2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Olive Oil
Yes, I followed that, but did he find in his narrative that it was death caused by an act of airborne hooliganism or was it death by misadventure/accident, or an open verdict? Or none of the above?
caz:
Point taken caz, but don't you see that an Airline Chief Pilot could say much the same of some Captain who had pushed on below minima and wrote himself off and everyone else who was strapped into the aeroplane that he was flying? He would get short shrift from the CAA and rightly so. They would go through the entire airline from top to bottom and woe betide anyone who hadn't dotted all the i's and crossed the t's. A massive fine might be levied, at the very least they would be crawling with Flight Ops Inspectors for a long time who would be looking for very positive training and supervisory initiatives so that everyone was on message that this must never ever happen again. That hardly chimes with the alleged quote posted by MReyn24050 of the Head of JHC, Rear Admiral Johnstone-Burt who:
Can't see the CAA being too impressed by the CP releasing that to the media!
The whole system, however, depends on trust - I brief and authorise and I TRUST that person to abide by his/her brief and authorisation.
insists the crash was not due to a systemic problem, but a catastrophic lapse of judgement on the part of the crew.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: WSM
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does make you wonder if the predictably vitriolic response of Pprune to anyone complaining about low level flying is professionally appropriate. What would ppruners have replied to the taxi driver if he had complained and the flight had ended safely.
I expect the MOD reponse to this incident, as with the Haddon Cave report that is about to be issued, is that changes have already been made, lessons learned, etc.
Indeed, I may be doing various people a disservice, and it may well true, but repeating this manta constantly seems to be wearing a bit thin. It has the outward appearance at least of being mouth music.
Another point is stove piping. If there was a problem with management of the Puma force (and I don't know if there was) have all the RAF fleets been re-examined for problems in this area, or just the SH force? In the same way, if engineering practices on Nimrods have been changed in light of the loss of 230 and the ageing aircraft tear down survey, have any general lessons been read across to all RAF engineering, back into the training system, etc?
Perhaps this has happened, I'm not trying to point a finger, just asking a question? Are problems being dealt with in isolation, or at least considered for their possible impact across the board?
Indeed, I may be doing various people a disservice, and it may well true, but repeating this manta constantly seems to be wearing a bit thin. It has the outward appearance at least of being mouth music.
Another point is stove piping. If there was a problem with management of the Puma force (and I don't know if there was) have all the RAF fleets been re-examined for problems in this area, or just the SH force? In the same way, if engineering practices on Nimrods have been changed in light of the loss of 230 and the ageing aircraft tear down survey, have any general lessons been read across to all RAF engineering, back into the training system, etc?
Perhaps this has happened, I'm not trying to point a finger, just asking a question? Are problems being dealt with in isolation, or at least considered for their possible impact across the board?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug
I agree in respect of your scenario regarding a Civil Airline.
This tragedy, however, was apparently due to a Royal Air Force Officer and his Crew blatently disregarding Military Flying Regulations whilst engaged on a Military Task carrying Military Personnel in a Military Aircraft. This matter will be dealt with under Military Rules as laid down by Act of Parliament.
As far as I am aware the findings of the BOI have not yet been finalised. If it is considered that Proceedings in regard of alleged breaches of the Air Force Act are justified against surviving crew members then the BOI will be held in abeyance until such proceedings are completed and it may be some considerable time before any final outcome is known and the Findings of the Board are published. It would be improper to publish the BOI if Courts Martial proceedings were being initiated.
There is also the possibility of Civil action being taken being taken by relatives of the deceased and others affected by the tragedy.
I would point out, however, that my knowledge of this tragedy is gleaned solely from BBC TV News Bulletins and these threads.
PS To whom do I send the Bill for this appreciation?
I agree in respect of your scenario regarding a Civil Airline.
This tragedy, however, was apparently due to a Royal Air Force Officer and his Crew blatently disregarding Military Flying Regulations whilst engaged on a Military Task carrying Military Personnel in a Military Aircraft. This matter will be dealt with under Military Rules as laid down by Act of Parliament.
As far as I am aware the findings of the BOI have not yet been finalised. If it is considered that Proceedings in regard of alleged breaches of the Air Force Act are justified against surviving crew members then the BOI will be held in abeyance until such proceedings are completed and it may be some considerable time before any final outcome is known and the Findings of the Board are published. It would be improper to publish the BOI if Courts Martial proceedings were being initiated.
There is also the possibility of Civil action being taken being taken by relatives of the deceased and others affected by the tragedy.
I would point out, however, that my knowledge of this tragedy is gleaned solely from BBC TV News Bulletins and these threads.
PS To whom do I send the Bill for this appreciation?
Biggus,
I hope you're wrong about the immediate reactions to the HC report - but sadly, I very much doubt that you are.
One of the worst things that could happen is for MOD to take the attitude of "we've already done those bits, and its alright now"
To badly mix metphors - Sticking Plaster repairs to a badly cracked wall.
Of course, things could go that step further - to cherry picking the bits that MOD wants to and ignoring the rest of the conclusions thereby installing a half-hearted system (again)
More cheap veneer, not worth a damn.
Can H-C mandate changes? - or just recommend changes?
I hope you're wrong about the immediate reactions to the HC report - but sadly, I very much doubt that you are.
One of the worst things that could happen is for MOD to take the attitude of "we've already done those bits, and its alright now"
To badly mix metphors - Sticking Plaster repairs to a badly cracked wall.
Of course, things could go that step further - to cherry picking the bits that MOD wants to and ignoring the rest of the conclusions thereby installing a half-hearted system (again)
More cheap veneer, not worth a damn.
Can H-C mandate changes? - or just recommend changes?
They would go through the entire airline from top to bottom and woe betide anyone who hadn't dotted all the i's and crossed the t's. A massive fine might be levied, at the very least they would be crawling with Flight Ops Inspectors for a long time who would be looking for very positive training and supervisory initiatives so that everyone was on message that this must never ever happen again.
You can can have every safeguard in place, and there are a whole load more of them on 33 now than there were, but I'm afraid Caz has it right when he says:
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.
But Benson still 'looks' shabby today.
I know all about priorities, but when the one public road through the camp is scattered with litter, and the poor old gate guard has drooping wings and a broken tailplane.
It leaves a very, very shabby impression.
Yes, the station may have been 'leaned to the bone' and may be putting every ounce of effort into delivering effect, but it's a poor lookout if there aren't enough airmen on jankers to pick up a bit of litter, and if none of the JENGOs or SENGOs can get a team of volunteers together to do a few hours work on the gate guard.
I know all about priorities, but when the one public road through the camp is scattered with litter, and the poor old gate guard has drooping wings and a broken tailplane.
It leaves a very, very shabby impression.
Yes, the station may have been 'leaned to the bone' and may be putting every ounce of effort into delivering effect, but it's a poor lookout if there aren't enough airmen on jankers to pick up a bit of litter, and if none of the JENGOs or SENGOs can get a team of volunteers together to do a few hours work on the gate guard.
Caz, thank you for the authoritative briefing on the ongoing Military procedures that we might next expect to happen. I would imagine that PPRuNe Towers would be the best address to send your invoice to. No doubt their cheque would later follow "in the post"! That the military have a process, largely waiting for this inquest to end, is clear. It is that process, or rather the institutions involved, that is the issue. Of course the accident involved, but could easily not have been restricted to, military personnel and they were involved in a military task. Who investigates that accident, why the military of course! Olive Oil expresses disdain for this verdict aimed at "the system". AFAIK the coroner restricted his criticism of "the system" to RAF Benson. Perhaps he should have set his sights higher! In my airline analogy its rather like only one fleet being under scrutiny, whereas I'm certain that the entire airline would get a going over! The "airline" in this case is the RAF. But it is the RAF which is investigating this accident! There is a contradiction at the heart of this conundrum, just as there is in the MOD being in charge of UK Military Airworthiness. Until Military Air Accident Investigation and UK Military Airworthiness Regulation is in Independent and Professional hands, that dangerous contradiction will remain.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jankers, what a quaint old concept 
Was part of the SH Force for 3 tours in the 90's and this sort of "bunt for the troops" thing was an almost daily happening.
If as this sad tale suggests things have not really changed maybe a proper look upwards as opposed to hanging out to dry another young man might be more appropriate, after all surely a whole crew would not have condoned this sort of thing if it was not something plenty of others did
Was part of the SH Force for 3 tours in the 90's and this sort of "bunt for the troops" thing was an almost daily happening.
If as this sad tale suggests things have not really changed maybe a proper look upwards as opposed to hanging out to dry another young man might be more appropriate, after all surely a whole crew would not have condoned this sort of thing if it was not something plenty of others did
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
In the Big List of Things to Keep the SH Force working, a well painted gate guard is not even in the first volume...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Times Comments
Reading the Wednesday Times on line on a visit to the USA this evening I found this highly critical article - widening the issues beyond the Puma accident and ending with these comments which I would hope are definitely not justified, but I wait to see how wide ranging Haddon-Cave's comments will be later today:
The attitudes and laxity that these young men encountered, within the auspices of the RAF, speak loudly of a pervasive culture of indiscipline, cliquishness and lack of supervision.
The full article is at: Top brass are failing our Top Guns | Melanie Reid - Times Online
JB
The attitudes and laxity that these young men encountered, within the auspices of the RAF, speak loudly of a pervasive culture of indiscipline, cliquishness and lack of supervision.
The full article is at: Top brass are failing our Top Guns | Melanie Reid - Times Online
JB
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any C130 chaps on here? I ask because the Lyneham fleet apparently had a good old pummeling in the 90s after the South Cerney decapitation and the aircraft captain para-jumping events. I'm wondering if there has been a noticeable and enduring change to the safety regime?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug, You said:
But it is the RAF which is investigating this accident! There is a contradiction at the heart of this conundrum, just as there is in the MOD being in charge of UK Military Airworthiness. Until Military Air Accident Investigation and UK Military Airworthiness Regulation is in Independent and Professional hands, that dangerous contradiction will remain.
So, you say that this accident was not properly investigated! What evidence do you have to support this? The evidence to the contrary that I have is as follows:
1. A BoI started an investigation
2. N Yorks Police carried out a full investigation
3. RNFSAIC investigated the state of the aircraft and found it fully serviceable and fit for purpose. In the course of their investigations, they also worked out what the final manoeuvre was.
4. N Yorks Coroner has fully investigated this accident.
5. The BoI is reconvening.
6. The RAF Police are looking at the accident.
How could this have been investigated more and how would a bunch of civvies investigating the accident make it any more independent than the Navy, Police and Coroner? Furthermore, I'm sure that the Police, RNFSAIC, Coroner and RAF Police are thrilled to learn that, in your opinion, they are not "professional"!
But it is the RAF which is investigating this accident! There is a contradiction at the heart of this conundrum, just as there is in the MOD being in charge of UK Military Airworthiness. Until Military Air Accident Investigation and UK Military Airworthiness Regulation is in Independent and Professional hands, that dangerous contradiction will remain.
So, you say that this accident was not properly investigated! What evidence do you have to support this? The evidence to the contrary that I have is as follows:
1. A BoI started an investigation
2. N Yorks Police carried out a full investigation
3. RNFSAIC investigated the state of the aircraft and found it fully serviceable and fit for purpose. In the course of their investigations, they also worked out what the final manoeuvre was.
4. N Yorks Coroner has fully investigated this accident.
5. The BoI is reconvening.
6. The RAF Police are looking at the accident.
How could this have been investigated more and how would a bunch of civvies investigating the accident make it any more independent than the Navy, Police and Coroner? Furthermore, I'm sure that the Police, RNFSAIC, Coroner and RAF Police are thrilled to learn that, in your opinion, they are not "professional"!
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
In the Big List of Things to Keep the SH Force working, a well painted gate guard is not even in the first volume...
"Do that button up lad! Where the hell do you think you are?!!"
Meanwhile the Group Captain appears in public hatless.
Appearances are everything. A scruffy exterior speaks of carelessness and shabby organization.
I think it inexcusable that the audio-visual material of the final moments of the flight was released to public broadcast. This was, in my opinion, an abominable lapse of taste and judgement by those concerned with its publication. It should be pointed out to HM Coroners, senior Service personnel, and to the Press and Broadcasting authorities, that this material is analagous to the CVR data, which, if my memory serves correctly, has confidentiality protected by one of the Ottawa Conventions. (OK, I'm talking civilian rules here, but I am a retired former RAF SH pilot.)
I am sure that all the potential systemic flaws in this accident will have been looked at and mitigated well before the Coroner's findings. Quite simply, this accident was a rare lapse of professionalism: it is a sad and severe blow to a truly professional, hard working, and overstretched Support Helicopter force.
I am sure that all the potential systemic flaws in this accident will have been looked at and mitigated well before the Coroner's findings. Quite simply, this accident was a rare lapse of professionalism: it is a sad and severe blow to a truly professional, hard working, and overstretched Support Helicopter force.
Blacksheep says"
At least viewers could see this eyes and that he was not hiding behind the authority of his hat.
Idle Stop says:
I totally disagree in this case. Had the crew been acting professionally and responsibly you might have a point, but in these circumstances the Coroner was correct in making the point of the total absence of airmanship by releasing this material.
Like it or not, the MOD can no longer hide behind a wall of secrecy it did in the past. As today's Nimrod Review conclusions, I am sure will tell....
the Group Captain appears in public hatless. Appearances are everything
Idle Stop says:
I think it inexcusable that the audio-visual material of the final moments of the flight was released to public broadcast.
Like it or not, the MOD can no longer hide behind a wall of secrecy it did in the past. As today's Nimrod Review conclusions, I am sure will tell....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A scruffy exterior speaks of carelessness and shabby organization.
Appearances are everything to the media because that is what you see on TV - it's the media that tells us that apearnaces really do matter. On the ground, in Afghanistan or wherever, the actual ability to do the job is ALL that matters. A burned up aircraft wreck looks the same after the crash whether it was nicely polished before or not.