Gung-ho SAS Are Banned From RAF Helicopters

#1
'Gung-ho' SAS are banned from RAF helicopters

RAF pilots pushed Pumas to the limits to cope with demands made by SAS commanders, causing fatal crashes, says inquiry

The SAS has been banned from travelling in the RAF’s Puma transport helicopters after an inquiry blamed their daredevil approach for two crashes and the deaths of four servicemen in Iraq.

RAF pilots frequently pushed their aircraft to the limits in an attempt to cope with demands made by SAS commanders.

They flew so close to the ground — even when the situation did not require it — that there would have been no time to make corrections had a fault occurred.

According to the inquiry, nobody in the RAF has felt confident enough to oppose the demands of the SAS men for high-risk manoeuvres.

Article continued.
Er, riiight. Anyone a bit closer to the issue able to say whether this is correct or have the newspapers got the wrong end of the stick again? The whole thing just strikes me as a bit odd. :?
 
#2
It sounds like not only is your government falling apart, but in-fighting in your Forces is becoming rampant.
 
#3
[IRONY]I suppose the same 'nap of the earth' demands were made on the pilots of the two civi Super Pumas that recently dropped into the North Sea, well that's that one sorted out.[/IRONY]
 
#4
Ridiculous story. It's upto the pilots to know the limitations of their airframes and to tell anyone who is pushing them to fcuk off.

I can't see a helicopter pilot getting sacked for refusing to smash his ride up.
 
#5
Are THEY going to walk to their targets from now on then? Or is the boathouse going to become a bit busier?
 
#6
Never heard so much shite in all my time

Firstly
The SAS are highly trained
Secondly
The RAF are highly trained

Neither would take risks which would jepordise their own lives especially during training.
Higher risk factors are taken into account on operations, however, the Aircraft commander has the ultimate responsibility for the lives of his crew and "passengers"

Not every pilot gets the oppurtunity to work along side the special forces, the ones that do will understand the diverse nature of the business they are undertaking, they are "chosen" pilots who can still say no.

Put the shoe on the other foot
If you were on patrol with the SAS and wanted to stop and take a few photos of some nice flowers or stop by the river for a smoke and they thought it wrong....the answer would be NO
 
#9
nigegilb said:
Them do, but them's pilots aren't as experienced as them used to be.
Really?

Things must have changed since I was in, when pilots were rotated in the same way as pilots in other units. Have they?

I think this shows why the SAS are not going to be flying in Pumas from now on.

It is now used for training in Britain and Kenya and ferrying embassy staff in Baghdad.
 
#10
Whet said:
Things must have changed since I was in, when pilots were rotated in the same way as pilots in other units. Have they?

I think this shows why the SAS are not going to be flying in Pumas from now on.

It is now used for training in Britain and Kenya and ferrying embassy staff in Baghdad.
What? All of them?

The quality of your analysis never fails to bring a smile to me.
 
#11
Whet said:
nigegilb said:
Them do, but them's pilots aren't as experienced as them used to be.
Really?

Things must have changed since I was in, when pilots were rotated in the same way as pilots in other units. Have they?

I think this shows why the SAS are not going to be flying in Pumas from now on.

It is now used for training in Britain and Kenya and ferrying embassy staff in Baghdad.
Not in SF flight the are'nt.The crews tend to stay within that unit for a long time due to the amount of training required being above that of a normal helo cab crew.
Imho,the reports a load of tosh.
 
#12
whitecity said:
Whet said:
Things must have changed since I was in, when pilots were rotated in the same way as pilots in other units. Have they?

I think this shows why the SAS are not going to be flying in Pumas from now on.

It is now used for training in Britain and Kenya and ferrying embassy staff in Baghdad.
What? All of them?

The quality of your analysis never fails to bring a smile to me.
Hmmmmmmm

All of what, Pilots? Pumas? Embassy staff?

The quality of your posts likewise amuses me.
 
#13
This is a particularly stupid piece of spin to my eyes. Rather than admit that the Puma fleet is obsolescent, clapped out and just not up to the job the dead pilots get blamed. It's not as if the RAF has ever done that before *cough* Chinook *cough*.

And it's not doing the RAF any favours, it looks like their approach to risk on Ops is to stop doing Ops. They do not come across as a service at war in support of the Army.

Now reality is of course more nuanced and difficult to read, but I expect to see a lot more stories spun like this as the services fight like ferrets in a sack for the available funding.
 
#14
Why rely on the RAF if THEY have their own transport?

 
#15
I can't imagine the RAF being 'bullied' into anything silly, even by THEM.

Any why ban them from travelling in Pumas? Surely it would make more sense to tell them to sit down and behave...
 
#16
The SAS man was killed on an NVG sortie involving two pumas. It was a night landing in the desert and the pilot allegedly lost SA.

Just one of a string of Puma crashes caused by pilots being insufficiently trained especially for SF sorties. Gone are the days when your pilot would have been a hairy arrsed SF dude who'd been there seen it done it. Following the string of crashes training and pre-deployment training has been beefed up. The problem of anticipators has been brought up so many times in crash inquiries it is a joke.

Pilots may have been blamed but it is not their fault. The fault lies in a lack of training and experience which shows most on high workload high skilled SF sorties.

I have witnessed an RAF SF Flt Cdr with his head so far up the Hereford Colonel's arrse it was embarrassing. A bit less arrse licking would go a long way.
 
#17
In reality !

The RAF are NOT going to send a junior pilot on a mans mission

To work alongside the SF you have to have specialist training.........fact
The Puma has been in service longer than I care to remember and only so much black and nasty can hold one together......fact
Pilots will not endanger the aircraft or crew..........fact

They were on operations.....maybe, just maybe it was shot down ?
 
#18
According to the inquiry, nobody in the RAF has felt confident enough to oppose the demands of the SAS men for high-risk manoeuvres.
The problem as I have seen it a fair few times is that the RAF get very star struck when working with UKSF and will bend over backwards on H say so to the point of recklessness. H knows it and tends to take the piss without a word from the Crabs as its all jolly good fun working with "THEM". Seen it with PTS as well.
 
#19
I thought that the crash in april 2007 was becuase A) The op was at night
B) it was a tight LZ and the dust kicked up by the first Cab meant the pilot of the second piled in (not his fault)
C) They were being shot at during said landing
D) No mater what some arm chair wa.nker in his air conditioned office says you fly low and fast and you throw it about over baggers at ALL TIMES, thats why in seven months in baghdad the crabs had one crash and two cabs damaged by ground fire and the americans (inc Blackwater) lost 7 shot down 2 crashed and lots damaged


is there actually a term for the sandy version of a White Out I have in my head Brown Out but that don't sound right
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top