Pilot error 'led to Puma crash' in Iraq
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Linedog,
Aimed at me, I presume? If so, you are as un-informed as me; I have nothing to do with "e-goat".
Diablo, I'm very glad to hear the old ferry tanks have been dispensed with. They were damned dangerous and were known to split their seams all by themselves, in the cruise. At one time they were fitted forward right as standard role (12 seat plus ferry, IIRC) and we hated them.
So, you talk shyte on here as well as on e-goat?
Diablo, I'm very glad to hear the old ferry tanks have been dispensed with. They were damned dangerous and were known to split their seams all by themselves, in the cruise. At one time they were fitted forward right as standard role (12 seat plus ferry, IIRC) and we hated them.
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
Never a spillage with the old ones?? How about being at 10,000ft DA above a foreign country not normally associated with the RAF?? The tank vent had not been unplugged and it burst open. I can confirm that you can open the doors both sides and use your hands to 'slosh' gallons and gallons of fuel overboard. I was drenched from head to foot in AVTUR. The nav leg was very very very interesting without all that fuel available and a lot of very hostile jungle below................ 
Diablo Rouge,
It sounds like you are describing the change in the Chinook fleet's ferry tanks (swap from ex-Andover cylindrical things to black, cuboid, 2.4t Robertson's in the late 90s), rather than anything that happened in the Puma fleet.
It sounds like you are describing the change in the Chinook fleet's ferry tanks (swap from ex-Andover cylindrical things to black, cuboid, 2.4t Robertson's in the late 90s), rather than anything that happened in the Puma fleet.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thud,
the Puma CAFTS (Crashworthy Auxiliary Fuel Tank System) is a smaller version of the Robertson tank fitted to the Chinook. They were introduced just before 2000, but held up due to some concerns over the strength of the floor attachment points. Don't know what their status is now, but I'm as certain as a very certain person that they have nothing to do with this.
ShyTorque - just to be a pedant, it would have been 10-seat (not 12) plus ferry!
the Puma CAFTS (Crashworthy Auxiliary Fuel Tank System) is a smaller version of the Robertson tank fitted to the Chinook. They were introduced just before 2000, but held up due to some concerns over the strength of the floor attachment points. Don't know what their status is now, but I'm as certain as a very certain person that they have nothing to do with this.
ShyTorque - just to be a pedant, it would have been 10-seat (not 12) plus ferry!
Four tanks in pairs facing fore and aft. The facing end angled slightly down where the fuel outlets were. Secured to the floor by means of twist fittings. They were in the two tank configuration, forward only, when they burst and sent a wall of flame through the cockpit between the pilot and crewman when XW 203 crashed in 1974. It blew most of the cockpit out and then the flame was sucked back into the cabin as the roof opened up. Both of the crew stepped out of the front with minor burns. Anybody in the back would have been fried.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 10th Dec 2009 at 20:13.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SE Spain
Age: 77
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing the point about these valves? They are only suppose to work and come into action as the A/C turns up side down(rolls over) after it has impacted with the ground. The two troopers were not strapped in because they never are just prior to disembarkation on OPs. As has been stated common practice known to all.
If I have read the reports correctly one was dead before the valves were required to operate and the other was going no where. If they had worked he would have needed evacuation and early medical treatment.
So the question is why did the A/C hit the ground in the first place. It seems to me that the Coroner has got the cause of the crash correct i.e. Pilot Error in a "Brown Out" was responsible for one death the second death could be debatable but with out the pilots actions in this case, the valves would not have been needed and the Pilots, Engineers, RAF, MOD would have all of happily flown on until the Puma was scrapped none the wiser or interested.
BobH
If I have read the reports correctly one was dead before the valves were required to operate and the other was going no where. If they had worked he would have needed evacuation and early medical treatment.
So the question is why did the A/C hit the ground in the first place. It seems to me that the Coroner has got the cause of the crash correct i.e. Pilot Error in a "Brown Out" was responsible for one death the second death could be debatable but with out the pilots actions in this case, the valves would not have been needed and the Pilots, Engineers, RAF, MOD would have all of happily flown on until the Puma was scrapped none the wiser or interested.
BobH
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen, you are all speculating, please stop taking a soundbite from the media and trying to dissect what you can from it. The circumstances are not clear cut or indeed as simple as is being potrayed from the articles published.
If you have not read the incident signal or were not there on the fateful evening then you are not really in a position to comment with any authority. Doing so is only causing upset and hurt for those involved.
Please think before posting guys.
HG
If you have not read the incident signal or were not there on the fateful evening then you are not really in a position to comment with any authority. Doing so is only causing upset and hurt for those involved.
Please think before posting guys.
HG
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Gentlemen, you are all speculating,
Well, I for one, was actually sticking up for the pilot!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in the mid 80's I watched as a Bristow's (Super?) Puma turned on it's side at Aberdeen. (No, not from spotter's corner but rather too close for comfort from the light aircraft park adjacent to the runway.) It did not catch fire and every one climbed out. Are the fuel systems the same?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuel system on the Puma and Super Puma are pretty much the same. The vent system is identical, as are the anti-spill valves.
I served in Iraq at the secret airbase with the Puma fleet and I am now a type rated engineer on civilian Super Pumas.
I do recall in 2007 having to service these valves and I have also serviced them on Super Pumas more recently.
They are not an NRV as such but a ball that rolls in to a slot when the aircraft tips over stopping fuel from spilling out of the vent lines.
I do have a diagram from my type course notes as the the new EC225 has the same system( If it's not broken, why fix it)
I served in Iraq at the secret airbase with the Puma fleet and I am now a type rated engineer on civilian Super Pumas.
I do recall in 2007 having to service these valves and I have also serviced them on Super Pumas more recently.
They are not an NRV as such but a ball that rolls in to a slot when the aircraft tips over stopping fuel from spilling out of the vent lines.
I do have a diagram from my type course notes as the the new EC225 has the same system( If it's not broken, why fix it)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heights Good I can appreciate your protectiveness and probably many others would share your concern for any "upset and hurt to those involved" but I cannot understand it. I have read the (redacted) Boards of Inquiry concerning the accident (its freely available on the web) and whether you agree or not the findings have been established. They are (briefly) summed up in Hansard as follows The board concluded that the main cause of the accident was controlled flight into terrain, brought about by the handling pilot’s disorientation due to the use of an incorrect technique for a dust take off. A number of contributory and aggravating factors were also identified.
Where exactly is the speculation?
Where exactly is the speculation?
Its the first I have heard about an "anti-spill valve" too!
The black "slab" style of tank referred to above is now fitted, saw one a few weeks back.
The old ones were lethal: we smelt fuel, looked back, one metre head of fuel spraying into cabin!
Opened the valve to "dump" it into the main tanks, IMC, diverted into Yeovilton at 5pm Friday, quite unpleasant with the vapours too.
It was after the 1974 accident in field --? (I can see it but not put a number to it!) that the helicopter force was issued with nomex.
lsh
The black "slab" style of tank referred to above is now fitted, saw one a few weeks back.
The old ones were lethal: we smelt fuel, looked back, one metre head of fuel spraying into cabin!
Opened the valve to "dump" it into the main tanks, IMC, diverted into Yeovilton at 5pm Friday, quite unpleasant with the vapours too.
It was after the 1974 accident in field --? (I can see it but not put a number to it!) that the helicopter force was issued with nomex.
lsh
The board concluded that the main cause of the accident was controlled flight into terrain, brought about by the handling pilot’s disorientation ,
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said before it is no longer appopriate in ''modern'' accident investigation to talk about main causes, primary causes or any thing of that ilk. There should just be a number of contributory causes and lessons can be learned from that.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have said before it is no longer appopriate in ''modern'' accident investigation to talk about main causes, primary causes or any thing of that ilk. There should just be a number of contributory causes and lessons can be learned from that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both Tiger_Mate & 4Greens are right in equal measure. Rarely is an accident caused by a single failure of person or machine, but in order to learn the appropriate lessons we must correctly identify the main causes.
The B52 accident was not just attributable to the poor flying discipline of the pilot in command, but also to a shockingly inefficient supervisory chain which failed to act on multiple red flags raised by many people.
Equally, trying to disguise human error by attempting to reduce all accidents to design flaws and irrelevant maintenance issues will do nothing to reduce accident rates and in many cases would simply serve to obscure the true cause and therefore dilute the lesson that needs to be learnt.
Personally, I think the industry, both military and commercial, has a pretty good track record of identifying problems, highlighting lessons and communicating them to the people that matter - pilots and engineers. A lot of what gets highlighted in the media is just noise.
The B52 accident was not just attributable to the poor flying discipline of the pilot in command, but also to a shockingly inefficient supervisory chain which failed to act on multiple red flags raised by many people.
Equally, trying to disguise human error by attempting to reduce all accidents to design flaws and irrelevant maintenance issues will do nothing to reduce accident rates and in many cases would simply serve to obscure the true cause and therefore dilute the lesson that needs to be learnt.
Personally, I think the industry, both military and commercial, has a pretty good track record of identifying problems, highlighting lessons and communicating them to the people that matter - pilots and engineers. A lot of what gets highlighted in the media is just noise.
is one actually in control of the aircraft when disorientated?