Puma Crash Sentence
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the civvy world the BMI Kegworth accident is generally held to be the moment moderm CRM was embraced as a credible concept which can "catch" errors in an error chain.
This discussion is UK/RAF oriented.Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger mate, We've flown together, I was on the staff when Fred went through (but I'm not GC!).
17 Nov 86 XW212 1:35 LL Nav with the dark menace as mentor.
Again the following day for some dry winching in XW200.
Last edited by Tiger_mate; 24th Dec 2011 at 14:39.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
T_M, I can confirm who the student pilot was (name beginning with M G) but I didn't have enough room in my logbook on those four man OCU syllabus sorties to record the student crewmen - sorry! 
However, a P.M. from your good self, with another clue, would be very welcome!
However, a P.M. from your good self, with another clue, would be very welcome!
There is and always will be a difference between Military and Civilian flying. What is "reckless behavior" in peace time will sometimes be the difference between life and death for those your aircraft is supporting, in war time.
This inherent conflict will always exist. There was a very cogent point made in an earlier thread about how if everyone was asked to write a confidential list of "dangerous pilots" the same names would keep coming up. I don't think that will ever change in a military culture.
The B52 airshow crash was a huge deal for the USAF with all the Generals saying the "culture that contributed to this accident will never be allowed to develop again"; yet 10 years later a C17 crashed in Alaska and all the same factors applied. The AC was a known risk taker, the aircraft was deliberately flown well outside its envelope some crew members were concerned but did not speak up etc etc.
I think at the end of the day this is not something the "Brass" can fix. It is up to the guy/gal sitting in the aircraft to speak up. Easier said then done I know, but for every tragedy like this one there are many that have been averted when in the excitement of the moment you have let your ego over rule good judgement, but somebody has spoken up before a potential tragedy happened.
On one day I will never forget, my career and maybe the lives of everyone I was responsible for was once quite likely saved by a very junior crew member blurting out "Sir, what are you doing ? "........
This inherent conflict will always exist. There was a very cogent point made in an earlier thread about how if everyone was asked to write a confidential list of "dangerous pilots" the same names would keep coming up. I don't think that will ever change in a military culture.
The B52 airshow crash was a huge deal for the USAF with all the Generals saying the "culture that contributed to this accident will never be allowed to develop again"; yet 10 years later a C17 crashed in Alaska and all the same factors applied. The AC was a known risk taker, the aircraft was deliberately flown well outside its envelope some crew members were concerned but did not speak up etc etc.
I think at the end of the day this is not something the "Brass" can fix. It is up to the guy/gal sitting in the aircraft to speak up. Easier said then done I know, but for every tragedy like this one there are many that have been averted when in the excitement of the moment you have let your ego over rule good judgement, but somebody has spoken up before a potential tragedy happened.
On one day I will never forget, my career and maybe the lives of everyone I was responsible for was once quite likely saved by a very junior crew member blurting out "Sir, what are you doing ? "........
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Big Piston,
You raise some very good points and if I may play devil's advocate I would like to ask a few questions and PLEASE note I TOTALLY agree with both yourself and other experts that have made exactly the same very valid points:
I totally agree about the 'difference between life and death' but are we expected to accept that these pilots pull this type of flying 'out of a hat', or is it a skill they have developed during their peacetime flying?
Let me cite an example that is way out of centre field.
In flight refuelling
Would we expect a new pilot to successfully and confidently engage with a basket 'fluttering' all over the sky, or will it take practice? Will the pilot practice this 'dark art'
(quote from a certain journal) and gradually improve until it becomes second nature? Likewise with the exploits we are both discussing, they are skills that need developing. Hopefully you can understand my thoughts and where I am coming from?
Another excellent point but... In a time of hostilities let us imagine a pilot is required to perform a mission that is high risk, and requires extremely low flying; who would we want to fly that mission? Mr Plod who has never contravened any regulations in their lives, never flown lower than the allowed minimum height and has always cancelled a mission the instant any type of malfunction is suspected? Or would you look at the little list we have of pilots that have annoyed your local residents with their mischievous low flying escapades?
I accept we would not want a glory grabbing idiot that only sees medals in front of their eyes. Please accept that in NO WAY am I defending the conduct of the individual that is being discussed.
I am of an age where we had individuals who were deemed as 'characters'... You might not want this type of person to go out with your daughter but when the chips were down, they would be the type of person we would look to.
I have a saying, 'When the going gets rough, the rough get going!'
Having read all these posts I fear that some folks are perhaps demanding, or at the very least expecting a flight deck to be a democracy where a newly qualified, inexperienced pilot can criticise the flying of someone who may be an extremely qualified person. Judging if flying is 'dangerous' is not perhaps as black and white as we all may like to think...... Aircraft flying low over the desert that fly quite literally within a few feet of the ground!
Aircraft flying so low over the sea it is ripping up spray.... Neither example uncommon but both are within 'inches' of needing more than 'T cut' to carry out the repairs.
Train hard, fight easy..
As an aside what type of reaction would there have been from someone like Guy Gibson if his co-pilot were to criticise his flying during a TRAINING exercise? Words similar to..... ''There's the door, get out and leave your parachute on the seat!" come to mind!
I would hate to think we are trying to get rid of the characters that I so loved and admired.
I guess I am taking this stance simply because of this much quoted, 'There but for the grace of God' m'larky although this thread is about someone who went a step too far.
You raise some very good points and if I may play devil's advocate I would like to ask a few questions and PLEASE note I TOTALLY agree with both yourself and other experts that have made exactly the same very valid points:
There is and always will be a difference between Military and Civilian flying. What is "reckless behavior" in peace time will sometimes be the difference between life and death for those your aircraft is supporting, in war time
Let me cite an example that is way out of centre field.
In flight refuelling
Would we expect a new pilot to successfully and confidently engage with a basket 'fluttering' all over the sky, or will it take practice? Will the pilot practice this 'dark art'
(quote from a certain journal) and gradually improve until it becomes second nature? Likewise with the exploits we are both discussing, they are skills that need developing. Hopefully you can understand my thoughts and where I am coming from?
This inherent conflict will always exist. There was a very cogent point made in an earlier thread about how if everyone was asked to write a confidential list of "dangerous pilots" the same names would keep coming up. I don't think that will ever change in a military culture.
I accept we would not want a glory grabbing idiot that only sees medals in front of their eyes. Please accept that in NO WAY am I defending the conduct of the individual that is being discussed.
I am of an age where we had individuals who were deemed as 'characters'... You might not want this type of person to go out with your daughter but when the chips were down, they would be the type of person we would look to.
I have a saying, 'When the going gets rough, the rough get going!'
Having read all these posts I fear that some folks are perhaps demanding, or at the very least expecting a flight deck to be a democracy where a newly qualified, inexperienced pilot can criticise the flying of someone who may be an extremely qualified person. Judging if flying is 'dangerous' is not perhaps as black and white as we all may like to think...... Aircraft flying low over the desert that fly quite literally within a few feet of the ground!
Aircraft flying so low over the sea it is ripping up spray.... Neither example uncommon but both are within 'inches' of needing more than 'T cut' to carry out the repairs.
Train hard, fight easy..
As an aside what type of reaction would there have been from someone like Guy Gibson if his co-pilot were to criticise his flying during a TRAINING exercise? Words similar to..... ''There's the door, get out and leave your parachute on the seat!" come to mind!
I would hate to think we are trying to get rid of the characters that I so loved and admired.
I guess I am taking this stance simply because of this much quoted, 'There but for the grace of God' m'larky although this thread is about someone who went a step too far.
Joglo,
What an interesting an refreshing take on the issue. I thought you said you couldn't write!?!? Your words formed another thought in my head, which I know some will see as me stating the bleedin' obvious again. If we need people in war that are characters in peacetime (BTW, I resemble that remark!), does it mean that our peacetime training rules are too restrictive? At best, the flyers in GW1 and GW2 had done OLF, but that was nothing like the altitudes flown over the desert, as you say.
So, yes, what you say is right and also points up the quandary of training rules. As you say, we should train as we intend to fight.
What an interesting an refreshing take on the issue. I thought you said you couldn't write!?!? Your words formed another thought in my head, which I know some will see as me stating the bleedin' obvious again. If we need people in war that are characters in peacetime (BTW, I resemble that remark!), does it mean that our peacetime training rules are too restrictive? At best, the flyers in GW1 and GW2 had done OLF, but that was nothing like the altitudes flown over the desert, as you say.
So, yes, what you say is right and also points up the quandary of training rules. As you say, we should train as we intend to fight.
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
There are characters and there are idiots. I would choose a person who is brave, loyal and not a risk taking thrill seeking idiot
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are characters and there are idiots. I would choose a person who is brave, loyal and not a risk taking thrill seeking idiot
My thoughts here are that the training appears to be more than adequate but clearly only a fool will think the system is perfect. Hopefully we will always have individuals that are prepared to go that extra mile, but to try to raise the bar of our training may well be asking too much of the average recruit. Again PLEASE do not read into this what is not there.... by 'average' I mean just that.
I am never and will NEVER condone the conduct of an idiot hence in every post (or most posts) I have always made it clear I am not condoning the actions of the pilot...
I am tempted to nail my colours to the mast and maybe stand by this co-pilot... He has paid an awful price for POSSIBLY being in the wrong place at the wrong time????? I say possibly because of that CVR....
Training should nurture the student, training should be all about developing skills that will stand pilots in good stead for a career that others can only dream of. It should not however be reckless or encourage risk taking ....
Other side of the coin...
It is a pitch black night in hurricane force winds... The wind is a blowing and the seas are high. we are on a small frigate close to the Artic circle, the decks are covered in ice and the commanding officer has requested the helicopter be launched for an urgent flight...
The ship is rolling well in excess of thirty degrees and going up and down faster than an express lift, the flight commander takes one look at the conditions and correctly decides his wasp will be staying in the hangar. It should be noted that prior to launching and when being recovered handlers need to both release and attach four canvas strops to the aircraft which prevent this aprocrita from sliding off the deck. Operating on an icy deck is not for the faint hearted especially in the conditions described.
The flight commander was summoned to the bridge where he had to justify the reasons for the refusal which he duly did. The C\O then sent a signal to the Squadron leader (Senior officer in command of the group) stating they were unable to launch the aircraft because of the prevailing conditions...
To cut a long story short, the helicopter from the senior frigate was launched and carried out the required flight, same type of ship, same type of aircraft, same conditions.
I am NOT criticising EITHER pilot, but lives depended on that flight, but I also accept lives were also put at risk... It is all about risk assessment and to me both pilots made exceedingly brave calls. When we sign up to wear the Queen's uniform then are we not signing up to a life where taking calculated risks is all part of our daily activities?
I have 'wittered' on here solely to highlight 'risk' assessment. Each pilot knew when to say no and each pilot's stance was respected.
Respect to ALL our brave service personnel
Glojo,
Your argument is well thought-through. I notice it is also carefully worded - becoming a vital precaution around here at the moment! I think the point that I take most from that is your concept of calculated risk. And, in my opinion, stepping outside the rules does not always incur risk. Indeed, I have seen situations where sticking too rigidly to them has created greater risk than occasional excursions.
I'll deny this in court, obviously, but there may have been the odd occasion when I transgressed the letter (and maybe the spirit) of the law as written in the holy book of GASOs, but it was always done with careful thought and the agreement of my back seater. Maybe that eroded the margin for error and clearly cannot condone what may have done, but I stand by my decisions and am still here to tell the tale after thousands of flying hours.
As for idiots. Well, how can anyone argue with your reasoning? And, Jayteeto, I do agree with the point you made about the difference.
Courtney
Your argument is well thought-through. I notice it is also carefully worded - becoming a vital precaution around here at the moment! I think the point that I take most from that is your concept of calculated risk. And, in my opinion, stepping outside the rules does not always incur risk. Indeed, I have seen situations where sticking too rigidly to them has created greater risk than occasional excursions.
I'll deny this in court, obviously, but there may have been the odd occasion when I transgressed the letter (and maybe the spirit) of the law as written in the holy book of GASOs, but it was always done with careful thought and the agreement of my back seater. Maybe that eroded the margin for error and clearly cannot condone what may have done, but I stand by my decisions and am still here to tell the tale after thousands of flying hours.
As for idiots. Well, how can anyone argue with your reasoning? And, Jayteeto, I do agree with the point you made about the difference.
Courtney
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't share the insight that many have into the particular accident in question that many of you here clearly have, but I am interested in the discussions around discipline and ability.
It was many years ago that we had to start (re?)introducing categories of combat readiness for the reasons glojo eludes to. Basic combat ready status was achievable by most of the new guys we were getting from the OCU and they were perfectly adequate and safe in the roles that entailed. But, these more "average" aircrew were nowhere near ready for the more advanced stuff. I would even say that some were, in jayteeto's words, idiots, most dangerous because they failed to recognise their own limitations while the characters around me were pushing outside of the envelope in relative safety.
Thanks for an interesting discussion here. I hope I haven't dragged us too far off thread and that I cannot offer even an opinion about the real subject here. I simply do not know enough about it.
It was many years ago that we had to start (re?)introducing categories of combat readiness for the reasons glojo eludes to. Basic combat ready status was achievable by most of the new guys we were getting from the OCU and they were perfectly adequate and safe in the roles that entailed. But, these more "average" aircrew were nowhere near ready for the more advanced stuff. I would even say that some were, in jayteeto's words, idiots, most dangerous because they failed to recognise their own limitations while the characters around me were pushing outside of the envelope in relative safety.
Thanks for an interesting discussion here. I hope I haven't dragged us too far off thread and that I cannot offer even an opinion about the real subject here. I simply do not know enough about it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jayteeto
I know exactly what you mean!
When I was instructing at the School of Refresher Flying at Manby (later the Refresher Flying Squadron at Leeming) we had one QFI who attracted a lot of criticism from his Students for unbriefed (and unauthorised) manoeuvres and ultra Low Level Flying.
He eventually killed himself some years later whilst attempting to fly visually at low level in IMC.
I know exactly what you mean!
When I was instructing at the School of Refresher Flying at Manby (later the Refresher Flying Squadron at Leeming) we had one QFI who attracted a lot of criticism from his Students for unbriefed (and unauthorised) manoeuvres and ultra Low Level Flying.
He eventually killed himself some years later whilst attempting to fly visually at low level in IMC.
Interesting views, Courtney!
Back in 1977-ish when I was flying HM's Tin Triangles, the Rules were so constipatingly repressive that they were frequently ignored. But the views of the Group Flight Safety guys were that what was going on was actually safer and more productive than the stupid rules themselves! For example, co-pilots weren't allowed to land the Vulcan unless they were with their 'constituted' captain. Many did so though - and gained greater experience and skills as a result.
But this led to a culture of ignoring the rules completely. The crew I flew with was quite comfortable at 80ft a.g.l. over the North Sea hiding from fighters, or manoeuvring aggressively at low level - none of which was allowed by the rules. Eventually, after 'saying goodbyeee' to RAF Honington's Open Day rather low and rather fast, we had a crew change. Not for the low pass (which had been approved by their OC Ops Wg, although he probably didn't realise it...
), but because the captain had failed to heed a temporary restriction in the F700 - which he hadn't told the crew about....
The next crew (incidentally, the AEO was the mustachioed Scotsman on your Henlow course - small world!) stuck to the rules more, but lacked the 'operational' urgency of the former.
There's a balance to be struck - OLF pre-GW1 was essential for the Tornado mates, but illicit low-flying by a ham-fisted VC10K crew certainly wasn't. I've no idea what happens today as the RAF has few aeroplanes left - and with so much operational flying going on for real, there's probably less likelihood of 'peacetime cowboys'?
By the way - that's a cracking website of yours!
Edit - Caz, as we've noted before, more than one SORF QFI had his own unorthodox views on low flying.....
Back in 1977-ish when I was flying HM's Tin Triangles, the Rules were so constipatingly repressive that they were frequently ignored. But the views of the Group Flight Safety guys were that what was going on was actually safer and more productive than the stupid rules themselves! For example, co-pilots weren't allowed to land the Vulcan unless they were with their 'constituted' captain. Many did so though - and gained greater experience and skills as a result.
But this led to a culture of ignoring the rules completely. The crew I flew with was quite comfortable at 80ft a.g.l. over the North Sea hiding from fighters, or manoeuvring aggressively at low level - none of which was allowed by the rules. Eventually, after 'saying goodbyeee' to RAF Honington's Open Day rather low and rather fast, we had a crew change. Not for the low pass (which had been approved by their OC Ops Wg, although he probably didn't realise it...
), but because the captain had failed to heed a temporary restriction in the F700 - which he hadn't told the crew about.... The next crew (incidentally, the AEO was the mustachioed Scotsman on your Henlow course - small world!) stuck to the rules more, but lacked the 'operational' urgency of the former.There's a balance to be struck - OLF pre-GW1 was essential for the Tornado mates, but illicit low-flying by a ham-fisted VC10K crew certainly wasn't. I've no idea what happens today as the RAF has few aeroplanes left - and with so much operational flying going on for real, there's probably less likelihood of 'peacetime cowboys'?
By the way - that's a cracking website of yours!
Edit - Caz, as we've noted before, more than one SORF QFI had his own unorthodox views on low flying.....
Thanks very much , BEags. What you say is absolutely correct. Except the bit about "hiding from the fighters". Oh, you think so, do you? 
That is the problem with poorly written rules, rather than characters stepping outside them. Especially when the powers stop enforcing them because they know they are not fit for purpose rather than rewriting them. History repeated itself a number of times there!
Courtney
That is the problem with poorly written rules, rather than characters stepping outside them. Especially when the powers stop enforcing them because they know they are not fit for purpose rather than rewriting them. History repeated itself a number of times there!
Courtney
Hiding from the fighters..
Well, Courtney, hiding from Lightnings was relatively easy. But when it came to the F-4, we simply didn't know what we were doing. For example, we had no idea of the capability of the AWG12 / AIM7 weapon system. A lot of our so-called tactics might have worked against an Atoll-equipped MiG-17 or a Hunter, but would have been useless against a PD-equipped jet. We thought if we heard the PD lock 'break' on the RWR that we were safe - PD search attacks came as quite a surprise to me in later years. It was only when I had my brief spell on the F-4 that I realised how abysmal had been the general level of our tactical knowledge when flying the Vulcan. We might have known how long the snatch cords for the all-electric bucket of sunshine were, or the threat range of the Fiddler / Ash system, but as pilots we hadn't a clue about the black arts practised by our lower-deck navigation team, let alone the off-boresight capability of the AIM9G or Atoll!
Some old, familiar faces on that excellent website of yours!
I don't know about your experience, but I generally found that the worst rule breakers were 'frustrated fighter pilots' who'd never had the benefit of 4FTS or TWU training. One such (ex Victor) cowboy arrived at Chivenor one (unusually) dank day in Autumn 1980 in his Finningley JP5 with rather a quiet navigator. He then boasted about having flown across at low level. We had flown a few ACM trips, but the weather was pants for LL. "Don't they teach you lot to fly in this?", he bragged. One of our holding navs (later to become an F3 boss) found out from the nav student that the sight of sheep going past at eye-level during one of the letterboxing events of the trip down had scared him fartless......
Some old, familiar faces on that excellent website of yours!
I don't know about your experience, but I generally found that the worst rule breakers were 'frustrated fighter pilots' who'd never had the benefit of 4FTS or TWU training. One such (ex Victor) cowboy arrived at Chivenor one (unusually) dank day in Autumn 1980 in his Finningley JP5 with rather a quiet navigator. He then boasted about having flown across at low level. We had flown a few ACM trips, but the weather was pants for LL. "Don't they teach you lot to fly in this?", he bragged. One of our holding navs (later to become an F3 boss) found out from the nav student that the sight of sheep going past at eye-level during one of the letterboxing events of the trip down had scared him fartless......
Last edited by BEagle; 29th Dec 2011 at 14:37.
PD was what made the F4 so special in its day, although it's probably safe to say now that the old AIM7 was quite the death ray that many assumed it to be. The stats from Vietnam really weren't that great. All that said, I was very surprised the first time I did affil against a big aircraft. With careful crew coordination, triangles and Hercs could make it very hard for us to get a shot away, epsecially with the rear-hemisphere 9G.
Oops, the thread police will be coming!
Oops, the thread police will be coming!