Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)

[LFFC]

The BBC are reporting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5308622.stm) a NATO support aircraft down in southern Afganistan.

[LFFC]

More on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/02/afghan.plane.ap/index.html).

Just heard the latest news from the MOD on BBC TV - words fail me. My thoughts go out to all involved.

[BellEndBob]

BBC News - 14 Dead.

I have heard a 'type' but will wait for conformation.

[sled dog]

BBC News 24 are saying a/c possibly a Chinook .
Mechanical problem , not enemy action.
R I P to all personnel lost.

[oldfella]

Started in order to leave other thread for condolences.

I was incensed even as the words were coming out of the mouth of Peter Wood. Before the type was confirmed I rang and lodged a complaint with the BBC and will follow it up with mail.


BBC Complaints:
Phone:
08700 100 222*

Don't bother to press any number from the recorded message, wait a few seconds and speak to a person.

Write:
BBC Complaints,
PO Box 1922,
Glasgow G2 3WT

BBC News 24, armchair expert, reporting that he has it on good authority but not yet confirmed, as to the aircraft type involved, mebtioning the type by name!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If he is wrong then I hope he burns in hell for the grief he has just caused to those related to or friends of those flying that type in theatre.

Why can't they stick to the approved procedure and be held to task when they don't?

Thank you oldfella.

Please note the 'other' thread is also a (relevant) 'news' thread and not just for 'condolences.

[Untermensch]

Here the BBC go again.... Talking about Chinooks and they just don't know. Let everyone do their jobs and contact those who need to be.

[Kitbag]

MOD are mainly to blame for not knowing what and when, getting the Kinforming sorted now, and not pi$$ing about with a "help line". Imagine the response to a genuine query:- 'Sorry ma'am we can't tell you over the phone' Fat lot of use that's going to be. MOD, ministers, mandarins, VSO's, pull your finger out.

[jayteeto]

The press are scum, but don't blame them for trying to find out the ac type, its their job. The alternative argument is that families of those flying other types could be worried unneccessarily. Forget these lowlife and support the families in their time of need.

[Visual Strip]

From the BBC News website:

14 Britons killed in Afghanistan

Fourteen British service personnel have died after their aircraft crashed in Afghanistan, the MoD has said.
Twelve RAF personnel, a Royal Marine and an Army soldier were among those who died in the crash in the southern province of Kandahar.

The aircraft, believed to be a Chinook, belonged to the Nato-led force which has been fighting the Taleban.

UK Defence Secretary Des Browne said "all indications are that this was a terrible accident".

It's a black day. It's a disaster for our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan

Major Charles Heyman

He added: "This is dreadful and shocking news. I know that the people of Britain will join me in sending our deep condolences to the loved ones of those who have lost their lives.

"I can say, however, at this stage all the indications are that this was a terrible accident and not the result of hostile action."

'Technical fault'

An International Security Assistance Force spokesman said "enemy action had been discounted at this stage".

It is believed the cause of the crash was "a technical fault"'

Nato forces say it was supporting the Nato mission in the area.

The defence analyst, Major Charles Heyman, told BBC News 24: "It's a black day. It's a disaster for our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan.

"No other words can describe it. It's a big hit to morale. Believe me it really does affect morale."

BBC defence correspondent, Paul Wood, told BBC News 24: "I'm getting strong guidance from a supposedly reliable defence source that it is not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here.

"That would make sense if they were supporting an operation, as has been reported, in a place called Panjwayi - west of Kandahar.

"It's a town - which has been in Taleban hands - which has been forced back into coalition hands by a big push, still continuing today."

The crash brings the death toll of UK forces personnel in Afghanistan to 36 since the start of operations in November 2001.

Ministry of Defence Helpline
A special helpline is available on 08457 800 900 for families concerned about relatives
The crash is thought to be the biggest single loss of British troops in Iraq or Afghanistan since military operations began there in 2001.

Ten British armed personnel were killed when a Hercules C130K crashed north-west of Baghdad in January 2005.

The latest crash comes as Afghan and Nato troops began a major anti-Taleban drive in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar which has seen months of fighting.

Earlier, Nato said its forces had launched a major offensive against known hideouts of Taleban insurgents in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar, with the aim of driving them out of the area.

There was no indication of an enemy attack on the plane, which was not a fighter jet, Maj Scott Lundy said.

Afghanistan is experiencing its bloodiest period since the fall of the Taleban in 2001. Much of the fighting has been concentrated in the south.

The plane came down about 20 km (12 miles) west of the city of Kandahar, Maj Lundy of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

It was "supporting a Nato mission. It went off the radar and crashed in an open area in Kandahar."


Nato forces are at the scene but there is no word on how many people were on board. A large Canadian contingent is based in Kandahar province.

A local tribal elder told the Associated Press news agency by phone that the wreckage of the plane was burning in an open field.

"I can see three or four helicopters in the sky, and coalition forces are also arriving in the area," he said.

On Thursday, a Dutch F-16 fighter pilot was killed after his plane crashed in the southern province of Ghazni.

Officials said the crash was believed to be an accident.

[serf]

MOD have confirmed the type according to sky news

[JNo]

BBC just confirmed a Nimrod MR2

[Stumpy1000]

Sky and the Beeb now saying MoD confirming an aircraft type, both news channels giving the same type.

[propulike]

BBC have read a statement from the MoD declaring the aircraft type as a Nimrod MR2.

The speculating @rse who was on the BBC news 24 earlier claiming it was 'pretty much certain it was a Chinook' should be taken to Odiham and laid out in front of the families he put through the wringer.

[Silver Tongued Cavalier]

"BBC defence correspondent, Paul Wood, told BBC News 24: "I'm getting strong guidance from a supposedly reliable defence source that it is not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here. "

I don't think Paul Wood will make this mistake again. Although then again........:ugh:

[Konkordski]

BBC defence correspondent, Paul Wood, told BBC News 24: "I'm getting strong guidance from a supposedly reliable defence source that it is not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here."

I don't think Paul Wood will make this mistake again.

Mr Wood didn't make a mistake. He reported someone else's mistake. Blame the knob who told him it was a Chinook.

If you're going to criticise the press, at least show that you know something about journalism. And then don't compound your hypocrisy by using the BBC, CNN and Sky to keep you up to date (five times in the first six posts), while bitching about the information which other people are working hard to bring to you.

[November4]

The speculating @rse who was on the BBC news 24 earlier claiming it was 'pretty much certain it was a Chinook' should be taken to Odiham and laid out in front of the families he put through the wringer.


And the one on Radio 4 PM programme!

[Colonal Mustard]

At the time of this story breaking my immediate reaction was to speculate on a/c type, But NO common sense told me not to until the facts were released, the issue of the Press "only doing their job" has made my blood boil,

it is bad enough for one death from within the services let alone 14 but when it is compounded by the press first "speculating" that it could be a chinook, or a herc only goes to add to my anger, when the facts are released that it is a nimrod the press in my eyes appear to fall on a defensive shield of the "only doing my job" sketch and ultimately "GUESSING" what it "COULD" be goes to add fear into those that dont need that fear in the first place ...i.e Families of those near and dear serving in those regions...Sorry if this seems an unjust argument but in summary i feel that the media seem to have cloaks of invincibility if they get it wrong ..........TO those that SPECULATED ON AIR i hope they show a black screen or something and apologise for the unneccersary anguish caused to the Herc/ Vortex crews, if anyone from the press would care to add light or make comment feel free..


DAMN SAD DAY:(

[Archimedes]

Mr Wood didn't make a mistake. He reported someone else's mistake. Blame the knob who told him it was a Chinook.
If you're going to criticise the press, at least show that you know something about journalism. And then don't compound your hypocrisy by using the BBC, CNN and Sky to keep you up to date (five times in the first six posts), while bitching about the information which other people are working hard to bring to you.

Sorry, Konkordski, but that simply doesn't wash.

People will naturally refer to the news stories when such news breaks and link to them. To do so is not at all hypocritical, since, in good time, the news becomes clearer, and people will link back to it.

If you reflect on this for a moment, please, surely you must realise that there was absolutely no need whatsoever for Wood to inform the world that he was pretty sure that it was a Chinook (as he did on BBC World about 45 minutes ago and I gather he did the same on other BBC News outlets). If he is supposed to be an expert in the area of defence, he should've known that revealing that it was a Chinook risked causing severe distress and anxiety to all those closely associated with that fleet (and probably families who might think that their loved ones might possibly be aboard a Chinook), kinforming procedures or not.

All we can assume is that the scoop was more important to Wood than anything else, despite the fact that the information (as he effectively admitted on BBC World) might not have been correct. He should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

[PompeySailor]

The Have Your Say section of the website is suffering from the same rubbish. Complaints are going in from here and from ARRSE. Usual left-wing hijacking of a thread, but the BBC are colluding in that they know what sort of comments will be left - and it's supposed to be a moderated board.

I think Rum Ration is closed at the weekends.

[oldfella]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

Takes you to a BBC email complaints page. Page 2 states:

We publish responses to the most significant or numerous complaints here.

Complain by this means if possible. They may not consider the complaint the most significant but if it is numerous enough they will have to give a public answer.

[Kitbag]

OK, lets start with the facts. The MOD and NATO announced an aircraft had gone down, and that there were no survivors. They knew which type, mission and crew. They chose not to say at least which type of ac.

Therefore anyone with a flying relative spent hours waiting for the dreaded knock on the door. The BBC and others looked at the possibilities, I admit I never considered Nimrod given its record, yet there are other types which are at the front of our consciousness as far as loss in unclear circumstances. If Wood had been right what should we castigate him for? Speculation?

Part of the BBC Mission Statement is to inform. There are plenty of posts elsewhere regarding the general lack of information and awareness of the great british public. I contend Wood was merely trying to report what he believed to be genuine information. Did Wood find himself believing mis/disinformation? In the modern era of command, control and communication this is entirely due to MOD not understanding the speed of reporting and the potential interest (possibly to reinforce the overstretch issues that have been bubbling away on BBC Radio News for the last few weeks).

'Course I could be wrong, maybe Wood was merely spicing up a story for his own glorification and career furtherance. He doesn't give a £$%^ for anybody and is prepared to totally destroy his credibility as a defence reporter with the people he gets his juiciest stories from.

I know where I stand on this one.

[microlight AV8R]

Complaint posted and response requested....

Disgusted at speculative reporting today concerning the tragic loss of an RAF aircraft. This will have caused unnecessary pain and anguish to many families. What for ? A big scoop? Shame on you. You would do far better by taking a responsible position on this type of incident and gain the respect of the British public. I think a statement of regret on peak time news would be appropriate. I am increasingly uncomfortable with BBC reporting which seems to be simply following the pack, rather than standing out from the crowd. The BBC was once seen as the model of professionalism for its industry, sadly no more.

As to whether the reporter thought he had genuine 'inside info' I will only say two words: Chinese whispers.

[old developer]

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Ba$tard$

[Colonal Mustard]

Would it be worthwhile preparing a Complaint that all can copy /paste into the given field, similar to a petition , but will allow those with little time to add a complaint

worth a thought?

I`ll start thinking

***and heres my post from the first thread....(moderator, wonder if my first one from the original incident file can be removed?)**

At the time of this story breaking my immediate reaction was to speculate on a/c type, But NO common sense told me not to until the facts were released, the issue of the Press "only doing their job" has made my blood boil,

it is bad enough for one death from within the services let alone 14 but when it is compounded by the press first "speculating" that it could be a chinook, or a herc only goes to add to my anger, when the facts are released that it is a nimrod the press in my eyes appear to fall on a defensive shield of the "only doing my job" sketch and ultimately "GUESSING" what it "COULD" be goes to add fear into those that dont need that fear in the first place ...i.e Families of those near and dear serving in those regions...Sorry if this seems an unjust argument but in summary i feel that the media seem to have cloaks of invincibility if they get it wrong ..........TO those that SPECULATED ON AIR i hope they show a black screen or something and apologise for the unneccersary anguish caused to the Herc/ Vortex crews, if anyone from the press would care to add light or make comment feel free..

[jEtGuiDeR]

Complaint lodged with the BBC

Disgusting :mad:

[Spotting Bad Guys]

Likewise

W*****s

SBG

[The Helpful Stacker]

I've made a comment on the BBC site, disgusted by their behaviour.

BTW, I phoned my parents earlier and they have heard nothing as yet.

[Colonal Mustard]

This is my complaint..feel free to copy/paste/change if you see fit.

Having heard with sadness at the loss today of the nimrod aircraft in Afghanistan, I must say that I am utterly disappointed at the “speculation” produced during the various BBC News features on the radio & Television, The comments suggested that the aircraft “could be a Chinook" then later to include a hercules.
By this single element of reporting this has ensured that UK families of the Chinook & Hercules crews based in Afghanistan suffered prolonged distress in the belief that a knock on the door was a possibility, This may also have had an opposite effect on the families of Nimrod crews who upon hearing from Mr Wood that it was “not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here” may have in turn caused them further unnecessary distress by suggesting their loved ones were safe. I feel that the BBC have overstepped the mark in Investigative Journalism and finally begun to follow the majority of other broadcasters by including speculation into their reporting when a number of years ago they would simply have said “until officially informed by the ministry of defence we are unable to confirm what type of aircraft was involved”, I for one will be seeking an official apology to be broadcast, and for a much more sensitive BBC to be returned.

CM

[RAF_Techie101]

Another complaint lodged, know many a crew member on the Squadrons.

Nimrod Liney, father ex-Nimrod Wet man

[Jerry Can]

Complaint lodged. Thanks CM.

[JW411]

Was it an MR2 or perhaps an R1?

[flash8]

Defence secretary already has announced it appears to be a tragic accident.
So.. given the track record of honesty in this government...

[Chris Halpin]

I too have lodged a complaint. I've been lurking on these forums for a while now but thought I'd add my 2p's worth here.

[Two's in]

Kitbag, well reasoned logic. The MoD were the ones who decided to go public without releasing the pertinent details. The BBC didn't help matters, but I suggest it is the MoD that have a "Duty of Care" to the NoK reporting chain, and not the BBC. The MoD have apparently decided not to embrace the electronic news age in which we all live, for better or worse, and so are the prime instigators of this disgusting piece of misinformation and subterfuge today.

The BBC are a news organisation, simple fact. They will do everything in their power to be the first with the story, and their attitude is that corrections can be made after the event, if the facts initially prove to be elusive.

You can not have it both ways with the BBC. The only difference between them and CNN etc is that you and I pay their wages. The race to be first with the story is the only excuse the BBC ever need to come up with, as far as they are concerned. Too many people here are trying to put them on a pedastal as "Guardians of the Truth", and then pillory them for their mistakes, nothing could be more wrong.

What excuse does the MoD have for their complete and utter mishandling of this tragedy? Why did all those military communities, but especially Odiham and Lyneham, have to go through this anguish before the tragic news finally lay with ISK?

By all means castigate the BBC, but don't let the Government off the hook for being the instigator of this debacle.

[cwatters]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=adi0g9dOSwhs&refer=uk

"The crew had reported a technical problem before the aircraft went down in an open area, he said."

[SirToppamHat]

Complaint posted. Having kinformed for the Gulf Herc Crash, I can assure you that our job was made far more difficult (particularly in terms of timing) than it should have been simply because of the necessity to get the info out to those affected before the news agancies started letting the world know. Disgusting.

STH

[The Helpful Stacker]

Two In - I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

As someone who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq (among other places) I, as I'm sure you might, know that there are procedures in place for military personnel to stop news being leaked back to the UK. You may or may not also be aware that the embedded media in such places aren't subject to such rules and what with their access to satellite phones they can have gossip picked up outside the EFI broadcasted back to the UK in a matter of minutes. The MoD announced an a/c had crashed, the BBC added everything else.

I'm still waiting to find out if my half-brother who flys a kipper kite is ok, I have made a comment on the BBC website and shall be writing a complaint as soon as I know more.

[ORAC]

Sir, in your news today you, totally erroneously, ascribed the loss of an RAF aircraft in Afghanistan as, if not a C-130, then a Chinook. Only hours later correctly ascribing the loss as a Nimrod MR2.

In doing so you inflicted great grief and worry on the whole RAF C-130 and Chinook communities, operational and families alike.

I had been lead to believe that, in light of other BBC reporting disasters, that all reports had to be confirmed from at least two sources before publication. In this case the source would seem to have been a single reported hearsay account.

Before I submit a more formal application under the Freedom of Information Act for the actions taken under this totally reprehensible report, I would be grateful for confirmation that a suitably rigorous internal investigation is under way - and the results will be made public.

Yours Sincerely

ORAC....

[juan kossof]

Complaint lodged as well.

[Two's in]

But H-S, that's my point. This stuff will get back to Blighty a damn sight faster than the glacial like response of the MoD, so get the relevant information out before the news Johnnie’s start their rampant speculation, which they will anyway. Not being as responsive as the news organizations is simply unacceptable. The old arguments about infonok needing to be accurate are specious when some leech of a newshound is already at the front door asking their usual battery of sensitive questions.

[Stumpy1000]

Folks
Complain to Sky also.

I was listening to Sky earler on today, when a 'Defence Expert' said 'of course it is possible it could be a Lynx like the one that crashed earlier in the year etc etc' . Am i missing something? A defence expert, Lynx, 14 people?? So there was another lot of families put through the wringer. The news channels really call in some toss**s. (Sky also mentioned the Herc, Chinook options)

[jondc9]

I imagine, but don't know for sure, that Nimrod also has versions in electronic intel gathering service.

I can also imagine that IF a stinger hit the engines, the way they are within the wing, might have had a huge impact on everything.
Unlike pod mounted engines. (This is NOT to be thought of as a slight on this design.)

[The Helpful Stacker]

But H-S, that's my point. This stuff will get back to Blighty a damn sight faster than the glacial like response of the MoD, so get the relevant information out before the news Johnnie’s start their rampant speculation, which they will anyway. Not being as responsive as the news organizations is simply unacceptable. The old arguments about infonok needing to be accurate are specious when some leech of a newshound is already at the front door asking their usual battery of sensitive questions.

Sorry, have to disagree with you again. The press should show restraint and consider the emotions of the families involved, not post clap trap and wheel out 'experts' to speculate what was going on.

Last year when I was out in Iraq the theatre was without contact to the UK for 6 days because the family of a killed solider where away on holiday and uncontactable and even though some folk moaned most understood why the procedures where in place.

Its about time either the embedded media were censored more throughly or altogether made non-embedded. They have the luxury of protection from many bad people who wouldn't care if they are press or not and would kill/kidnap them all the same, perhaps they should remember their privileged position.

[C130 Techie]

So typical of todays media circus. Are there no real journalists/correspondents who report witrh care and compassion left. Typical sensationalism regardless of who it hurts. Scum all of them!!

As for the so called experts and retired military types - they are beyond contempt.:mad: :mad:

[MReyn24050]

Complaint lodged with the BBC

[PompeySailor]

BBC?

The ones that we on the Ark Royal switched off during GW'03 in preference for SkyTV following their biased reporting, outright lies and inability to roll out a defence specialist who could differentiate between an Aircraft Carrier and Type 42, and which was reported gleefully in the UK by rival media outlets. We were ordered to retune the receiver to BBC.

We also had the most jumped up piece of reporter scum on board who was seen, twice, in tears/foot stamping tantrums because he wasn't being taken seriously enough (as an ex-CBBC man....Matthew Price, what a cock!).

It's the media, do we expect anything else? If you want a more balanced view, use Fox TV!:O

[ExJAFAD]

Complaint lodged.

Did you read the abhorrent comments by Simon Petrovich from Cambridge.
See here:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=3582&edition=2&ttl=20060902212610&#paginator

[Pontius Navigator]

THS, please see PM

[old developer]

Job done..Thanks CM

[tablet_eraser]

Sir,

HM Armed Forces today suffered a devastating loss of life when an RAF Nimrod crashed in Afghanistan with the loss of 14 personnel. This is a difficult and upsetting time for any of us who have friends, family or colleagues serving with NATO in Afghanistan.

Your news outlets compounded that upset by recklessly speculating on which aircraft type might have crashed, going so far as to claim "reliable sources" had told you it was a Chinook, then a Hercules. Familes with personnel serving on both of those types will have been put through hell. As a reputable public-funded news organisation you have a responsibility to your audience; although speculation may be appropriate in some stories, it is plainly insensitive that you failed to wait for confirmation of the aircraft type. By this action you have brought misery and fear to hundreds of people who, it turns out, have not lost their loved ones at all.

It sickens me that the BBC has cheapened itself by confusing speculation with news. It is poor journalism and, worse, it has probably caused considerable distress to many people in the UK. I strongly urge you to make a public apology to those who have been upset by what amounts to idle rumour-mongering, or at least to acknowledge the fact that many of your viewers have been shocked by this outrageous performance.

Sincerely,

tablet_eraser

[4U2NV]

Complaint logged, I just really wish that it would make a difference. The media giant that the BBC is becoming (become??) seems to have lost all respect for the values that I SHOULD associate with Auntie... Honest and integrity are no longer even on the radar.:=

[jayteeto]

The BBC coverage and support for our troops has been awful. Natasha Kaplinski or whatever she is called, was incredibly biased during the last gulf war. However, on this occasion I go against the grain and put PART of the blame on the MOD. We all know that journos will speculate like this, putting families through hell. But on this occasion, the MOD put families through hell by delaying naming the type. Every family of every aircrew member would have been going out of their minds with worry. By holding back, SOMETIMES makes it as bad as speculation. If you dont want this to happen, then dont embed journos with our troops. If they had to look after themselves, they would face the wrath of the enemy and maybe back away a little. If things go public and speculation starts, maybe we should just front the information. Many odiham and lyneham families might have had a less stressful day, waiting for a knock at the door. Dont get me wrong, I hate them with a passion, real hate, but we know what they are like and should be prepared for this behaviour. Sorry if I upset people, but democracy and all that.....:(

[Not Long Here]

The MOD still cannot get it right.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishArmedForcesKilledInAfghanistan.htm

Picture of 2 R1s.

What hope for us :(

[Pilot Pacifier]

As a serving Chinook crewman, you can just imagine what I have just said to BBC...

[Grimweasel]

I must confess to feeling severe anguish for all those involved and my heart felt sympathies go out to all involved in this difficult time.

I also understand that the BBC/ Sky et al should not speculate and cause un-necessary angst for other RAF communities by alluding to un-known facts.

I can however see from the MoD point of view, that the naming on a/c type straight away, could have untold SY implications by alerting all and sundry to the crash site of a sensitive asset.

This still does not excuse the Media for speculating , but, as has been said before, we must not appear hypocritical by slating the very organizations that alerted us to the terrible news in the first place.

Secondly, remember the Op focus and the need for a certain amount of secrecy in the first instant?

[LookDownAndSmile]

I just wanted to say that I'm glad people are complaining to the BBC and other broadcasters on their reporting of this tragic accident, specifically regarding the unwarranted and insensitive speculation on the a/c type.

Speaking as someone who has bitten through 10 nails whilst waiting to hear if it was a Chinook or not I can only wish that I could be face to face to the person that first propounded this theory as I would like them to see just what terrible anxiety and stress this can cause.

My heart goes out to the families that are grieving tonight, and it's with mixed feelings that I count my blessings that I'm not one of them.

RIP all those brave servicemen, and sincere condolences to their families, friends and colleagues.

LDaS

[stickmonkeytamer]

I've added my complaint- if we all take a few moments to do it, maybe we can stop all of the undue heartache that must have been going on needlessly in the Herc and Chinny worlds.

My deepest condolences to the families involved. I hope that there is no booze left in the ISK bar this evening. Please raise one to them all- heroes to the end.

Mr and Mrs SMT.

[smugley]

Complaint lodged.

Can't help thinking 'An it's tommy this, an tommy that, an tommy go away,
but thank you Mr Atkins, when the band begins to play.'

[Doctor Cruces]

Added my complaint too.
Bl**dy journos, they just don't care. Ruin some lives and then hop onto the next scoop.
They are as contemtable as politicians, I just wish I knew which was the lowest!

Doc C

[The Helpful Stacker]

I got off the phone to another brother of mine about an hour ago and luckily for us my half-brother was not flying tonight. Of course he knew all 12 RAF crewmembers and is in a pretty bad way at the mo, as I'm sure are many at Kinloss, not least the relations of those who have died.

Apparently the RAF had called within an hour of the accident to inform them he was ok.

I shall compile my thoughts and write a complaint tomorrow.

[wokkawokka]

OK JHC Command, Herc Fleet and of course Airship in charge of Kipper Fleet - you want to lead, then I trust that you will formally 'spool up' MoD Press Office to give one almighty talking to with all of the media to ensure that in future that families are not left hanging in suspended animation, their breaths held waiting for the Regional Casualty Officer, Padre or nominated representative to knock on the door.

As a generalisation the press/media did not have the full facts (for whatever reason) so they speculated to a degree that was professionally incompetent.

Now I wonder if the news channels and editors will have the strength of character to publicly (i.e. on air) apologise to those Service families that have been effected by todays extremely unprofessional reporting.

I hope that the extra ratings and/or advertising revenue makes them all feel that a job well done.

And after putting that one to bed (in my mind - and yes I have registered my dissatisfaction with the BBC - the news channel that I usually prefer to watch) I now return to the main purpose of my post:

To the families, wives, children,mums and dads, bothers and sisters, loved ones, friends and work colleagues - I am so very sorry and my thoughts are with you.

If there is any consolation the crews of the kipper fleet are doing a very real and worthwhile job in Afghanistan at the moment and I can personally say that I (as well as the AH boys) certainly owe alot of the provision ISTAR and SA to the Nimrod capability (a certain Op will forever stick in my mind!) which hopefully not only has protected other airborne types, but also the lads/lasses on the ground in the Platoon Houses and on the Ops.

I am so very sorry.

[oldfella]

In the past, following crew losses, someone has compiled the mesages of condolence on the thread and forwarded them to families. The thought behind this thread was to keep our comments about reporting away from the original thread. Could I ask that, if you include messages of condolence here, you copy that portion of your thoughts to the original thread.

[D-IFF_ident]

More incompetence - from ITN this time. Take a look at the pic on this website:

http://www.itn.co.uk/news/world_7411a4be1c1122e5ed1a591592080529.html

[Well Travelled Nav]

I am very annoyed and can't believe that both the MOD and the BBC websites are stupid enough to use the wrong photograph for their articles !!!!! Both are showing R1 aircraft not MR2's. It hardly fills you with confidence that the MOD can get their facts correct.


WTN (Ex 206)

[Wayitup]

I, like countless others, have been incensed over the thoughtless speculation by the media. Two people who should know better, Ex officers Col Tim Collins and S/L Tom Rounds, both added fuel to the speculative fire by waffling on (on TV) about which type of a/c might be involved. These two should know better. It seems they either don't know, or they don't care, about the pain their words cause!! If people with the experience and background such as these two gentlemen have know no better than to speculate on issues like this then what hope is there that the 'press' will ever realise the pain they cause? Complain to the media as much as you like guys...as I was once told by the editor of the Times...'It sells papers' and they don't care!!

[green granite]

It is in the nature of man to speculate (your civil colleagues do it all the time in R&N) however ill informed that speculation might be, and the news media is no exception. The news media is though, bye and large, responsive to peoples wishes, so had the MOD told the media that it was a Nimrod aircraft and then asked the media not to release that info until the next of kin had been informed, then the media would not have needed to speculate and would have just quoted the request. At least it would have been better for all concerned.

[cymruflier]

I am a civvie (but with many service connections) and follow Pprune avidly. The most recent loss in Afgahnistan has moved me to join and to make a post.

I too have lodged a complaint with the BBC for the unneccessary anguish caused to so many for NO GOOD REASON AT ALL.

[shack]

As a very much "ex" kipper fleet I too have sent my complaint to the BBC.

[Pontius Navigator]

The news media is though, bye and large, responsive to peoples wishes, so had the MOD told the media that it was a Nimrod aircraft and then asked the media not to release that info until the next of kin had been informed, then the media would not have needed to speculate and would have just quoted the request. At least it would have been better for all concerned.

Good point. I will try and forward it tomorrow. And any other MCO hounds here too please.

In fact that is what we were taught. Don't b*llsh*t, don't lie and don't evade.

[nigegilb]

The MoD yesterday in its initial briefings would not even confirm if this aircraft was rotary or fixed wing. As it is in the nature of the media to speculate this was not a particularly sensible thing to do.

[tablet_eraser]

Just saw the news conference from Kinloss. In spite of the media relentlessy trying to pin some sort of blame on the entire fleet, continually asking questions about serviceability and whether the fleet would be grounded, both the Stn Cdr and OC 120 Sqn staged a dignified, respectful and honest press conference.

Well done, Sirs, and good luck for the days ahead.

Once again, my thoughts and prayers are with my friends and colleagues at Kinloss.

[Brewster Buffalo]

Just to move the thread on a bit and you were able to turn back the clock how do you think the BBC should have handled the news?

Do you think they should have said nothing until the type of aircraft was known - bearing in mind that other news agencies would be reporting the story at the same time and, probably, in the same fashion as the BBC did..

[Pontius Navigator]

Just to move the thread on a bit and you were able to turn back the clock how do you think the BBC should have handled the news?

I think if you look at Green Granite's post you will find the first part of the solution there.

The second part is to withdraw credentials from the media that don't play by the rules. Loss of official press releases would put them on the back foot and relying on 'public' transport would be a non-starter.

[Colonal Mustard]

Yes i do think the BBC should have held back by saying they did not know what type of A/C was involved!!!, i also felt the news conference was handled Extremely well by the G/C & W/C.. You have my heartfelt support for the days ahead, i collect my paper based on how much is stated fact rather than Speculation, the time i have spare in life is used to glean knowledge, not wasted on Guesswork... I still feel that if the beeb held back then more people would respect their compassion rather than has happened

[vecvechookattack]

Totally concur.... but we can't have our cake and eat it can we....If we ban the press then how can we give a press conference?

We need the press more than they need us and it is beholdant on the MOD press Office to get the facts right before they issue the release.

[Colonal Mustard]

Yes but i remember the days when it took two weeks for certain news to get back during the falklands campaign due to the MOD, nothing wrong with that in my eyes

[2close]

My heartfelt sympathy goes out to all involved, the RAF aircrew, the RM and Army personnel, their colleagues, friends and families. May they Rest in Peace.

Reading the thread and feeling the same anger as expressed by others towards both the Media and the MOD, and whilst not wishing or attempting to hijack the thread for my own purposes, I feel I have to at last publicise my own experience with the MOD.

I am an ex-serviceman (12 yrs regular service) and in 2003 both my brother and sister-in-law were serving with the Royal Military Police in southern Iraq.

I recieved a telephone call from a somewhat anguished mother during the evening of the murder of the six RMP soldiers, which at that point I was unaware of, not having watched the news that day.

I was the nominated NOK so felt quite satisfied that my brother would not have been involved, however, needed confirmation, particularly for my mother's sake. I don't think I would have the same confidence in the MOD / BBC NOK and reporting chain these days.

I telephoned the MOD Assistance Help-Line and explained the circumstances. The person on the other end said he would check the details. He was gone for a considerable period of time and thinking this information WOULD be at the fingertips of every operator I became increasingly concerned at the delay. He eventually came back and in the most sombre of voices (akin to the visit from the funeral director) he said, "Mr X. I've checked the list and I have to inform you.......(A pause followed of probably no more than a second but what seemed like a lifetime and during which I went through the most gut wrenching turmoil I have ever experienced, without any fear of self contradiction).........that your brother is not on the list of casualties".

Following quick confirmation I went downstairs, feeling physically exhausted and sick, and the look on my face made my partner think the worst.

I telephoned my mother and used a little more tact than the MOD but was hastily reminded that in my somewhat stunned relief I had forgotten to ask about my sister-in-law and had to repeat the exercise, thankfully with a more understanding operator.

I would describe myself as quite pragmatic and not easily upset but this event had a significant effect on me - I still feel quite sick thinking about it now. What sort of effect would it have had on someone given to emotional fragility?

What sort of training do these people receive? Don't they understand what poeple must be going through when they telephone for this information?
Pregnant pauses for effect are really not appreciated and serve no purpose other than to put someone through mental hell, for however short a period.



2close

[Photo]

Where do they drag these people up from?

In this case The Daily Telegraph.

[jammydonut]

It was revealed last week that the government employ an excessive number of PR people across the board and costing a couple of £billion....some departments were lucky to get a couple of press releases a year from 20 plus staff...:confused:

[L J R]

Finally, the MOD news site and BBC have an MR2 as the picture attached to the story.

[bombedup6]

The knee-jerk vitriol poured over the media on this issue says far more about the ignorance and thoughtlessness of those making the criticisms than it does of the press.
Consider, for instance, that it is Pentagon policy to announce the time, location AND AIRCRAFT TYPE of almost all military air cashes WITHIN ONE HOUR of the crash occurring. The exceptions are to protect the mission they are on, or any other special circumstances.
The MOD did not offer any such special circumstances in refusing to announce the aircraft type for six hours yesterday. It only said it wanted time to notify next of kin. (the Pentagon takes care of that by not releasing the names of those killed for 24 hours, under a two-year-old law. It separates that from naming aircraft type)
I believe other Nato nations and Australia generally follow US policy on aircraft types, which leaves the MoD isolated in the disclosure stakes.
You may rail against the media all you want - and very often you will be right - but not on this occasion because the aircraft type was singularly vital information, whose public absence actually made matters much worse for the families of all those who might have been travelling in an RAF plane over Afghanistan.
The Americans, at least, have long understood that absence of critical public information in the modern era of 24-hour news merely creates a vaccum which will be probably be filled by more damaging misinformation.
This is a fact of life, like the weather. Your time would be better filled lodging complaints at the MoD, not the BBC.

[brain fade]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that it was categorically stated to NOT be due to enemy action yet considerable confusion about what type was involved?

You'd think if they knew what had happened, they'd know what it had happened to.

[geraintw]

The problem with news media these days is that people want instant news as it happens and, unfortunately, all the outlets are competing. They all want to be first with the news and to give as much information to their audience. We all do it, as soon as we hear of a news story, we run to the internet or the TV; we want to know what's going on as it happens.
The trouble is, with breaking news, it's like shifting sands and the information coming in is changing all the time. I was working in TV on the day of 9/11 and when you saw what was coming in on the wires, it bore no relation to what the eventual outcome was. I've seen some things across all channels that have made me cringe, because I know it's not possible or have inside knowledge and I don't think that will change in the near future.
In the case of the correspondent, yes, his comments were probably extremely distressing for those directly affected. But, if he's had it from a 'reliable source' you may find that's journo speak for someone speaking off the record. i.e and I'm guessing here, it could be someone in the MOD had told him that but didn't want the comments attributed to him or her. That's usually how it works.

[jollygreenfunmachine]

Unfortunately a lot of journo's (not all) are more interested in furthering their own ambitions and careers and spend very little time considering the stress they are putting families through. Complaint made by me, i urge you all to do the same, that way someone might learn from this. I have pasted CM's complaint here again and the web site addrees to save you searching for it.


Having heard with sadness at the loss today of the nimrod aircraft in Afghanistan, I must say that I am utterly disappointed at the “speculation” produced during the various BBC News features on the radio & Television, The comments suggested that the aircraft “could be a Chinook" then later to include a hercules.
By this single element of reporting this has ensured that UK families of the Chinook & Hercules crews based in Afghanistan suffered prolonged distress in the belief that a knock on the door was a possibility, This may also have had an opposite effect on the families of Nimrod crews who upon hearing from Mr Wood that it was “not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here” may have in turn caused them further unnecessary distress by suggesting their loved ones were safe. I feel that the BBC have overstepped the mark in Investigative Journalism and finally begun to follow the majority of other broadcasters by including speculation into their reporting when a number of years ago they would simply have said “until officially informed by the ministry of defence we are unable to confirm what type of aircraft was involved”, I for one will be seeking an official apology to be broadcast, and for a much more sensitive BBC to be returned.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

[tablet_eraser]

bombedup,

You make an interesting point, but I think you go too far by implying our ignorance in the issue.

Maybe it is indeed time for the MOD to change its policy; whatever happens with reference to disclosure, however, it is still reckless and damaging to speculate on the aircraft type, bringing intense fear of bereavement to families of Chinook and Hercules crew-members. Acknowledge, at least, the fact that the BBC and other media failed to consider the impact of their speculation.

[brain fade]

I hope it's not going to be seen as unsympathetic or insensitive to raise the issue of what actually happened to this a/c. If it is I'll delete this.

The MoD seemed very quick to rule out enemy action here.

If it was hit by a Stinger, left there by the Americans, this accident could be one red-hot political potato. Does anyone actually know it was a 'technical' issue and if so, what exactly?

It's known that the Taliban have Stingers and the Stinger recovery program continues to this day.

[LFFC]

Out of respect for those lost, I didn't intend to join in any discussions today. But I feel that I have to reply to bombedup6.

The knee-jerk vitriol poured over the media on this issue says far more about the ignorance and thoughtlessness of those making the criticisms than it does of the press.

Consider, for instance, that it is Pentagon policy to announce the time, location AND AIRCRAFT TYPE of almost all military air cashes WITHIN ONE HOUR of the crash occurring. The exceptions are to protect the mission they are on, or any other special circumstances.

The MOD did not offer any such special circumstances in refusing to announce the aircraft type for six hours yesterday. It only said it wanted time to notify next of kin. (the Pentagon takes care of that by not releasing the names of those killed for 24 hours, under a two-year-old law. It separates that from naming aircraft type)
I believe other Nato nations and Australia generally follow US policy on aircraft types, which leaves the MoD isolated in the disclosure stakes.

First of all, you have to remember that the British military are so much smaller in scale than the US military. Whilst the US policy of releasing the aircraft type may well put many minds at rest, anyone hearing that news who has a loved one operating on that type will usually still have the knowledge that he/she is one of many doing so. Due to our smaller scale, that is not necessarily true about RAF operations.

Personally, I didn't like the way that the MOD released the initial casualty details. Giving away the service disposition of the casualties somewhat gave the game away to me and perhaps to many others who also have a little knowledge. But I'm sure that there must have been a good reason for doing that - so at this stage, we should just let people greave in their own way. Some will be angry (that's natural) and vent that anger in all directions. So please don't argue with them.

[peppermint_jam]

Smoking hot letter of complaint and outrage dispatched to the BBC. Whilst I know it is human nature to speculate, the speculations of these people have caused unecessary worry in the friends and family of just about all of our servicemen in Afganistan. The fact that they stated it was most likely a Chinook, or possibly a Herc, means that just about any serviceman/woman in the country could have been on it. Can people that start such speculation be punished by law?

[vecvechookattack]

As always in these sad situations there is the reaction following the event. I have had experience in post accident contact with relatives and it is the worst job in NATO and I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy.

But, is there a right way to do this? Any ideas? Which is the best way to deal with the press / Families etc? Is there a right way?

[cazatou]

Ladies (for I taught JG to fly her first Sqn Type) & Gentlemen,

Whilst I agree that certain elements of the Press appear to have drastically overstepped the mark in "guessing" which type of aircraft was involved; the delay in specifying the aircraft type will surely will be laid at the door of MOD by the Politicians to protect themselves. I suggest that at MOD there is the very reasonable fear that some of our aircraft are so antedeluvian that they may just fall apart.

I note that the 2nd Nimrod prototype (XV 147 fitted with Avon engines) made its first flight on my 21st Birthday. Tomorrow my Wife, who is younger than myself, qualifies for the UK State Pension. To put that into perspective regarding time; it is like trying to fight the Korean War with BE2C's and Maurice Farman Shorthorns!!

Which particular Party (whilst in Government) has consistantly ignored calls for equipment updates, refurbishment and replacement, on grounds of cost? Who has paid, and are still paying, the cost of that Policy? Regrettably, to be fair, the answer to the first question is BOTH major parties. We ALL know the answer to the second question.

Now, more than ever before since WW2, we NEEDa cross party consensus regarding Defence based on REQUIREMENTS not cost.

Rant over for today.

[jumpseater]

Regarding the cause of the accident, do these aircraft have 'black boxes' similar to those in comparable sized civil aircraft?

[Roland Pulfrew]

Regarding the cause of the accident, do these aircraft have 'black boxes' similar to those in comparable sized civil aircraft?

No and Yes. Not a black box as per civil airliners but a different and less crash worthy recorder.

Complaint submitted to the BBC. Anyone got a link for Sky complaints?

[Ian Corrigible]

Sky News complaints weblink is http://news.sky.com/skynews/feedback/enquiry/0,,,00.html

Channel 4 still thinks it's a Russian An-32 turboprop: http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=18333861 :hmm:

I/C

[Stumpy1000]

I/C
ITN are showing the same pic. Bothe claim the pic is provided by Reuters.

[dope05]

IMHO nimrods dont crash- their crews are too clever for that ---

condolences to all and the sooner we get all our forces out of this stupid situtation ( including Irac) the better

Tony B Liar is the biggest Idiot this country has ever produced----


I have 4 sons all between 11 and 16 and I have forbibben then to even consider joining the armed forces---they will just be used as cannon fodder for some stupid politican's own agenda

[Wwyvern]

Operating Question. I have absolutely no experience of operating large military aircraft. Would the crew and supernumeries have personal parachutes on board?

[tablet_eraser]

Not when I've flown with the mighty hunter on maritime patrol missions. Maybe other PPRuNers have different information for OOA ops, though.

[enginesuck]

No they dont.

Besides i doubt if it were possible even if they did - what with how the a/c doors are situated.

correct me if im wrong.

[SRENNAPS]

Most of you are having a good go at the media, and quite rightly so. They have been doing this for years. But don’t forget they do this with “ALL” stories. You are all having a dig because you understand the subject being talked about. Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally – why? - because most people in this country believe everything they are told. That is why the newspapers will continue to be sold and most people will watch BBC, ITN,or Sky news to get info. And by the way “Most people love speculation!!!!”
The main thing that annoys me is the way Dez Browne and the Government are so keen to say that it was not caused by hostile action. He said yesterday that we must not speculate, yet whet straight on to say that it was “probably” not caused by hostile fire. I might be thick – but is that not speculation???
If it was not by hostile fire, can they wash their hands of any responsibility?????.
I don’t care if it was hostile fire or an accident. The fact is that friends and families are hurting because they are no longer with us.
Finally, yes I have had a few and quite frankly I am sick of loosing friends and colleagues from our Royal Air Force. My thoughts go to all involved in this sad loss.

[Pontius Navigator]

Doors open inward. No chutes. You would need a shute like the KC135/E3 otherwise the wing, engines and tail rather get in the way.

We fought long and hard even to get immersion suits as the ditching model sustained something like 25g on the cockpit and broke up. At 200 feet you would pile in or climb safely away on one engine.

We got the suits about 1979-80 and Art Stacey proved the aircraft could ditch.

Noel Anthony (I think) also proved it could be crash landed too albeit the pilots both died.

[Pontius Navigator]

Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally – why? - .

<<Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally –>>

Er no actually we don't as our knowledge of known reportage gives us a healthy mistrust of both media and politicians.

<<because you understand the subject being talked about.>> And distrust news where we don't.

<<because most people in this country believe everything they are told>> This, OTOH may be truer.

[wub]

ITV teletext is calling Father Ivan Boyle, the RC Chaplain at Kinloss, the station 'Padraig'.

[SRENNAPS]

Pontius Navigator:

Good reply. Some of us can read between the lines when it comes to news stories. Sadly an awful lot cannot.

[FormerFlake]

Names have been released:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/FourteenPersonnelInAfghanistanNimrodCrashNamed.htm

[GasFitter]

http://www.fanforhire.com/images/comical_ali.jpg

:ugh:

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

"Doors open inward. No chutes. You would need a shute like the KC135/E3 otherwise the wing, engines and tail rather get in the way."

Pontius,

Please forgive me, as I am not having a go, merely pointing out a technicality for the benefit of accuracy.

The E3 does have a shoot, however on the RAF version this has been locked up ( or so I am reliably informed ).

Clear Right, Pressures Good!

[Pontius Navigator]

[QUOTE=Clear Right,Px Good!;2822446]"Doors open inward. No chutes. You would need a shute like the KC135/E3 otherwise the wing, engines and tail rather get in the way."

Er I think I said that. Sorry for mis-spelling CHUTE.

It is probably as well the chute escape on the E3D is locked as they do not carry parachutes.

[reddeathdrinker]

Well, the media circus (or vultures, whatever) are slowly dwindling away from the ISK main gate.

On a technical note, the problem that caused 666 to ditch in '95 was fixed shortly after the incident, the other crashes were birdstrike (1980) and pilot error (1995). The St Mawgan incident mentioned earlier in this thread made it back to the runway, as I believe.

I can't imagine what the guys at their operating base are feeling right now.....

[Pontius Navigator]

Now that the list of names has been released the pundits will be able to write a few more paper-selling pages in their quest for the truth.



Sorry, I meant sales. Let's not feed them any lines.

[GreenKnight121]

Green Granite wrote: "had the MOD told the media that it was a Nimrod aircraft and then asked the media not to release that info until the next of kin had been informed, then the media would not have needed to speculate and would have just quoted the request."

No, the media would have immediately reported everything the MOD told them (claiming afterwords that "If we hadn't someone else would have") and then started asking "what are they trying to hide by asking us to withhold this info"!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

[John Blakeley]

According to one BBC report the aircraft was operating from Oman and at high level when the pilot made an emergency transmission. Another report quoted a local tribal chief that flares were being fired shortly before the accident. Mr Browne says it was a technical cause. The Taliban claim to have shot it down. Was the aircraft on emergency diversion to Kandahar following technical problems - if so did it have MWS, DAS and CMDS fitted? It is easy to generate a scenario where all the reports (other than the despicable inaccurate quoting of aircraft type) are correct! Speculation, including mine, is not good for anyone so let us hope that MOD comes up with a satisfactory explanation as quickly as possible - we are after all still waiting for the Hercules story!

Wrong thread, but my deepest condolences to all the families including the non-RAF members of the crew.

JB

[RudolphHucker]

Has anyone stated which airframe it was?

[reddeathdrinker]

Has anyone stated which airframe it was?

No. Nothing yet. Not even those of us that work on the Nimrod know yet.

[fly_high]

Before I submit a more formal application under the Freedom of Information Act for the actions taken under this totally reprehensible report...

If you check out the BBC's FoI website you will see that certain "exemptions apply to the BBC, in addition to the specific exclusion of material held for the purposes of "journalism, art or literature".

Your FoI request possibly falls under the scope of journalism so they might not be able to disclose any documents to you.

You might like to try contacting the BBC Editors' Blog (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/) which lets you comment on current stories and reporting styles, and perhaps allows for some response. Many of the editors often write some pretty insightful commentaries revealing decisions that go on behind-the-scenes.

[Safeware]

Watched the Press Conference on the BBC website. My god, what the temptation to tell the journos to p*ss off with their ignorant questions must have been! Couldn't take the hint when the Staish said he wasn't going to talk about ops could they.

sw

[passpartout]

What is also slightly worrying is that we've noted all the complete b!"£$%ks that's been written about this.

So, presumably what hese worms and their colleagues write on all sorts of topics is equally accurate...?

[green granite]

No, the media would have immediately reported everything the MOD told them (claiming afterwords that "If we hadn't someone else would have") and then started asking "what are they trying to hide by asking us to withhold this info"!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

GreenKnight121 Your proof of that statement please, they frequently withhold info about police ops when requested to so do, after being fully briefed on it.

[RAF_Techie101]

Possible theory based on some information, is that the aircraft developed a fire shortly after AAR, then diverted to Kandahar, crashing 15 miles from it. again, only speculation based on a few things I've heard from various people.

Either way, it has to something major due to the aircraft's incredible redundancy.

on the topic of other crashes, XV231 had a controlled landing at St MOrgan when one main U/C failed to lock down. Leg collapsed on landing, but aircraft repaired and still dlying today, albeit with a note in the book that the leg in question doesn't completely fit right.

Nimrod Liney, father Ex 120 Wet man

[nigegilb]

There was something of a frenzy about the scramble for information yesterday. When the dust has settled a little after this terrible event the media will still have a very useful role to play. It is important that the Govt comes under scrutiny for the war in Afghanistan. Because it is a war, it is being reported that RoE have just changed. When the deployment was first presented to Parliament one of the roles for British troops was defensive counter insurgency. It was clearly stated that our troops would not be involved in offensive ops. Well the Op in which this brave crew were involved in was most definitely offensive in nature. Furthermore there has been a significant increase in poppy production in Afg. Has the Govt now reined back from overseeing crop eradication? If so, what the hell is this Operation all about? Neither the press nor the MoD have handled the intial reporting of this tragedy in a satisfactory manner. But it should be noted that the free press in the UK have been more impressive challenging Govt policy than the official opposition.

The MoD should immediately clear up the circumstances of this tragedy. We have all had enough spin to last a lifetime, furnish us with facts otherwise further speculation about this accident will be difficult to prevent.

[The Gorilla]

Sky news - contradiction in terms rather like British Intelligence, are reporting tonight that the whole Nimrod Fleet is grounded TFN. Does any one know if this is true or have they made it up?
TG

[Sunfish]

If journalists know nothing about RAF aircraft or operations then whose fault is that? Furthermore, in the absence of hard information, journalists will speculate. How many newspapers would you sell if your newspaper was simply blank because you couldn't confirm something?

Perhaps if the RAF were able to provide timely, pertinent and understandable information on its activities to journalists as well as a limited amount of education, the press would produce a more informed product.

There is another reason the MoD may have been somewhat slow and reticent about this crash. Saturday was the first day of "Operation Medusa" (reported in the press here today) which is going on as we speak.

I can well imagine that the location, cause and other details were, and still are, sensitive operational information.

To put it another way, what happens if some clown in the midlands sees and hears a whole lot on TV (or Pprune for that matter) and then picks up a satellite phone and calls his mate in Afghanistan?

[Pontius Navigator]

RAF Tech 101 please see PM, which I wrote before seeing Sunfish's comment.

[crashsite]

If journalists know nothing about RAF aircraft or operations then whose fault is that? Furthermore, in the absence of hard information, journalists will speculate. How many newspapers would you sell if your newspaper was simply blank because you couldn't confirm something?
Perhaps if the RAF were able to provide timely, pertinent and understandable information on its activities to journalists as well as a limited amount of education, the press would produce a more informed product.

Do we actually care what journalists report, much less trust them? Another set of people who need us to go abroad and sort out the tougher side of UK foreign policy and then merrily stab us in the back when it suits them to improve their market share! Journalists and politicians...2 sides of the same coin??
Let the Board of Inquiry do its work and once they are as certain as they can be of what caused this accident, they will report in full. With so much media interest, the public will get to see all but the parts that are ultimately sensitive due to ongoing ops.

[Daf Hucker]

I can remember 3 other Nimrod crashes and possibly 3 incidents:
Into the woods at Kinloss - 2 killed
Canada - 5 killed?
R1 into Moray Firth - no fatalities

Undercarriage collapse at St Mawgan - no fatalities
Bombay fire - no fatalities

I also seem to have a vague memory of being told that there was another undercarriage collape in Malta in a 203 Sqn Nimrod, must have been early 70s anybody else remember?

Condolences to all the families involved, OC 120 looked absolutely devastated at the News Conference. :sad:

Daf

[reddeathdrinker]

Sky news - contradiction in terms rather like British Intelligence, are reporting tonight that the whole Nimrod Fleet is grounded TFN. Does any one know if this is true or have they made it up?
TG

Made up, until we hear otherwise. (I work 1st line on Nimrods) There may well be a day or two of "quiet" after the weekends events though.

[Joe Black]

Daf,

I'm sure it were 7 which were unfortunatley killed in Canada,
JB

[fly_high]

It seems a bit harsh to criticise the media for speculation in instances like this when internet forums are awash with people's views and theories - some informed, many not.

These forums are publically accessible just like our television, radio and newspapers and there's every chance an uninformed relative could be browsing the internet as there is them watching TV or listening to the radio.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sky news - contradiction in terms rather like British Intelligence, are reporting tonight that the whole Nimrod Fleet is grounded TFN. Does any one know if this is true or have they made it up?
TG

As it was a Sunday and probably no SAROPS it would not be unusual for there to be no flying. It is also not unheard of for a technical standdown after an unknown incident. Add 2 and 2 and you get the certainty that all the aircraft have been grounded.

Maybe there will be some flying tomorrow. Maybe technical inspections were carried out over the weekend. Who knows? Me? I would almost bet on flying tomorrow.

[The Gorilla]

Red and guys

Thank you yes I thought as much!

regards
TG

[Pontius Navigator]

It seems a bit harsh to criticise the media for speculation in instances like this when internet forums are awash with people's views and theories - some informed, many not.

These forums are publically accessible just like our television, radio and newspapers and there's every chance an uninformed relative could be browsing the internet as there is them watching TV or listening to the radio.

By chance I stumbled upon the news of the Toronto crash as it happened and contacted ISK but they had heard just as quickly. In this case it was 'true'.

In the AG the thrust was simply that the MOD should have asked for a complete embargo on type/numbers. Maybe the release of numbers and services was a mistake by the MOD. Maybe that too could be attributed to the news breaking on Saturday?

[RudolphHucker]

After the first crash in the woods when the two pilots were killed, the following day all the crews of all the Sqns were "encouraged" to get airborne. Albeit that that crash was the result of multiple bird ingestions in all engines seconds after rotate, there was no fear of a fleetwide problem and the powers that be wanted everyone to get "back on the bike" as soon as poss. I would like to think that the flying programme will continue as normal.

[Snow Dog]

I would fly tomorrow.

[Embedded101]

Nigegilb, Sunfish, fly_high, green_granite and others – thank you for showing understanding and respect, offering a bit of reasoned thought about the media, and not resorting to trashy generalisations and squalid insults.

When it comes to uninformed opinion, shooting mouths off before checking facts, professional disrespect, and outright bullsh!t, some of the people here have outperformed even the worst tabloids, in my view.

I’m not planning on commenting on the Nimrod accident, under this or my usual Prune name. I know nothing about it.

But I will say that, as someone who’s had to work in conflict zones, that in my experience the military has a lot of patience with journalists, and I’ve been lucky to build a good relationship where each side respects the other’s abilities and professionalism. It’s ex-military, ex-RAF guys who’ve helped give us a solid grounding in survival tactics before we’ve been sent anywhere. You fellas know who we are – thanks. I already owe you a couple of beers.

They, and many in the service, know that we’re just trying to do a good job, and are vulnerable to becoming casualties of war in the process (nearly 80 in Iraq alone so far) and give us whatever support they can. I’m one of those who hopes we’re doing our best to return that respect with reporting which is as accurate as it can be, while trying to balance every other consideration alongside.

Those of you who think journalism is about reviewing Corrie in the Sun, I'd invite you to visit http://www.cpj.org/ and learn a little about why it's a profession I'm proud to follow.

One more thing: we have families too. Whenever I leave, the worry in my wife’s eyes is genuine. If I’m as unlucky as one of the dozens of guys – servicemen, journalists, civilians and others – who haven’t made it back, I wonder if any of the posters here will brave enough to ring her up after the funeral and telling her that her husband was just ‘scum’?

[brain fade]

Embedded
I hope no one describes any serviceman as 'scum' or 'lowlife' .

The real lowlifes are the folk who sent you there, but that has always been the case and probably always will be.

[smugley]

Snow Dog.
So would I.

[Mighty Norman]

Nigegilb, Sunfish, fly_high, green_granite and others – thank you for showing understanding and respect, offering a bit of reasoned thought about the media, and not resorting to trashy generalisations and squalid insults.

When it comes to uninformed opinion, shooting mouths off before checking facts, professional disrespect, and outright bullsh!t, some of the people here have outperformed even the worst tabloids, in my view.

I’m not planning on commenting on the Nimrod accident, under this or my usual Prune name. I know nothing about it.

But I will say that, as someone who’s had to work in conflict zones, that in my experience the military has a lot of patience with journalists, and I’ve been lucky to build a good relationship where each side respects the other’s abilities and professionalism. It’s ex-military, ex-RAF guys who’ve helped give us a solid grounding in survival tactics before we’ve been sent anywhere. You fellas know who we are – thanks.

They, and many in the service, know that we’re just trying to do a good job, and are just as vulnerable to becoming casualties of war in the process (nearly 80 in Iraq alone so far) and give us whatever support they can. I’m one of those who hopes we’re doing our best to return that respect with reporting which is as accurate as it can be, while trying to balance every other consideration alongside.

One more thing: we have families too. Whenever I leave, the worry in my wife’s eyes is genuine. If I’m as unlucky as one of the dozens of guys – servicemen, journalists, civilians and others – who haven’t made it back, I wonder if any of the brave, anonymous contributors here will feel like ringing her up and telling her that her husband was just ‘lowlife’ and ‘scum’?

Embedded...I for one praise the media for what you attempt to do. I have sat and watched this incident progress, awaiting any snippet of info I could. Apart from the initial misinformation about type, the reports have been spot on. Not one of us military-types can blame the press (on the whole) for reporting an inaccuracy. You just pass on what is gleaned at the time...and 'at the time' is the key phrase. MY issue is with the 'so-called' experts that appear to paid for spouting utter horsesh*t from time to time. today we have had it on 'good authority' that this is likely to be a Chinook...cue panic amongst wives, kids, nearest and dearest at Chinny central.......we've heard that the Nimrod is 'the quietest' of aircraft that is why we are 'spy' planes......anyone in the Forres area care to comment on the apparent peace and tranquil area that surrounds Kinloss when Norman is doing circuits??

Please continue to do your most worthwhile and informative work, information we ALL rely upon, but ask your editors to pause and catch a breath before jumping into making comments that has many families panic and go through purgatory awaiting the news that thier loved ones are ok.

Please please, please either don't seek 'specialist' comment or seek it from those who have succeded in their military careers and are not either famous for crashing jets or have just escaped from the Queens building at Heathrow with a cv of mere tail-numbers (yes, yes...I was there too):)

Finally, when's the Falcon bar open guys?

Endurance.............OMG

[oldfella]

Just back and catching up on the news.
BBC News 24. It's enough to make you weep! Good vid of a Hercules landing on a sand strip - the commentary - A Nimrod, like this one, which crashed yesterday.

[Nov71]

My condolences also to the families.
My first thought was Chinook, didn't even consider Nimrod, based on operational reliability etc, though RAF casualties sould have been a clue.
Let the ill-informed conjecture and hope the facts are swiftly made public

[Surf Girl!]

So sad hearing this news.

I was never interested in MOD work and would skip past it in the newspapers until we started doing work for you guys, mainly flying you out to asi and mpn.

I'll never forget one flight I did to Qatar seeing all the guys going out there, some of them looked scared to death, they all looked so young. News like this always makes me think of that flight and all those guys and their families.

I've met some great guys in asi and mpn and stayed intouch with a few. I know one guy is out in afghan at the moment and news like this makes you want to get intouch. I tried to text earlier but mobile number isnt recognised... I dont know how the families at home cope when news like this comes up, especially when it takes so long to get the story right.

Anyway, just wanted to say I have so much more respect for you guys now.

Thoughts are with family and friends of the 14 guys and also with you guys working out there putting your own lives at risk. XXX

[c130 alm]

My heart sank when I heard the news on the radio. Fearing we had lost another herc and memories of XV179 going down. I know lots of guys at Kinloss and my thoughts go out to all of them and their families. Another sad sad day for the military.

Rest in peace guys.

[TheShadow]

Another report quoted a local tribal chief that flares were being fired shortly before the accident.
Does anyone know whether IR decoy flares
a. are fitted?
b. would be fired en masse as an SOP prior to a forced landing?
Imagine that some pyros (such as a marker marine, retro etc) would be carried in case of a divert overwater SAR mission. Any history of these cooking off inside the pressurized fuselage and creating a disposal problem at height? Are any IR decoy flares carried for reloading from internal stocks (i.e.reloading on the ground at a deployment/forward base?).
Apart from the pyros, the high-level problem followed by an emerg descent has all the hallmarks of a land ASAP electrical fire. Either scenario is supported by the indigenous person quoted as saying that there was a fire in the rear of the aircraft shortly before it impacted some few hundreds of yards from him.

[reddeathdrinker]

Does anyone know whether IR decoy flares
a. are fitted?

It is, again, common knowledge. Do a Google search (text or image)for "Nimrod BOZ" Or look at pictures of Nimrods on airliners.net ( http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1095476/L/ or http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1010553/L/ for example). Not just fitted to slow them down, you know.....as well as the in-built AN/ALE-40 launcer.


b. would be fired en masse as an SOP prior to a forced landing?


Not being handsome, witty, charming, and well paid (ie Aircrew), couldn't say for sure. I'd like to bloody think so though.


Imagine that some pyros (such as a marker marine, retro etc) would be carried in case of a divert overwater SAR mission. Any history of these cooking off inside the pressurized fuselage and creating a disposal problem at height?


I've never seen pyrotechnics carried internally (such as a marker marine, retro etc), either on training, or in theatre. That's what the bomb bay is for. There is a flare gun in the cockpit, and a small number of coloured flares, but that's it. No big secret there either.


Are any IR decoy flares carried for reloading from internal stocks (i.e.reloading on the ground at a deployment/forward base?).


No. Decoy flares are treated as any other explosive, under the usual strict control at the FOB. Not carried internally, even in-theatre.


Apart from the pyros, the high-level problem followed by an emerg descent has all the hallmarks of a land ASAP electrical fire. Either scenario is supported by the indigenous person quoted as saying that there was a fire in the rear of the aircraft shortly before it impacted some few hundreds of yards from him.


Speculation. Could be any one of a number of causes. Fuel, conditioning, electrics, pressurisation, heating systems yadda yadda yadda. That's what the BOI will hopefully find out.

[OVERTALK]

AKA KAPTON - the Nimrod is full of it

'On-board fire' caused fatal Afghan crash
From correspondents in London
September 04, 2006
THE aircraft crash in Afghanistan that killed 14 British military personnel on Saturday was caused by an on-board fire, it was reported today.

According to The Times, citing an unnamed military source, a short circuit inside the aircraft caused a spark leading to a fire, with smoke engulfing the work stations of the men on board.
Meanwhile, The Sun newspaper reported that fire warning detectors went off, with flames damaging the fuselage and disabling the Nimrod MR2's controls.
A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would not comment on the reports, saying only that: "The indications are that there was a technical problem of some sort".
The Royal Air Force Nimrod MR2 reconnaissance plane, on a NATO mission, came down in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan on Saturday.
The military is investigating the disaster, which led to the single biggest loss of British troops in Afghanistan or Iraq since the US-led war on terror was launched in November 2001.
Twelve RAF personnel, a Royal Marine and a British Army soldier were killed.
The incident brings the number of British armed forces personnel deaths in Afghanistan since the start of operations against the hardline Taliban regime in 2001 to 36, including 15 in combat.
Based on the Comet, which more than 50 years ago was the world's first jet airliner, the Nimrod was introduced into RAF service in 1969 and upgraded to the N2 in the 1980s.

[reddeathdrinker]

AKA KAPTON - the Nimrod is full of it

.... The Times, citing an unnamed military source, a short circuit inside the aircraft caused a spark leading to a fire, with smoke engulfing the work stations of the men on board.


Of course. That must be it. I'll pop off and tell the BOI not to bother then.

Unnamed military source my arse. Pure speculation again. :ugh:

Please stop it, it's not big, clever, or in any way helpful.

[GreenKnight121]

So much for responsible journalists waiting for official info...

Personal experience shows that cooperation of the press with requests for delays in reporting is directly related to closeness of the events to the press in question, and to the press' approval of the actions and the agency taking those actions.

Police matters in the "hometown" nearly always (with a few glaring exceptions) get full cooperation, but military operations overseas which the press in question already oppose (such as is currently the case) rarely get such consideration.


This is from 8 years on active USMC service, and 17 subsequent years of interested and close observation.

Yes, many of the embedded/"frontline" media are responsible and careful in their reporting, but most of what hits the headlines are written by home-office jerks (writers & editors) who let their personal views regulate their coverage. Those embedded types usually only get their stuff published in the "back-page follow-up" sections (or late-night analysis shows on the telly).



And yes, I still remember the BEEB reports from early in OIF on the "bloodthirsty USAF planes bombing schools & hospitals"... which was proven wrong when the ground forces went in.

Did the BEEB apologize or even issue a retraction? No, they just claimed "it still happened, the US must have bribed/intimidated the locals into staying quiet"!

[eal401]

Unnamed military source my arse. Pure speculation again.
What an ironic quote. "Pure speculation" following a speculated comment.

Can I ask all the people slagging off the media for "not having any knowledge" what experience they have had of news reporting to base these comments on?

As for using the deaths of so-called colleagues for point-scoring against the media, whatever they have or haven't done, is 100,000 times more disrespectful and sickening than any actions on their part.

[nav attacking]

Please everyone stop all the speculation and slagging off.

Everybody is trying to carry on and do their job. Before anybody writes anything in this forum before the BOI has published they should seriously think of the effect that this conjecture has upon the families and friends of those who died.

Right now there are a lot of people at ISK trying to come to terms with the loss of loved ones and collegues.

Please have the respect to leave the professionals on the BOI to come up with the answers, if in deed they can in the circumstances. It is understandable to want answers right now but they should come given time. Have faith in the system. Those of us left at ISK have to, after all we will be flying again in the old girl soon.

[phil gollin]

Green Granite wrote: "had the MOD told the media that it was a Nimrod aircraft and then asked the media not to release that info until the next of kin had been informed, then the media would not have needed to speculate and would have just quoted the request."

No, the media would have immediately reported everything the MOD told them (claiming afterwords that "If we hadn't someone else would have") and then started asking "what are they trying to hide by asking us to withhold this info"!!!!!!!!!!!
:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:


The media are very used to working with "Press Embargos" for all sorts of information, from Company Reports through to new advertising campaigns. How do you think those "knowledgeable" reporters suddenly know everything about a new product or a companies record losses or profits within minutes of the news officially being released ?

I think the idea of getting the BBC and ITV reporters "on-side" and reporting things with inside information rather than keeping them in the relative dark would help both the services and the public, as well as earning "brownie points" with the media themselves. One reason given for NOT doing this is that all media outlets should be treated equally, but that just means the relatively good suffer for the sins of the slugs.

[RubiC Cube]

[QUOTE=Pontius Navigator;2822364]We fought long and hard even to get immersion suits as the ditching model sustained something like 25g on the cockpit and broke up. At 200 feet you would pile in or climb safely away on one engine.
We got the suits about 1979-80 and Art Stacey proved the aircraft could ditch.
QUOTE]

I must be going senile, but I thought we had them before I left in 78. I also remember that we fought long and hard for the quick don suits as worn by the cloggies.

[John Blakeley]

See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1302282006

Speculation or MOD "leak" re comments on air/ground crew actions?

JB

[Pontius Navigator]

QUOTE]I must be going senile, but I thought we had them before I left in 78. I also remember that we fought long and hard for the quick don suits as worn by the cloggies.[/QUOTE]

Rubic, I said about, it was 27 years ago for . . .

I was there after 1978, you left in 1978 therefore 1978 is a 'fixed' time marker. I am sure you are right, no question of senility.

[Yellow Sun]

Time dims the memory, but I seem to recall that although it had been discussed for some time the catalyst for the provision of the QD suits was the Dutch Atlantique ditching on 15 Jan 81, Accident Report Here (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19810115-1&lang=fr). I am pretty certain that we did not have them before that incident.

We received the QD suits within a year of this event. I complained at the time about the length of time it was taking to provide them and queried why we did not just buy the US suits (as used by the Dutch) "off the shelf". In the end the Beaufort suit we got was a far superior item, glad they waited in this case.

YS

[highcirrus]

Daily Telegraph, 4 September 2006

"Flames were coming from the tail," said Niaz Mohammed Sarhadi, the district chief of Panj-wayi. "It was flying very high, maybe 10,000ft. As it fell there were flares from both sides." The Taliban spokesman, Abdul Khaliq, claimed the plane had been brought down by a Stinger missile. But Mr Browne told BBC1's Sunday AM: "The Taliban regularly lie in response to events in Afghanistan.

As indeed does New Labour, in response to events in Afghanistan and many other places!

[Wader2]

Reddeaththinker please see PM

[ORAC]

"Flames were coming from the tail," said Niaz Mohammed Sarhadi, the district chief of Panj-wayi. "It was flying very high, maybe 10,000ft. As it fell there were flares from both sides."

I imagine burning molten metal might well look like flares as it fell away. :(

[enginesuck]

I imagine that if faced with an emergency landing, one might want to jettison the flares in the air rather than land with them causing greater risk to the crew / emergency crews.:confused:

[Wayitup]

I imagine burning molten metal might well look like flares as it fell away. :(You have a very vivid imagination...:= :=

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Pardon my speculation, but if the technical fault is an electrical one that caused the fire, then...

1. It would be a very brave man who gave the nod for a Nimrod to fly again, ever.
2. We will see a campaign that will dwarf the 'Parliamentary questions...' thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

Sir Peter, are you aircrew?

I think you are but a moment's reflection would reveal that we would not have a single aircraft flying if we grounded each fleet after a technical failure.

Comet, Hastings, Buccanneer, Vulcan, F4 and I am sure many more have all had catastrophic failures. Identifiable failures are cureable - at cost. The cost was what grounded the Valiant not the failure.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

PM for PN

Crew, not Aircrew. Ex-Nimrods.

[D-IFF_ident]

I hate to speculate, but I'm going to. Should the impending inquiry find that this accident has its routes in a Kapton wiring arc, as Art Stacey's incident did in May 1995, then it will surely become imperative, regardless of cost, to replace the wiring in our aging fleets, or replace the fleets. Three of the four major military establishments in the USA started replacing Kapton in the late 90s and there is evidence of over 300 Kapton related accidents/incidents readily available to research on the net. Our government were taking an interest in Kapton wiring by 1999, as can be seen here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991209/text/91209w01.htm
Should Kapton be the cause in this case then I expect the repercussions to be substantial. In the meantime I feel desperately for the families and friends and hope you all get the answers you need, and soon.

With apologies to those who hate the speculation.

[The Swinging Monkey]

D-IFF Ident
I don't think you are correct about Art's bit of magic old bean. As I recall, his aircraft had a starter motor problem, in that it wouldn't stop! and eventually caught fire. The rest is history.
I will refrain from speculating, its just not worth it under the circumstances and frankly, anyone who knows anything about the MR2 will know that it could have been one of a number of things thast went wrong. Although I do understand the need for folks to talk openly about what might have happened, I think it best that we leave it to the experts to come up with the facts.
Kind regards to all
TSM

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

You're both half right.

A chaffing wire short-circuited causing the Air Start Valve to open, spinning up the Starter Motor to self destruction, the turbine shooting through a fuel tank. Not Krapton though.

[reddeathdrinker]

You're both half right.

A chaffing wire short-circuited causing the Air Start Valve to open, spinning up the Starter Motor to self destruction, the turbine shooting through a fuel tank. Not Krapton though.

And that's why all Nimrod starter motors are fitted with overspeed cut-out switches now.


The CDS has also confirmed that the crew reported a technical problem, connected with a fire, just after refuelling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5314358.stm

[Safety_Helmut]

I imagine most of you that are posting on here have access to the defence intranet, so instead of speculating (guessing) about previous accident causes, why not read the reports. They ara available back to 1992 on the Strike website.

They should be compulsory reading for all involved in aviation safety ! Read the report on XW666, yes you're right about the short circuit, yes you're right about the retaining nut failing, but read it more deeply, and look for the management failings. Known problem from 20 years previously, not sorted !

Safety_Helmut

[Pontius Navigator]

Sir Peter's Lovechild, BTW, love the name. Did you ever meet daddy?:}

Met him once incognito. He had a black beard as disquise. As a 2* friend commented, he now looked just like Sir Peter Harding with beard.

[tablet_eraser]

Sir Glenn Torpy is Chief of the Air Staff, NOT the Defence Staff. Will the BBC ever get it right? Oddly, he was introduced correctly on Newsnight earlier.

[The Gorilla]

Yes and he had the look of a rabbit caught on a dark night staring into the headlights of an oncoming truck! Why do we supposes that is?

[Agaricus bisporus]

"Onboard fire" could as easily be an official fib as an accurate description of what actually happenend. The MoD and Govt would be most reluctant to admit to a shootdown until it becomes impossible to prevent the knowledge getting out, not least to prevent the inevitable triumphalism of the baddies, and the result of a missile (be it rocket, lucky shell or whatever) strike would very likely result in an "onboard fire" so its not so far from the truth either way.

Anyway, I suppose it was a MR2, and not, well, another sort of Nimrod?

They surely wouldn't want to admit losing one of those out in wild n' woolly land, with the bits strewn all over the countryside...

[Navaleye]

Anyway, I suppose it was a MR2, and not, well, another sort of Nimrod?

Complete with fake grieving relatives at ISK? Come on.

[Pirate]

Slightly off thread, but PontiusNavigator cited the Buccaneer as having had catastrophic failures. News to me, I recall the Bucc as an aeroplane we could fly through a building and out the other side.

I, too, am most intrigued by the emphatic nature of the statements emenating from MoD that it was a technical malfunction. The Secretary of State may not know about accident investigation procedures (although he should) but he has advisers who must surely have briefed him before he issued his comment.

It's thirty years since I last wore light blue, but this still hurts like hell.

[Wader2]

Slightly off thread, but PontiusNavigator cited the Buccaneer as having had catastrophic failures.

A wing fell off during Red Flag. It was captured on camera and broadcast on the news. Less than a second from breakup to impact at 500k.

Fleet was grounded and almost scrapped at the time. Eventually checks were done and the safe-to-transit clearance was given for the sqn to return via Laejes.

<< http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avbucc.html
However, during the 1980 Red Flag exercises one of the Buccaneers lost a wing and crashed, killing its crew. The cause of the accident was fatigue in the front wing spar, and the entire Buccaneer force was grounded and inspected. Some were repaired while others were condemned and scrapped, and due to this attrition one Buccaneer squadron was disbanded.>>

[nigegilb]

I absolutely agree with pirate. In most of my time in the RAF no speculative comment was ever offered at the time of an aircraft crash. Sure the press speculated in some cases but the military was exemplary in refusing to speculate. Now we appear to have the spinning machine in full throttle. The Hercules crash last year was initially described as an accident. The Hercules that perished this year on a strip in Afg was described as having suffered a tyre failure, despite the crater in the strip. Now we have Browne ruling out enemy action after this Nimrod tragedy.

Why have our leaders allowed the politicians to muscle in on air accident investigation territory?

[Jackonicko]

Agaricus bisporus

"Anyway, I suppose it was a MR2, and not, well, another sort of Nimrod? They surely wouldn't want to admit losing one of those out in wild n' woolly land, with the bits strewn all over the countryside..."

Thank goodness it wasn't one of the other sort, as you'd then have double the number of sets of grieving relatives.

[The late XV105]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5315524.stm

Reading this BBC News bulletin that a fire had been reported post in air refuelling, what took my attention was the mention of a black box.

I thought Royal Air Force a/c didn't have black boxes, or is this over simplifying the case?

[k3k3]

The Nimrod that had the bird strike and crashed into the woods at Forres had a rudimentary type of wire recorder, I can remember seeing the print out.

[AgentSmithMatrix]

Daily Telegraph, 4 September 2006
"Flames were coming from the tail," said Niaz Mohammed Sarhadi, the district chief of Panj-wayi. "It was flying very high, maybe 10,000ft. As it fell there were flares from both sides." The Taliban spokesman, Abdul Khaliq, claimed the plane had been brought down by a Stinger missile. But Mr Browne told BBC1's Sunday AM: "The Taliban regularly lie in response to events in Afghanistan.




The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.

With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.

Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?

[ThirdTimeLucky]

Several RAF aircraft carry flight recorders. However, as befits their generation, some of these are basic by modern standards and are not going to give the Microsoft Flight Sim solution that you'll get on the latest Airbus, for example. I've often milked the recorders post-flight, normally to get more info on a crew reported snag.

[Wader2]

Beware Beware

Special forces and bold print :eek:

[peppermint_jam]

I've often milked the recorders post-flight, normally to get more info on a crew reported snag.

This is very true, milking the ADR (Air Data Recorder) can provide good insight into faults. Also to find out what really happened in what order, the aircrew can sometime be unsure of the exact seuqence of events, especially if in an emergancy situation when things are happening at light speed and the adrenaline is flowing.

Mud movers have them, not sure about the mighty hunter though. Can anyone clarify?

[reddeathdrinker]

There is a flight data recorder carried on board.

[rmac]

Aircraft may have been theoretically out of range of taliban missiles AMSL, but there is a lot of high ground around Kandahar, and perhaps there may be significantly less slant range AGL if that high ground is in lateral proximity, just a thought......By the way in the same way that the Taleban are likely to claim a hit even if that is not the case, are MOD not just as likely to deny it if it is the cause ?

[Pontius Navigator]

Ah yes, forgot how high the plains of Kandarhar are. At least 1500 feet higher than the city.


Well on the Google flat earth that is.

[The Gorilla]

During my Veritas missions 01 to 03 we used to AAR in that area. Most of the mountains around there are >= 18,000 feet. On many occasions they spent days climbing to the top too fire off a manpad at various juicy targets! None of them were AFIK were hit.

I believe the Taliban to be evil loathsome, lying creatures who would kill me given the slightest chance if they could profit from it. However, sadly, I also believe that to be true of the British Government.

[Pontius Navigator]

Gorilla, true there are high mountains and the initial location might have been near one, but, from the limited resources I have here it looks pretty flat for about 100 miles around K. Flat for Afghanistan that is not Lincolnshire flat. Can you say where your high ground was in relation to K?

[ORAC]

Janes: Crashed RAF Nimrod identified

The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) BAE Systems Nimrod MR.2 maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft that crashed in Afghanistan on 2 September, killing 14 personnel on board, has been identified by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) as aircraft XV230.

The Nimrod, which an MoD official said was likely to have crashed because of "technical difficulties", had undergone depot-level maintenance two months prior to the incident, an industry source told Jane's. The official said the aircraft was on a reconnaissance mission at the time but that it could also serve as a communications relay platform.

Nimrod XV230 was one of six equipped with an L-3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optical turret in 2003. A further urgent operational requirement, known as Project Broadsword, was implemented in early 2006 and introduced the capability to transmit real-time video imagery from the MX-15 to ground stations and commanders.
http://p.airliners.net/photos/photos/5/6/0/0934065.jpg

[Pontius Navigator]

So the 27 year old aircraft turns out to have been the 27 yr old Mk 2 having been a Mk 1 for perhaps 8 years previous.

[cazatou]

AgentSmithMatrix,

I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.

The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming.

There would then have to be a series of Trials to assess the suitability of the Modifications in various climatic conditions and release configurations with particular attention to inadvertant weapon discharge prior to landing.

This should usefully occupy at least a score of UK Civil Servants for several decades until the requirement for such equipment had long passed.

If such a system is required in the future; then I would suggest that you plan on its use not before W W 6.

[microlight AV8R]

Caz

Thankyou for that interesting and informative insight to the world of military procurement in the 21st century. :eek:

Well, I appreciated it anyway.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.

With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.

Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?

ASM,
I'm sorry , but where did you get the "Special Forces " bit from, I get the feeling some people who post replies on this forum have been watching too many war films and not been getting out enough.

Also, I imagine that the piece of information regarding AAR has only just been added because it has only just come to light, or it has only just been deemed to possibly have some significance.
CRpx Good!

[DarkStar]

Apparently, the A/c called at FL250 to advise that had an emergency and they were diverting to Kandahar, then apparently another call was made around FL100 at this point - and let me stress it's unconfirmed - a drone was sent up to witness events on film.

It maybe total rubbish, but.....

[rmac]

Pontious

+/- 8000ft 32mls WNW of Kandahar, crash site published as 15mls W. This is highest ground in published area.
You could be right, but ...

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Darkstar,
If you have an emergency, concerning a fire, you would initiate immediately a rapid rate of descent, possibly 4000ft per minute, I dont know how far the div would have been, but ( mountainous terrain allowing ), I would imagine the planned landing would be max 20 mins away, no time for a drone I would suggest, unless there was one airborne already, who knows?
CR Px Good

[DarkStar]

CRPxG - You're probably right, it was a snippet I heard from Seeb, but again it was unconfirmed though intriguing comment.

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Were the emergency one where fire, or even smoke were concerned, my sympathy and feeling stretches only further. The only time I have personally felt that my number was up was in a situation with the afformentioned on board an aircraft. It really is a nasty situation as I am sure you can imagine. This I would only say on this thread and no other as I cant even begin to imagine what those poor families must be going through.

One wishes when something such as this happens, that it may be quick, but until it happens one doesnt know, all I say is never begrudge those guys their flying pay again, god knows they deserve it!.

Clear Right, Px Good!

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Sorry guys,
Didnt mean to end the chat with my deep rantings, please carry on!
Clear Right, Pressures Good!

[Pontius Navigator]

rmax, thanks for that. I found the airfield and plates but could not make out the heights on the plates.

The airfield is also about 3300 feet and due west the plain seems to drop to about 2500 feet.

From what you say the best would be a height gain of 5000 feet and a lucky shot for the aircraft to have been near high ground and low enough for a hit.

[microlight AV8R]

What were the weather conditions at the time? Cloud levels?

[cazatou]

Jindabyne,

Pots & Kettles spring to mind.

Incidentally - how exactly would YOU dispatch "Special Forces" from a Nimrod?

[Pontius Navigator]

What a forlorn hope for accuracy from the media.

Today's Daily Telegraph - letter from David Wragg, author, Jane's Air Forces of the World.

Original plan 38 Nimrods - true.
Now only 14 in service - may be true
Only 12 MR3 to enter service.

MR3?

What about the additional 8 XZ series to bring the fleet up to 46?
Or the 11 withdrawn to the AEW programme.
Or the one that had its sting removed and windows blanked off?

On my maths that leaves 17 Mk 2.

[Pontius Navigator]

What were the weather conditions at the time? Cloud levels?

The 5-day weather on 4 Sep at 0430 is shown as clear for the next 5 days. No reason to suspect it was not clear for the previous period.

[MReyn24050]

Jindabyne,
Pots & Kettles spring to mind.
Incidentally - how exactly would YOU dispatch "Special Forces" from a Nimrod?
I thought the reference regarding "Special Forces" and the Nimrod were referring to it's use as a communications platform for command and control of the "Special Forces" rather than dispatching them.

[pmills575]

If indeed the Serial was XV230, then that airframe must be over 37 years old.
I seem to remember seeing it in at St Mawgan on arrival into service in Oct 1969. It used to be known as the "head of fleet" primarliy due to it being the first airframe that entered RAF service. Presumably a lot of "life extension" work has been carried to enable a 30+ year old frame to carry on flying?
Peter Mills

[ORAC]

BAe Nimrod (http://aeroflt.users.netlink.co.uk/types/uk/bae_systems/nimrod/nimrod.htm): 2 October 1969 - First production MR.Mk1 (XV230) delivered to RAF - 236 OCU at St Mawgan.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

MReyn,

If you take a look at the Chinook thread you will see it littered with innacurate "shoot first" replies from the Cat:ugh:

He may well at some stage tell you, he could'nt wait to tell me, how he was an A cat Royal Flt Pilot blah blah blah but to most of us on here he is nothing short of a blinkered bufoon, and his totally stupid reply to ASM, did you see the word DEPLOY in ASM's post:rolleyes: , is totally in context with this mans offerings:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[Tubby]

Gentlemen,

fascinating though much of the debate may be into the whys and wherefores of this latest crash, I would wish to make simply this point:

Some of the people posting on this thread seem to neglect to realise that grieving families and friends are as likely to look at this thread as at the one posting condolences. In that light some of the rather more 'conspiracy' based emails are totally inappropriate. This isn't some giant game of cluedo you know. 14 real people died and their families and friends are the people right now who need to know the truth and not the gossip. Let's leave it to the experts hey?

[Terry K Rumble]

Tubby,
Well said Sir.

Please gentlemen, lets use just show a little bid of compassion and understanding before we start putting wild speculative theories on here.

These men all had families and other loved ones, please try to remember that. Thank you
TKR

[Belgique]

03 June 1984 apparently.

Anybody familiar with the circumstances of that loss?

B

[forget]

Not a loss so much as an early retirement. Bomb bay fire,

http://p.airliners.net/photos/photos/9/9/3/1053399.jpg

[Wader2]

and http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19840603-0&lang=nl

The flares referred to were 5 inch flares and IIRC 12 were carried. They were declared obsolete not long after.

[jindabyne]

Tubby is quite right; hence the deletion of my last two posts (referring to cazatou's comments). Apologies.

[FormerFlake]

If I remember correctly, the St Mawgan incident was caused by a flare that did not deploy from the launcher in the bomb bay properly. The bomb bay door were closed and then the flare finally dropped causing a fire. The aircraft landed safely and was evacuated.

After the incident a periscope was fitted into the bomb bay and one of the AEO now has to watch weapons/flares deploy. It is not unkown for the odd bit of shoe polish to make it's was on to the black eye piece.

[cazatou]

ABIW,

Perhaps you should read ASM's post #182 again?

Your turn as top cover is it?

Best Wishes

Caz

[Pontius Navigator]

If I remember correctly, the St Mawgan incident was caused by a flare that did not deploy from the launcher in the bomb bay properly. The bomb bay door were closed and then the flare finally dropped causing a fire. The aircraft landed safely and was evacuated.

After the incident a periscope was fitted into the bomb bay and one of the AEO now has to watch weapons/flares deploy. It is not unkown for the odd bit of shoe polish to make it's was on to the black eye piece.

IIRC the periscope was a standard fitment from the outset. Yes the blackeye piece was present from time to time. The flares were not dropped from launchers. They were fitted to light series carriers and dropped. An incorrect deployment would be a hang-up.

[Not Long Here]

WRT the St Mawgan incident. I recall that it was assessed that one of the flares was incorrectly fitted and the Churchill plug not fully pushed home. When the Tac Chx Outbound were called for after coasting out (Shortly after T/O on 31) the Conv Arm power went on and thus applied power to the said flare. Approx 40 secs later the flare self-ignited within the closed bomb bay causing the fire.

[Yellow Sun]

The St Mawgan incident was as follows:

Shortly after takeoff from RW 31 a 5" recce flare fell off its carrier. Due to shortcomings in the fusing mechanism (as a result of incremental modification over many years) the flare ignited in the bomb bay. This led to a Bomb Bay Fire and a number of consequent failures as a result of the damage sustained. The crew performed a very swift 180 in Watergate Bay and landed downwind in RW 13. The captain, Go***n Sm**h, was awarded the Air Force Cross and the AEO D**e H**ns (who did a superb job) a Queen's Commendation. Subsequent exination of the aircraft confirmed that the decision not to turn downwind for RW 31 to be absolutely correct. It was deemed that it was extremely unlikely that they would have made it.

That was the last occasion on which the 5" recce flare was carried. It was temporarily withdrawn pending the BoI and subsequently removed from the inventory.

The aircraft was later repaired by a contractor's working party (CWP) to permit one flight to Woodford for full repair.

IIRC the flight lasted less than 5 minutes in total. Somewhere in the loft I still have a annotated transcript of the incident.

BTW I watched it land.

YS

[Yellow Sun]

WRT the St Mawgan incident. I recall that it was assessed that one of the flares was incorrectly fitted and the Churchill plug not fully pushed home. When the Tac Chx Outbound were called for after coasting out (Shortly after T/O on 31) the Conv Arm power went on and thus applied power to the said flare. Approx 40 secs later the flare self-ignited within the closed bomb bay causing the fire.

NLH

You may well be correct. The difficulty was that the precise cause was never fully established, the armourer concerned was adamant that he had carried out his task correctly. The real problem was that the thing should have been incapable of going of in the bomb bay either on or off the carrier and as the BoI and the Board of Ordinance established this wasn't the case.

I was glad to see the back of them, nasty things.

YS

[Pontius Navigator]

The Churchill plug was a twin bayonnet with the diameter of the end half (about 15 mm) twice as wide as the shank. I am not sure how it worked but based on logic, when the weapons release pulse was transmitted via the 'biscuit' distributor card an energising voltage was made available to the Churchill plug.

The fat ends of the prongs would not have been 'in circuit' and the thin shanks would not have been in contact with the weapon socket.

As the weapon fell away, it was not ejected, the fatter part of the plug would be snatched passed the contacts in the weapon and the weapons safety device would be disabled.

If, as suggested, the plug was not fully home then it would suggest that an arming voltage would have been applied to the weapon, whether or not the weapon actually released from the carrier.

And Churchill probably because it was two-pronged.

Although the Nimrod was spawned from a De Haviland design it was actually created with many off-the-shelf components in the Avro shop. The Nimrod shared parts of the bomb distributor system fitted to the earlier Avro bombers including Shackleton, Vulcan and Lincoln. It even had the same pillar lamps as fitted to the Lancaster. The Churchill plug was from a different era when Prime Ministers smoked cigars.

[Safeware]

Bit of triv - XV230, the first MR2 to have colour Searchwater. Had a good couple of weeks in Sig on the first det.

sw

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Apologies if this post is off thread but the individual in question is an utter twerp who has plagued the Chinook thread with his idiotic inaccuracies, another of which I wish to highlight here.

ASM posted the following:-

The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.

With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.

Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?

Cazatou then chimpishly berates him with following:-

I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.

The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming yadda yadda yadda.

I have already asked Caz to explain to me where in ASM’s post does he allude to the SF guys being deployed from the Nimrod because I sure as hell can’t see it and I would bet my mortgage no one else can either:rolleyes: .

Caz you are not only an arse but an ignorant and ill informed arse at that, a fact that you have proved time and time again on the Chinook thread. I KNOW of at least two types that regularly carry “special” people for the specific purpose of liaising with their peers via “special” comms during Op’s and I suspect this is exactly what ASM, bearing in mind it was also suggested by the media, was getting at:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[woptb]

Going back to the 'black box'.The Nimrod did have an analogue accident data recorder fitted,this was pretty unreliable.'Bird nesting' of the wire recording spools was common & very often the data was unreliable due to lack of calibration post transducer change.

[possel]

<snip>

IIRC the flight lasted less than 5 minutes in total.

I was based there at the time and was told that it occurred 7 minutes after take-off and they got it back on the ground in 5!

I can still picture the smile on GS's face when I next met him a day later

[Miles 'n More]

Bit of triv - XV230, the first MR2 to have colour Searchwater.
sw

I thought that was XV260?

[Hoots]

I did the crash guard on the St Mawgan one, was a young AC at the time, down from Locking for guarding purposes for the TACEVAL. So that was my first Nimrod experience. Little did I know at that time that I would be flying in them 9 years later and still am.

I wish the BOI well in what will be a difficult and demanding time. I still have faith in the aircraft and the people who crew them.

One of the most irritating facts is the mindless specualtion and the people who talk utter garbage about its roles. I also believe that the freelance journalists are dispicable scum and should be taken care of down a dark alleyway with baseball bats.

So a final plea, if you dont kow what your talking about then dont speculate!!!!!!!

[Pontius Navigator]

Hoots, actually the freelancers can be a distinct cut above the tabloid kind, Jackinocko for instance.

Mind you we had one ******* tried to pass himself off as an official RAF News reporter and 'bluff' his way in with a driving licence.

All he got was the order of the boot and blacklisted too.

Had he come clean and simply asked to come in he would, as we do with any member of the public, have been invited in.

[Yeller_Gait]

The Nimrod in the SAR drawing by AR of the Victor III, Lynx and Seaking was XV230.

Y_G

[ASRAAM]

Hoots,
Speculation on the cause of an accident or incident is human nature, especially within the aircrew community. Inevitably on a forum such as this some speculation will be better informed than others.
Unusually in this case the 'spin' started with anouncements about technical failures even before the aircraft type had been released.
It is useful to separate speculation threads and condolences ( I take the earlier point that family and friends may read both). This protects to a degree the feelings of those closest.
Ultimately though this IS a rumours network and even if some of the speculation may not turn out to be a causual factor in this case, the fact that aviators (and hopefully the BOI) have discussed it may leave it fresh in ones mind should it become a factor in the future.
That in itself is useful as it could one day save someones neck, in the same way that crewroom WOTIFS discussions can.

[reynoldsno1]

WRT the St Mawgan incident

We had a similar incident in a MR1 in Malta in the 70's. A flare failed to release, and then fell of whilst the bomb bay doors were closing. The doors were opened again sharpish, and the flare stayed where it was - floating in the slipstream!! Tried all sorts of manoeuvres, and the b*gger just wouldn't drop away ... 'twas a nervous return to Luqa, and we shut down on the runway and ran away. The armourer crawled in via the clamshell doors at the rear of the bay whilst we stood at a respectable distance and applauded....

[AgentSmithMatrix]

Apologies if this post is off thread but the individual in question is an utter twerp who has plagued the Chinook thread with his idiotic inaccuracies, another of which I wish to highlight here.

ASM posted the following:-

The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.

With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.

Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?

Cazatou then chimpishly berates him with following:-

I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.

The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming yadda yadda yadda.

I have already asked Caz to explain to me where in ASM’s post does he allude to the SF guys being deployed from the Nimrod because I sure as hell can’t see it and I would bet my mortgage no one else can either:rolleyes: .

Caz you are not only an arse but an ignorant and ill informed arse at that, a fact that you have proved time and time again on the Chinook thread. I KNOW of at least two types that regularly carry “special” people for the specific purpose of liaising with their peers via “special” comms during Op’s and I suspect this is exactly what ASM, bearing in mind it was also suggested by the media, was getting at:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Thank you 'always_U/S_in_Wiltshire'. I think this 'Catbalou' chap sounds a bit strange.:}

Of course I did not mean the Nimrod would be deploying Special Forces, but had them on board for their local knowledge. Having men with knowledge on the ground would be sensible if the stated video system was fitted to the said Nimrod. Possibly able to speak some local Afghan dialects and spent some time looking like locals their terrain knowledge I would assume to be invaluable. Notice that not all of the victims had their photographs published?

I think the comments by 'Sennreps' more to the point:-
"Most of you are having a good go at the media, and quite rightly so. They have been doing this for years. But don’t forget they do this with “ALL” stories. You are all having a dig because you understand the subject being talked about. Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally – why? - because most people in this country believe everything they are told. That is why the newspapers will continue to be sold and most people will watch BBC, ITN,or Sky news to get info. And by the way “Most people love speculation!!!!”
The main thing that annoys me is the way Dez Browne and the Government are so keen to say that it was not caused by hostile action. He said yesterday that we must not speculate, yet whet straight on to say that it was “probably” not caused by hostile fire. I might be thick – but is that not speculation???
If it was not by hostile fire, can they wash their hands of any responsibility?????.
I don’t care if it was hostile fire or an accident. The fact is that friends and families are hurting because they are no longer with us.
Finally, yes I have had a few and quite frankly I am sick of loosing friends and colleagues from our Royal Air Force. My thoughts go to all involved in this sad loss.


Indeed, I think it is possible to speculate about any number of technical issues. Not hostile fire? Is that not the same as saying "we know it was a technical problem?" Note the first news reports said Mechanical Failure and not electrical fault causing fire.

It would not surprise me that the incident was subject to the cost cutting measures of an accountants pen ? Where have we heard that before ?

Someone brought up the issue of the Chinook.

Did anybody answer why a helicopter was used on a flight from Belfast to Scotland ? Did it need to land somewhere en-route ?

I am sure there are more issues at stake with regard to the Nimrod than things purely technical ?

[FJJP]

For heaven's sake can we stop all these silly theories. For 'mechanical failure' read 'technical fault'. The BoI will establish just what happened and their findings will be published eventually - it's going to take months rather than weeks. I wouldn't mind betting that they have by now got a fair idea of WHAT happened, but WHY it happened is what's going to take the time.

Cost cutting is unlikely to be involved, so let's not go down that path - any complex piece of machinery is likely at some stage or another to suffer a major failure. In this case it proved catastophic.

I don't belive there was any kind of cover up. Nor do I believe the Special Forces were directly involved.

ALL members of the fated crew have had their photos published in various papers - it is just that the Kinloss PR people got the photos to the MOD and thus the media as a single batch. That was headline stuff for the media. The Soldier and RM's photos came from different sources and were published subsequently.

I am sure it would be helpful to the guy and gals on the Nimrod fleets if the speculation was canned and let them get on with their lives and tasks.

If for no other reason than to stop the families from hurting any more than they are at present.

[DEL Mode]

Quality Report on the news.

50000 people stood in silence out of respect for the 14 crew members....

Video of a DC3 shown through out whilst refering to it as a Nimrod,

Airshow was at RAF Lucus apparently.

At least Tony's woo's are keeping war and terror of the headlines.

[White Noise]

:uhoh: won't repeat my words when i watched that report !!

[enginesuck]

Im not quite sure what this site is for if people cant speculate or pass on rumours..... isnt it a rumour network. Whilst i understand the grieving has to happen , believe me i know its close to my heart. Why cant the informed on here just say what they have got to say without being shouted down???

[Kev Nurse]

Nothing would please me more if this message is to be the last in this thread. The condolences thread stood alone on the front page this morning (Sat 9 Sep), with no sign of this one. Thank you, I thought to myself, self discipline and respect is working and hopefully, with time, this thread will disappear altogether. This evening, to my dismay, I once again see the offensive thread title ABOVE the one that matters, as the latest message associated with the tragedy. I know that most of the discussions in this thread have not been speculative, but the thread title itself does PPRuNe no favours ("No condolences") and encourages submissions that we can do without. Please, let it go, guys. No more replies for a while; lets please try to keep this thread title off the front page. Thanks.

PS, its only the fact that the thread is at the top at moment that made me write.

[zorab64]

I don't think I've seen so much righteous anguish on any thread before. Can we possibly spare a thought for the real losers - the families who would have been being informed of the sad news as you typed your pathetic vitriolic tirade against the media? As Col Mustard may remember, the Falklands MoD "spokesperson" (Mr McDonald?) managed to feed the world with the information that the Argie bombs weren't fused correctly - so no real change in MoD competence in the last 24 years then! If you can't fire your weapons at the right target, don't fire them at all.
(As we were trying not to get shot down or blown up in San Carlos Water at the time, I'm glad we didn't find out about this incompetence until after it was all over.)
While it's interesting that the first mention of possible cause didn't appear until P5 (Brain Fade), reddeathdrinker should read ASRAAM's later post - whilst the speculation may not be to your liking, it's been part of pprune since long before you joined the website, and often ends up being as accurate as the BOI, only a year or so beforehand! (That's not criticism of the BOI by the way).
Don't forget that this was a Tri-service loss and even if the non-RAF were just "along for the ride", how devastating must the news have been for their families? For our tomorrows, they all gave their todays - R.I.P.

[harrogate]

I've been up most of the night and have had 5Live on the radio and latterly, BBC News 24 on the Telly... interesting to note that when talking about the return of the crew's bodies to Kinloss, 5Live mentioned initially that the Nimrod may have been involved in an incident whilst "refuelling in the air". However, BBC News 24 have not mentioned this at all and 5Live have now not mentioned it in subsequent reports. Nothing about it on BBC online either.

It's been a week or so since I read through this thread, but am I right in thinking the aircraft had succesfully completed air-to-air refuelling quite some time before the accident?

More journo carelessness, I suspect.

[Colonal Mustard]

Don't forget that this was a Tri-service loss and even if the non-RAF were just "along for the ride",

Whilst i acknowledge your opinion/post etc i wouldnt suggest that the Para and bootneck were "along for the ride"......Unless i misinterpret your post:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

I know little about AAR as it was many years ago that I did the course, but an aircraft uses a disproportionate amount of fuel climbing to height compared with the cruise. Roughly an hours worth or cruise fuel. After a couple of hours airborne there would be a significant spare capacity.

Then you presuppose that the tanker will come in to the mission airspace. It might be necessary, for many reasons, that flight refuelling takes place away from the mission area. Furthermore a pre-task refuelling would then allow an uninterrupted mission rather than having to suspend the mission at some point.

This is not to be construed that there was any flight refuelling on this mission just that a top-of-climb top-up and pre-task top-up are both much more likely than an in-mission refuel. If necessary a post-mission refuelling can also take place but this would not necessarily be necessary, certainly for long-range aircraft.

[Winco]

Smith,
You are driving us all potty with your utter drivell and nonesense - please go away and stop being an annoying little jerk.
If you have nothing sensible to say, then say nothing.
Thank you
The Winco

[Tombstone]

Gentlemen,

stick Agent Smith onto your 'ignore list' and hey presto, he disappears into an abyss of useless information.

Tombs

[hobie]

It's been a week or so since I read through this thread, but am I right in thinking the aircraft had succesfully completed air-to-air refuelling quite some time before the accident?


H ..... hit the "search this thread" button towards the top of this page and enter refuelling in the search box and you will find reference to refuelling before the incident ....

[Hot Charlie]

Gentlemen,

stick Agent Smith onto your 'ignore list' and hey presto, he disappears into an abyss of useless information.

Tombs

What a good feature. Nice one, thanks.

[Rent-An-Eng]

Please lets wait until the board gets back. I know that they are carrying out their business in a very dodgy area of the world and must try to get to a conclusion with some very disturbing evidence. AAR is a very routine but very fatiguing exercise for the poor old airframe...... all aircraft types included nevermind an old airliner.
I am sure that most of us recognise the ' chain of effects' theory that occasionally crop up in our profession, things sometimes go horribly wrong.
I actually believe that the incident was due to an unfortunate chain of unrelated events that took away 14 good colleagues. If I didnt believe this I would never put foot on the the mighty hunter again!

Patience friends, patience!

R-A-E

[Ewan Whosearmy]

I don't think I've seen so much righteous anguish on any thread before <snip> For our tomorrows, they all gave their todays - R.I.P.

Amen to that.

[ORAC]

The Herald - Nimrod crew’s funerals delayed (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69954.html)


The grieving families of the Scottish-based Nimrod crew will have to wait "days and perhaps weeks" for the remains of their loved ones to be returned for burial, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

The Duke of Edinburgh and the Defence Secretary, Des Browne, were among those who attended a moving repatriation ceremony at RAF Kinloss yesterday. But within hours of the remains arriving in Scotland – where the 12 aircrew among the 14 victims of the crash were stationed – the coffins were flown back to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire last night to await post-mortem clearance......

Up to 100 hearings are still to be held by the single Oxford coroner's court approved by the MoD and the Home Office as fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan mount and the overloaded system is swamped by the rising casualty toll.....

[Hot Charlie]

For a wider view of the possibilities:-
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/965c7980f9c223ab/63bfc2c386431eb5?q=nimrod+shot+down&hl=en#63bfc2c386431eb5

More completey uninformed people talking utter drivel at a glance...:ugh:

[PPRuNe Pop]

He is having an enforced rest!

[MReyn24050]

The Herald - Nimrod crew’s funerals delayed (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/69954.html)
Up to 100 hearings are still to be held by the single Oxford coroner's court approved by the MoD and the Home Office as fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan mount and the overloaded system is swamped by the rising casualty toll.....

This situation is absolutely disgusting. What must the families and friends be going through? Words just fail me.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Yes, I too am horrified that our dear friends and colleagues, as well as their families and friends are having to go through this utterly pointless and needless so-called 'formality'.

I have personally written to my MP to express my sheer disgust and anger at this being forced upon them, and suggested that in cases such as this (and I fear it will not be the last) then just a fragment of human compassion would go a long way to easing the pain and suffering of those left behind.

To the families and other friends of our dear departed friends, I am truly sorry and ashamed for this latest saddness burdoned upon you all.
TSM

[London Mil]

I cannot comment on the delay regarding the Nimrod crew. However, there was a similar delay after the repatriation of the Basra Lynx crew earlier this year. Whilst extremely painful, there were perfectly valid and understandable reasons for a 4 week delay.