Good work Coastguard......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some readers may not be aware that the RAF Puma has always had a signifcant deficiency compared with not only the standard variant at the time (1971) when it was introduced, but also subsequent "super" variants. Its fuel consumption per kg is high, and yet the MoD chose to remove a fuel tank at build to ensure the ac met the spec requiring it to lift 16 troops at MAUW. Thus the ac has always suffered from shorter legs/endurance than any other operational UK helo at full fuel. This by definition means that crews are very wary off "pushing it" as embarrassment is often not far away if there is no refuel point or tac bowser in the vicinity while on a demanding task. Although aux cabin tanks (of early) and modern standards have been available - it is not the standard fit for both operational and H&S reasons.
I agree with those threads that have praised the crew for making sensible airmanship decisons and being better safe than sorry. When you know you have got an incipient endurance problem no matter how good your preflight planning, and the weather hits, in the RAF Puma 1 you often have a limited endurance room for maneouvre. In my experience it is in the nature of SH that flexible and continuously updated decision making is required to balance operational success with optimum safety. Good captaincy, crew cooperation and airmanship are esential to this and from what I have read there is all of this behind this particular incident.
Cheers
I agree with those threads that have praised the crew for making sensible airmanship decisons and being better safe than sorry. When you know you have got an incipient endurance problem no matter how good your preflight planning, and the weather hits, in the RAF Puma 1 you often have a limited endurance room for maneouvre. In my experience it is in the nature of SH that flexible and continuously updated decision making is required to balance operational success with optimum safety. Good captaincy, crew cooperation and airmanship are esential to this and from what I have read there is all of this behind this particular incident.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love PPrune. Nothing like facts get in the way of a good slagging match. From reading these posts, I don't know (but maybe I am a bit thick) what the circumstances were of the incident. The crew could have received the forecast weather, planned the navex/mission with their required reserves, and on the final leg, the weather crapped in and they had nowhere to go and no fuel to get there. They may have got horribly lost, who knows. There are lots of permutations to this event.
The lesson to be learned is that the boys, for whatever reason, did the right thing at the time and plonked it on terra firma in a controlled manner and rang for fuel. Beats the hell out of pushing yourself into a double engine failure. Maybe an armchair critic could have suggested he shut down an engine to conserve fuel whilst dodging around low level.
I'd like to see the whole report before I clamber over the PIC's grave. My opinion is that we should wait and see why it happened before you get personal.
It is also a good time for the crew to try out their survival gear (surely nowhere in the UK is more than 2nm from a pub anyway).
The lesson to be learned is that the boys, for whatever reason, did the right thing at the time and plonked it on terra firma in a controlled manner and rang for fuel. Beats the hell out of pushing yourself into a double engine failure. Maybe an armchair critic could have suggested he shut down an engine to conserve fuel whilst dodging around low level.
I'd like to see the whole report before I clamber over the PIC's grave. My opinion is that we should wait and see why it happened before you get personal.
It is also a good time for the crew to try out their survival gear (surely nowhere in the UK is more than 2nm from a pub anyway).
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I think everyone who operates the Puma HC1 learns a lesson about fuel eventually. I did, worse than this, early in my career on type but also got away with it safely.
An aircraft with an endurance of about 1.5 hours will always be difficult to operate. I'm so glad that these days the type I fly has twice that capability.
An aircraft with an endurance of about 1.5 hours will always be difficult to operate. I'm so glad that these days the type I fly has twice that capability.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love PPRuNe. Nothing like facts get in the way of a good slagging match. From reading these posts, I don't know (but maybe I am a bit thick) what the circumstances were of the incident.
I'm sure had they had pressed on and crashed due to no fuel or worse weather then the press would have had a field day. Dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
All safe, cab in one piece no one on the ground killed. Sounds like a result to me. Maybe some of the G A pilots should take note. Its never wrong to make the right choice and go home alive...
good on ya boys
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Cron, Very early in my career I very nearly ran my Puma out of fuel at night. On arrival at the totally dark RV area, in poor visibility, the planned night landing and refuelling site had not been set up due to the ground party getting lost; they were still miles away.
Having aborted two approaches due to encountering HT power cables, I landed in a field. The fuel gauges were reading less than one fifth of the indicated fuel of the aircraft that flamed out both engines in Portugal. Both fuel pressure lights were on, one flickering, one steady. Those operating the Puma will understand the significance of that.
But don't ever call me Shirly.
Having aborted two approaches due to encountering HT power cables, I landed in a field. The fuel gauges were reading less than one fifth of the indicated fuel of the aircraft that flamed out both engines in Portugal. Both fuel pressure lights were on, one flickering, one steady. Those operating the Puma will understand the significance of that.
But don't ever call me Shirly.
Good to see that the professional pilots on this thread have agreed that this was a no drama landing and those prepared to criticise the crew on the basis of an ill informed newspaper article have gone very quiet - perhaps too embarrassed to comment now
HF
HF
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Somewhere
Age: 49
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think anybody was criticising the crew but more of the jounrnalist who write these articles and still stand by my words they are donkeys who don't know **** what they are writing about, and should keep very quiet and very care what they write about.
And ned I was reffering to the case that the Super Puma has had some awful press in the last year from journalist jumping all the back of the machine because of 1 accident and from making accident being made worse by terrable journalist.
The industry does not need it right now!!!!
And ned I was reffering to the case that the Super Puma has had some awful press in the last year from journalist jumping all the back of the machine because of 1 accident and from making accident being made worse by terrable journalist.
The industry does not need it right now!!!!
Hi Pumaboy
I agree that some sections of the press do have an excitable reaction to Puma incidents but I disagree with your comment that the crew haven't been criticised.
Yonez
Trans Lift
Pullharder
It is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine to only comment on aircraft incidents when the truth is known and certainly not lay blame on a crew until all the facts are revealed.
HF
(although Ex RAF I have no idea who this crew were and would even apply these principles to a RN crew)
I agree that some sections of the press do have an excitable reaction to Puma incidents but I disagree with your comment that the crew haven't been criticised.
Yonez
The blame for that rests squarely with the crew.
No blame, the crew is to blame
they screwed up and they ARE solely responsible
It is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine to only comment on aircraft incidents when the truth is known and certainly not lay blame on a crew until all the facts are revealed.
HF
(although Ex RAF I have no idea who this crew were and would even apply these principles to a RN crew
)
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: in my house
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
could this incident be a reminder to the MOD how badly needed a replacement is, rather than an upgrade? £300m to upgrade to makila 1a1 (already behind the 1a2, 2, and now 2a incarnations) and an upgraded cockpit?
do they know there will soon be a derth of 332L's on the market because they will no longer be able to operate on the north sea? minimal retraining and re-equipping, still a puma after all! made of mostly the same bits! just an idea. im sure everyone will now educate me on why not!
do they know there will soon be a derth of 332L's on the market because they will no longer be able to operate on the north sea? minimal retraining and re-equipping, still a puma after all! made of mostly the same bits! just an idea. im sure everyone will now educate me on why not!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi IC.....yes you make a good point.....but such a possibility means an MoD aquisition system that is "SMART" - was supposed to happen that way post the 1998 SDR -- and a lot of cash was spent and reorg occurred to make it so. IPTs were created to try and ensure best value for money and the possibility of it always taking the broadest view on equipment to ensure that best value for money. Also meant "no sacred cows" and not operating in stove pipes ie. looking outside your own box for solutions or ensuring your requirement wasn't being met by another team elsewhere in a different way.
Grand idea it all was ...but was always destined to fail as it wasn't pump primed enough to allow IPTs the freedom of action and fundamentally depended on the narrow operating culture of the (mostly) civ servants within the system. There was an idea at one point that most of the staff should be sacked and a " new culture" imbued by employing new people or re-employing those that signed up to the new way....sadly it never happened and we are now firmly back to the old ways, including the top dogs at Abbey constantly chasing their tales as they tackle an overheated requirements list with at least 40% underfunding...and then came the Puma upgrade......couldn't agree with you more.......its a sad poor value for money upgrade.......but someone convinced themselves that it was all that was available with the cash in hand.......Ah Well....
Grand idea it all was ...but was always destined to fail as it wasn't pump primed enough to allow IPTs the freedom of action and fundamentally depended on the narrow operating culture of the (mostly) civ servants within the system. There was an idea at one point that most of the staff should be sacked and a " new culture" imbued by employing new people or re-employing those that signed up to the new way....sadly it never happened and we are now firmly back to the old ways, including the top dogs at Abbey constantly chasing their tales as they tackle an overheated requirements list with at least 40% underfunding...and then came the Puma upgrade......couldn't agree with you more.......its a sad poor value for money upgrade.......but someone convinced themselves that it was all that was available with the cash in hand.......Ah Well....
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Gods country
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HF
Not embarrassed, why comment time & again on what is obvious.
You are like a puppy with a new toy.
Bit of a hobby horse of yours not to comment unless truth is known - someone else must have written the 5 posts on here & the 1 on the other forum on your behalf.
Not army - used to be. But you're wrong i never experienced what these guys have. Meticulous planning always saved me from the embarrassment of running out of fuel.
Not embarrassed, why comment time & again on what is obvious.
You are like a puppy with a new toy.
Bit of a hobby horse of yours not to comment unless truth is known - someone else must have written the 5 posts on here & the 1 on the other forum on your behalf.
Not army - used to be. But you're wrong i never experienced what these guys have. Meticulous planning always saved me from the embarrassment of running out of fuel.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the planning in the world doesn't always work... CH47 days...
Landing at Bessbrook with 80kgs a side after a 252 cloud break in the adjoining valley; or shutting down beside the little chef on the A3 returning to Odi; or hovering for 2 hours in a Norwegian fjiord snow storm, Pilots only reference a large rock by his right boot. Just for starters.
This crew had the option, made the choice, clearly the correct one, and no amount of 20/20 hindsight will change that. All the planning in the world doesn't make you perfect, it just means you've been luckier! (The more I train/plan/fly...the luckier I get springs to mind.)
Landing at Bessbrook with 80kgs a side after a 252 cloud break in the adjoining valley; or shutting down beside the little chef on the A3 returning to Odi; or hovering for 2 hours in a Norwegian fjiord snow storm, Pilots only reference a large rock by his right boot. Just for starters.
This crew had the option, made the choice, clearly the correct one, and no amount of 20/20 hindsight will change that. All the planning in the world doesn't make you perfect, it just means you've been luckier! (The more I train/plan/fly...the luckier I get springs to mind.)
