What's happening to the RAF Puma Force?
 

The recent press reports of an RAF Puma accident in Iraq has become an all to familiar story these days. I think there have been about 5 accidents involving the RAF Puma's this year and I reckon about another 6 since 2000. Why are so many aircraft from a relatively small force crashing? As an aircraft type their accident statistics must be the worst in the RAF, if you start in 2000 and count up to the present day. Anybody got any ideas?

I believe that those in the know will have their own views, otherwise BOI's are underway.
There is no story here, try casting further down river.

Don't tell anyone - but the Puma is an inherently dangerous design - the lack of airbags plus the fact that the skin of the aircraft is made from non-defrangible material means that if there is an inappropriate arrival declaration of over 38g then the chances of occupant survival is limited. Also Puma pilots are no longer trained but born into the seats and everyone hopes for the best that they will be able to cope by the time they are needed for operations.

We also use dynamite for fuel rather than the more traditional Avtur and it is believed that this could be more volatile than standard aviation liquids.

I hope this answers your questions - by the way please don't tell the press about this, we are trying to keep it quiet and don't want it to leak out.

Kadamen,
Don't tell any one I told you this :oh:......It's all down to Global Warming, The price of petrol and the fixed prices of Milk in Asda and Sainsburys...and don't even mention the price of car tax :=
Hope this helps :}

Does this mean that those airframes currently cluttering up RNSD; bugger, sorry; DSDC Llangennech may now be fed through the recycling loop?

As an ex Puma eng ,they have had a terrible year , amazed the press aint picked it up yet. Saying that they dont have hoodlims saying how unsafe and mentioning the amount of fuel leaks blah blah

sorry I just being cynical
:uhoh:

Ricky Hatton....
 

Hurry-up, I'm getting bored waiting....
I heard the animal rights brigade had taken the government to task over the use of cats by the RAF in war zones. The government folded and that’s why firstly Jaguars and latterly Pumas are being retired.
When the Government asked senior Army officials about their use of Lynx, they were told it was purely to keep the troops smelling nice.

Ah yes, but who has the weakest Linx?

Cim Jartner, it is a bloody dangerous design you know, it even has throttles...... I'll get me coat :ouch:

Not a Puma but....
 

From the Sunday Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3022129.ece):

Quote:

---

RAF RISKS: In southeast England RAF Chinook helicopters circle continuously over the most densely populated part of the UK, flying so low that they damage houses. The Chinooks are so vulnerable that a pigeon strike on the windscreen has forced them to land. Imagine what a stork or terrorist could do.

The government cares so little it even refuses to put crash emergency arrangements in place to mitigate the consequences of a helicopter crashing on one of the towns.
Brian Edmonds
Farnham, Surrey

---

Sometimes I wonder why we bother :ugh::ugh::ugh:

I don't think we should worry about the Storks, it's those bl@@dy Red Kites that are the problem. I'm surprised more aircraft aren't dropping from the skies like... well Pumas.

8-15, check out "Charles" from Bath's reply. I would post it but I am thick so I can't.

JT2 - I think you'll find the throttles are quite safe, its the 'throttle-seat' interface that has serious failings!!

Hope that is what you wanted Cim Jartner.
Chug
PS Great sentiments Charles!

That is absolutely right. I often found the right hand seat to flying control interface unit was totally useless when I was flying. Something should be done about it........ Oh yes, they did do something....... I am Mr Jayteeto now. :ok:

kadamen
You may find an answer to your serious question here.
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds...4/table44.html

Table 4.4 Aircraft lost or badly damaged in air accidents by aircraft role and type These are accidents that happened after the aircrew had taken responsibility for the aircraft. They include accidents during military operations, but exclude aircraft losses caused by ‘hostile action’.
Only aircraft types that flew in 2004 are shown, except where marked with a footnote.
These exclude accidents to aircraft on MOD Directorate of Flying charge.

These stats are quite scary.

The Puma force and their pax seem to have had the worst luck recently and they have my sincere condolences.

Without going into why they occurred, would newer designs of helo such as Blackhawk, NH90 or Cougar have offered greater survivability? If so any idea how much better they could be based on real incidents?

I do not want to degrade another thread into a slagging match and will remove this post if it upsets anybody :ok:.

Storks aren't native to the UK.

What a thoroughly pointless life that guy must have to have the time to write in to a newspaper about that.

You just can't compare one accident with another and say it would have been more survivable. No names, no types, but as a veteran of many many funerals, some seemingly minor incidents can result in tragic results. Post accident, falling debris causes fatality/weather conditions the same/fire etc etc. Crashworthy seats/tanks/airframes are great, but if it isn't your day then it just isn't your day. The aircraft has vices, but handled with respect it is no different to any other aeroplane or helicopter. Fast jets with full external fits, any helo at max AUW, Multis on tactical approaches. All are a handful to fly and the military do it in hostile conditions as well!! The Nimrod saga is different to this Puma one, it has shown people lacking integrity in the command chain. No-one is questioning this on Puma.

Thanks Jayteeto, I suppose we all want the safest designs but as speed and/or alt increase maybe they don't improve survival as much as the manufacturers claim. :{