According to a story in the North Shore & Coolum News, the
claim covers several items.
1) Minor damage to the helicopter's fuselage - basically a small tear in a non-vital area.
2) The loss of the helicopter's use during the repair period.
3) Transporting the aircraft by air (presumably in a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III) to a repair centre.
Anyone who has ever had to replace a panel on their European car will understand the first claim, but it's the second two that bewilder me. Was the damage so great that the helicopter had to be grounded? The Taliban will take heart if a few strokes of a pickaxe is all it takes to knock out an attack helicopter.
Since regular use of the aircraft probably runs into the thousands of dollars per flight hour, having it out of action probably saved taxpayers a small fortune. Of course, this benefit was probably offset by the decision to transport the helicopter by air (by air!) to a repair facility.
Law reportedly says he doesn't regret his action, and is willing to go to jail for a while. As for the cost, it's probably a good thing Mr. Law didn't know enough about attack helicopters to realize that the real money is in the aircraft's sensors and weapons. Perhaps he needs to spend more time on Flightglobal's defence pages.
Follow me on Twitter: @AsiaJetWatch
Leave a comment
Want a user picture? Get a Gravatar!