Crab, the point I am making is very simple: whether it can be done safely is not the issue. Please read my post - I suggested without passengers!

Happy to take a dig in the ribs about my flying skills - probably deserve it - but I do hope you arent being serious. A bit of insight into how the general public, or even a few military 'non volunteers' view flying, let alone flying in small aircraft and ones with no wings, is always useful. I join others in my surprise that having posted on safety for so long you now seem to support such behaviour.......

The RAF required it. I was selected to do it. Obviously, you have no experience of the way the RAF requires its helicopter display pilots to train to their required standards, so you wouldn't realise the difference.

Crab, I was selected because of my professional attitude, not because I was prone to unnecessarily throwing the aircraft around on task in the hope of impressing the troops.
Later events (a couple of decades later) showed what can happen to a Puma when handled carelessly and without due caution - it bites very hard indeed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16227941

Crab is bravely representing good logic. despite 'out raged of Tunbridge Wells'.

This is a tame manouver, it looks dramatic, because of the camera perspective. There is minimal g change, no stressing of aircraft obviously. I have rarely seen a bunch of supposed experienced pilots throw their indignant holier than thou toys out of the pram over such a trivial event.

Pilots need to be proficient at handling. If they are not then the consequences are worse.

(rare Crab agree :rolleyes:)

AnFI - :ok::ok::)

Homonculus - yes, it was a humorous dig, I work in a banter-rich environment so am used to being shot down myself. A wingover isn't unsafe - hence my defence - making an approach to a cliff in the mountains can be risky and you are always going to put yourself in a position when an engine failure (single or twin) is going to put you in the scenery.

Was it showboating? Yes certainly

Was it unnecessary? Yes absolutely

Was it unsafe? No

Shy - I know the process for selecting display pilots is rigorous and the position is not given to cowboys. However, the Puma force had a horrific reputation for poor supervision and 'spirited' handling, that Catterick crash didn't come from nowhere, it was borne out of many years of a poor culture. However, you didn't answer the question:)

When you have to rely on AnFI for support you know you must be on a dicey wicket !!!
I really think this is done to death now .... i think we all agree the manoeuvre was not in itself dangerous, but it was an unnecessary risk . It also makes the pilot look a bit stupid and has certainly effected his reputation and future job prospects.... so how clever is that ??!! I just hope we don’t now see new Robbie pilots copying it because Crab says it’s fine to do !!

If the pilot in this video owns the aircraft AND informs maintence of his sport flying so they can check for overstressing then all is good. If he is an employee joyriding when he should be working, he needs to be terminated ASAP. I dont know any owner that wouldnt fire him after seeing how he treats the aircraft. I feel sorry for the crews that have to fly that 350 not knowing what its been through and also for the mechanics who will be held responsible if there is a component failure they didnt find in time.

I can't imagine how I managed to survive 48 years of wazzing.

Because we didn't have the dreaded ever present camera watching us :E

Crab, I was able to fly a wing-over as well as any other pilot. It's just that I didn't do it in an attempt to impress the troops I was about to pick up - I learned very early in my time as a squadron pilot that many of them were scared enough as it was, at the thought of a helicopter trip. A scared, sickly soldier is no use to anybody and our job was to deliver them at very low level straight to the scene of the battle and get the hell out of it. There was no place for showboat flying.

As far as your point about poor supervision on the Puma fleet is concerned, all I can say is that during my time I would most certainly dispute that. I joined the OCU just after the fatal Norway accident (door fell off, taking out the tail rotor) and the fatal Belize accident (engine failure during a night departure from a jungle clearing). Six weeks after I joined my first squadron we lost another crew during Op Agila. After those accidents, supervision was very tight indeed and OCU output standards were also squeezed very tightly; no prisoners were taken - ask a few more on this forum who experienced it first hand.

Unfortunately, after the Chinook became the SH fleet's new toy in the 1980s, the Puma fleet was pushed to the background and this may be the reason standards slipped. Thankfully, by that time, I had moved on to fixed wing and was happily teaching aerobatics etc.

As far as "aerobatting" helicopters goes, during my time as a heli display pilot, we were given a presentation by Westlands, who were also overseeing the "fully aerobatic" Lynx displays.
They were very keen to point out that flying any helicopter outside of its approved/certificated flight regime has an extremely detrimental effect on the fatigue life of major aircraft components, irrespective of what the pilot senses. The display Lynx was subjected to a much increased inspection regime and early major component changes. He also pointed out that the failure is unlikely to occur during the manoeuvre in question, but some incalculable time afterwards, so another pilot might become the unwitting victim of some pilot who has horsed the aircraft around for fun.

The type I displayed was later damaged during a display (tail rotor blades damage; not by me) and following investigation and evaluation by Boscombe Down, the display was banned.

As an ex-military pilot (21 years experience), I would be very careful to side with anybody showing disregard for rules and the flight manual, particularly since in the forces that I came from, discipline was not negotiable. It is sad that the Royal Air Force was pulled into this discussion.

Opinion or backed by evidence, mjb? I suspect that the pilot of the video in the OP may not have flown as he did, had he known a recording would be made.

Now THAT was worth the click! :}

I believe this subject has been thoroughly covered, I am just wondering what the aftermath of this episode is for the pilot in question. It would be very interesting to know..

what operating limitations did he exceed?
does anyone have that info as fact ? or is this all speculation?

As a maintenance guy, with loads of component overhaul experience, I only have unscheduled inspections from Chapter 05-50 that I can refer to when there is an incident. To date, I dont believe I have found an elusive manual for inspections after crazy flying.
if there is no recorded overtorque, no recorded overspeed, no chip lights, no sudden stoppage, or loss of oil, no hard landing, etc....then I have nothing further to inspect as Airbus has already deemed the aircraft capable of handling the flight envelope flown with-in those parameters. There isn't some magical manual that I refer to for Pilot operating like a nut.
I have to trust their engineering department has created a robust design that is capable of handing X amount of overstress from published limits.

Airbus forbids aerobatic manoeuvres in their RFM

That doesn't mean to say it cannot do aerobatic manoeuvres. It just means that it is not certified to do them. When prototypes and early production machines are demonstrated by company test pilots they do a lot more then the one in this thread did to demonstrate what they are capable of if only to show how big a safety margin there is for normal operations.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread they have a more rigorous inspection programme but all pre-production machines have this anyway.

If something was possibly going to break they would fix it. Should one break without obvious damage like blade strikes or similar without any witnesses they could have a lot of explaining to do.