2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wizard:
"Please don't try and insinuate that everyone who flies Pumas is reckless"
I wasn't. I don't think I implied, insinuated or hinted any such thing. All I am pointing out is that this stuff clearly happens.
40' - yes of course its in my estimate. Who's else would you like me to use?
And no I am not aware of the minimum heights for UK military aviation and I don't really care either. I am, however, a professional pilot and flying at a height of 40' or anything in that region over a dual carriageway is reckless and a danger to the people using it.
"Please don't try and insinuate that everyone who flies Pumas is reckless"
I wasn't. I don't think I implied, insinuated or hinted any such thing. All I am pointing out is that this stuff clearly happens.
40' - yes of course its in my estimate. Who's else would you like me to use?
And no I am not aware of the minimum heights for UK military aviation and I don't really care either. I am, however, a professional pilot and flying at a height of 40' or anything in that region over a dual carriageway is reckless and a danger to the people using it.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And no I am not aware of the minimum heights for UK military aviation and I don't really care either. I am, however, a professional pilot and flying at a height of 40' or anything in that region over a dual carriageway is reckless and a danger to the people using it.
Why is it a danger to anyone using it any more than the A1 passing by several fast jet bases under the final approach paths? Or the M25 at Heathrow?
Caz,
As I said earlier - "Airworthiness is not just nuts and bolts. It is about how all the items flying are suitable for their purpose - including pax."
The quote you give not only indicates a euphoric lack of "good airmanship" but also a complete lack of airworthiness awareness.
Rigga
As I said earlier - "Airworthiness is not just nuts and bolts. It is about how all the items flying are suitable for their purpose - including pax."
The quote you give not only indicates a euphoric lack of "good airmanship" but also a complete lack of airworthiness awareness.
Rigga
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PAX POV
I've had a few hairy flights in helicopters (from all 3 Services) and I've always felt that I was on an upmarket and very priveleged fairground ride in that it was scary as hell but it was "on rails" so everything would be OK. This doesn't feel as if it was run on the same lines but if I'd been an ignorant pax and walked away then I would probably have accepted, once again, that the guys up front knew what they were doing and had given me another adrenalin fuelled rush. It appears this time that they pushed it a bit too far and God rest their souls but I do wonder how widespread this sort of thing is and how many times we've been lucky?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rigga
Then we are in complete agreement.
The next question is:-
As this was an accident waiting to happen - why did nobody foresee it?
Or did they - and their warnings were not heeded?
You see, I remember the days of the 4 Star who stood up at a CFS Dinner and stated "There is no such thing as a bad student - only bad Instructors". The completion of the syllogism was an increase in the accident rate.
Then we are in complete agreement.
The next question is:-
As this was an accident waiting to happen - why did nobody foresee it?
Or did they - and their warnings were not heeded?
You see, I remember the days of the 4 Star who stood up at a CFS Dinner and stated "There is no such thing as a bad student - only bad Instructors". The completion of the syllogism was an increase in the accident rate.
BBC:
No-one expects perfection, Sir, simply an honest attempt to reveal all of the shortcomings that allowed this accident to happen. In other words let's see the entire hole-riddled cheese and not just the slices that were airborne on that terrible day.
Gp Cpt Burr said the RAF would now continue its own internal investigations and said the Armed Forces "seek to learn and strive for perfection".
Yet again, we hear a junior MoD spokesman trotting out the old mantra "As a result of a review we've changed".
Not good enough. The MoD's own Safety Management regulations mandate a proactive approach, not reactive.
Yet again, we don't hear the 2 Stars and above called to explain why they knowingly dismantled the Safety Management System, despite numerous warnings. And I don't mean unwittingly, or ambiguous warnings; I mean in your face, pinned up against a wall warnings. And still they laughed in our faces.
We'll probably hear the same on Wednesday when Mr Haddon-Cave reports. It is well known MoD have been implementing recommendations from the Review this past while, but they've already said it will take some time to digest. Rubbish. Ainsworth has said he'll publish in full. Well see. To those at the lock-in - don't let MoD casually dismiss the recommendations with "We know all that, look what we've done". I hope Mr H-C sees through their deceit and arrogance.
The common denominator in all the accidents discussed here - Nimrod, C130, Chinook, Sea King, Puma, Tornado - seems to be "Predictable, Predicted and Ignored".
Not good enough. The MoD's own Safety Management regulations mandate a proactive approach, not reactive.
Yet again, we don't hear the 2 Stars and above called to explain why they knowingly dismantled the Safety Management System, despite numerous warnings. And I don't mean unwittingly, or ambiguous warnings; I mean in your face, pinned up against a wall warnings. And still they laughed in our faces.
We'll probably hear the same on Wednesday when Mr Haddon-Cave reports. It is well known MoD have been implementing recommendations from the Review this past while, but they've already said it will take some time to digest. Rubbish. Ainsworth has said he'll publish in full. Well see. To those at the lock-in - don't let MoD casually dismiss the recommendations with "We know all that, look what we've done". I hope Mr H-C sees through their deceit and arrogance.
The common denominator in all the accidents discussed here - Nimrod, C130, Chinook, Sea King, Puma, Tornado - seems to be "Predictable, Predicted and Ignored".
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wiz,
Like I said, he was flying along the the A34, at about 40' or so. This was for about a mile above the oncoming traffic (including me). In other words, he wasn't crossing it.
Yes of course I was making a link between the two! But I didn't imply that all Puma crews are reckless! You made that link...
If you think that flying like that, in a way that is not only alarming but extremely distracting to people driving along the road, is in any way comparable to an airliner flying an instrument approach to LHR over the M25, then I'd be very surprised. I'm sure you don't really...
Like I said, he was flying along the the A34, at about 40' or so. This was for about a mile above the oncoming traffic (including me). In other words, he wasn't crossing it.
Yes of course I was making a link between the two! But I didn't imply that all Puma crews are reckless! You made that link...
If you think that flying like that, in a way that is not only alarming but extremely distracting to people driving along the road, is in any way comparable to an airliner flying an instrument approach to LHR over the M25, then I'd be very surprised. I'm sure you don't really...
1.3V Stall
I thought that too. I started a whole thread about this sort of thing a while back and opinion was divided. Personally I thought it looked very un-professional, but then I was only a scruffy tanker-w****r flt lt, not a four ringer with scrambled egg on his (invisible) hat so what do I know?
Small point compared to the serious stuff on this thread, but as I know SFA about rotary ops I dont think I have anything useful to add to the main discussion.
I thought that he might just have come over a bit more military and authoritative had he been wearing his SD hat - or are hats optional these days?
Small point compared to the serious stuff on this thread, but as I know SFA about rotary ops I dont think I have anything useful to add to the main discussion.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think that flying like that, in a way that is not only alarming but extremely distracting to people driving along the road, is in any way comparable to an airliner flying an instrument approach to LHR over the M25, then I'd be very surprised. I'm sure you don't really...
Anyway, this is going slightly off thread now. Drive safe.
"Rigga, your view of what is meant by airworthiness is wrong. Read JSP553 !
BGG"
Hi BGG,
I left the military quite a while ago - apparently my view may be just different to MOD's (so I'll ask a mate for a copy of the JSP) It works in the rest of the world though.
Rigga
Edited bit
...but I'm sure you'll all catch up, one day.
BGG"
Hi BGG,
I left the military quite a while ago - apparently my view may be just different to MOD's (so I'll ask a mate for a copy of the JSP) It works in the rest of the world though.
Rigga
Edited bit
...but I'm sure you'll all catch up, one day.
Last edited by Rigga; 26th Oct 2009 at 23:33. Reason: added comment
Rigga, your view of what is meant by airworthiness is wrong. Read JSP553
Aviation safety is achieved when the operation of the aircraft is as safe as reasonably practicable, commensurate with achieving the operational capability, for aircrew, ground-crew, passengers other airspace users or to the general public over which such aircraft are flown.
The boundaries between these issues will always be blurred. What an IPT or individual does, contributes, or signs for depends very much on the boundaries of his task at the time.The example I always think of is training. If my job is to deliver an airworthy aircraft to an In Service Date (defined as x operational aircraft), clearly I have to deliver a training package in sufficient time to train operators (and maintainers and all support staffs). This may be a simulator, and part of the task is to satisfy myself that the training package delivers a competent pilot. (I don’t judge that myself, but I must be satisfied by those who do). The line is immediately blurred, especially when (as has happened to me more than once) my boss instructs me not to bother with a simulator – too expensive or (criminally) not required, they can work it out as they go along.
This has two main effects. I can’t meet the ISD (as there will be no trained crew) and Aviation Safety cannot be demonstrated (so a meaningful MAR/GARP/RTS cannot be issued). “Demonstration” is the key issue here. While airworthiness may essentially be “a technical attribute of materiel” which is perhaps the primary concern of users (as stated on this thread), hidden away in MoD is someone who is required to demonstrate Aviation Safety (thereby mitigating a human factors risk by not having the User worrying about the technical attributes of what he is flying), so other elements are automatically subsumed within his boundary of responsibility.
An example of this is Apache when a deliberate decision was made to delay the training in order to gain kudos by PFI’ing the Sim. The aircraft were ready long before ISD and were, if you like, “Airworthy”; but Aviation Safety could not demonstrated.
Perhaps a simpler way of looking at this is from the viewpoint of the person who has to sign the final bit of paper. There have been thousands of contributors to the project, from the youngest apprentice to the test pilot. But one man signs to recommend operational use and another to say it can fly operationally. If anyone in the chain before him has not done their job, he becomes liable himself (a basic tenet of project management in MoD, undermined by the “system” no longer requiring the necessary competencies). Therefore, “airworthiness” means far more to him than to most.
Finally, the good book says there are four “Pillars of Airworthiness”;
- A Safety Management System
- Recognised Standards
- Competence
- Independence
Implications for recruitment and monitoring
Strangely, there was another case that popped up on the TV last night that had echoes of the Puma accident. A 24 year old policeman was sentenced to 6 years in jail. His crime? - he had killed a 61 year old grandmother after reckless driving. After having completed his driving course, he decided to take his father and uncle out to demonstrate his new found "skills". He drove round housing estates for more than an hour, at speeds up to 104 mph, with "blues & twos" - when his only task was to deliver a birthday card to his sister. He finally took out an innocent old lady.
My point? two cases of young men having embarked on highly responsible careers, yet who display cowboy mentality when they get hold of prized new toys after training. Those that devise interview and screening programmes, (together with in this case, presumably instructors at Shawbury and the OCU) should have pause for thought.
My point? two cases of young men having embarked on highly responsible careers, yet who display cowboy mentality when they get hold of prized new toys after training. Those that devise interview and screening programmes, (together with in this case, presumably instructors at Shawbury and the OCU) should have pause for thought.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is reckless about flying at 50 (or your 40 foot) if it is well clear of obstructions
****!****!****!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
skua
Sadly it is not just those straight out of Training who have that mentality. I have previously quoted on another thread the words of a Sqn Ldr Flt Cdr I had who stated, in front of the Sqn Cdr and EU Examiner, that Crew Duty Limits did not apply to him because he went to the Gym every day and was fitter than everyone else.
I never did agree with Harry Day as quoted in "Reach for the Sky":
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
A Rule is:
"A regulation which must not be transgressed" Chambers Dictionary.
Sadly it is not just those straight out of Training who have that mentality. I have previously quoted on another thread the words of a Sqn Ldr Flt Cdr I had who stated, in front of the Sqn Cdr and EU Examiner, that Crew Duty Limits did not apply to him because he went to the Gym every day and was fitter than everyone else.
I never did agree with Harry Day as quoted in "Reach for the Sky":
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men"
A Rule is:
"A regulation which must not be transgressed" Chambers Dictionary.