Thread: "Lack of discipline" prior to RAF Puma crash.

Pilot not qualified to perform manoeuvre that led to crash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...iscipline.html

A coroner has accused the RAF of plunging standards in “administration, airmanship and discipline� following the deaths of three servicemen during a low-level Puma helicopter flight.

Just waiting for Feedtheyak to start moaning about the bad discipline from the army in regards to that idiot Glenton, because the RAF never do anything naughty!

Shame that the pilots stupidity ended in death though. :(

33 Squadron are being hauled over the coals over this crash.

33 Squadron are being hauled over the coals over this crash.

Again.

Originally Posted by Le_addeur_noir

33 Squadron are being hauled over the coals over this crash.

After listening to the cockpit audio recordings on the news I'm not at all surprised.

tactical manoeuvres were "excessive in number and irregularity".


I'm a civvy but surely the whole point of tactical maneuvres is that they are irreguarly unpredictable.....I may be wrong, who am I to crticise?

Originally Posted by scuba_frog

tactical manoeuvres were "excessive in number and irregularity".


I'm a civvy but surely the whole point of tactical maneuvres is that they are irreguarly unpredictable.....I may be wrong, who am I to crticise?

It's one thing to fly into the danger zone when people are shooting at you and doing their best to kill you, to do it on a routine training flight is totally uneccesary and gets people killed needlessly.

I wonder just what these plunging standards of 'administration' which the Coroner reports upon.

The RAF have always been fluffy when it comes to 'right and wrong' - normally aircrew bully everyone else into submission because of their trainng costs. RAF are spineless in enforcing criteria, this case proves it.

Did RAF Benson fail their Service LSI/ARUs ? (NO RAF unit EVER fails these - they get a repeat 'observation')

If the checking, audit and governance procedures were not in place then no matter how much this RAF spokesman says 'things have ichanged/mproved' it does not take away their culbability - a passenger gets into any aircraft totally dependant on the aircrew. That young soldier should not have to get into a 'copter with gung-ho boy racers.

If the corporate goverance checks were not in place, and others (esp soldiers) died as a result, sack everyone responsible for these checks, consider criminal action against them and strip all pensions from those who have left the Services subsequently (and I predict there will be many).

This will focus personal responsibility on the Chain of Command and how it can bite them !

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

I wonder just what these plunging standards of 'administration' which the Coroner reports upon.

The RAF have always been fluffy when it comes to 'right and wrong' - normally aircrew bully everyone else into submission because of their trainng costs. RAF are spineless in enforcing criteria, this case proves it.

Did RAF Benson fail their Service LSI/ARUs ? (NO RAF unit EVER fails these - they get a repeat 'observation')

If the checking, audit and governance procedures were not in place then no matter how much this RAF spokesman says 'things have ichanged/mproved' it does not take away their culbability - a passenger gets into any aircraft totally dependant on the aircrew. That young soldier should not have to get into a 'copter with gung-ho boy racers.

If the corporate goverance checks were not in place, and others (esp soldiers) died as a result, sack everyone responsible for these checks, consider criminal action against them and strip all pensions from those who have left the Services subsequently (and I predict there will be many).

This will focus personal responsibility on the Chain of Command and how it can bite them !

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

A shitload of truth in what you say there, matey.........

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

No it doesn't. The C130 shot down out of Balad? The Nimrod over AFG? I take it you are referring to the CH47/MoK incident and then making a sweeping generalisation. The MoK BoI could have been handled better, but I am also reassured that recruits at Halton don't routinely shoot themselves in the back of the head, that Iraqis don't beat themselves to death whilst in RAF custody whilst the CO walks away with a DSO and that RAF units don't hold impromptu swimming galas for miscreant youths it detains.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

That may be the RAF way but it is not the way the civvie lawyers will see it.

If I train a HGV and he passes my course to do the task then I, the Trainer, am at fault if he fails a key compentence (ie overloading his vehicle, jackniifing and causing accidents).

If I train a chef and he passes my course to do the task then I, the Trainer, am at fault if he fails a key compentence (ie he poisons you).

If I train a clerk and he passes my course to do the task then I, the Trainer, am at fault if he fails a key compentence (ie he screws you pay up and you lose out financially).

If I train a Infanteer and he passes my course to do the task then I, the Trainer, am at fault if he fails a key compentence (ie he cannot use his weapon and is a liabilty to his section).


The individual may be at fault for one-off incidents but if, the Coroner reports a general failing then, the training sytem iwhich is there to protect everyone fails - then the CoC iare responsible for systematic faults,

That young soldier did NOTHING wrong, he TRUSTED the CoC - if it was your son shouldn't SOMEONE be held accountable for these 'failures'?

Originally Posted by scuba_frog

I'm a civvy but surely the whole point of tactical maneuvres is that they are irreguarly unpredictable.....I may be wrong, who am I to crticise?

Best you sit at the back and listen then. For a change.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

Utter, utter, utter shite. PM me if you want to know why my viewpoint is thus.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by agoodgrouping

...a young infantryman died here - who in the RAF will carry the can ?

Probably no-one (again)

The RAF way is to put 100% of the blame on the dead pilots, it's always been thus.

Bollocks - what a damnfool statement to make . He was flying beyond his capabilities and authorisation in an aircraft that lacks the agility and power for such high-energy demands. Clear case of pilot error. Whilst there may well be systemic failures (some hint on R4 the pilot was tasking after recent training which is odd - but this reporting could cover a multitude of scenarios) this is still a case of bad sticks and poles.