Good work Coastguard......

[pasptoo]

RAF left red-faced after mounting search for lost helicopter which ran out of fuel - The Daily Record (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/03/29/raf-left-red-faced-after-mounting-search-for-lost-helicopter-which-ran-out-of-fuel-86908-22146132/)

:O :O :O

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/410507-puma-out-gas.html - Military Thread.

RAF left red-faced after mounting search for lost helicopter which ran out of fuel

Mar 29 2010 (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/03/29/) By Craig McDonald
A HUGE search was launched for an RAF helicopter which ran out of fuel.
The Super Puma crew got caught out during a training exercise and had to land in a remote area, where they lost radio contact with their base.
A Coastguard helicopter was scrambled to find the chopper and around 50 rescue personnel joined the search.
When the Puma was found, the crew were so embarrassed they refused a lift back to their base and waited with the aircraft until it could be refuelled the following day.
A source told the Record: "There are some red faces over this one. It's a cock-up, plain and simple."
The Puma was on a navigation exercise in Ross-shire when the crew realised they didn't have enough fuel.
Air traffic controllers were informed that the chopper was landing near Loch Maree in Wester Ross and the Coastguard were called at 4.45pm.
As well as the Coastguard helicopter from Stornoway, rescue teams from Torridon, Loch Ewe, Gareloch, Kyle of Lochalsh and Ullapool joined the hunt.
Portree and Kyle lifeboats were launched and a Coastguard tug was put on standby.
A source said: "With any missing aircraft, the tactic is to saturate the area as quickly as possible.
"There would be dozens of personnel involved in the hunt - no one would have known if the Puma had crashed on land, ditched in the sea, or whatever."
The source added: "The helicopter was supposed to have been following a road between Applecross and Aultbea, in Ross-shire.
"They got a bit lost, which would not normally be a problem for a large military helicopter. But in this case they had only the minimum fuel.
"They apparently had just 27 minutes worth for the 20-mile planned route."
The missing chopper was eventually spotted just after 6pm.
The source said: "The Stornoway-based crew got there very quickly. They wondered why they were getting no explanation for the landing of the helicopter in such a remote area.
"They were told the eight people on board the Super Puma were fine and they did not want to be rescued. "
The crew remained with the chopper overnight before another helicopter was dispatched to refuel it. It returned to base at RAF Kinloss, Moray, on Saturday.
Yesterday, a Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said bad weather had caused the Super Puma's estimated journey time to increase.
But an aviation source described the failure to take enough fuel as "very embarrassing".
He said: "As cock-ups go, it's a classic. I can't say I've heard of it happening with such consequences before."
The MoD spokeswoman said an investigation would be held.
She said: "The Puma had to make an unscheduled landing.
"They either ran out of fuel or were about to run out of fuel.
"A localised search was quickly called off when the aircraft was located."
Maritime and Coastguard Agency spokesman Fred Caygill said: "We are pleased we were able to assist our colleagues in the RAF."

[pumaboy]

I did not relise the RAF had Super Pumas

Journalists are a bunch of Donkeys since last year with all the problems of the North Sea Puma fleet journalist will do anything to give these machines bad publicity.

What the don't relise is how many hours have been acheived in the span of nearly 20 years.

[bolkow]

Fred Caygill'sd comment is a classic, - sarcastic bastard! LMAO

[Yonez]

Puma boy

Doesn't seem to me that journalists gave the aircraft bad publicity in this case. The blame for that rests squarely with the crew.

[F.A.TAlbert]

What do you think will be the likely outcome of the inquiry? Would the Capt of the craft suffer loss of seniority?

[Hummingfrog]

I am amazed at the comments about this non-event.

The crew did the right thing which many low time civilian pilots should note - if in doubt LAND don't press on and end up a statistic.

There is no blame here and there won't be an inquiry and loss of seniority.

HF

[Macaco Norte]

So, all you low time civi pilots take note - take off with insufficient fuel, then become geographically confused whilst following a road from A to B - If in doubt dont get airborne!!!!!

[Trans Lift]

No blame, the crew is to blame. They didn't prepare properly and bring enough fuel. Luckily it didn't cost the lives of the others on board.:ugh:

Low time MILITARY pilots should also take note!!!

[jeepys]

Hummingfrog,

if you were flying as a passenger on an airliner from afar back home and at best the plane had to divert to an airfield well short of it's destination, wait until the next day for an uplift of fuel before continuing onto it's original planned destination I am sure you would be a tad annoyed for incompetence.
Helicopters are lucky in that they can land in a field and a small one at that but that should never be relied on when planning, not that they did.
Many of us have been caught out, maybe low time civvies perhaps maybe not but a highly trained RAF two crew, hmmm I understand the questions being asked.

[drugsdontwork]

Stop slagging off this crew. I put a seaking in a field a few months ago as it was a simulated sarop and the weather meant we were flying too slow to make it safely to our destination. When the weather picked up off we popped.

Military flying is not just simple a to b in good weather. It does not stop when the weather gets a bit iffy and you may have to push fuel quantities to maximize the search, get mrt out, carry the extra good guys with the guns, whatever. And when did the met peeps get the forecast right anyway??

[Ned-Air2Air]

Journalists are a bunch of Donkeys

Hey Pumaboy - I can also say Puma pilots are a bunch of wankers but that would just be a generalisation now wouldnt it :D

Just because you dont like what ONE journalist wrote dont tar everyone with the same brush. Some of us have actually written NICE things about the Puma.

Ned

[birrddog]

Some of us have actually written NICE things about the Puma.

Ned, perhaps that's why he said it :E

Hat, coat, etc.

[Pullharder]

Yes everyone, stop slagging off the crew.....they were very professional in getting lost (how many on board, surely one could read a map)?? Did someone mention "highly trained RAF crew"? I'm sorry, I shouldn't mock...I ALSO got lost once...I was map reading, single pilot in a non autopilot machine in crap weather with,oh, about 35 hrs T.T.!!!!!!!!!!
drugsdontwork, it's not just military flying that isn't just straight a-b...if I did this at work, I would be out of a job......:eek:
All joking aside, we all cock up now and then(this was a biggie though),glad all are safe and well, but lets be honest, they screwed up and they ARE solely responsible..

[Ned-Air2Air]

Birddog - Good point, might have to refer to Pumaboys post before we write our next article on the Puma :ok::ok:

Ned

[sonas]

What a society we live in. Always look to blame somebody. Huge embarrasement for the crew :O and a lesson they will never forget. Come on folks give them a break, we all make mistakes.:ouch:
Lesson :8 - plan route = sufficent fuel + reserve = completion of task. :D
As they say in Meerkat Manor 'Simples' :)

[Hummingfrog]

I am still amazed at the drivel posted on here! The crew did exactly the right thing when caught out by the weather - told ATC they were landing.

Air traffic controllers were informed that the chopper was landing near Loch Maree in Wester Ross and the Coastguard were called at 4.45pm.


Loch Maree is an inland freshwater loch so why were the Portree and Kyle lifeboats were launched and a Coastguard tug was put on standby.


This whole episode has been blown out of all proportion by misinformed press which is highlighted by the quote above.

Sonas

Your comment shows a complete lack of knowledge of military flying

Lesson - plan route = sufficent fuel + reserve = completion of task

"They apparently had just 27 minutes worth for the 20-mile planned route."

20 miles in a PUMA takes about 9 mins so he had plenty of fuel and a reserve - in fact he had just 5 mins less than I have to carry as a N Sea pilot at cruise consumption.

He landed because of the weather, a good captaincy call, as by pressing on he could have avoided the unknowledgeable comments on this forum but he could also have endangered his crew and pax.

jeepys but that should never be relied on when planning, I am afraid you are wrong there. In the winter to get the task done you have to rely on using that option sometimes. On SAROPS I have landed in fields to let weather pass, on SH I diverted to Henlow - a grass strip because of unforecast clag and surprised OC Flying by ringing him up to inform him he now had a Wessex on his station - he was so happy to see a real helicopter parked outside that he bought me a beer!

I stand by my comment earlier - too many low time helicopter pilots press on when a landing would have been the better and safer option.

HF

[139BOY]

If ATC were informed that the A/C was landing why was a search initiated ?. Surely the SAR co-ordinaters would have contacted ATC to see when & where they had lost contact with this missing A/C.

[Yonez]

hummingfrog,

Im all for stickin up for my puma mates but lets take the facts for what they are:
The guys departed on a leg which is believed to be 20 miles. 20 miles as the crow flies, not following roads. If they were to follow roads from Applecross to Altbea the distance would be at least double that.

They had 27 mins fuel. Lets take it that this is useable fuel & not to tanks dry. Theres no way that these guys would be flying at 130kts(20 miles in 9mins) as you believe, low level in poor wx. More than likely they would be flying at a speed suitable for the conditions. Therefore not plenty of fuel & a reserve.

At some stage they would have approached their PNR and would have decided to push on or return. Or they would have reached Bingo fuel and turned back.

They landed the a/c because they had insufficient fuel to go any further. Land or fall from the sky - no captaincy decision req'd, just common sense, survival instinct. No other reason. Poor weather was only a cause for them to run low on fuel. As was the poor decision to push on, or even takeoff in the first place.

Were you ever SH?

You should have stayed Blue/Green for a little longer & learned a few things before prematurely pulling the Yellow & Black to go to pastures Greener.

[Macaco Norte]

yonez, I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps the first post in reply to this article should have read:-

'Poor journalism once again. This Puma was the advance party landing at a pre recced exercise location. The a/c that joined them the following day was main party.'

Oh no that would never work. RAF, Field location, nobody would ever believe that. Aint a hotel for miles.
Ah well it was only a thought................

[Hummingfrog]

Yonez

I see you are an AAC pilot so would have thought that you would have had more experience of what faced this crew. You talk about PNR which is irrelevant in this case - PNR is used when over a hostile environment and you can't land - not applicable in this case. Your definition of PNR also assumes that there was fuel at their point of departure which is unlikely or else they would probably have been more fuel uplifted before departure.

When I flew SH (7yrs and a few thousand hrs in Germany and UK) the motto was never pass a bowser and I am sure that is true now. As you should also know getting reliable up to date weather info when lifting from a field site is difficult so we often lift only knowing what the local weather is.

This crew lifted with sufficient fuel for the route and were forced to do a precautionary landing because of the weather - no drama - been done lots of times in the past just hasn't made the papers.

You should have stayed Blue/Green for a little longer & learned a few things before prematurely pulling the Yellow & Black to go to pastures Greener.

This made me laugh as I have probably done just about anything that can be done with a helicopter from SAR display pilot, through Piper Alpha, lifting missiles for 51 Missile Regt, NI to bashing the radials out of Aberdeen after leaving the RAF at my NRD.

HF

[Tallsar]

Some readers may not be aware that the RAF Puma has always had a signifcant deficiency compared with not only the standard variant at the time (1971) when it was introduced, but also subsequent "super" variants. Its fuel consumption per kg is high, and yet the MoD chose to remove a fuel tank at build to ensure the ac met the spec requiring it to lift 16 troops at MAUW. Thus the ac has always suffered from shorter legs/endurance than any other operational UK helo at full fuel. This by definition means that crews are very wary off "pushing it" as embarrassment is often not far away if there is no refuel point or tac bowser in the vicinity while on a demanding task. Although aux cabin tanks (of early) and modern standards have been available - it is not the standard fit for both operational and H&S reasons.
I agree with those threads that have praised the crew for making sensible airmanship decisons and being better safe than sorry. When you know you have got an incipient endurance problem no matter how good your preflight planning, and the weather hits, in the RAF Puma 1 you often have a limited endurance room for maneouvre. In my experience it is in the nature of SH that flexible and continuously updated decision making is required to balance operational success with optimum safety. Good captaincy, crew cooperation and airmanship are esential to this and from what I have read there is all of this behind this particular incident.

Cheers

[sunnywa]

I love PPrune. Nothing like facts get in the way of a good slagging match. From reading these posts, I don't know (but maybe I am a bit thick) what the circumstances were of the incident. The crew could have received the forecast weather, planned the navex/mission with their required reserves, and on the final leg, the weather crapped in and they had nowhere to go and no fuel to get there. They may have got horribly lost, who knows. There are lots of permutations to this event.

The lesson to be learned is that the boys, for whatever reason, did the right thing at the time and plonked it on terra firma in a controlled manner and rang for fuel. Beats the hell out of pushing yourself into a double engine failure. Maybe an armchair critic could have suggested he shut down an engine to conserve fuel whilst dodging around low level.

I'd like to see the whole report before I clamber over the PIC's grave. My opinion is that we should wait and see why it happened before you get personal.:) It is also a good time for the crew to try out their survival gear (surely nowhere in the UK is more than 2nm from a pub anyway).

[ShyTorque]

I think everyone who operates the Puma HC1 learns a lesson about fuel eventually. I did, worse than this, early in my career on type but also got away with it safely.

An aircraft with an endurance of about 1.5 hours will always be difficult to operate. I'm so glad that these days the type I fly has twice that capability.

[Cron]

.. c'mon Shy, you can give us some detail shirly?...

Regards

Cron

[B.U.D.G.I.E]

I love PPRuNe. Nothing like facts get in the way of a good slagging match. From reading these posts, I don't know (but maybe I am a bit thick) what the circumstances were of the incident.

Problem with the truth it don't sell papers. Which is why the press are such scum bags when it comes to stuff like this and also the slaggers on here would have nothing to do.

I'm sure had they had pressed on and crashed due to no fuel or worse weather then the press would have had a field day. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.

All safe, cab in one piece no one on the ground killed. Sounds like a result to me. Maybe some of the G A pilots should take note. Its never wrong to make the right choice and go home alive...
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D good on ya boys

[ShyTorque]

Cron, Very early in my career I very nearly ran my Puma out of fuel at night. On arrival at the totally dark RV area, in poor visibility, the planned night landing and refuelling site had not been set up due to the ground party getting lost; they were still miles away.

Having aborted two approaches due to encountering HT power cables, I landed in a field. The fuel gauges were reading less than one fifth of the indicated fuel of the aircraft that flamed out both engines in Portugal. Both fuel pressure lights were on, one flickering, one steady. Those operating the Puma will understand the significance of that.

But don't ever call me Shirly. ;)

[Hummingfrog]

Good to see that the professional pilots on this thread have agreed that this was a no drama landing and those prepared to criticise the crew on the basis of an ill informed newspaper article have gone very quiet - perhaps too embarrassed to comment now:E

HF

[pumaboy]

I don't think anybody was criticising the crew but more of the jounrnalist who write these articles and still stand by my words they are donkeys who don't know **** what they are writing about, and should keep very quiet and very care what they write about.

And ned I was reffering to the case that the Super Puma has had some awful press in the last year from journalist jumping all the back of the machine because of 1 accident and from making accident being made worse by terrable journalist.

The industry does not need it right now!!!!

[Hummingfrog]

Hi Pumaboy

I agree that some sections of the press do have an excitable reaction to Puma incidents but I disagree with your comment that the crew haven't been criticised.

Yonez The blame for that rests squarely with the crew.

Trans Lift No blame, the crew is to blame

Pullharder they screwed up and they ARE solely responsible


It is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine to only comment on aircraft incidents when the truth is known and certainly not lay blame on a crew until all the facts are revealed.

HF
(although Ex RAF I have no idea who this crew were and would even apply these principles to a RN crew;))

[ironchefflay]

could this incident be a reminder to the MOD how badly needed a replacement is, rather than an upgrade? £300m to upgrade to makila 1a1 (already behind the 1a2, 2, and now 2a incarnations) and an upgraded cockpit?

do they know there will soon be a derth of 332L's on the market because they will no longer be able to operate on the north sea? minimal retraining and re-equipping, still a puma after all! made of mostly the same bits! just an idea. im sure everyone will now educate me on why not!

[Tallsar]

Hi IC.....yes you make a good point.....but such a possibility means an MoD aquisition system that is "SMART" - was supposed to happen that way post the 1998 SDR -- and a lot of cash was spent and reorg occurred to make it so. IPTs were created to try and ensure best value for money and the possibility of it always taking the broadest view on equipment to ensure that best value for money. Also meant "no sacred cows" and not operating in stove pipes ie. looking outside your own box for solutions or ensuring your requirement wasn't being met by another team elsewhere in a different way.

Grand idea it all was ...but was always destined to fail as it wasn't pump primed enough to allow IPTs the freedom of action and fundamentally depended on the narrow operating culture of the (mostly) civ servants within the system. There was an idea at one point that most of the staff should be sacked and a " new culture" imbued by employing new people or re-employing those that signed up to the new way....sadly it never happened and we are now firmly back to the old ways, including the top dogs at Abbey constantly chasing their tales as they tackle an overheated requirements list with at least 40% underfunding...and then came the Puma upgrade......couldn't agree with you more.......its a sad poor value for money upgrade.......but someone convinced themselves that it was all that was available with the cash in hand.......Ah Well.... :ugh::ugh::mad::\

[Yonez]

HF

Not embarrassed, why comment time & again on what is obvious.
You are like a puppy with a new toy.
Bit of a hobby horse of yours not to comment unless truth is known - someone else must have written the 5 posts on here & the 1 on the other forum on your behalf.
Not army - used to be. But you're wrong i never experienced what these guys have. Meticulous planning always saved me from the embarrassment of running out of fuel.

[Winch-control]

All the planning in the world doesn't always work... CH47 days...

Landing at Bessbrook with 80kgs a side after a 252 cloud break in the adjoining valley; or shutting down beside the little chef on the A3 returning to Odi; or hovering for 2 hours in a Norwegian fjiord snow storm, Pilots only reference a large rock by his right boot. Just for starters.

This crew had the option, made the choice, clearly the correct one, and no amount of 20/20 hindsight will change that. All the planning in the world doesn't make you perfect, it just means you've been luckier! (The more I train/plan/fly...the luckier I get springs to mind.)