Nimrod Safety - post afghan tragedy

[FCK1]

From today's daily mail...

23 October 2006
NIMROD FLIGHTS 'ILLEGAL'
A WHISTLEBLOWER says RAF Nimrod spy planes were being flown illegally before last month's fatal crash in Afghanistan.

Fourteen men died - including Scottish Flight Sergeant Stephen Beattie, 42 - when the spy plane plunged to the ground.

But today the Record can reveal a highly experienced airman has made a series of damning allegations about RAF cutbacks, saying that some of the 35-year-old Nimrods took to the air with key systems not working.

He also claims short-staffed ground crews had to work round the clock to make the Nimrods airworthy and spare parts were cannibalised from other aircraft.

The airman said he resigned from the RAF last year, convinced he would have "blood on my hands" if he continued to serve under such overstretched conditions.

He told the Record: "The Ministry of Defence witnessed this plane falling out of the sky, with catastrophic results, yet they claim there is no big problem.


Advertisement

"I was sickened when they refused to acknowledge the extent of the problem in light of this accident.


"If something isn't done and this is swept under the carpet, it's only a matter of time before there is a terrible repeat."


Twelve RAF technicians, a soldier and a Royal Marine were on board when the Nimrod crashed on September 2 - the largest single loss of British life since the war in Afghanistan started.


Flt Sgt Beattie's wife, Shona, has said he told her during the summer that he could not remember the last time he flew in a Nimrod "with all the parts working".


Now our source, a decorated senior technician and Iraq veteran whose identity the Record is concealing, reveals: lNimrods flying in the knowledge that all systems are not operational.


Three crews being slashed to two for vital operations.


Three-man weapon loading crews being cut to one.


Planes being operated with a critically low store of spare parts.


He added: "Stephen Beattie's wife was absolutely spot-on in what she said. These aircraft shouldn't be taking off in the condition they are in and with the staffing problems on the ground.


"The guys flying the planes may feel they are in tip-top condition but that may well not be the case because the ground crew is so short-staffed."


The source, who resigned from the RAF last year after completing two tours in Iraq, says many Nimrod flights were illegal, as ground crews had breached specific "air publications", actions that could result in courts martial.


And he told how some three-man weapon loading jobs are now being done by one man.


He also says key roles are being undertaken by two-shift rotations, rather than three as set down in regulations.


And the provision of spare parts is so shoddy that in order to keep one plane flying, the No2 plane in operations is routinely stripped to the extent that it can't be used.


The expert said that more and more Acceptable Deferred Faults - breaches of maintenance and preparation practice, deemed not to bring significant danger - are being signed all the time.


He said: "Before the plane takes off, the work has to be signed for.


"But there's no way that everything could be prepared the way it should be with the pressure staff were under.


"More and more ADFs were coming up and there's no way the planes were as safe as they should be."


Our source said that the initial staffing provision for the outbreak of the Iraq war in 2003 was "by the book".


He said: "Everything was as it was set out to be. There were three men designated to arm the Nimrods, with two men loading weapons and one supervising. "There were also three crews working on a shift rotation to kit the aircraft out prior to flying.


"After the war was won, the staffing cutbacks had to be seen to be believed.


"Our presence in Iraq was seen as an exercise rather than a war situation, and the attitude of the top brass reflected that.


"All of a sudden, senior officers were expecting one man to do the work of three and two crews were working round the clock to kit out the aircraft.


"This would mean men effectively being forced to work on their allocated rest times just to get the planes operational."


When he complained to his commanding officer in 2004 at RAF Kinloss in Moray - the main UK base for the Nimrods - about staffing conditions, the technician was told the situation was being reviewed.


He said: "I took this as a fob-off, as I didn't see evidence of anything happening at all.


"I said to family members at the time that planes would drop from the sky and this is what has happened.


"I feel sickened that problems over resources have probably cost the lives of these men.


"If an inquest subsequently isolates one officer and blames a human error for this, the MoD will have a convenient scapegoat but that won't be the end of it."


He added: "I loved the RAF, and I still do, but it is being run into the ground and the MoD needs to face up to this."


The technician previously worked on the very Nimrod that crashed - which had been in service since 1969 - and recognised Stephen Beattie as a former colleague.


He said: "Working on the Nimrods means you gain a certain affinity and I was really gutted when I heard what had happened."


In a statement last week, the MoD said that over the past two years, cash spent on Nimrod maintenance went up by 50 per cent to £3million per aircraft per year.


Air Vice-Marshal Ian McNicoll said at the time of the crash: "Indications are that the accident was caused by a technical failure but we must wait for the Board of Inquiry to report. The Nimrod MR2 has been a very successful aircraft, with an excellent safety record.


"It is maintained to the highest standards by dedicated RAF ground crews."


Defence sources reportedly indicated that an RAF Board of Inquiry had highlighted a fracture to a key pipeline inside the Nimrod, resulting in explosions, before the plane plummeted 20,000ft.


Flt Sgt Beattie, who was born in Dundee and brought up in Perthshire, was the only Scot on board.


Mrs Beattie and their children, Bethany and Cameron, live in Forres, Moray, a few miles from where he was stationed at RAF Kinloss.


An MoD spokesman admitted that budgets had affected RAF operations but denied Nimrods are being flown illegally. He added: "It is true that we have undergone a difficult period because of financial constraints.


"No Nimrod flights are taking off illegally. We have made changes due to tightened resources but these have resulted in us working more efficiently.


"The crew member you refer to worked under different circumstances and with different resources. Before changes were introduced, we consulted widely with people in Kinloss.


"We are effectively managing to perform just as efficently on tighter resources."


In 1995, seven aircrew were killed when a Nimrod nosedived into Lake Ontario, Canada, in front of 150,000 spectators at an airshow.


The Nimrod crash last month was the military's worst air disaster since a Chinook helicopter crashed in Scotland in 1994, killing 29 people.

[Ken Scott]

I'm not that surprised, I think we're all familiar with the modern 'quart from a pint pot' Air Force. Spares are hard to come by, partly due to 'Just in time' procedures set up for UK MOBs that struggle to get out to the desert. I flew an ac out of Basra that was officially u/s but it couldn't be fixed - we couldn't get spares until it was declared so, & then it would have been 2 - 3 days off the flying programme waiting for parts to arrive from the UK. Tasks had to be flown so we just got on with it. I often feel that our 'can do' attitude is our worst enemy.

Don't know about anyone else, but the nationalistic overtone of this comment regarding a member of the crew of a British armed forces aircraft makes me feel a little uncomfortable:


Flt Sgt Beattie, who was born in Dundee and brought up in Perthshire, was the only Scot on board.

All the crew members lived and worked in a part of the UK called Scotland. Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive?

[Lucifer]

Perhaps everyone should await the finalisation of the accident investigation. Though spares are in short supply, we all know that departure without working items is entirely appropriate if it meets minimum equipment requirements, and other systems are working appropriately.

I find the report rather opportunistic tosh from someone who did not work on the particular aircraft prior to the sortie in question.

[dodgysootie]

"We are effectively managing to perform just as efficently on tighter resources."
"just as efficiently" Does the person who said this walk around wearing ear defenders and a welding mask?
Gutted.
DS

[BEagle]

PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT 23 Oct 2006:

In a statement at today's press conference, an MoD spokesman provided an official answer to comments made in recent newspaper articles:




http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Res.jpg

[The Swinging Monkey]

It was just a matter of time before someone blew the whistle and came clean about the state the jets are in. Christ, they were in a bad enough state back in the late 80's and early 90's when I was at ISK, and I have no doubt that they havn't got better since.

Ken, I think you are right, we are (and will continue) to be our own worst enemy, having a 'can do' attitude. Unfortunately anything less is regarded as unacceptable today. I know a very good pilot/captain who was 'got rid of' for refusing to fly a night sortie because he had been unable to sleep during the day, due to noise from shelling, bulletts etc. He found himself on a very quick one-way ticket home. Shame on the Hierarchy for not standing by him.

Lucifer, I think we should wait for the BoI, but I don't agree that this is 'tosh' at all. I have a sad feeling that the guy is probably 100% correct!
Kind regards to all
TSM

[dodgysootie]

Nice one BEagle, he obviously removed his ear defs and welding mask for the photo.

DS

[Wensleydale]

It proves the statement:


"If you lean too far then you fall over".

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

"We are effectively managing to perform just as efficently on tighter resources."

Does he mean that we are performing efficiently and we are doing it effectively

or does he mean that we are, in effect, performing efficiently.


He's either split an infinitive...



or he's just talking bollocks. :}

[Wotta Dump]

"In a statement last week, the MoD said that over the past two years, cash spent on Nimrod maintenance went up by 50 per cent to £3million per aircraft per year."
Nice bit of MOD smoke and mirrors this claim. We have significantly reduced the number of aircraft available to the frontline over the last couple of years (not forgetting the disbandment of 206 Sqn and the majority of it's crews). However, the core costs have remained static, ergo they can 'claim' we are spending more on the maintenance of each aircraft when that is complete tosh!:mad:

[Reach]

Increasing maintenance costs are a sign that the aircraft is reaching the end of its useful life.

I guess the're counting on the average reporter not knowing that.

[TheInquisitor]

Don't know about anyone else, but the nationalistic overtone of this comment regarding a member of the crew of a British armed forces aircraft makes me feel a little uncomfortable:
Flt Sgt Beattie, who was born in Dundee and brought up in Perthshire, was the only Scot on board.
All the crew members lived and worked in a part of the UK called Scotland. Perhaps I'm just over-sensitive?
Typical Jockinese nationalism, unfortunately. Don't forget, the morning after the Titanic sank, with the loss of 1500 souls, the headline in The Scotsman read:

"Scotsman drowns at sea"

referring to the 5th officer, Will Murdoch. I think the other 1499 made it into a small footnote somewhere.

[jayteeto]

Essential systems not working?? Be careful how you approach this matter and do not dilute a genuine problem with trivial 'padding'. In our nearly new 2001 police helicopter, we have got airborne (legally) with no camera, searchlight, microwave downlink and minimal police radios (2 of 3 broken). It was Mk1 eyeball all around. This is s**t, but not dangerous.
So if your Nimrods are going with large percentages of the avionics not working, this is a similar situation. We (and the airlines) use an CAA approved MEL (minimum equipment list) to say what can and what can't be broken, therefore dangerous. If you don't make the list, you don't fly. Do RAF big jets use an MEL?? Are you whistle blowers actually saying that the aircraft are launching with u/s engines/controls/self defence etc etc or are role equipment bits broken. I am on shift now with no ADF, GPS Euronav, an autopilot roll snag, no ANR (ahhhhh), one TV screen and the video recorder for incidents all deferred in the tech log. Not great, but still SAFE.
No matter what the pressure, you should not release a dangerous jet to the line, so how is this happening??

[TheInquisitor]

An ADF is EXACTLY that - an ACCEPTABLE deferred fault. An UNACCEPTABLE fault would not be signed off as acceptable.

I know very little about the 'Mighty Hunter', but I do know that it usually takes a few minutes to brief all the ADFs / Lims / Reds / Greens we have to carry on Albert - that's if the airframe is serviceable at all, which they hardly are nowadays. (We don't even have enough lineys to run ANY shifts at weekends at the moment - so if you break an aircraft on a Friday, it won't be on the programme on Mon!)

We carry ADFs all the time, and have done for a long time.

[Strato Q]

I think jayteeto is talking about an Automatic Direction Finder, but I may be wrong.

[4U2NV]

I do hope that no one is particularly surprised by the idea of flying with u/s kit on the aircraft. With operational tempo, lean and the shear time it takes to deliver spares(that are often u/s on fit!) 'just too late',:ugh: the only sensible option left is to have a hangar queen that at least you know the bit of kit you grab off it was servicable!!!!:mad:

[Safeware]

Now, I'm not in the business of pre-judging the BOI, and am one for paying attention to safety, but I find some of this sensationalism to the nth degree; my coments preceded by >:

But today the Record can reveal a highly experienced airman has made a series of damning allegations about RAF cutbacks, saying that some of the 35-year-old Nimrods took to the air with key systems not working.

> Nothing new for any aircraft there then, it just depends on what is meant by 'key systems'. There is a huge difference between Mission Critical and Safety Critical.

Twelve RAF technicians, a soldier and a Royal Marine were on board when the Nimrod crashed on September 2 - the largest single loss of British life since the war in Afghanistan started.

> Ignorance of facts.

Flt Sgt Beattie's wife, Shona, has said he told her during the summer that he could not remember the last time he flew in a Nimrod "with all the parts working".

> As above, nothing new there then.

Planes being operated with a critically low store of spare parts.

> As long as there are sufficient spares, safety won't be an issue. Effectiveness maybe.

The source, who resigned from the RAF last year after completing two tours in Iraq, says many Nimrod flights were illegal, as ground crews had breached specific "air publications", actions that could result in courts martial.

> So, he participated or condoned illegal actions then, waiting until he was out before blowing the whistle?
He also says key roles are being undertaken by two-shift rotations, rather than three as set down in regulations.

> Not sure what this is getting at - regulations don't dictate how long a job takes.

And the provision of spare parts is so shoddy that in order to keep one plane flying, the No2 plane in operations is routinely stripped to the extent that it can't be used.

> Nothing new there then, but again, not an explicit threat to safety

The expert said that more and more Acceptable Deferred Faults - breaches of maintenance and preparation practice, deemed not to bring significant danger - are being signed all the time.

> ADFs are not breaches of maintenance and preparation, they are as the name suggests Faults that can be acceptably deferred until the next appropriate maintenance opportunity.

He said: "Before the plane takes off, the work has to be signed for.
"But there's no way that everything could be prepared the way it should be with the pressure staff were under.

> If the F700 isn't cleared, then the jet isn't serviceable and the captain can't sign for it.

He said: "Everything was as it was set out to be. There were three men designated to arm the Nimrods, with two men loading weapons and one supervising. "There were also three crews working on a shift rotation to kit the aircraft out prior to flying.

> In my experience, if ever there was a bunch of people who were absolute sticklers to detail and procedure, it was the armourers.

sw

[diginagain]

Certainly carried Acceptable Deferred Defects on Lynx, without wishing to blurt it out to the world.

Daily Record, the oil-rig workers favourite rag; soft, strong and thoroughly absorbant.

[Safeware]

diginagain,

Why be embarrased? It is normal practice, even on your everyday airliner.

Not that we need the details though.

sw

[jayteeto]

ADF is an avionics thingy, it tunes in to NDBs. Inquisitor, that is exactly my point, if we complain and say that Nimrods never get airborne fully serviceable and then quote these ACCEPTABLE faults, the bosses will never sit up and take notice. I call this diluting the important points with trivial ones. If they are getting airborne with non-acceptable faults, then people should speak up. They are not sneaks, this is their duty. If anyone says that you must do this because there is a war on, ask for the order in writing and see if they will put their head on the block. If it all goes wrong, people who say they will back you up will disappear into the shadows and you will be on your own. If blokes were under fire, taking hits and screaming for help, then you might be justified for going on 3 engines, otherwise don't sign it up.

[Safety_Helmut]

The story has undoubtedly been sensationalised, and yes, it is very easy, with expert knowledge, to rip parts of it to shreds. But I think it’s probably true that most news stories could be taken apart by those in related fields.

There are numerous comments on various threads here on pprune that allude to what is alleged in this story. The effects of leaning, shortage of aircraft and spares, de-skilling of the engineering trades, under-resourcing of critical systems and equipment and the mass exodus, both on redundancy and PVR of skilled and experienced tradesmen.
> If the F700 isn't cleared, then the jet isn't serviceable and the captain can't sign for it.

Don’t kid yourself, there are ways of clearing the F700.

And the provision of spare parts is so shoddy that in order to keep one plane flying, the No2 plane in operations is routinely stripped to the extent that it can't be used.

> Nothing new there then, but again, not an explicit threat to safety

You’re right, nothing new, but we are currently fighting a war, this kind of situation is unacceptable. It was exactly the same in GW1. I would suggest that the constant robbing and refittment of critical parts and systems, whilst not an explicit threat, is not conducive to safety.

S_H

[FJJP]

Unserviceable kit listed in the ADD log can only go in there if it won't materially affect the safety of flight AND won't affect the execution of the mission, ie, sometimes an ADD log entry would be unacceptable for certain missions but OK for others.

Then there are unserviceabilities that occur during the start and taxy cycle. Often a captain would weigh up the risk to safety against loss of mission. For example, I decided to get airborne with a u/s hydraulic pump for a war mission - something I would not have done for a training sortie.

The Record article is pure sensationalism - it sold a few extra papers on the day, and the individual got a chance to vent his spleen. The RAF authorities will do exactly what they should - ignore it and it will go away.

I lost a good friend on that flight, and I am angry that an individual has used this accident to come up with an attack on engineering practices in the RAF. The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.

FJJP

[diginagain]

diginagain,
Why be embarrased? It is normal practice, even on your everyday airliner.
Not that we need the details though.
sw
Not all embarrased, Safeware. As others have pointed out, it depends on the task at hand and circumstances. Those of us who've been there are annoyed at the article's implicit scaremongering, but having had to endure the contents of this so-called 'newspaper' in my current employment, I can hardly be surprised, can I?

[NimAGE139]

Yes, there is a shortage of spares, yes the crews and engineers are stretched and yes, we all have our opinion on the issues ( past and present ) but we really ought to close ranks on the press and give them nothing to go on. They will never get the story correct and will misquote anyone to make sales.
However,if the Nimrod is flying with non acceptable faults then the RAF is truely in a poor state. The whole issue of ADF ( Acceptable Deferred Fault ) means just that! There is a whole chain of experienced technicians to make the decision on what is and what is not airworthy. There is ultimately a decision to be made and they are not made lightly in my experience. If technicians and their respective bosses are allowing the aircraft to fly in a non-airworthy condition then perhaps they need to take a serious look at what they're trying to achieve and to loose the "can do" attitude which does pervade throughout. Ultimately, if the aircraft has ADFs raised against it ( and they all do! ) then the captain is responsible for accepting that as an airworthyness issue when he signs for the aircraft. If, of course, this is hidden from him, where does that leave the crew? Engineers, stand up and be counted.

Let's give the BOI some space to come up with the facts!

[FCK1]

Hi guys!
sorry about dropping the article on you and vanishing in thin air, but kind of a hectic day yesterday. just enough time to cut and paste what i thought was an issue at least worth discussing, and putting in the wrong newspaper:sad: ... shows how much attention i'm paying at the mo. thanks for the responses though, didn't think anyone would pick it up.

[possel]

Unserviceable kit listed in the ADD log can only go in there if it won't materially affect the safety of flight AND won't affect the execution of the mission, ie, sometimes an ADD log entry would be unacceptable for certain missions but OK for others.

<snip>

The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.

FJJP


As an ex-sqn ldr engineer, thanks for the compliment to us all. However, I must just correct your first paragraph. Unless it has all radically changed, the ADF log is for exactly that - acceptable deferred faults. The Limitations Log is where faults are entered which are considered acceptable by the authoriser but which impose a limitation on the use of the aircraft, which is stated. It is up to the captain to decide whether the aircraft can do his mission with the limitation (but obviously we work together on that before it gets signed).

Of course all aircraft accumulate ADF entries, and there are many Lims which sit there for ages, but the rules do require that they get reviewed periodically rather than sit there for years as they used to once. The rule I always used was "can I justify that signature to a subsequent BoI?" If there was doubt, then there was no doubt, it didn't fly.

[nav attacking]

The biggest threat to everyones safety at he moment is the "creep" that is happening under the term "Risk Management". Gone are the days of "if there is any risk then there is no doubt, don't do it". Only a few years ago we would have never got airborne with some of the faults that we are regularly carrying into the air now.

The nimrod line is desperately under manned and add to that the effect of manning 2 DOBs (Seeb and Basrah) the engineers are spending more time away from home than ever. No wonder so many are now voting with their feet and leaving to a more secure future in the offshore industry, even if that means spending a long time away... At least they are getting paid for the discomfort.

As to the reply that the MOD had increased the engineering budget by x%, totally meaningless and full of *****. That was inevitable, the old girl should have been retired long ago when Nimrod 2000 came into service but the Treasury decided to keep slipping the programme to the right. We are now spending money to keep an ageing aircraft flying when the only money that would have been spent on it by now would have been the transport costs of sending it to the scrap yard. No wonder there has been an increase. I wonder what the normal budget should have been in real terms???

[flipster]

Flight Safety is even MORE important in war-time, especially as the RAF is constantly shrinking and we are putting all our eggs in the same, smaller basket.

If we lose an ac to anything other than enemy action (or, possibly, NOH) we are then doing the enemy's job for him!

Its worth remembering that in the 'risk management' (Yukspeak Alert) process.

Flip

[FJJP]

Possel,

My pleasure. You're right about the ADF/Lim logs; I didn't want to get into a huge debate about the differences, so I lumped the 2 together for the argument.

However, there has been the odd occasion where a captain has refused to accept an ADF entry for a flight; one springs to mind immediately where a captain refused to accept a delaminated windscreen because the night was particularly filthy and he didn't want any obstacle in forward vision for the landing.

In my experience, any issues over the logs are settled at the programme planning stage, where an ac is offered that is safe and fully mission capable.

[toddbabe]

"I lost a good friend on that flight, and I am angry that an individual has used this accident to come up with an attack on engineering practices in the RAF. The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them."

FJJP


Nobody is saying that the engineers are at fault! they are being flogged by the decisions imposed on them! over forty techies at NLS pvr'd this year 2006, before the third tranch of redundancies were even announced. When they go, plus the redundancy people from tranch 3, plus those that will now pvr since they didn't get redundancy you are going to be left with a desperatly short force, both physically and experience wise.
When you put two shifts of largely inexperienced men together, both working 24 hour shifts in hot desert conditions with the pressures of providing jets for operational sorties, you might at some point stretch them that bit too far! as you say they are professional but they can't work miracles, especially when you add to the equation Old aircraft, shocking lack of spares, poor accomodation (basra) (noise,crowding) leading to accumalitive fatigue.
By anyones standards this is a recipe for disaster!
I would have said waiting to happen but that may yet prove to be too late.
Hundreds of us lost friends fjjp, this individual should be applauded for speaking out and further highlighting the shortcomings in Raf expenditure and manning levels, without his and others voices we could find ourselves mourning yet more!

[buoy15]

Ok lets get the terminoligy right
The F700C has a Limitations log (Pink pages) - it may even include Red Line entries from the Design Authority or HQ, Stn Cdr, OC Ops, SEngo - This section is mandatory, for safety reasons - some kit will be fitted and collared out - but non-use must be observed
An Acceptable Defered Defects log (Green pages) ADD not ADF!!!! - DA, Stn Cdr, OC Eng, Line level decision to meet the flying prog - kit will work within defined acceptable limitations
A current defects log (white pages) which records the latest snags but may allow the aircraft to complete another sortie (acceptable by the on-coming Capt) in the same BF period (24 hrs) depending on sortie profile
Now to the nitty gritty points, which might answer some of Steve's concerns to Shona about most of the kit not working - does it matter ??
The Nimrod is the only true multi-role ac in the RAF inventory - The Falklands and OP Granby started a chain of modifications and events which was to propell this ac into front line operations (always had been, tracking real Russian submarines, surface units, and SAR in peacetime etc) - this never made the press - in fact it was only years later in PM Questions that the contribution made by MR2 became public - this accelerated the improvement programme within timescale - nothing like a good war eh!
The MR2 in AFGAN is presently doing an MRA4 job -
I acheived 9760 hrs on Nimrod - Wet, Dry, and having been a Nim Capt twice I always remembered the Task needs, Team needs, Individuall needs - vital - essential - desirable
When I was alocated an ac, I would never let it go unless the wings fell off
No Acoustics, No Radar, No ESM, No MAD, No HF -It was ok for an SCT
Yes , I'll take it
So Steve's complaint to Shona is nearly correct - most of the kit is not working - but can the ac do the job?
Task need - "Comms relay for ground forces over AFGN for 8 hours"
Capt - "Hello Chief is so and so working?"
Chief "Yes Sir, checked out 3 times"
"Good we'll go!"

[Safety_Helmut]

An Acceptable Defered Defects log (Green pages) ADD not ADF!!!!
ADF I believe, only reference I could find at home is AvP67: http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/docs/flyregs/avp67.pdf

I haven't looked at a F700 in anger for a few years, but it cahnged from ADD to ADF a long time ago, it hasn't changed back again has it ?

S_H

[Safeware]

I believe ADDs changed to ADFs (and yes it was a long time ago - early 90s if not earlier) because someone somewhere didn't like the idea of having Defects because it made it sound like the equipment was delivered Defective.

Or that could be another urban myth.

And 'aircrew accepts' could be accepted until the next AF, being After Flight.

sw

[buoy15]

Safety
That Link is aimed at contractors and is at variance with RAF procedures
viz: CH4 para 1401 " In AFTRA regulated ac, the Captain is to be a pilot"

Reading on, it appears I also forgot to sign up for Pt5 of the 'Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003' - how remiss of me

Just had a quick glance at the Oxford Concise

Defect - "Lack of something essential to completness - shortcoming or failing"

Fault - " Defect, imperfection, blemish of character, structure or appearance

There is a lot of other yuckspeak sh*te in that publication, but there again, it has been staffed and published by a Capt RN

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!

[fergineer]

Agree with you Buoy 15 at the end of the day it is the crew who accept the aircraft for the task and they will not go if an essential piece of kit is not working. The groundcrew work with what they have got and I for one appreciated the long almost thankless hours they put in to get the aircraft ready for us to fly........I was crew on the Nimrod a long time ago Mk1 and then Mk2 in them days there was a lot of experience both on the ground and in the aircrew and things were sorted very quickly, very few questions asked just done. I left the RAF in 96 when the problems were starting to surface more and more and feel the problem lies with the hierarchy totally, lack of manpower and spares being major factors that with increased tasking in inhospitable conditions only make things worse. I applaud all you guys out there doing it think long and hard with what you take flying dont be pressurised if in doubt there is no doubt!!! I remember being in ops at ASI and the crew chief calling me up and asking me to come and sort out the Jengo. He wanted to let one of the Nimrods get airbourne with ONE generator his view was that we flew on two at most of the times so we had only lost half of our generators!!!!! Both myself the crew and the groundcrew were speechless, the poor guy was a relatively young newcomer to the fleet with all good intentions.....needless to say the aircraft was fixed before it flew....pressures of war was getting to us all......
Remember guys take it easy out there old and bold and all that.

[BEagle]

Never let a BEngO out without an adult to keep him/her in check!

They frequently need a slap.

[Safety_Helmut]

Bouy 15

I used the link merely to illustrate that the terminology is now ADF not ADD. Bear in mind that contractors operating to AvP67 may be using the F700. I have now confirmed that it is ADF, by looking at the relevant JAP.

So when you blunder in with:
Ok lets get the terminoligy right and then go on to spout off on something that changed about 15 years ago.........

I think Safeware is correct, defect implies something that was present when equipment is delivered, a fault would be something that develops during use.

S_H

[Kitbag]

And finally, B15, as I am sure you are aware, an ADF should NEVER be used for a Limitation, only faults that have a maintenance effect on an aircraft. Limitations on an aircraft are exactly that. It does not work/should not be used as advertised.

[possel]

Further to several of the above, I seen to recall that Defect was changed to Fault as long ago as 1985 (the time we went from F720B to F707B), and that the reason was European conformity because the word Defect had a legal connotation of fundamental design flaw.

I am sure someone will correct me if the grey cells have got confused with the passing of time.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

possel, I'm sure you're right.

It was around about the same time that we had to remove all the 'Weight on Ground' switches and replace them with 'Weight on Wheels' switches. :ok:

[Hoots]

Does anyone know what is different with the new "equalised" servicing compared to the old style "major". As was illustrated in the MOD Focus newspaper XV230 was the first to go through this new style, reduced servicing. I have heard a rumour from a 3rd party that the BAE guys are not happy with it but they are doing exactly what the contract stated. My source says that it is roughly half of what the old servicing was. So I would be interested to know where the shortcuts are compared to previous days.

Looking at the previous comments, most are made towards the line. I trust these guys 100%. But maybe we should be looking more at the deeper maintenance also.

[number-cruncher]

Hoots, there was also an article in one of the Defence contractor papers in August which had the whole bunch of civvies standing in front of XV230 with big smiles saying how the servicing schedule had changed now and all were happy. The jist of the article was that the same number of hours were spent servicng the a/c but at less frequent times now, resulting in more availability of airframes to the front line. Oh and they would save a wad at the same time.
Correct me if I am wrong but if your car was 30 odd years old, would you service it less or more frequently?:confused:

[Kitbag]

Equalised maintenance is just a different way of applying the maintenance package. The basic idea is that instead of taking a frame off line for several months the work is split into smaller packages, the sum of which is exactly the same as the 2nd /3rd line maintenance it replaces, but releasing the frame back to 1st line for periods in the interim. There is nothing new about the idea, I remember it being a basic trade knowledge issue nearly 30 years ago. It tended to be applied to larger aircraft or those with a civilian background. I believe that the system is used by many civilian operatorsto minimise down time (anyone with actual knowledge please correct me).
If the work package has been reduced however, the style in which it s applied is irrelevant, i.e. if widget a used to be replaced with a bay serviced item at x,ooo hours, it should still be replaced at x,000 hrs.

Perhaps it would be best not to start speculating too wildly, especially using emotive language like 'shortcut'. Lets see what the BoI com up with, then all of us outsiders and armchair experts can vent forth if it doesn't fit in with our ideas. :oh:

[The Swinging Monkey]

The thing that concerns me so much over this 'change' to servicing procedures and/or practices is this....

Have the RAF had it so wrong for the last 30 years with Nimrod?
If we have, then fine. But I don't think we have! I am not against change or anything of that nature, but I cannot help but feel that like everything else today, this is driven purely and simply by money.

As number cruncher points out, would you service a 30 year old car more or less? hmmm, let me think for a nano second!

I suspect that, unless things have changed significantly since I was on the fleet, the boys and girls on the ground just don't get 'given' the jet long enough to fix things and clear all the snags - hence why the ADD log (or whatever its called these days) is so long.

I do so hope that this dreadful accident hasn't been caused by some 'bean counter' being able to show their boss that he/she has saved the treasury a few pounds!

Kind regards to all
TSM

[dodgysootie]

"I do so hope that this dreadful accident hasn't been caused by some 'bean counter' being able to show their boss that he/she has saved the treasury a few pounds!"

Well said TSM, I concur.

Gutted.

DS

[Tappers Dad]

My son was on the Nimrod that crashed and until the RAF and MoD have finished there investigation I think that any speculation is just that.There has been too much speculation by the press as to how it happened, as professionals I would have thought you would have understood this is not helpful.Please think of the families and end this thread now.Thank You