2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Let us hope that all that is emerging on this thread does so in the Inquest, for I very much doubt that it will be seen as "pertinent" by the BoI! The common factor appears to be reduced experience of supervisors be they Regulatory ones in the MOD or Executive ones on the Squadrons. The old adage of "Pay peanuts and you get monkeys" appears to be as true as ever. For these measures, of authorising inexperienced non-engineers to sign-off Airworthiness measures as being in compliance when they clearly are not or posting in inexperienced executives to ensure the very supervision that they need themselves, lead to tragedies like Mull and Catterick. BTW vecvec, none of this will be of interest to you as it ALL involves Airworthinesss of which you proudly claim to be oblivious! Others ask what is to be done? Just ask yourselves why these things don't happen to the airlines. It is clearly not because they are driven by financial imperatives, as is also the case with the military these days, but despite that. It is because all aspects of Airworthiness are enforced upon them by independent authorities, ie the CAA and the AAIB. The ability and experience of their supervisors and trainers is even so monitored and tested. That is what UK Military Aviation now needs as a matter of urgency to save it from itself, ie an independent MAA and MAAIB.
Self Regulation does not work and in Aviation it Kills!
Self Regulation does not work and in Aviation it Kills!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 21st Oct 2009 at 14:17.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle
Your #312
My point was simply that all the evidence has not yet been heard. Allegations have been made and there may be rebuttals later in the hearings. At the moment it is akin to dispensing with the "Defence" because the "Prosecution" has made a good case.
The ramifications of this tragedy will - like the poor - be with us always.
Your #312
My point was simply that all the evidence has not yet been heard. Allegations have been made and there may be rebuttals later in the hearings. At the moment it is akin to dispensing with the "Defence" because the "Prosecution" has made a good case.
The ramifications of this tragedy will - like the poor - be with us always.
Agree wholeheartedly with Tiger Mate.
Officers are going too far, far too fast on SH at present. While this works well for some gifted individuals*, some have been pushed well beyond their maturity and abilities.
Hence many of our current problems.
* Some have done well, and accelerated advancement has put a sensible head in the right place at the right time.
Some promising pilots have been forced into managerial posts, and spend more time feeding JHC with stats than flying, with the expected results.
Some, are as underwhelming in the office as in the cockpit, but hey, the Mess functions run well.
Officers are going too far, far too fast on SH at present. While this works well for some gifted individuals*, some have been pushed well beyond their maturity and abilities.
Hence many of our current problems.
* Some have done well, and accelerated advancement has put a sensible head in the right place at the right time.
Some promising pilots have been forced into managerial posts, and spend more time feeding JHC with stats than flying, with the expected results.
Some, are as underwhelming in the office as in the cockpit, but hey, the Mess functions run well.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: LONDON
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MGD
Utter piffle - 'cometh the hour cometh the man' We are in a high intensity COIN op, such the like that has not been around for a generation. You are shooting from the hip my friend and your comments are crass and unwarranted.
Utter piffle - 'cometh the hour cometh the man' We are in a high intensity COIN op, such the like that has not been around for a generation. You are shooting from the hip my friend and your comments are crass and unwarranted.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mate you really do talk a lot of chutney. Please remember that the role of the SI is not to apportion blame but merely to establish the facts. And your comment regarding being paid peanuts is gobsmacking. We get paid a lot of money for what we do. Daily I watch young aircrew drive into the Squadron in their Audi TT's, Boxters and one chap on my Squadron drives an Aston Martin. We get paid a fair wage and we are not monkeys.
But we are drifting off down a rabbit hole a little. The question is why did this crew think it was clever to scare Taxi drivers? Why did they think it was clever to scare their passengers? Why did they think it was legal to low fly with passengers? What did they learn of the Aircraft Commanders Course? What did they learn on the Flying supervisors course? Why did we fail this crew? Why didn't we spot this earlier and stop it? Why did we allow this to happen?
Maybe the Air Force shold introduce trappers much like the RN have?
But we are drifting off down a rabbit hole a little. The question is why did this crew think it was clever to scare Taxi drivers? Why did they think it was clever to scare their passengers? Why did they think it was legal to low fly with passengers? What did they learn of the Aircraft Commanders Course? What did they learn on the Flying supervisors course? Why did we fail this crew? Why didn't we spot this earlier and stop it? Why did we allow this to happen?
Maybe the Air Force shold introduce trappers much like the RN have?
Vecvec,etc:
Pots and Kettles, old chum, pots and kettles. I meant the amount paid to maintain Airworthiness, the driving force behind the demise of which has been budgetary cutbacks. The beancounters have slashed their way into its very vitals and it is costing lives. Others have spoken of the need for crewmembers to challenge aircraft commanders when their actions appear to go outside the authorised envelope. Exactly the same process is required of those manning desks and dealing with Airworthiness provision. If they are ordered to depart from the authorised procedures laid down by regulation they should refuse and report such illegal orders. That is their duty. The pity is that many have failed in that duty and somewhere sometime such failure will result in an accident, perhaps a fatal one. I don't know if the old maxim "Flight Safety Concerns You!" is still around, if not it should be, for it seems to me to be more relevant now than ever.
Mate you really do talk a lot of chutney.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Change the record Chug. Do you have to look for an airworthiness edge to nearly every fatal aircraft incident in the last few years?
The Puma has been flying for a long time now, it's problems are well documented and handled on a day to day basis.
Please, take the hint.
The Puma has been flying for a long time now, it's problems are well documented and handled on a day to day basis.
Please, take the hint.
WTF has somebody flying like a d1ckhead got to do with the airworthiness of an A/C?
Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence, Suitability etc of all concerned, including aircrew and their entire management hierarchy.
A duty not to intentionally or recklessly misuse ........
(JSP553 - Military Airworthiness Regulations).
JSP553 - Military Airworthiness Regulations
Whilst this is technically correct, IMHO, this should never have been put into 553 - again, IMHO, I believe this is the "airworthiness empire" trying to take over the world and treading on other people's toes uneccessarily.
Airworthiness should be about engineering issues, that is all. The certificate of airworthiness for my puddle jumper has nothing to do with "Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence" in any way whatsoever of the people who fly it - only the people engineering it.
Our civil brethren don't mix airworthiness with operations and training; so why the hell should we???
The B Word
Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence, Suitability etc of all concerned, including aircrew and their entire management hierarchy.
A duty not to intentionally or recklessly misuse ........
A duty not to intentionally or recklessly misuse ........
Airworthiness should be about engineering issues, that is all. The certificate of airworthiness for my puddle jumper has nothing to do with "Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence" in any way whatsoever of the people who fly it - only the people engineering it.
Our civil brethren don't mix airworthiness with operations and training; so why the hell should we???
The B Word
B Word
I don't write the Regulations, I implement them.
I actually think 553 is the most suitable place for the SofS to lay down this policy. The divergence you talk of then occurs at a lower level, but is laid down right up front in the Regs.
I think the main concern in what you say is that the attributes mentioned are no longer applied to engineers in many MoD areas. Before I could receive airworthiness delegation I had to satisfy all these and pass various exams in the process. Nowadays, non-engineers are immediately permitted to make engineering design (and hence safety) decisions, never having been remotely near a tool before, nevermind an aircraft.
For some years, the "system" has relied on this dismemberment of standards not applying to front line (thus removing defences in depth) but the two are inextricably linked and interdependant. While I don't want to pre-judge this Puma case, the evidence of wider damage to the "system" has been brutally exposed in successive inquests and inquiries.
Next week Mr Haddon-Cave QC reports. I don't think any of his recommendations will come as surprise to Pprune readers. Certainly, MoD has been implementing them for the last 18 months, so don't be fooled when their press release says "We know all this and have already implemented".
I don't write the Regulations, I implement them.
I actually think 553 is the most suitable place for the SofS to lay down this policy. The divergence you talk of then occurs at a lower level, but is laid down right up front in the Regs.
I think the main concern in what you say is that the attributes mentioned are no longer applied to engineers in many MoD areas. Before I could receive airworthiness delegation I had to satisfy all these and pass various exams in the process. Nowadays, non-engineers are immediately permitted to make engineering design (and hence safety) decisions, never having been remotely near a tool before, nevermind an aircraft.
For some years, the "system" has relied on this dismemberment of standards not applying to front line (thus removing defences in depth) but the two are inextricably linked and interdependant. While I don't want to pre-judge this Puma case, the evidence of wider damage to the "system" has been brutally exposed in successive inquests and inquiries.
Next week Mr Haddon-Cave QC reports. I don't think any of his recommendations will come as surprise to Pprune readers. Certainly, MoD has been implementing them for the last 18 months, so don't be fooled when their press release says "We know all this and have already implemented".
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tuc....
Wrong thread. Please do not join the airworthiness troll and make it any worse.
This isn't about Nimrod, Charles H-C and appears, in this instance (and I believe that I am reading the thread title correctly), to be unrelated to the airworthiness of the aircraft involved.
The Champions of Airworthiness need their own thread/forum, regardless of whether I support you in principle or not.
Wrong thread. Please do not join the airworthiness troll and make it any worse.
This isn't about Nimrod, Charles H-C and appears, in this instance (and I believe that I am reading the thread title correctly), to be unrelated to the airworthiness of the aircraft involved.
The Champions of Airworthiness need their own thread/forum, regardless of whether I support you in principle or not.
BW
Our civil brethren don't mix airworthiness with operations and training; so why the hell should we???
Not quite true at the risk of thread creep. If the paperwork isn't in place the aircraft isn't deemed 'airworthy' though it may be to all intents and purposes 'serviceable' as far as engineering and aircrew are concerned. I can recall a lot of airliners sitting on the ground one Sunday morning because current insurance certs weren't on board, they'd run out midnight the night before, yet aircraft were 'serviceable'.
Having read this thread and other external media, it appears so far, from info published in the public domain, that the issue is a human/operations primary cause, rather than a technical one. (Apols for thread creep.)
Our civil brethren don't mix airworthiness with operations and training; so why the hell should we???
Not quite true at the risk of thread creep. If the paperwork isn't in place the aircraft isn't deemed 'airworthy' though it may be to all intents and purposes 'serviceable' as far as engineering and aircrew are concerned. I can recall a lot of airliners sitting on the ground one Sunday morning because current insurance certs weren't on board, they'd run out midnight the night before, yet aircraft were 'serviceable'.
Having read this thread and other external media, it appears so far, from info published in the public domain, that the issue is a human/operations primary cause, rather than a technical one. (Apols for thread creep.)
Fat Chris:
Well, I certainly suspect an airworthiness edge to this one. Whether that be the "problems" that are "handled on a day to day basis" or downsizer's:
The incompetent and malign staffing that brought a badly unairworthy aircraft into squadron service only to have the pilots take the rap for the subsequent accident 15 years ago has since managed to subvert the training and supervisory standards to such an extent that the subject accident of this thread might well fit that original unjust finding. Am I alone in seeing the tragic irony in that? You ask me to take the hint and stop being an "airworthiness troll". I'll take that "hint" from the moderators should they so deem it but not you, if you don't mind.
As to your "airworthiness empire", BW, if you had in mind the dying days of the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian ones, I'd take your point. If the "A" word is anathema to you or others then by all means think of "Flight Safety" instead, which might be termed the retail outlet of Airworthiness. Would you call that an "empire" also? I see that Air Clues is making a welcome comeback. If only all the foundations on which the old Flight Safety "empire" of my day rested could be restored so easily, but I fear they have crumbled before the onslaught of Philistines that have moved in to slash and burn at them ever since.
Change the record Chug. Do you have to look for an airworthiness edge to nearly every fatal aircraft incident in the last few years?
somebody flying like a d1ckhead
As to your "airworthiness empire", BW, if you had in mind the dying days of the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian ones, I'd take your point. If the "A" word is anathema to you or others then by all means think of "Flight Safety" instead, which might be termed the retail outlet of Airworthiness. Would you call that an "empire" also? I see that Air Clues is making a welcome comeback. If only all the foundations on which the old Flight Safety "empire" of my day rested could be restored so easily, but I fear they have crumbled before the onslaught of Philistines that have moved in to slash and burn at them ever since.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 22nd Oct 2009 at 10:33.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Inquest Reporting 20 Oct 09
The BBC are reporting some interesting evidence at the inquest:
BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Crash pilot 'flew 5ft above taxi'
A good reason to have a CVFDR or CVR in this case.
Why oh why did they not have a hairy old crewman down the back to keep the junior front end on the straight and narrow? Big mistake.
BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Crash pilot 'flew 5ft above taxi'
A good reason to have a CVFDR or CVR in this case.
Why oh why did they not have a hairy old crewman down the back to keep the junior front end on the straight and narrow? Big mistake.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF the pilot was flying in a manner close to the edge of the envelope unnecessarily and was outside the required and needed brief then questions need to be asked as to why.
IF this pilot was in the habit of behaving close to the edge for no reason then questions need to be asked of his training, supervision and authing.
If as a result of thse things the enquiry highlights POSSIBLE problems with the way aircrew are turned from mere mortals into steely eyed sky gods OR the standards that enforce them then yes, at this point do we look POSSIBLY at it being an airworthiness issue. But if, on the other hand, it was the well documented flaw in the Puma's flight envelope and the lack of "anticipators, I believe" that caused it then maybe a fresh question needs to be asked as to whether the Puma - if it was introduced NOW - would be allowed in with such a known about and hazardous potential flaw.
Just because you have always done it and it has always been like it is not an acceptable answer if this is the case.
the truth is - I suspect somewhere between all of these but the end result is the same.
I can see Chug's point on this, I do not think there is a DIRECT airworthines issue - there is a link and a correlation. Moreover, the purpose I would assume of this thread is to debate like grown-ups. I agree there is an airworthiness issue in the MOD, QUITE A BIG ONE.
I do not think that this thread is the place to shout down any who voice the question" is the airworthiness problem of military aircraft a factor in this accident?" or meet the perron asking with such purile and derogatory comments.
Flight safety is everbodys concern - it should be one of the things in the front of your mind - all the time. IF airworthiness is affecting this then you people in the know have a duty to man up and speak up. It is my bloody tax dollars (pounds really) you are spending and I want to know you are all doing your utmost not to waste it -
Stay Safe and remember - if it feels wrong it probably is.
IF this pilot was in the habit of behaving close to the edge for no reason then questions need to be asked of his training, supervision and authing.
If as a result of thse things the enquiry highlights POSSIBLE problems with the way aircrew are turned from mere mortals into steely eyed sky gods OR the standards that enforce them then yes, at this point do we look POSSIBLY at it being an airworthiness issue. But if, on the other hand, it was the well documented flaw in the Puma's flight envelope and the lack of "anticipators, I believe" that caused it then maybe a fresh question needs to be asked as to whether the Puma - if it was introduced NOW - would be allowed in with such a known about and hazardous potential flaw.
Just because you have always done it and it has always been like it is not an acceptable answer if this is the case.
the truth is - I suspect somewhere between all of these but the end result is the same.
I can see Chug's point on this, I do not think there is a DIRECT airworthines issue - there is a link and a correlation. Moreover, the purpose I would assume of this thread is to debate like grown-ups. I agree there is an airworthiness issue in the MOD, QUITE A BIG ONE.
I do not think that this thread is the place to shout down any who voice the question" is the airworthiness problem of military aircraft a factor in this accident?" or meet the perron asking with such purile and derogatory comments.
Flight safety is everbodys concern - it should be one of the things in the front of your mind - all the time. IF airworthiness is affecting this then you people in the know have a duty to man up and speak up. It is my bloody tax dollars (pounds really) you are spending and I want to know you are all doing your utmost not to waste it -
Stay Safe and remember - if it feels wrong it probably is.
No, no, no...
My aircraft has a Certificate of Airworthiness (CofA) issued without any evidence of insurance - therefore how can it have anything to do with insurance!!!
Those airliners were airworthy on Public Transport CofAs but they would have been illegal to fly because Schedule 10 of the Air Navigation Order needs them to carry their insurance certificates - nothing to do with airworthiness whatsoever.
By the way, back to the thread, sorry but the crew were the biggest factor in this accident - IMHO.
B Word
Not quite true at the risk of thread creep. If the paperwork isn't in place the aircraft isn't deemed 'airworthy' though it may be to all intents and purposes 'serviceable' as far as engineering and aircrew are concerned. I can recall a lot of airliners sitting on the ground one Sunday morning because current insurance certs weren't on board, they'd run out midnight the night before, yet aircraft were 'serviceable'.
Those airliners were airworthy on Public Transport CofAs but they would have been illegal to fly because Schedule 10 of the Air Navigation Order needs them to carry their insurance certificates - nothing to do with airworthiness whatsoever.
Validity of certificate of airworthiness
10. A certificate of airworthiness or a certificate of validation issued in respect of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall cease to be in force—
10. A certificate of airworthiness or a certificate of validation issued in respect of an aircraft registered in the United Kingdom shall cease to be in force—
- (a) if the aircraft, or such of its equipment as is necessary for the airworthiness of the aircraft, is overhauled, repaired or modified, or if any part of the aircraft or of such equipment is removed or is replaced, otherwise than in a manner and with material of a type approved by EASA in the case of an EASA aircraft or the CAA in the case of a non-EASA aircraft either generally or in relation to a class of aircraft or to the particular aircraft;
(b) until the satisfactory completion of any inspection made for the purpose of ascertaining whether the aircraft remains airworthy or maintenance of the aircraft or of any equipment described in sub-paragraph (a) which inspection or maintenance has—- (i) been made mandatory by EASA or the CAA; or
(ii) become required by a maintenance schedule approved by the CAA in relation to that aircraft; or
- (i) been made mandatory by EASA or the CAA; or
B Word