2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crash crew's last moments heard
BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Crew laughed before fatal crash
BBC NEWS | UK | England | North Yorkshire | Crew laughed before fatal crash
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that the outcome of this inquest will not be a good one for the crew of the Puma, if that recording is anything to go by. Really sad
You must remember that an inquest is not there to apportion blame.....but a CVR is
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA - yes you are correct - sorry if my post was misleading. I was simply replying to dc3's comment and suggesting that there will never be a 'good' outcome to the inquiry or anything else about this tragedy for the surviving pilot, passengers or families. Remember too that the inquiry is not there to apportion blame.
SW
SW
I guess I was just trying to say that the outcome would be embarrassing, damaging to the reputation for the crew, the RAF etc. And it will undoubtedly result in the loss of a small freedom or perk or something, for somebody, somewhere, because it will result in the introduction of more rules. Sad.
I wasn't intending to comment on the direct loss of life and trauma caused by the accident though that, too, is sad.
I wasn't intending to comment on the direct loss of life and trauma caused by the accident though that, too, is sad.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to listen to that several times. It's hard to try to see/visualize/recognize a situation from a short piece of audio. I heard two different recordings and when I listened to the first, (which did not include the final seconds), I first wondered how many seconds that was before the actual accident. I've had many conversations on the intercom that, while being a little less rambunctious have indicated equally "adventurous" flying. When I heard the first recording, (that lacked the final seconds), I felt there was a "lack of attendance" by the pilot. He can have "fun" and he can have "fun" in discussing it with his crewman, I have no argument with that. But the lack of attendance _seemed_ to be there. The second section in the second recording I heard seems to have confirmed that a lack of attention to "flying the aircraft" took place.
I can't hold the Crewman blameless. It is/was a function of the crewman to control/question/manage/support his captain, (let's not discuss the fact there was a Co-Pilot), yet he seemed to have not recognized that the task was taking a "turn for the worst". He had a duty to the passengers that he gave up. Mea Culpa, with perfect hindsight - but nothing bad happened and, back then, it didn't seem like a "reportable issue/offense" - but for luck or chance, we all came out smiling and thinking it was a great thing.
This was a tragic situation that occurred for numerous different reasons. Not the least that the controlling Pilot was not as in control of his aircraft as he would like to think he could be. His Co-Pilot seemed to be non-existent - but I'll happily be corrected on that - and the crewman should have, properly, reprimanded his captain and requested a change in the way he was carrying out the task. I won't even bother to address the accusation that a crew on another aircraft suggested they alter their activity - that simply damns the crew.
Fortunately, there were far more survivors than there were deaths.
I'm sure, this post will be seen as controversial... I'm prepared for reasonable discussion.
I can't hold the Crewman blameless. It is/was a function of the crewman to control/question/manage/support his captain, (let's not discuss the fact there was a Co-Pilot), yet he seemed to have not recognized that the task was taking a "turn for the worst". He had a duty to the passengers that he gave up. Mea Culpa, with perfect hindsight - but nothing bad happened and, back then, it didn't seem like a "reportable issue/offense" - but for luck or chance, we all came out smiling and thinking it was a great thing.
This was a tragic situation that occurred for numerous different reasons. Not the least that the controlling Pilot was not as in control of his aircraft as he would like to think he could be. His Co-Pilot seemed to be non-existent - but I'll happily be corrected on that - and the crewman should have, properly, reprimanded his captain and requested a change in the way he was carrying out the task. I won't even bother to address the accusation that a crew on another aircraft suggested they alter their activity - that simply damns the crew.
Fortunately, there were far more survivors than there were deaths.
I'm sure, this post will be seen as controversial... I'm prepared for reasonable discussion.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Odiham
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VCR data
I just had a listen to the CVR on BBC website. I think it is actually of a better quality than the sky news version. As rightly mentioned it does not contain the last seconds.
However it does show some terrible things. The co pilot is the only one to mention that they came out low of the manoeuvre. The pilot is going yeehaa whilst the crewman, after saying he saw how low they were from the door, says "Permission to say Yeehaa loudly sir?" a la Blackadder.
The co pilot seems to be concerned by saying "Permission to say it was a little bit low" only to get the response " We had a good 30'"???? I doubt they were doing a CAD... Correction I know they were not doing a CAD..... Only then the co-pilot re-iterates "That was 30' MSC to its limit, mate". I emphasise the "mate" because that is exactly the way I would emphasise to somebody they are beyond the limit.
Shame he did not have the guts to call knock it off. But it is also understandable, when you are LCR next to your CR captain, that you will give him the benefit of the doubt.
All in all this is *********** ....Now the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces with all the abuse that will come our way and the barrier of new rules to be instigated *******************.
I hope this post does not offend anyone, but I am proud of being in the SH force. Watching it being put in disrepute *************** makes my blood boil.
Regards,
Wokwoka
Sorry if amending your post offends you Wok, but as I understand it the case is still under investigation and the comments I have removed could be damaging.
However it does show some terrible things. The co pilot is the only one to mention that they came out low of the manoeuvre. The pilot is going yeehaa whilst the crewman, after saying he saw how low they were from the door, says "Permission to say Yeehaa loudly sir?" a la Blackadder.
The co pilot seems to be concerned by saying "Permission to say it was a little bit low" only to get the response " We had a good 30'"???? I doubt they were doing a CAD... Correction I know they were not doing a CAD..... Only then the co-pilot re-iterates "That was 30' MSC to its limit, mate". I emphasise the "mate" because that is exactly the way I would emphasise to somebody they are beyond the limit.
Shame he did not have the guts to call knock it off. But it is also understandable, when you are LCR next to your CR captain, that you will give him the benefit of the doubt.
All in all this is *********** ....Now the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces with all the abuse that will come our way and the barrier of new rules to be instigated *******************.
I hope this post does not offend anyone, but I am proud of being in the SH force. Watching it being put in disrepute *************** makes my blood boil.
Regards,
Wokwoka
Sorry if amending your post offends you Wok, but as I understand it the case is still under investigation and the comments I have removed could be damaging.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found this entire thread really uncomfortable to read. I consider myself normally rational and sober minded and my job requires detailed analysis and reflection, but there have been times when I have driven like a lunatic. Why? What is it about us that allows that little weird side to occasionaly surface? Whatever happened that was above anything else, a tragedy of the most dreadful and highest magnitude for the parents and loved ones of those who died, and who now have to face the public dissmantling of their "little boy's" reputation. I served on 33 and although I never knew the captain, I look at his face and I see a human being who had all the aspirations and hopes that we have (I assume) all have known to some great extent.
I have hung out of the door of a Puma and the disc has seemed almost to touch the floor - I don't know what banter was going on via the intercom, and its probably best that I didn't. But there is a fine line between trusting a 'great' pilot and him being a fine flier and him being incompetent and hung out to dry. The measure and extent of what went wrong can be determined later and so it should be. But David was a human being too, and so were Phil and Sean. He is not here to either apologise, explain, justify or amplify, so (yes, I know I'm not aircrew but I do have a semblence of wordliness and noggin about me), I think we should respect first and foremost the fact that it isn't our role to (pre) judge or so publically dissect anyone.
I guess my point is, I might well have chatted with Dave, shared a beer with him or enjoyed the craic with him the day before. I make my determinations about a man based on many things and many things about him.. not just those which went wrong for him. I hope that we all remember that and respect them as human beings.. fallible or not. Sorry if you think I'm being preachy. I certainly don't mean to be.. this goes beyond a military foul up, no one wins - lets just make sure that now, no one gets hurt needlessly.
I have hung out of the door of a Puma and the disc has seemed almost to touch the floor - I don't know what banter was going on via the intercom, and its probably best that I didn't. But there is a fine line between trusting a 'great' pilot and him being a fine flier and him being incompetent and hung out to dry. The measure and extent of what went wrong can be determined later and so it should be. But David was a human being too, and so were Phil and Sean. He is not here to either apologise, explain, justify or amplify, so (yes, I know I'm not aircrew but I do have a semblence of wordliness and noggin about me), I think we should respect first and foremost the fact that it isn't our role to (pre) judge or so publically dissect anyone.
I guess my point is, I might well have chatted with Dave, shared a beer with him or enjoyed the craic with him the day before. I make my determinations about a man based on many things and many things about him.. not just those which went wrong for him. I hope that we all remember that and respect them as human beings.. fallible or not. Sorry if you think I'm being preachy. I certainly don't mean to be.. this goes beyond a military foul up, no one wins - lets just make sure that now, no one gets hurt needlessly.
Yes, Him
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vigilant Pilot , are you sure Wok is 180 out? The voice that says something like "are they all comfy in the back?" has a slight Geordie accent which I assume therefore is Sale. If that is the correct then the non-accent voice admonishing about the "30ft limit Mate" would then be the co-pilot?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
With about 2500 hrs on RAF Pumas I was shocked by this recording. I know journos pick things up from the site, but fact is fact and it doesn't look good here. However, press please take note because this is important. The audio "Low Height" is an adjustable setting, it can read 5 feet or up to 2000 feet. Therefore in this case you cannot say that they were 100% low low low flying from that alone. Its hard to tell, but the final seconds of the BBC recording made me shiver because Puma pilots are all aware of that Nr reducing sound during a fast approach. Even the best pilots have all experienced that rotor decaying sound at some time in their Puma career. Those of us still here are lucky, many peolple were not. Read past threads, the Puma bites!! Thank goodness that the Puma upgrade (different argument on sense of this) will address the engine response issues.
Whatever went on in the minutes or hours before is not what caused this aircraft to crash, although it doesn't help the crew reputation. Laughing, yahooing, whatever, the reason this aircraft crashed is how the approach to land was carried out. (The BBC says it was on approach)
Whatever went on in the minutes or hours before is not what caused this aircraft to crash, although it doesn't help the crew reputation. Laughing, yahooing, whatever, the reason this aircraft crashed is how the approach to land was carried out. (The BBC says it was on approach)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Monde
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a guess but I don't suppose the handling pilot and crewman were around the notorious '1000 hours total flying' mark in their logbooks were they?
It certainly sounds like it.
It certainly sounds like it.
Just seen this on BBC, apologies if it has been on already.
Crash squadron a 'sloppy outfit'
Three men were killed in the helicopter crash near Catterick
A coroner has branded an RAF squadron "a sloppy outfit" at an inquest into the deaths of three men in a helicopter crash during a training exercise.
Geoff Fell said there was no evidence of any documentation to show the crew of the doomed RAF Puma were "properly ratified" to fly the aircraft.
Flt Lt David Sale, Sgt Phillip Burfoot and Pte Sean Tait died in the crash in North Yorkshire in August 2007.
The helicopter crew was based at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire.
Twelve military personnel were on board the aircraft which crashed during a training flight near Catterick Garrison.
Mr Fell was trying to establish if Flt Lt Robert Hamilton, who was left paraplegic as a result of the injuries he suffered, and Flt Lt Paul Carlon, who had taken part in earlier exercises, were deemed to be qualified to take part.
I'm not prepared to sit here and see these families denied the right to find out what has happened to their kids
Geoff Fell, coroner
Mr Fell said: "There is no paperwork to suggest or indicate that Hamilton and Carlon were LCR [limited combat-ready].
"There is no document to show this crew were properly ratified.
"This is a sloppy outfit. I can't put it any other way.
"I'm not prepared to sit here and see these families denied the right to find out what has happened to their kids," he said.
Mr Fell made his comments during a discussion with Oliver Sanders, who is representing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) at the inquest.
Mr Sanders interrupted the questioning of Wing Cdr Jason Appleton, who was second in command at 33 Squadron, at RAF Benson.
He objected to Mr Appleton being asked about a report critical of 33 Squadron which highlighted poor record-keeping and leadership.
Mr Sanders said the questioning went beyond the scope of the inquest and should not be allowed.
The Puma came from an RAF base in Oxfordshire
The coroner disagreed and Mr Appleton was asked to comment on the report, which found there had been a "loss of focus on routine administration".
Mr Appleton conceded there "had been a problem with some paperwork" but said his squadron had seen "unprecedented operational commitment".
"It is fair to say the eye was taken off the ball," he told the inquest.
On the opening day of the hearing, on Monday, an audio clip was played to Harrogate Magistrates' Court in which the crew were heard laughing and joking moments before the crash.
Sgt Burfoot, 27, from Cardiff, and Flt Lt Sale, 28, from Norton on Teesside, were killed in the crash. They both served with 33 Squadron.
Seventeen-year-old Army recruit Pte Tait died from his injuries two days later.
He was from Castlemilk in Glasgow and had been undergoing training in the Royal Regiment of Scotland Company of the 1st Infantry Training Battalion at the Infantry Training Centre, Catterick.
Crash squadron a 'sloppy outfit'
Three men were killed in the helicopter crash near Catterick
A coroner has branded an RAF squadron "a sloppy outfit" at an inquest into the deaths of three men in a helicopter crash during a training exercise.
Geoff Fell said there was no evidence of any documentation to show the crew of the doomed RAF Puma were "properly ratified" to fly the aircraft.
Flt Lt David Sale, Sgt Phillip Burfoot and Pte Sean Tait died in the crash in North Yorkshire in August 2007.
The helicopter crew was based at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire.
Twelve military personnel were on board the aircraft which crashed during a training flight near Catterick Garrison.
Mr Fell was trying to establish if Flt Lt Robert Hamilton, who was left paraplegic as a result of the injuries he suffered, and Flt Lt Paul Carlon, who had taken part in earlier exercises, were deemed to be qualified to take part.
I'm not prepared to sit here and see these families denied the right to find out what has happened to their kids
Geoff Fell, coroner
Mr Fell said: "There is no paperwork to suggest or indicate that Hamilton and Carlon were LCR [limited combat-ready].
"There is no document to show this crew were properly ratified.
"This is a sloppy outfit. I can't put it any other way.
"I'm not prepared to sit here and see these families denied the right to find out what has happened to their kids," he said.
Mr Fell made his comments during a discussion with Oliver Sanders, who is representing the Ministry of Defence (MoD) at the inquest.
Mr Sanders interrupted the questioning of Wing Cdr Jason Appleton, who was second in command at 33 Squadron, at RAF Benson.
He objected to Mr Appleton being asked about a report critical of 33 Squadron which highlighted poor record-keeping and leadership.
Mr Sanders said the questioning went beyond the scope of the inquest and should not be allowed.
The Puma came from an RAF base in Oxfordshire
The coroner disagreed and Mr Appleton was asked to comment on the report, which found there had been a "loss of focus on routine administration".
Mr Appleton conceded there "had been a problem with some paperwork" but said his squadron had seen "unprecedented operational commitment".
"It is fair to say the eye was taken off the ball," he told the inquest.
On the opening day of the hearing, on Monday, an audio clip was played to Harrogate Magistrates' Court in which the crew were heard laughing and joking moments before the crash.
Sgt Burfoot, 27, from Cardiff, and Flt Lt Sale, 28, from Norton on Teesside, were killed in the crash. They both served with 33 Squadron.
Seventeen-year-old Army recruit Pte Tait died from his injuries two days later.
He was from Castlemilk in Glasgow and had been undergoing training in the Royal Regiment of Scotland Company of the 1st Infantry Training Battalion at the Infantry Training Centre, Catterick.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the BoI (Service Inquiry) was delayed while the CPS decided whether or not there were any criminal charges to be considered. Now that no charges are to be brought, what has happened to the BoI? Has it concluded? If so, does anyone know the outcome?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
Is it correct that, in this case, the Coroner's Inquest will pre-date the BoI/SI?
Have expert accident investigators (the AAIB) had the chance to report (technically wrt the site, the ac's serviceability, its inherent design/airworthiness and wrt the CVR/ADR? Also, have the medical types reported pathologically and psychologically etc) to the BoI/SI or have they gone straight to the Coroner?
What and why are senior offs writing to eachother?
Something here doesn't make sense.
flipster
Is it correct that, in this case, the Coroner's Inquest will pre-date the BoI/SI?
Have expert accident investigators (the AAIB) had the chance to report (technically wrt the site, the ac's serviceability, its inherent design/airworthiness and wrt the CVR/ADR? Also, have the medical types reported pathologically and psychologically etc) to the BoI/SI or have they gone straight to the Coroner?
What and why are senior offs writing to eachother?
Something here doesn't make sense.
flipster