Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)

Old 18th Oct 2009, 07:38
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I wish someone would tell me
Age: 47
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crab, Chug,the point some were trying to make is that there are differences in approach between the Services, so you cannot extrapolate the RAFs airworthiness processes to cover the whole of the MOD.

No one is saying any service is perfect, the key thing is how you learn from those accidents that unfortunately do happen. Learning from expereince is one attribute where you will find differences between the services, and that is documented.

Civil or Military, people make mistakes. Its how your Command Chain, or airline management react to those mistakes that separate the Just from the Blame, or No Blame. There are examples of each type across industry, operators and the military, so please don't tar us all with the same brush, any which way.

Back to the Puma, just ask your self, was the BoI investigating in a Just way, or was there a Blame culture in existence at the time.

El Colonel!
colonel cluster is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 11:31
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chug,

I also understand that the fitting of the forward HISL's on that Mk was such that pilots could be dazzled by them in such hazy conditions. Thus it is probable that neither aircraft was operating its forward HISL at the time of this accident. That would seem to constitute a "significant factor" in my book, but one which the BoI discounted by performing its own ad hoc trials and thus finding that it was not significant after all!
Without re-reading the BOI report I seem to recall that what the BOI team established was that in the conditions pertaining at the time the forward HISLs were unlikely to have been a distraction and the practice of turning off the forward HISLs was restricted to that squadron only and was not common or authorised practice across the SK fleet. Sadly in all accidents where there are no survivors and no obvious mechanical cause the BOI will always end up as an expression of opinion rather than conclusions drawn from absolute fact.

I still think you are way off the mark damning "Military Airworthiness" in the round. In most of the (accurate) cases quoted it has been chain of command interference in the process that has been the problem not the process of military airworthiness itself.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 19:40
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Pheasant:
I still think you are way off the mark damning "Military Airworthiness" in the round.
Let me be clear, there is nothing wrong with the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations (on the whole), it is that the MOD does not fully or properly implement them. In that respect we seem to have common ground, Pheasant, for you go on to say:
In most of the (accurate) cases quoted it has been chain of command interference in the process that has been the problem not the process of military airworthiness itself.
The Chinook Mk2 was granted an "interim" CA (whatever that creature might be) in a knowingly unairworthy state, ie contrary to the Regulations! The HISL fit of the Seaking AEW Mk7 went ahead despite trials or testing, ie contrary to the Regulations. The chain of command interference of which you speak is perhaps best highlighted by an RAF 2* ordering subordinates to ignore Airworthiness Regulations but to sign them off as complied with! That is fundamentally my point, remove the implementation and regulation of UK Military Airworthiness from the MOD to an independent and professional Authority and this sad series of Inquests that result in Coroners having to tell the MOD that its aircraft lack Airworthiness may start to diminish. If the RN and the Army were remote from this process I might sympathise with their taking up the moral high ground, but I fear that in the purple hues of today we all effectively share the same backyard, tarred or otherwise. Rather like operating a brand new car exactly via the handbook, servicing it likewise, only to find that it is ridden with shortcomings that can kill!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 21:11
  #264 (permalink)  
Fat Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Onward with the 'military airworthiness' crusade and disregard the other (more pertinent) factors, in this incident?



Does nothing for your credibility Chug.
 
Old 18th Oct 2009, 21:16
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't really get what the issue with Airworthiness is..... No aviator gives 2 hoots about airworthiness.... I nor any of my oppos ever think as we are strapping in... "I wonder who is responsible for the airworthiness of this aircraft"....

I don't know who is respnsible and to be honest I don't care.... as long as the aircraft is S and has loads of fuel then lets get airborne.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 23:28
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
I nor any of my oppos ever think as we are strapping in... "I wonder who is responsible for the airworthiness of this aircraft"....
Some would say it is the job of those responsible for airworthiness NOT to put you in the position of having to consciously think of it as you fly; as that would constitute a distraction and human factors hazard (in the same way the Mull crew were demonstrably distracted by their concern over the immaturity of their aircraft, evidenced by their request for a Mk1).

But you clearly do give a hoot, as you want to know your aircraft is serviceable, one component of airworthiness.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2009, 23:50
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Vecvec, I used to not think about it just like you. As tuc says, I didn't really need to, it was a given in my day. Difference is you do need to now, because it isn't.
Fat Chris. My credibility? What credibility? I'm a BOF for God's sake, we don't have any! What you need to ask yourself is how much credibility is there in the MOD as the UK Military Airworthiness Authority? Before answering make sure that you have read the Parliamentary Questions thread re Hercules, the Nimrod XV230 thread, and the Mull sticky above. No time? I should try to make time if you haven't already done so. Oh, as regard "factors" they are all potentially pertinent. That's how Accident Investigation is supposed to work!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 08:50
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,338
Received 60 Likes on 43 Posts
So, let me get this straight, the puma wasn't airworthy then?

CG
charliegolf is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 09:15
  #269 (permalink)  
Fat Chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm not getting into a childish tit-for-tat exchange over who knows this and who knows that.

My point was, and remains, that I feel that any perceived airworthiness issues involved in THIS incident are smaller factors than others that appear (sickeningly) obvious since the CVR has been published in various formats by the media. It does appear that some posters wish to hijack this incident to champion their own cause (airworthiness).

Try not to get too upset Chug, it's a discussion and this is just my opinion. You have your own opinion about the state of military airworthiness in this country and you have the right to have your say on the matter. Please bear in mind that I may have intimate knowledge of other incidents that you mention.
 
Old 19th Oct 2009, 09:26
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Well that's for the BoI to discover, isn't it CG? But given that 60 people have died in 5 aircraft due to airworthiness related accidents, I really think they should, don't you? Sticking our fingers in our ears and chanting "La,la,la,la,la...I can't hear you!" does not seem to be a very rational or professional response to my mind. All I ask is for a properly objective Accident Investigation by the RAF.
Sorry, I must go outside now and watch a mass formation fly past of Suidae!
Fat Chris, not upset at all old chum, just glad to discuss this with anyone willing to do likewise!

Last edited by Chugalug2; 19th Oct 2009 at 09:36.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 16:22
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
60 people have died in 5 aircraft due to airworthiness related accidents
No they haven't.

Airworthness is not an issue Aircrew should be bothered about. Thats for the Captain of the ship and the Engineers to worry about. If the Chief says that the aircraft is servicable then I'm getting in it and I don't care one jot about the airworthiness of it.
vecvechookattack is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 18:31
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your bereaved relatives will be most interested in the airworthiness
SirPeterHardingsLovechild is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2009, 22:16
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Jesters dead!!"

Latest media coverage from the inquest: Daily Mail 20 Oct 09.

'Army captain shouted Top Gun movie quote before helicopter crashed killing three men'

By Chris Brooke
Last updated at 10:33 PM on 19th October 2009

An Army captain on board a military helicopter shouted a famous phrase from the film Top Gun moments before it crashed killing three men during a training exercise, an inquest heard today. Robert Earle yelled 'Yeeha Jester's dead' when a member of the flight crew asked 'how's everyone in the back?' as the £20m RAF Puma helicopter flew low over countryside near Catterick Garrison, North Yorkshire. Mr Earle, a former captain in the Black Watch, said he did not remember making the comment from the Hollywood blockbuster starring Tom Cruise, but was asked by the coroner to explain what he meant. He said: 'I believe I made that comment because there was a situation with young men doing something exciting. I didn't feel out of my comfort zone, but a manoeuvre had just been executed.' Mr Earle said he looked back at the soldiers in the helicopter to see if they were happy.

The inquest was told the flight included soldiers who had missed out on earlier exercises due to illness and it was considered a boost to their morale as well as a good opportunity to improve their skills. Mr Earle was also heard to use the phrase 'I'm in the wrong job' as the aircraft passed low over trees. He said: 'I was enjoying myself at the point the manoeuvre was being executed.' He said he did not believe the crew were flying dangerously but said he had little recollection of the accident. Flight Lieutenant David Sale, 28, Sergeant Phillip Burfoot, 27, and 17-year-old Army recruit Private Sean Tait were killed in the accident. In total 12 military personnel were on board the helicopter, which also left Flight Lieutenant Robert Hamilton paraplegic as a result of the injuries he suffered. Earlier coroner Geoff Fell said that 'people on the helicopter were doing things they shouldn't have been' in the lead-up to the crash.

The inquest heard how earlier on 8 August 2007 - the day of the tragedy - the Puma was taken on a flight over a farm belonging to a friend of a captain on board the aircraft. It flew just 50ft over a house so people on the ground could take photographs of it. Captain Rupert Smedley of the Parachute Regiment TA sat at the open door of the helicopter filming the flight to his friend Mark Temple's farm estate. As the family stood outside taking photographs of the Puma the pilot dropped from 500 feet to between 50 and 100 feet above them. Captain Smedley said he did not believe the pilot was flying dangerously, although there were some 'sharp' manoeuvres which would make the passengers' stomachs churn.

On another flight during the two-day exercise the helicopter was so low that worried residents complained to the police and the Ministry of Defence. People staying on a caravan park told investigators that the Puma was just 30feet high when it flew between caravans. Others said they were 'terrified' and were forced to 'crouch' on the ground as it flew over.

And on the opening day of the inquest an audio clip was played at Harrogate Magistrates' Court in which the crew were heard laughing and joking just moments before the crash. The on-board computer was also heard to warn 'low height' on a number of occasions.
The hearing continues.
Tiger_mate is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 12:59
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VVCA,

This comment:

Airworthness is not an issue Aircrew should be bothered about.
from a professional (current?) military aviator leaves me absolutely speechless! Airworthiness is not just about serviceable aircraft and the "Captain of the Ship" saying it is OK to fly. Everyone in the chain, from manufacturer to aircrew, are part of the airworthiness piece and anyone of them can break the chain to prevent an accident occuring.

In the context of the current inquest it would allegedly appear from the info available that no-one told the pilot to stop flying the aircraft in such a cavalier manner - perhap he too, like you, didn't think he was part of the airworthiness chain.

If you are a Naval Aviator you should be ashamed of yourself.
Pheasant is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 17:38
  #275 (permalink)  

Yes, Him
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It just gets worse.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Crash pilot 'flew 5ft above taxi'
Gainesy is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 17:52
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: The land of the green and grey
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This comment:


Quote:
Airworthness is not an issue Aircrew should be bothered about.
from a professional (current?) military aviator leaves me absolutely speechless! Airworthiness is not just about serviceable aircraft and the "Captain of the Ship" saying it is OK to fly. Everyone in the chain, from manufacturer to aircrew, are part of the airworthiness piece and anyone of them can break the chain to prevent an accident occuring.

In the context of the current inquest it would allegedly appear from the info available that no-one told the pilot to stop flying the aircraft in such a cavalier manner - perhap he too, like you, didn't think he was part of the airworthiness chain.

If you are a Naval Aviator you should be ashamed of yourself.



Surely, as the crew flying the aircraft it is the CREWS responsibility for the serviceability of the aircraft? The engineers might fix it but if something is hanging off or damaged, I certainly would not go flying in it. That's why we sign for the aircraft and conduct pre flight walk arounds.
matelo99 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 17:55
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Perhaps this thread should be held in abeyance until the inquest has run its course and all the evidence has been heard - rather than react to each little morsel as it unfolds?
cazatou is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 17:57
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"let's scare the **** out of this taxi"
At least the taxi driver was professional enough to stop, despite not having a "co-pilot" with the wit to suggest that he do so.
Low Flier is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 18:20
  #279 (permalink)  
Red On, Green On
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Perhaps this thread should be held in abeyance until the inquest has run its course and all the evidence has been heard - rather than react to each little morsel as it unfolds?
For what benefit?
airborne_artist is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2009, 18:34
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
aa

Evidence can be accepted or rejected by the Jury. Moreover, the Coroner will direct as to what evidence is admissable or not. Better, surely, to wait for the verdict before pontificating?
cazatou is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.