Pilot criticised over Puma crash
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Well North of the M25
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Case, do you honestly think that the guys in the cockpit that day 'thought it was alright to do what they did'? From listening to the tapes, they KNEW what they were doing was wrong fella. They knew it and carried on regardless. That is the real shame of this whole accident.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: london
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safetycase, what is the relevence of the opinion of "The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA)" or what the "international principles set down in ICAO Annex 13" may say? This comes under military aviation not civil and, as Dantruck says, there is a public interest - they paid for the helicopter & the pilot.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Safety Case
Are you really trying to say that the crew do not have the responsibility for the safety of the Pax and AC.
Any pilot who needs to be told that unimitaged, dangerous and reckless wazzing is not allowed should never be permitted access to a flying machine.
I do not accept that the culture in the RAF would support the behaviour of this pilot (though being ex Army it is tempting to do so) but I do think that the key to this issue lies in the outcome of the coroners case.
LACK OF ADEQUATE SUPERVISION such that the tendencies of individual crews to be reckless are identified before they cause harm.
Ultimatley we sign the tech log and take control of the helicopter. What we choose to do with it once out of sight of the Chief Pilots office is what seperates the the Professional from the Unprofessional.
Whilst there may be some supervision issues that need addressing (and I am sure the will) the prime causal factor of this accident was a nut loose on the end of the cyclic.
Taking unecessary risks alone is bad enough. Taking unecessary risks with the lives of our passengers without their consent is criminal.
Those poor passengers would have enjoyed the flight right up until impact because they would have placed their 100% trust in the guy flying. The fact that he not only proved himself not worthy of that trust, but worse, left a damning and detailed legacy on the CVR just makes the thing a whole lot worse.
CVR data is there to assist the investigators as to the cause of the accident. If you have nothing to hide you should have nothing to fear. It has nothing to do with reporting incidents.
In this extreme case I think the release of the recordings can only benefit anyone else with similar disregard for airmanship and safety who might otherwise continue to rip the ring out of their aircraft and any trusting soul fool enough to cross their path.
It is better out. Better for the families who have suffered and better for the greater good of helicopter aviation.
This guy has embarrassed us all. But he may also have saved the next sap from making similar stupid mistakes. If the recording was not released, occupying the publics conciousness and ours albeit for 15 minutes, the impact of the accident would have been lost.
Every cloud has a silver lining!!
Any pilot who needs to be told that unimitaged, dangerous and reckless wazzing is not allowed should never be permitted access to a flying machine.
I do not accept that the culture in the RAF would support the behaviour of this pilot (though being ex Army it is tempting to do so) but I do think that the key to this issue lies in the outcome of the coroners case.
LACK OF ADEQUATE SUPERVISION such that the tendencies of individual crews to be reckless are identified before they cause harm.
Ultimatley we sign the tech log and take control of the helicopter. What we choose to do with it once out of sight of the Chief Pilots office is what seperates the the Professional from the Unprofessional.
Whilst there may be some supervision issues that need addressing (and I am sure the will) the prime causal factor of this accident was a nut loose on the end of the cyclic.
Taking unecessary risks alone is bad enough. Taking unecessary risks with the lives of our passengers without their consent is criminal.
Those poor passengers would have enjoyed the flight right up until impact because they would have placed their 100% trust in the guy flying. The fact that he not only proved himself not worthy of that trust, but worse, left a damning and detailed legacy on the CVR just makes the thing a whole lot worse.
CVR data is there to assist the investigators as to the cause of the accident. If you have nothing to hide you should have nothing to fear. It has nothing to do with reporting incidents.
In this extreme case I think the release of the recordings can only benefit anyone else with similar disregard for airmanship and safety who might otherwise continue to rip the ring out of their aircraft and any trusting soul fool enough to cross their path.
It is better out. Better for the families who have suffered and better for the greater good of helicopter aviation.
This guy has embarrassed us all. But he may also have saved the next sap from making similar stupid mistakes. If the recording was not released, occupying the publics conciousness and ours albeit for 15 minutes, the impact of the accident would have been lost.
Every cloud has a silver lining!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Where the sun shines
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Case, do you honestly think that the guys in the cockpit that day 'thought it was alright to do what they did'? From listening to the tapes, they KNEW what they were doing was wrong fella. They knew it and carried on regardless. That is the real shame of this whole accident.
Are you really trying to say that the crew do not have the responsibility for the safety of the Pax and AC.
Any pilot who needs to be told that unimitaged, dangerous and reckless wazzing is not allowed should never be permitted access to a flying machine.
I do not accept that the culture in the RAF would support the behaviour of this pilot (though being ex Army it is tempting to do so) but I do think that the key to this issue lies in the outcome of the coroners case
Any pilot who needs to be told that unimitaged, dangerous and reckless wazzing is not allowed should never be permitted access to a flying machine.
I do not accept that the culture in the RAF would support the behaviour of this pilot (though being ex Army it is tempting to do so) but I do think that the key to this issue lies in the outcome of the coroners case
Whether the crew thought it was allright to do what they did - I don't know.
My issue is that there seems to be (or was) a culture within the RAF that allows this kind of behaviour. This factor was one of the precursors to this accident. We all know that an accident is the result of many factors, and without this factor, the accident would most likely not have happened. Going after only the crew in this case, would not have prevented future mishaps. The latent problem would still be present.
I agree with most of what DB says, but I still am strongly against releasing CVR evidence to the public. I think his union agrees with me. It serves only to hide some of the important factors of this tragedy (maybe that is why it was released), and for some of the press, it is entertainment designed to sell.
Last edited by SafetyCase; 30th Oct 2009 at 04:30.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Where the sun shines
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safetycase, what is the relevence of the opinion of "The International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA)" or what the "international principles set down in ICAO Annex 13" may say? This comes under military aviation not civil and, as Dantruck says, there is a public interest - they paid for the helicopter & the pilot
You are right, this was a military accident and the civilian rules do not apply. The military is probably very competent in investigating accidents, but it leaves a lot to be desired on how to deal with the press and the public.
To stray off track for a moment: when I attended the accident investigation course at the University of Southern California a while back, one of my fellow students was from the British Armed Forces
The policy (or opinion as you say) of the IFALPA is designed to prevent re-occurrence of accidents, same as ICAO.
There are public interests in civilian accidents too, people have paid money for tickets, and oil companies have paid large sums of money for operators to transport their employees to their workplaces. You and I are paying for that in the end, when filling up our cars or motorbikes.
However, in the civilian world, most have recognized the importance of information protection, in order not to stop the flow of crucial safety information from pilots, engineers etc. Without that flow, safety will be compromised. There are very valid reasons why some states and companies have a confidential reporting system, and that FDM data is de-identified.
Last edited by SafetyCase; 30th Oct 2009 at 04:56.
