winds?

I thought it is just common logic that horrible weather patterns around Mt. Kenya are quite obvious at this month of the year, even at Ruwenzori mountains in Uganda and that there were other 'dry and favourable' routes to follow? I thought all routes lead to Rome and the Mt. Kenya route could be avoided as long as you arrive at Mogandishu? 

And lastly it appeared the choppers followed each other like sheep in a queue at a slaughter house? I find the choice of the route options thing surrounded by reasoning haemorrhage, thinking deficiency and a situation where common sense was in short supply.

Peter Nguli is a resident in England.