2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard the bleeps plenty, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes intentionally; as an experienced then-TC once said, if you're not hearing the bleeps, you're not using the aircraft.
Now before anyone get's all shirty about me saying that, my point is that even with training and experience in drooping the Nr deliberately, and with a good ear for the engines, the Puma can still bite you.
Now before anyone get's all shirty about me saying that, my point is that even with training and experience in drooping the Nr deliberately, and with a good ear for the engines, the Puma can still bite you.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yaw/roll divergence hasn't come up yet. It was demonstrated once to me at height - the ac lost height very quickly. I believe an RAF Puma was lost in France due to YRD in the seventies.
The Puma yaw/collective interlink seems to do the job quite well. How grossly does one have to fly out of balance to induce yaw/roll divergence? Can it catch one out after an unintentional brief but harsh application of sideslip?
The Puma yaw/collective interlink seems to do the job quite well. How grossly does one have to fly out of balance to induce yaw/roll divergence? Can it catch one out after an unintentional brief but harsh application of sideslip?
Yaw/Roll Divergence
Seafuryfan,
It is not strictly the out of balance that causes it, but an inappropriate yaw input to correct the out-of-balanceness(?).
The roll rate induced can be in excess of the ability of the cyclic to overcome it, and substantial height loss can ensue, but it takes a very large, rapid and sustained application of yaw pedal to get that sort of reaction. It is demonstrated very early on in the Puma OCU course, as an example of a. one of the Puma idiosyncrasies and b. gross mishandling. For the QHIs who demonstrate it one of the most tricky bits is overcoming the instinctive reaction to apply top/opposite pedal too quickly, before the effect has had a chance to build, which lessens the rather sobering effect of the demo on the student and does not give a chance for the student to fully see how quickly top pedal recovers the situation. In summary, if you manage to induce yaw/roll divergence, you have either a. done it on purpose, or b. grossly mishandled the aircraft. Pretty sure this has nothing to do with this accident.
I believe the one lost in France was being flown by a Boscombe crew who were investigating just that phenomenon.
If you were thinking of asking "how does yaw/roll divergence work?", don't go there!
How grossly does one have to fly out of balance to induce yaw/roll divergence?
The roll rate induced can be in excess of the ability of the cyclic to overcome it, and substantial height loss can ensue, but it takes a very large, rapid and sustained application of yaw pedal to get that sort of reaction. It is demonstrated very early on in the Puma OCU course, as an example of a. one of the Puma idiosyncrasies and b. gross mishandling. For the QHIs who demonstrate it one of the most tricky bits is overcoming the instinctive reaction to apply top/opposite pedal too quickly, before the effect has had a chance to build, which lessens the rather sobering effect of the demo on the student and does not give a chance for the student to fully see how quickly top pedal recovers the situation. In summary, if you manage to induce yaw/roll divergence, you have either a. done it on purpose, or b. grossly mishandled the aircraft. Pretty sure this has nothing to do with this accident.
I believe the one lost in France was being flown by a Boscombe crew who were investigating just that phenomenon.
If you were thinking of asking "how does yaw/roll divergence work?", don't go there!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PlasticCabDriver
I believe the one lost in France was being flown by a Boscombe crew who were investigating just that phenomenon.
Originally Posted by PlasticCabDriver
I believe the one lost in France was being flown by a Boscombe crew who were investigating just that phenomenon.
Oh, like they investigated the Sea King that rolled over and, blow me down, when they applied the same inputs, theirs rolled over as well!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the one lost in France was being flown by a Boscombe crew who were investigating just that phenomenon.
Oh, like they investigated the Sea King that rolled over and, blow me down, when they applied the same inputs, theirs rolled over as well!
Despite being warned not to try to replicate the incident, they lost a PR9 when it did exactly what it said on the tin
Buccanner at Subic Bay as well, to check a certain stores fit, after one had been launched from a carrier with a stores fit that didnt quite work.
Last edited by Airborne Aircrew; 9th Oct 2009 at 21:47.
"
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipster
I agree with you in some respects (however comma) but the system has to be flexible enough to deal with all sorts of investigations worldwide, possibly in combat zones.
One example would be the Tornado Mid-Air over Canada in the early '90's which resulted in one aircraft lost and another badly damaged. The Pilot of the Tornado that hit his leader had a wonderful excuse - he did not realise that he was supposed to wear his newly prescribed "Corrective Flying Spectacles" whilst flying an aeroplane. I wonder what he thought they were for?
The damaged (but flyable) Tornado was diverted to a distant small Civil Field without escort whilst the crew that had bailed out were left in a lake in their dinghies for about 12 hours until the CAF managed to rescue them by flying boat. The rest of the formation carried on regardless!!!
I believe there was quite a queue outside CinC STC's office awaiting one sided interviews after the BOI was completed.
I agree with you in some respects (however comma) but the system has to be flexible enough to deal with all sorts of investigations worldwide, possibly in combat zones.
One example would be the Tornado Mid-Air over Canada in the early '90's which resulted in one aircraft lost and another badly damaged. The Pilot of the Tornado that hit his leader had a wonderful excuse - he did not realise that he was supposed to wear his newly prescribed "Corrective Flying Spectacles" whilst flying an aeroplane. I wonder what he thought they were for?
The damaged (but flyable) Tornado was diverted to a distant small Civil Field without escort whilst the crew that had bailed out were left in a lake in their dinghies for about 12 hours until the CAF managed to rescue them by flying boat. The rest of the formation carried on regardless!!!
I believe there was quite a queue outside CinC STC's office awaiting one sided interviews after the BOI was completed.
I find it instructive, caz, that your anecdotes (other than those about your own illustrious career) concern the incompetence and at times gross negligence of various drivers airframe. One would be forgiven for believing that they were the sole cause of the various losses of Her Majesty's Aeroplanes during your tenure as Group SFSO. The incompetence and at times gross negligence of Her Majesty's Air Officers never seem to get a mention. Could it be that the "system" that:
is so flexible as to conveniently ignore such aberrations? The present system may well avoid embarrassment for such august persons but does very little for Flight Safety if Military Air Accident Investigations are so one sided. As I have pointed out before, if BA had both Airworthiness Authority over its fleet and sole Accident Investigation powers over its own accidents, their report of the B777 arrival at LHR would be a very different one to what we can expect from the AAIB. Flipster is right, high time that Military Air Accident Investigation be independent and professional, in much the same way as Military Airworthiness Regulation should be. Self Regulation does not work and in aviation it kills.
has to be flexible enough to deal with all sorts of investigations worldwide, possibly in combat zones.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent my time on 72 ,Puma and Wessex and many a time flying a lot . This accident has shocked me especially what happened as a result of that , but please dont take away the skills of the crew. We had a near miss out of Stanta many years back and to this day you look to the big aviator in the sky and thank him I am still here. This is of no help to people involved but in my best defence does anyone go out to hurt anyone. If god wanted to make us fly we would have gave us wings.
The Helicopter fleet does more than most, its easy to blame somebody than to say well done , the crew of the Puma did not go out to hurt anyone , its one of the tragic gone wrong things. If time could be changed I would be the first to sign up for it but it cant .
I am proud to fly with some of the best trained aviators in the world , sometimes you just have a bad day but dont take away there passion for what they do best.
The Helicopter fleet does more than most, its easy to blame somebody than to say well done , the crew of the Puma did not go out to hurt anyone , its one of the tragic gone wrong things. If time could be changed I would be the first to sign up for it but it cant .
I am proud to fly with some of the best trained aviators in the world , sometimes you just have a bad day but dont take away there passion for what they do best.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This report http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/66D22...w_redacted.pdf makes interesting reading in particular it mentions design features that require particular aircrew focus.There is quite a bit of redacting on it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
My "own illustrious career"? I have never served with the Royal Navy (although we did have RN Pilots on 32 Sqn)- let alone on a Carrier.
PS Were you aware that Shakespeare used "Illustrious" as meaning "Dull". Perhaps he meant "not lustrous" ?
PPS My one and only Accident was a CAT 3 birdstrike in 1966 -NOM. Teach's you not to fly on a Saturday morning even if you are behind the task!!
PPPS You cannot have a "Group Station Flight Safety Officer" which is what "Group SFSO" would mean. My Post was FS1 HQ 1Gp.
PPPPS During the 10 Months I was there we had 14 Board and Unit Inquiries in progress at the same time - perhaps "Patience" was, understandably, wearing a trifle "Thin" at that time.
Now, would you like to hear about the BOI's during that time which were reconvened after their original findings of negligence were thrown out as total rubbish which ignored the evidence?
My "own illustrious career"? I have never served with the Royal Navy (although we did have RN Pilots on 32 Sqn)- let alone on a Carrier.
PS Were you aware that Shakespeare used "Illustrious" as meaning "Dull". Perhaps he meant "not lustrous" ?
PPS My one and only Accident was a CAT 3 birdstrike in 1966 -NOM. Teach's you not to fly on a Saturday morning even if you are behind the task!!
PPPS You cannot have a "Group Station Flight Safety Officer" which is what "Group SFSO" would mean. My Post was FS1 HQ 1Gp.
PPPPS During the 10 Months I was there we had 14 Board and Unit Inquiries in progress at the same time - perhaps "Patience" was, understandably, wearing a trifle "Thin" at that time.
Now, would you like to hear about the BOI's during that time which were reconvened after their original findings of negligence were thrown out as total rubbish which ignored the evidence?
Last edited by cazatou; 13th Oct 2009 at 19:14.
caz:
Well, not right now thanks. I'd be much more interested to know about BOI's that ignored evidence (by not looking for it) and thus came to findings of Gross Negligence. Why would they do that, caz? Why should we take any RAF BOI seriously thereafter? I see that the latest call is for Military Procurement to be taken out of the hands of the MOD due to its incompetence. All in good time! MOD Airworthiness Authority is a contradiction in terms and must be removed forthwith to safer and independent hands, along with Military Air Accident Investigation.
Self Regulation does not work and in Aviation it kills!
Now, would you like to hear about the BOI's during that time which were reconvened after their original findings of negligence were thrown out as total rubbish which ignored the evidence?
Self Regulation does not work and in Aviation it kills!
Mick Strigg:
Yes, I'm aware of that, Mick. I don't pretend that a solution will come easily, but come it must. I have suggested elsewhere that the AAIB be made up of two parts, civil and military. Likewise there would be a CAA and MAA for Airworthiness Regulation. Both the MAAIB and the MAA would have to be able to deploy to wherever the Armed Forces do and yet be separate from and independent of the MOD. There are other civilian support arms (Defence Fire Services etc) under the MOD that already deploy. It must be possible to come to some arrangement whereby that could happen but outside of the MOD. As I say I don't know how, but aviation is unforgiving of anything other than a detached professional approach. I submit that in both Military Air Accident Investigation and Airworthiness Regulation we have been woefully deprived of that by the RAF and the MOD respectively.
flash8, others will know better, but I understand that the Royal Navy still retains trained air accident investigators for work in theatre.
Chug,
If you do away with Military Air Accident Investigation, who would do it? The AAIB refuse to go to Theatre!
If you do away with Military Air Accident Investigation, who would do it? The AAIB refuse to go to Theatre!
flash8, others will know better, but I understand that the Royal Navy still retains trained air accident investigators for work in theatre.