2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caz,
It is worth discussing as it is not often that such low professional standards are given such a high profile. the question one is forced to ask is what happened in the RAF to allow standards to reach such a low level that an accident like this occured - an organisation at the highest level that is telling the other 2 to "get out of the flying game, because we 'do flying' ".
It is worth discussing as it is not often that such low professional standards are given such a high profile. the question one is forced to ask is what happened in the RAF to allow standards to reach such a low level that an accident like this occured - an organisation at the highest level that is telling the other 2 to "get out of the flying game, because we 'do flying' ".
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had previously said that we should all await the outcome of various inquests and the BOI relating to this accident. However, the snippets of fact that are emerging are quite worrying. The picture painted is of a reckless approach to the task. If this picture is proven to be true, then people deserve to be hung out to dry. Some have already paid a hideous price but I think Pheasant makes an excellent point; what supervisory environment either allowed or failed to recognise such inappropriate behaviour?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that what has appeared in the media is extremely worrying as well as morally and professionally unacceptable if true.
My point was let us await the verdict before we " March the guilty bastards in".
My point was let us await the verdict before we " March the guilty bastards in".
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I used to fly for a company that would rather SAY it was airworthy than make it so. I left.
They spend a lot of money teaching us about the aircraft so the crew can make informed decisions, we are encouraged at all levels to examine what is going on - reality.
There are very few occasions that demand BLIND faith and just accepting 'the Chief's' word at face value certainly isn't one.
Last edited by Dengue_Dude; 20th Oct 2009 at 20:17.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John. Chapter 8 Verse 7
Why not just say the words instead of the 'smartly cryptic' quotations.
Just to save anyone else having to : Let he without blame cast the first stone etc.
I never killed anybody.
Gimmee a stone . . . (are there any WOMEN here?)
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
Evidence can be accepted or rejected by the Jury.
Pheasant
And one I hope will be asked when the military BoI is re-convened, although I believe much of it has already been covered by the review of Puma operations linked to earlier in this thread.
Of course I could also say that it was because the RAF allowed SH to go Joint and so lost total control over standards. But that would probably be inflamatory (and wrong!) but it wouldn't be PPRuNe without a bit of "its the other Services fault" in there somewhere!
the question one is forced to ask is what happened in the RAF to allow standards to reach such a low level that an accident like this occured
Of course I could also say that it was because the RAF allowed SH to go Joint and so lost total control over standards. But that would probably be inflamatory (and wrong!) but it wouldn't be PPRuNe without a bit of "its the other Services fault" in there somewhere!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Professional Student
Well said. Reasoned and, I think, all too accurate.
Even when I was in, it was something that was being highlighted then. Sadly, with all the pressures being applied to the (shrinking) military, it was inevitable that we 'reaped what we sowed' at some point. It doesn't just affect aircrew either.
Sadly, those responsible for the erosion will never stand in the dock as they are well clear. In fairness, it wasn't always their fault when the 'policy-makers' only ever want to hear that the '**** is actually fertilizer and promotes growth' (alluding to the amusing broadsheet that was being passed around when I left).
I feel such an empathy for those still in, maintaining standards was always the hardest job, especially when expediency prevents the 'weaker' being weeded out. 'Who are you to say he's no good, when 'God' has determined that he's got all the ticks?'
More of this kind of accident seem inevitable. It also takes a 'gutsy' crew member to have the discernment to call 'Enough'.
Even when I was in, it was something that was being highlighted then. Sadly, with all the pressures being applied to the (shrinking) military, it was inevitable that we 'reaped what we sowed' at some point. It doesn't just affect aircrew either.
Sadly, those responsible for the erosion will never stand in the dock as they are well clear. In fairness, it wasn't always their fault when the 'policy-makers' only ever want to hear that the '**** is actually fertilizer and promotes growth' (alluding to the amusing broadsheet that was being passed around when I left).
I feel such an empathy for those still in, maintaining standards was always the hardest job, especially when expediency prevents the 'weaker' being weeded out. 'Who are you to say he's no good, when 'God' has determined that he's got all the ticks?'
More of this kind of accident seem inevitable. It also takes a 'gutsy' crew member to have the discernment to call 'Enough'.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aa
Your #300
I agree that what has been heard in evidence is damning and has not been contradicted so far - but it may be.
Let's hear ALL the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
Your #300
I agree that what has been heard in evidence is damning and has not been contradicted so far - but it may be.
Let's hear ALL the evidence before reaching a conclusion.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prof,
I think you are wrong in laying the blame on the JHC. This organisation is an umbrella org for the 3 Services to coordinate the ops of battlefield helicopters and 16AAB. Whist they do coordinate the standards (min currency hours etc) the single services have right of veto for their own people (ie retain Full Command). I think I am right in saying that the min hours applied is the RAF minima rather than AAC or RN.
Basically each Service is responsible for the standards of professionalism of their people, the dilution of expertise is an excuse IMHO. If there is a concern about dilution then amend the standards applied to compensate - what was the Sqn QFI/CO/Force Cdr/Group doing about this? Dixon covered this but hedged too much at the higher level and tried to spread the problem to the other Services when it was largely his own that was the problem.
I think you are wrong in laying the blame on the JHC. This organisation is an umbrella org for the 3 Services to coordinate the ops of battlefield helicopters and 16AAB. Whist they do coordinate the standards (min currency hours etc) the single services have right of veto for their own people (ie retain Full Command). I think I am right in saying that the min hours applied is the RAF minima rather than AAC or RN.
Basically each Service is responsible for the standards of professionalism of their people, the dilution of expertise is an excuse IMHO. If there is a concern about dilution then amend the standards applied to compensate - what was the Sqn QFI/CO/Force Cdr/Group doing about this? Dixon covered this but hedged too much at the higher level and tried to spread the problem to the other Services when it was largely his own that was the problem.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the dilution of expertise is an excuse IMHO
A decade later (1999) it was still very similar although the threshold of extra duties was already starting to come forward. First tourist Deputy Flt Cdrs were rare if not unknown. FJ crossovers were available and pursued by several good quality pilots. Gulf War 1 was just around the corner and crew levels were cut in half on the Puma fleet as the Co-pilot/Nav was introduced. This required a mindset change that was not readily accepted by either member of the former 2 man crew. It was the following 5 years that were to see the Puma fleet critically short of lamp swinging, sandbag owning veterans passing on the experience of themselves and the jungle drum archives to the new generation. Sadly redundancy was the prime subject of conversation in crewrooms followed closely by 'airlines', and that along with fixed wg QFI is were the experience departed to. Their departure left a void. A void that could not be replaced at all. I know from personal experience that the 'example' set by influencial staff at this time was appalling. "Dundiggin" may remember 4 condors (OCF) becoming 'open reporting', and therefore 'in-house'. There were another 2 that should have been written by third parties that never saw the light of day. The 'bad example' was learnt by the next generation, and enhanced by inexperienced officers being given career enhancing opportunities (responsibility) when they should be learning to operate an aeroplane. I choose the word 'operate' quite deliberatly.
It would be nice to conclude with a proposed solution; but I can't. The system is what it has become, but nobody can say that dilution of inexperience is an excuse, for it is most certainly a fact. The danger period was always the 2000 flying hour mark, and I am led to believe that the advertised fiqure nowadays is half that. Surely that in itself is testiment to the negative changes of the last 20 years. Frankly I think that this would have happened even without the operational burden of today.
DD said
Only twice in my second tour did I ask the pilot, "Are we authorised for this?"
Notice the 'we'.
It never caused an argument, or worse an, "I'm the officer/captain" chat.
Both pilots, after the flight, but not in any formal debrief asked what the issue was, and I told them. Seemed to have a good relationship afterward, and I had no comeback.
Similarly, I was crewed with a very junior pilot who refused to be forced to fly in crap weather by an Air Commodore. Didn't do him any harm either.
Was either action 'gutsy'? I don't think so.
CG
It also takes a 'gutsy' crew member to have the discernment to call 'Enough'
Notice the 'we'.
It never caused an argument, or worse an, "I'm the officer/captain" chat.
Both pilots, after the flight, but not in any formal debrief asked what the issue was, and I told them. Seemed to have a good relationship afterward, and I had no comeback.
Similarly, I was crewed with a very junior pilot who refused to be forced to fly in crap weather by an Air Commodore. Didn't do him any harm either.
Was either action 'gutsy'? I don't think so.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: in the mess
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, CG.
If one hasn't the stones to pipe up when your life and the lives of your fellow crewmembers are potentially endangered, then you're in the wrong job.
Gutsy my ass, it's simple common sense man!
If one hasn't the stones to pipe up when your life and the lives of your fellow crewmembers are potentially endangered, then you're in the wrong job.
Gutsy my ass, it's simple common sense man!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gutsy my ass, it's simple common sense man!
'Simple commonsense' is the first casualty of situations like this. If it were in evidence in the first place, the 'comment' wouldn't be necessary.
caz, whilst your request is undoubtedly entirely correct, this is the age of instant reporting and anything which can be sensationalized by the journos will be..... So it will fall upon deaf ears, I'm afraid.
At least the Flying Supervisors' Course (or whatever the latest huggy-fluffy terminology is) will have some considerable food for thought - particularly as the c-word* has appeared in recent reporting.
As for what's been reported so far, I think "Words fail me" is sufficient comment.
*camera
At least the Flying Supervisors' Course (or whatever the latest huggy-fluffy terminology is) will have some considerable food for thought - particularly as the c-word* has appeared in recent reporting.
As for what's been reported so far, I think "Words fail me" is sufficient comment.
*camera
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you guys are talking about with regard to being gutsy to talk back is what is referred to as the "halo effect" in USAF CRM classes. Essentially, a junior guy assumes that since his aircraft commander has a crap load of experience, he must know what he's doing, regardless of the fact that the junior guy is about to **** his pants. In those cases, the junior guy should voice his concern, if indeed he just doesn't know what's up, the senior guy will calmly explain why it's ok to do what he's doing and the back end will most likely back him up. If the senior guy is indeed over streching his bounds, in my experience the back end will cry foul very loudly.