Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Puma Crash Sentence

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Puma Crash Sentence

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 31st Dec 2011, 12:59
  #141 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TorqueOfTheDevil
I'm not prepared to flout the training rules & regs without very good justification.
Absolutely agree. I guess my gripe is more about the stance those who write the rules have taken rather than the rules themselves. The times I have questioned a rule (i.e. asked the purpose of it to see if it can/should be changed because it is, on the face of it, detrimental to our purpose) I've been met with brick walls at all levels of the chain of command.

Regarding "train hard fight easy" I've always considered sorties with people of greater experience than me to be the opportunity to push my own boundaries. At the time I was a junior mate a report wasn't generated for every sortie with a QHI/TC, and I wonder if the culture nowadays which requires writeups for just about every sortie with a QHI/TC (in order to bulk out the paper trail for the BOI ) means that sorties with senior fliers are viewed as potential chop rides. This would encourage the junior mates fly well inside their limits on those sorties and only stretch themselves when flying with each other. If so, that's bass-ackwards to me.
PTT is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 13:23
  #142 (permalink)  
 
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
Agreed totally, I might have been with QHIs because I was useless!!
jayteeto is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 14:40
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 18 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Caz
The answer was 764
That's a hell of a lot, isn't it? I guess we don't know the circumstances or how many people were hurt. But it's a lot of bent hardware. I would like like to add, none was mine.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 14:46
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Courtney

Only one was mine - a Cat 3 Birdstrike at Low Level on a Saturday morning (we were behind on the Training task). Bird was Cat 5!
cazatou is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 14:53
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Southern Europe
Posts: 5,335
Received 18 Likes on 7 Posts
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the birdstrikes I had in a Hawk, a Phantom (x2, one on the ground, honestly) and an F3. Again, the birds lost the bet, but I think the jets survived OK. I still duck in my car when a bird comes at me. Strange conditioning we all have. That would be an interesting thread.
Courtney Mil is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 16:42
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Among these dark Satanic mills
Posts: 1,197
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I might have been with QHIs because I was useless
Or maybe they were with you because they were the useless ones...bl00dy beefers eh, never met one I liked

Happy New Year to one and all, and may the banter flow freely in 2012!
TorqueOfTheDevil is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 17:52
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Courtney

Xmas 1979 Op Corporate

Flying our VIP Andover at "Not above 100 Feet" at 5000+ Feet AMSL (OAT +30 C) full of "VIP's" when we met a very large flock of extremely large birds who were determined to protect their "Airspace". That was a very interesting 15 minutes!!!
cazatou is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 18:02
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,371
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caz

Genuine question ...

Xmas 1979 Op Corporate
Did Op Corporate mean something else prior to the 1982 fisticuffs in the South Atlantic or was it also the contingency codeword for an op to recover the FI?
Wrathmonk is offline  
Old 31st Dec 2011, 18:44
  #149 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by PTT
The times I have questioned a rule (i.e. asked the purpose of it to see if it can/should be changed because it is, on the face of it, detrimental to our purpose) I've been met with brick walls at all levels of the chain of command.
I managed to get a Flying Order rescinded. As you say, hard work. As a result of an incident the FO was issued requiring a certain course of action.

About 4 years later the FO was still in place but the law of unintended consequences was coming to fruition and the FO precaution was leading to increasingly high and increasingly costly mechanical failures.

I managed to find the signal paper trail of 4 years previous and set out the train of events. After the FO had been issued there had been NO follow up staff work to identify or quantify the potential risk of repetition. Fortunately I got on well with the appropriate staff officer at Group and he was prepared to cancel the FO.

It is however always easier to say NO than to say YES and even easier to not change the NO.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 08:56
  #150 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 455 Likes on 241 Posts
Xmas 1979 Op Corporate
??????????????

Op Agila, maybe?
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 09:43
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ST

Yes, you are correct - I got my Ops mixed up. Too much Christmas Wine!!
cazatou is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 16:55
  #152 (permalink)  

Gentleman Aviator
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Teetering Towers - somewhere in the Shires
Age: 74
Posts: 3,700
Received 56 Likes on 27 Posts
And speaking of Op AGILA .....

.... two quotes (without comment) from Flight magazine on the Puma crash of December '79 on the Kotwa Road...
The crash investigation team found that the Puma had hit a set of steel-covered telephone wires where they crossed the road at a height of 18'.
No evidence of either technical malfunction or hostile action could be found. As there were no survivors from the crew, it was not possible to determine why the Puma was flying so low.
teeteringhead is offline  
Old 1st Jan 2012, 17:22
  #153 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 455 Likes on 241 Posts
The Puma hit those 18' high wires with its rotor mast. The rotor mast of a Puma is approximately 16' up. We lost Archie Cook, Mike Smith and Bob Hodges.

A C130 had suffered small arms damage the previous day.
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2012, 13:22
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ST

I remember a Sqn Ldr rushing around the Airport Terminal yelling that the "Bar Stewards" had shot down one of our aircraft!!!
cazatou is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2012, 17:39
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9E13E...a_za934_si.pdf

At least it acknowledges the Op pressure the Sqn and the Puma Force was under!
Could be the last? is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 11:28
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Mold
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
At least it acknowledges the Op pressure the Sqn and the Puma Force was under!

It is interesting that both this SI and the Strategic Review of the Puma Helicopter Force (available via Google) acknowledge the Op pressure that the Sqn was under and describe the lengths to which the Sqn brought the issues to the attention of JHC who apparently did nothing. It’s almost as if the top end of JHC were in some sort of denial about what the Puma Force was doing! If ever there was a reason for never, under any circumstances, transferring the SH Force to Army, this whole sorry episode would seem to be it!
xenolith is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 16:02
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
Apart from JHC was being run by a Rear-Admiral. And frankly, I suspect that UKSF Group didn't really care if the Puma force were being 'run hot'. If the Puma Force were that concerned I've no doubt they would've gone to CAS or one of his 3*s.
alfred_the_great is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 16:03
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
X dude: JHC, head in the sand, never!



You'll be telling me that bears poop in the woods next.

To this day it does seem very odd to me that for all of the reviews, studies or BOIs / SIs that have been conducted in connection with BH incidents not one seems to have scrutinised JHC in any great depth.
CrabInCab is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 16:09
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Desert mainly, occasionally arctic and rarely jungle
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Alf. JHC was defo commanded by a Pongo 2*, Maj Gen Gary Coward at the time of these incidents; TJB just dealt with the fall out!

CrabInCab is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2012, 16:58
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: where-ever nav's chooses....
Posts: 834
Received 46 Likes on 26 Posts
My mistake. Still stands, CAS had, and continues to have, Full Command of Puma Force. If the RAF cared that much, they would have done something about it.
alfred_the_great is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.