2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 58
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiz, it is the level of auth that (by dictate) decides if it would be suitable to go below a certain height - It was implied that there might not have been that level of auth and very doubtful that a 'famil' would have atracted that level? It is higher than duty auth.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like gross negligence to me boys, but of course there will always be the usual crowd looking for scapegoats and someone / something else to blame. What has flight safety / screening got to do with this sort of behaviour, if any problems had been evident during training, the presumably suitable action would have been taken.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
I was always taught that:
Aviation Safety = Airworthiness + Flight Safety
Hence all the comments that the aircrew's activities are not to do with Airworthiness, but more akin to Flight Safety
I was always taught that:
Aviation Safety = Airworthiness + Flight Safety
Hence all the comments that the aircrew's activities are not to do with Airworthiness, but more akin to Flight Safety
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?
A minor point indeed, and far be it for me to make excuses for another brasshat, but if I were commenting on the outcome of a inquest into the sad death of three men, and in which my command had come in for such flak, I believe that I would probably have had my cap off too.
Jack
A minor point indeed, and far be it for me to make excuses for another brasshat, but if I were commenting on the outcome of a inquest into the sad death of three men, and in which my command had come in for such flak, I believe that I would probably have had my cap off too.
Jack
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wg Cdr Latham
On the BBC News last night, sometime after hatless Group Captain Burr's statement, there was an interview with a person described as "Wing Commander Latham, former Puma pilot". He appeared in civvies, no tie, collar askew. Is he still serving, and was he speaking on behalf of the RAF? If so, surely he should have appeared in uniform? Or was he a former officer, speaking in a private capacity? If so, why was he described as "Wing Commander"?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tankertrashnav.
Like you I know nowt about the Chopper world but I do know about standards of supervision and airmanship having done two staneval tours and scruffy tankerw.....s they may have been but they were and I hope still are more professional than many of the more shiny elements of the RAF. There can be no substitute for strong supervision and independent checking, it is not that it is too expensive to provide, it is too expensive not to provide.
Like you I know nowt about the Chopper world but I do know about standards of supervision and airmanship having done two staneval tours and scruffy tankerw.....s they may have been but they were and I hope still are more professional than many of the more shiny elements of the RAF. There can be no substitute for strong supervision and independent checking, it is not that it is too expensive to provide, it is too expensive not to provide.
Mick Strigg:
Having been "ex" for more years than I care to recall, I am very aware that the military lexicon has moved on and indeed at times would need Station X to decode it from my where I am. So I am also aware that when I post I am invariably using outmoded terminology. Nonetheless most PPRuNers (yourself included I hasten to add, Mick!) are courteous enough to see the point that I am trying to make rather than nitpicking the words I use. Of course there are pedants who do otherwise, invariably making cryptic remarks like "you are wrong, read JSPxyz", knowing full well that I can do no such thing, or worse still quoting Websters (Moroccan Bound?) English Dictionary, etc. To those I say this is not a game but supposedly an earnest discussion between professionals about saving lives from being needlessly wasted in avoidable accidents. Thankfully many seem to realise now that the Emperor is likely to catch a severe chill soon if he doesn't do something about it and quick!
I was always taught that:
Aviation Safety = Airworthiness + Flight Safety
Hence all the comments that the aircrew's activities are not to do with Airworthiness, but more akin to Flight Safety
Aviation Safety = Airworthiness + Flight Safety
Hence all the comments that the aircrew's activities are not to do with Airworthiness, but more akin to Flight Safety
Cirrus F,
Any retired officer above the rank of Squadron Leader is entitled to use their rank.
Any media organisation quoting such a retired officer will want to use that rank in order to underline the credibility of that witness.
Any retired officer above the rank of Squadron Leader is entitled to use their rank.
Any media organisation quoting such a retired officer will want to use that rank in order to underline the credibility of that witness.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I missed something? What was Coroner Fell's verdict? Were the pax/crew 'killed unlawfully' or by 'accident/misadventure'? Or was it an 'Open' verdict?
It was recorded as a 'narrative verdict'
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: bored
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any media organisation quoting such a retired officer will want to use that rank in order to underline the credibility of that witness.
Any retired officer above the rank of Squadron Leader is entitled to use their rank.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You will note that the practice of stating it as Sqn Ldr Jones, RAF Rtd is wrong.
He was either Sqn Ldr Jones, RAF when serving and Sqn Ldr Jones when retired.
PS, edited to add that when on my resettlement training I met a retired wg cdr doctor who had Wg Cdr included on this name plate on his door. He was ex-IAF, so, if he came to UK and styled himself Wg Cdr Chandry (or whatever) one would not know which air force he had served in.
Last edited by Wader2; 27th Oct 2009 at 14:12.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Nottingham UK
Age: 84
Posts: 5,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the BBC News last night
The head of the joint helicopter command, Rear Admiral Tony Johnstone-Burt, insists the crash was not due to a systemic problem, but a catastrophic lapse of judgement on the part of the crew.
Wrathmonk
Just read the Debretts excerpt. Like others here I thought the convention only applied to sqn ldr or equivalent and above. Now I see as a mere flt lt I can also use the handle. Don't think I will any time soon, though, people laugh at me enough as it is.
Just read the Debretts excerpt. Like others here I thought the convention only applied to sqn ldr or equivalent and above. Now I see as a mere flt lt I can also use the handle. Don't think I will any time soon, though, people laugh at me enough as it is.
The only Flt Lt I can think of who used his title after military service was the erstwhile President of Ghana, Flt Lt Jerry Rawlings.....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sad as it is to say, the system was not at fault - it was the pilot and crew flying in a reckless manner.
How can a system ever totally prevent that... in the same way as someone can pass their driving test and then go and drive like a maniac, you cannot legislate for poor judgement and reckless behaviour in the cockpit or in any other walk of life for that matter.
That said, may they all rest in peace as we were all young once, and I count myself fortunate that when I stepped outside the rules, I was lucky. There but the grace of god and all that.
How can a system ever totally prevent that... in the same way as someone can pass their driving test and then go and drive like a maniac, you cannot legislate for poor judgement and reckless behaviour in the cockpit or in any other walk of life for that matter.
That said, may they all rest in peace as we were all young once, and I count myself fortunate that when I stepped outside the rules, I was lucky. There but the grace of god and all that.
Sideways:
Well Amen to that, for if that isn't one's first reaction to a fellow aviator's demise then the essential truth that we are all fallible has been lost, which eventually catches up with one and has others in turn reciting "there but for the Grace of God..." Perhaps that is what happened here, but aviation has been around long enough for us all to know that the essential self discipline has to be reinforced by external means, by Regulation, Training and Supervision. That is not only for Commercial Aviation, it is for all Aviation, be it from flying clubs, airports or military units. If this accident had happened to a Civilian Helicopter Operator the CAA would be down on it like a ton of bricks. The difference here is the CAA is not the Regulatory Authority, the MOD is. The trouble there is that the MOD is also essentially the operator, or rather its "subsidiary", the RAF is. So will the MOD come down on itself like a ton of bricks? As in law one looks for a precedent, and looks, and looks...
There but the grace of god and all that
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
I think you might find that there are more than a few people in the "Chain of Command" below MOD, STC and Gp level who are keeping a constant lookout "above and behind" for the "incoming". It is the Supervisors at Station and Squadron level who must ensure that their Units fully comply with the rules and regulations in the same way as OC Accounts must make the Books balance.
As a QFI, and later as a Flt Instructor/Examiner and IRE on 32 Sqn, I knew that I had to be completely sure in respect of the authorisations I signed for others to do their Tasks - if I had any doubts then I would NOT authorise them. The whole system, however, depends on trust - I brief and authorise and I TRUST that person to abide by his/her brief and authorisation.
Sadly, there is little one can do to prevent an idiot from exceeding the brief if they are minded so to do without thought for the potential consequences.
I think you might find that there are more than a few people in the "Chain of Command" below MOD, STC and Gp level who are keeping a constant lookout "above and behind" for the "incoming". It is the Supervisors at Station and Squadron level who must ensure that their Units fully comply with the rules and regulations in the same way as OC Accounts must make the Books balance.
As a QFI, and later as a Flt Instructor/Examiner and IRE on 32 Sqn, I knew that I had to be completely sure in respect of the authorisations I signed for others to do their Tasks - if I had any doubts then I would NOT authorise them. The whole system, however, depends on trust - I brief and authorise and I TRUST that person to abide by his/her brief and authorisation.
Sadly, there is little one can do to prevent an idiot from exceeding the brief if they are minded so to do without thought for the potential consequences.