2007 Puma Crash, Enquiry and Inquest (Merged)
Then once again I am indebted for your authoritative advice, SiClick. To be honest the arrangements made for Military Accident Investigation whether they be done in Service or outside, by the AAIB, the MAAIB or a Tri-Service Unit is all the same as far as I am concerned. The important thing is that they be independent, professional and authoritative. It is my contention that in the main that cannot be said of the present arrangements, particularly the RAF ones.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodness me.
This thread really is about the Puma crash after all!!
Chugalug
May I suggest you start your own airworthiness thread - rather than hijack this thread. The cause of this tragedy was Airmanship - not Airworthiness.
This thread really is about the Puma crash after all!!
Chugalug
May I suggest you start your own airworthiness thread - rather than hijack this thread. The cause of this tragedy was Airmanship - not Airworthiness.
And goodness me too, caz! Knowing the cause of an accident before the BoI findings are published yet again? Old habits die hard I guess. For your interest the discussion has been about just that, ie SI/BoI's, and whether they truly provide for dependable results. I might also suggest that there may well be Airworthiness aspects to this accident, but we'll just have to wait and see what the real professionals in RAF Accident Investigation come up with, ie HM's Coroners!
Caz,
Are you trying to say that good airmanship has nothing to do with airworthiness? Or that airworthiness doesn't need good airmanship?
Since when did flight crew cease being a part of airworthiness?
I'd always thought flight crews needed to be airworthy too. Hence the need for approvals and licensing - just like those engineer chappies need to be allowed to work on the things - thats part of airworthiness too!
Airworthiness is not just nuts and bolts. It is about how all the items flying are suitable for their purpose - including pax.
Annoyed...
Rigga
Are you trying to say that good airmanship has nothing to do with airworthiness? Or that airworthiness doesn't need good airmanship?
Since when did flight crew cease being a part of airworthiness?
I'd always thought flight crews needed to be airworthy too. Hence the need for approvals and licensing - just like those engineer chappies need to be allowed to work on the things - thats part of airworthiness too!
Airworthiness is not just nuts and bolts. It is about how all the items flying are suitable for their purpose - including pax.
Annoyed...
Rigga
Guest
Posts: n/a
The findings do not paint the RAF in a good light, and all in the a few days before HaddonCave. I believe the whole MOD / BOI airworthiness system will need to change, as it is not fit for purpose.
But for now, let's wait until Wednesday, which I believe is Mr HC's report publishing day.
PS - Well said Rigga.
But for now, let's wait until Wednesday, which I believe is Mr HC's report publishing day.
PS - Well said Rigga.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: not here
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bismark
The SD for the HISL's stated that when in cloud or below 300' over the sea there was a risk of disorientation. The practise for Sea Kings of the grey variety was to switch off the fwd Hisl.
The BOI changed that, however the introduction of NVG now means that they are back switching them off to prevent disorientation and blooming.
The BOI changed that, however the introduction of NVG now means that they are back switching them off to prevent disorientation and blooming.
Has the BoI been conducted in parallel or has it been 'suspended' pending the outcome of the police investigation (no further action) and the Coroners Inquest. It's going to be difficult given the public reporting to keep an open-mind (and perhaps look deeper than perhaps the Coroner did (not withstanding your comment, Chug, on the real Professionals in RAF BoI 
) for those on the Board if it hasn't sat yet 
. Either that or it will be the swiftest Board ever.
) for those on the Board if it hasn't sat yet . Either that or it will be the swiftest Board ever.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BoI will be reconvened very soon and will take as long as they need to. They will look at all aspects, including those that the Coroner has looked at as well as those that he hasn't.
The technical investigation (by RNFSAIC) is complete and before someone asks, the lack of Collective Anticipators were not a factor in this accident.
The technical investigation (by RNFSAIC) is complete and before someone asks, the lack of Collective Anticipators were not a factor in this accident.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having watched the BBC vid on the incident, I'm simply staggered.
But then having been overflown by a Puma flying at about 40' along part of the A34 near Worthy Down about 12 months ago, I suppose I shouldn't be massively surprised.
But then having been overflown by a Puma flying at about 40' along part of the A34 near Worthy Down about 12 months ago, I suppose I shouldn't be massively surprised.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By your estimate of course. Are you aware of the minimum flying height for military rotary in the UK?
If you are then you definitely shouldn't have been "massively surprised".
If not, then be prepared to be surprised again at some point!
Please don't try and insinuate that everyone who flies Pumas is reckless.
If you are then you definitely shouldn't have been "massively surprised".
If not, then be prepared to be surprised again at some point!
Please don't try and insinuate that everyone who flies Pumas is reckless.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM,
I wondered the same question.
Is it a wingover with upto 60 deg noseup and 60 deg bank? Is it a common term, common exercise?
I routinely instruct wingovers and one important lesson always to pass along is the ability to complete a wingover with zero sum heightloss. Whatever amsl you start at, level out no lower. If your technique always loses 50' or more, then one day ......
I wondered the same question.
Is it a wingover with upto 60 deg noseup and 60 deg bank? Is it a common term, common exercise?
I routinely instruct wingovers and one important lesson always to pass along is the ability to complete a wingover with zero sum heightloss. Whatever amsl you start at, level out no lower. If your technique always loses 50' or more, then one day ......
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies in advance if this upsets anyone but I just wanted to pass on what I expierenced in a low level 'tactical flight' in a Chinook.
Summer of 1985, RAF Spadeadam. I had applied for ALM and indeed had always wanted to fly and work on the Puma. Something about it just made me want to fly her.
Anyway, a chinook pitched up during some exercise and my boss got me a trip on it, appealing to the crew to give me a jolly as I was applying to Biggin Hill.
Time distances a lot of things but not the memory of that summer day. We flew non tactical ( ie 1000 feet) out to Boulmar to refuel. On the way back we went low level and followed a river (Irthing ?) back to Spade.
The loadie let me listen in to the RT.
There was no other chatter except the curt calls of height and obstacles coming up. Indeed I remember the crew up front saying something like ‘Low Level – banter off’
The loadie was all business. He was hanging out the back (we had the flap down) constantly looking, advising the crew up front, passing advice and info etc.
Point is there was none of the banter that appears to be going on in the BBC tape of the CVR.
Was my experience standard of the SH crews back then ?
Summer of 1985, RAF Spadeadam. I had applied for ALM and indeed had always wanted to fly and work on the Puma. Something about it just made me want to fly her.
Anyway, a chinook pitched up during some exercise and my boss got me a trip on it, appealing to the crew to give me a jolly as I was applying to Biggin Hill.
Time distances a lot of things but not the memory of that summer day. We flew non tactical ( ie 1000 feet) out to Boulmar to refuel. On the way back we went low level and followed a river (Irthing ?) back to Spade.
The loadie let me listen in to the RT.
There was no other chatter except the curt calls of height and obstacles coming up. Indeed I remember the crew up front saying something like ‘Low Level – banter off’
The loadie was all business. He was hanging out the back (we had the flap down) constantly looking, advising the crew up front, passing advice and info etc.
Point is there was none of the banter that appears to be going on in the BBC tape of the CVR.
Was my experience standard of the SH crews back then ?
Having watched OC Benson earlier on the BBC News briefing the press - outdoors and wearing his No 1, 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?
(It would have been OK if he'd been sat on the sofa on GMTV)
(It would have been OK if he'd been sat on the sofa on GMTV)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnd, you make a valid point but add on another ten feet and there are no 'rules' that I am aware of being broken. If it was over the middle of Winchester or Andover or any other conurbation then fair enough.
We have no idea what the cab was doing- CAD, IP to target etc- so all I am saying is just because it was 'low' does not mean it was doing anything illegal or reckless.
We have no idea what the cab was doing- CAD, IP to target etc- so all I am saying is just because it was 'low' does not mean it was doing anything illegal or reckless.