The SAS banned from RAF’s Pumas
 

from the lovable Sunday Times.

Full article : 'Gung-ho' SAS are banned from RAF helicopters - Times Online

Let's be fair to "Crabair"
 

These Puma's are getting a bit old and "clattery"

On the other hand giving the Army Air Corps more funding could be a plan ??

:ok::ok:

Mmmmm - ''Clattery' Bit of an aviation expert are you??

Long live another thread where a bunch on un-informed/ill-informed trolls comment on a story as reported by a newspaper.

Could the release of this 'story' at this time be anything at all to do with the announcement suggesting the shelving of Puma 2??????

Gung Ho SAS
 

Occasional lurker and former SLF/ Deccatrack user here.

1. How much SF / Puma work-up training had taken place pre-deployment?
2. Were the operators and the aircrew from the same CoC, or an ad-hoc group thrown together at the last minute?
3. How much leadership oversight was there on the part of the SF and JHC management? How often did they talk together about what their subordinates were doing?

Army in general and SF in particular excell at pushing the envelope to the limit. However is sufficient wisdom available to SF and aircrew for that last-minute sanity-check?

These are some of our best warfighters, should we be seeking to enable or constrain them. I don't see this as a single service issue, Army? RAF? The guys on Fortuna Glacier would probably vote for the FAA every time?

Either give them the resources to do the job, or send them home for some well-deserved harmony time

"Clattery"
 

Yep - bit of an expert !!
Once flew second seat in a Scout AH1 that had a mix of blades - one from Far East, two from workshops in BAOR on the last one from a Sqn in UK.

It "CLATTERED" no other word for it !!

:sad::ok::sad::ok:

Travel in Pumas
 

This will be a very simplistic view, but the captain of an aircraft is in legal charge of the operation of the machine, with supervision of the passengers being delegated to the LM in the back of the Puma.

If a captain didn't feel safe, why would he/she fly an aircraft in such a manner as to endanger it and its occupants? My view is simplistic in that it doesn't take into account the mission or moral pressure of course, but shouldn't safe operation be the bottom line?

P6D

Those involved in any form of SF work will know that they only do so successfully with the TRUST of the 'customer'. Lose that trust and it will take a painfully long time to regain it.

Those outside the area of SF ops should just STFU and mind their own business. You will not receive any answer to any query about SF work unless you have a need to know.

It would be a tragedy if the allegations made in this article have any substance to them. SH ops with SF should never be reported in the general media. With the exception of formal Accident Reports, if 'words' need to be had in 'certain ears' then there are far better ways of doing so than by the manner described in such clumsy reports leaked to chipwrapper vendors.

The story sounds feasible to me as they can be very pushy - just have to stand your ground though when you don't like it (handy if you're a 2.5 ringer as well!). Still I guess this pushiness is what gives them the drive to achieve the incredible so you would kind of expect it.

Anyway, I thought most of the Puma accidents were down to the lack of anticipators fitted to the earlier models (ie the RAF type)? Hot and dusty landings must be sporty wihout these I guess :confused:

I do hope the Super Puma isn't binned, it's about time these old buses were pensioned off for something new.

Finally, I agree with Beagle - if it is true they probably know already rather than a "red-top" leak. Also, all helos are clattery - that's why I don't like them...

LJ

Pity the Navy don't operate Puma ? :E

Beats having to book the RAF through a travel agent when the Wx is good, or bad :}

Beagle,

I would have thought that your point would be the case for any military operation in a hostile environment. Why should SF warrant special treatment in that regard ?

rmac

Of course not all the circumstances involved in the crashes can be publicised, sometimes for good reason.
Some of the blacked out portions will no doubt to be to save face for the MoD and it's it possible they dont want anyone thinking corporate manslaughter/negligence in some/all of the cases.

It speaks volumes that the SAS are just to be banned from Pumas (if the report is to be believed), if they are so gung-ho, they'd have been banned from all helos. This suggests that the airframes did possibly play a part in all the crashes.

I'm surprised someone hasn't brought up the Australian Army Aviation multiple Blackhawk crash back in '96 on an SAS night training op. I think the official report stated that a demand by the customer to change the mission profile / route from the one practised in daylight was a major factor.

As someone said already, the aircraft captain, whatever his rank, simply has to have the balls to say 'no'. Not easy sometimes, particularly when the man you're saying no to might be writing your OER or have the ear of the man who will be writing it, but it has to be done.

I think most of the posters on this thread have the wrong end of the stick. The issue here is that, on occasions, a crew's perceptions of the customers' requirements has led them to take risks which even the customer is unhappy with. There have been a number of occasions over the last 20 years where this has happened, both in rotary and fixed wing. A crew's 'exuberance' has had unfortunate results.

Whatever the reason for this ban, let's not forget that the Puma crews in question - often pretty inexperienced - were doing an exceptionally demanding job under extremely difficult conditions. Respect is most certainly due.

Do the SAS fully understand the limits of what RAF helecopters can and can't provide and do the RAF have a full understanding of the requirements?

also are creating aircrew dedicated to SF support do the SF believe all RAF aircrew have that skill set?

Exceptional Aircrew
 

I go with Tiger 16 on this one. Certainly on my side of the three flying services those who fly SF are specially selected. My guess is the that the other two Servives do the same. There is an old saying about exceptional pilots which goes something like:-

"An exceptional pilot is one who uses his exceptional knowledge and expirience to avoid situations which will require his exceptional skill"

My guess is that some of these 'accidents ' were when some of the 'exceptional' qualities were missing. This is then a Command problem - don't send a boy out to do a man's job.

LB

Stop discussing matters that you don't have any knowledge of!
 

It is clear from many of the comments posted on the article on Timesonline, and here on this thread, that people with little or probably no real knowledge are parading as experts. The truth of the MAGNIFICENT job that has been done by the Puma Force will come out in the next 10-15 years and then a great many of these 'experts' will be eating humble pie - I can guarantee this.

Utrinique Apparatus #009:

Quote "Pity the Navy don't operate Puma ? http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Beats having to book the RAF through a travel agent when the Wx is good, or bad" Unquote


Anyone can be uncomfortable. If the FAA had have been doing a good job in the first place there'd have been no need to form the RAF in 1918 ! I think aircraft got a little bit too quick for the FAA anyway. You guys dont have the reaction times for anything quicker than an observation baloon. Ha :ok:

Stop discussing matters that you don't have any knowledge of!
 

Some of us do have knowledge, albeit it bit dated and in another theatre closer to home.
It is not the Puma Force that is at fault, those guys have done and continue to do an outstanding job in very difficult conditions.:D:D
It is the Puma they fly that is under question.
As I said in my previous post it really is getting old and "clattery" !!
:ok:

Totally agree as a soldier worked with Pumas in Belize and NI and the crews were outstanding however the airframes are now 20 years older and not had a major update. I would like to hope that the crew are of the same calibre and now as a tax payer I would like to see them with a better more up to date aircraft.