E-3D Storm Damage

[fantaman]

Found these pic's on another website today. Looks like the storms managed to cause a bit damage to one of Waddo's E-3D's. Maybe the greound equipment should have been tied down, doh :ugh:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/martin4356/prang2.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/martin4356/prang1.jpg

[Exrigger]

It is an 'aircraft simulator' used for towing practice, it was chocked but the high winds caused it to jump the chocks and it set of down the pan and stopped where it is shown in the pictures.

I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.

[Olly O'Leg]

Any engineer-types willing to comment on a possible "cat". Looks pretty serious??? :*

[Exrigger]

It is still being assessed by RAF & Northrop Grumman (who are now the Design authority for the aircraft), then it will be decided who is to repair it, when and how long it will take. If I find out I will post info, unless someone here beats me to it or I am spoken to (see comment in my previous post).

[TheWizard]

It is an 'aircraft simulator' used for towing practice, it was chocked but the high winds caused it to jump the chocks and it set of down the pan and stopped where it is shown in the pictures.

I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.

I don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!! :ugh:
Take cover!

[jumpseater]

Hmm rocket science dept will no doubt look at cctv tie to images at 13:33 and 15:55, wonder who's there then?:ugh: An interesting way to hand in your notice!:uhoh:

[Exrigger]

TheWizard

don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!! :ugh:

Sorry, I never thought to find the original site to see if I know who it was, but I am intrigued so will look.

[Exrigger]

No joy so far, so not very good at the old sleuthing business.

Jumpseater: Most of the station was there around those times with more than one digital camera being used to record the event for prosperity.

[ranger703]

As I've said on another forum,this is exactly the type of publicity that the recent DIN about capturing images was supposed to prevent.

Chances are though the guy who took the pic will just plead ignorance and be given a caution.

[Talk Wrench]

Looks like the witch hunting culture is rearing its ugly head again. What happened to the "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." environment that the military were trying to foster?:yuk:

Or is it due to the shiney ar$ed office types who will be baying for blood because their entire 2007- 2008 budget has just been swallowed by an E-3D?:{


TW

[Exrigger]

I did not think that my comments were taken as meaning that it is the start of a witch hunt by me when I get back to work, I was merely intrigued as to wether it was someone I knew. As to "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." that is the culture in the RAF that I was used to during the latter part of my career, and is normally what I find in inustry since I have left, unfortunately Planet Waddington is in a time warp and they have yet to catch up with the rest of the RAF.

[Talk Wrench]

Exrigger.


Certainly wasn't a jibe at yourself. Sorry if you if you took my comment badly.

It was merely an observation and my own opinion of the event and the whole tone of the thread.


TW

[Avtur]

There were actually two aircraft damaged! Still, it won't make any impact on current Ops as the E3-D don't do Ops; only exercises. They are, however, still very, very important so they keep telling us (especially those ground trades in a temporary flying role who think they are aircrew).

[Krystal n chips]

Despite the apparent damage shown on the photo's, I will stick my neck out and say it's probably nowhere near as bad as it appears. Think of like a head wound---lots of mess, but when you clean up there's usually very little real damage.

Mr Boeing's skins are not that thick really ( based on personal experience with 707 / 737 / 757 types ) and the structures are equally, comparatively speaking "flimsy" to save weight as I recall. Hence, when you get a crimp, they tend to look far worse than they are. What damage has been done to any systems behind the skin is another matter of course.

I am sure though, that the anal palpitations of the beany brigade will reduce in intensity once it is assessed. Who does the repair will be interesting though---CWP from Boeing perhaps ?.

Shame the powers that be decided it was a good idea to get rid of the deep repair and maintenance capability---or MU's in another time and place-because, whilst they may not have been able to do the complete repair, much of the nitty gritty and clean up / rectification would certainly have been within their capability. As it is, I bet this all goes on the bill.

[fantaman]

To be honest, I dont see what the problem is? If you have read through the DIN with regards to photography you will notice two things. One, its total b:mad: k's and virtually stops you taking any photographs of military aircraft on an RAF base whilst you are serving in the RAF. Two, its clearly been written for the muppets who insist on going OOA and taking pictures of dead bodies, POW's etc.

What harm has posting these pictures done?

[Exrigger]

samuraimatt:

I was not particulary looking for anyone, I happened to mention to my partner, after it happened, that I wonder if any photos would end up on the web and then on here. When they did appear here I was merely wondering out loud, so to speak, who of the people I know who took photos it might have been. Nothing sinister, but as it seems that my comments have been taken to mean I am fishing for information to report them on Monday, I will not make any further attempt to find out. Nor will I be shouting guess what I know, please sir, me sir on monday either.

As might be apparent, I work there so know what happened and that another aircraft recieved a glancing blow on the nose as the equipment travelled past at approx 30 mph (rumour estimate) before embedding itself into the other aircraft, there was a fuel loss as well.

Amended to add that I do not believe any harm has been done in posting these pictures.

[ranger703]

The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.

Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.

If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.

[cynicalint]

Rules are rules?!!

I always thought they were for the guidance of wise men and adherance by idiots.

There is a massive difference between doing things right and doing the right thing and attitudes that 'Rules are Rules' and must be obeyed have contributued to the downfall of this once fine service.

[Exrigger]

I do not think fantaman, and I certainly did not think that this thread would turn into what was intimated by others. fantaman posted the pictures from else where as a point of interest, I merely mentioned a few facts behind the pictures and was not expecting it to turn into anything else.

Maybe the moderators would consider removing the thread as it seems it may get blown up out of proportion.

I do not believe this is a sacking/disciplinary offence either especially when it is considered the other threads on this site that are discussed in minute and accurate detail of what is currently going on within the services.

[Talk Wrench]

Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.








Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not? :ouch:



Are you setting up the if, no and but, argument to a Witchfinder general type of outfit?


If you are, you should be ducked at the stake whilst wearing a parsnip for a nose.

You should note my point though.


TW

[wg13_dummy]

All he's done is taken a photo of a bit of GSE that just so happens to have an aircraft in the background.

Some people get their kecks in a twist over bugger all.

[Pontius Navigator]

Rules may be rules but you can never put the genie back in the bottle.
The Official Secret's Act of 1911 made great play of the offence of sketching military facilities etc. Mainly, I imagine, because a sketch was a more covert means of gathering intelligence than a photograph and did not need bulky equipment.
Furthermore naval officers had been instructed in the skills of sketching and drawing as the only viable way of securing intelligence.
Clearly new technologies can reduce the need for sketches etc hence the need to widen the scope of the Act. But the speed technology and the affordability of image capture devices far outstrips the ability of the plods to police it.
As thrashed out earlier on the DIN Photography ban, you can capture an image, transmit it, and delete the evidence such that it cannot be proved locally who did it.
When you find the camera, telephone, webcam, CCTV or whatever you still have to prove who captured the image.
"Not me Gov, I always leave my . . . in my desk."

[Mmmmnice]

Nice to see the speculation about how much effort may be expended tracking down the photman - will anyone put any time into finding out which group of monkeys were responsible for the damage in the first place? Obviously we can add 'effects of wind' to 'effects of snowfall' - in the list of natural phenomena that catch us out very time they occur! It's not as if we had no idea it was going to blow a hooley that day? Just as well we have a huge budget to pay for all these c*ck-ups...doh

[Talk Wrench]

Pontius,
I remember being taught at school that the train was a form of communication. In other words, it enabled people to take information from one place to another.
All that is happening now is an extension of the mode of communication.
If you put the tools of communication within reach of the communicator, then despite DIN, this will happen wether it is liked or not.
With the advent of the digital camera and the mobile phone, which usually now are equipped with a digital camera, is it not correct to say that such a method of communication will preside over more "normal" methods?
I agree with what you say. Have you seen the reports about the withdrawal from Google earth's sensitive coverage? I hope so.
In my own opinion,
The event has not breached any security issue other than the fact it has put only one aircraft out of action. Apart from a few tell tales, who knows where the aircraft is from or operates from apart from this thread.
Lessons can be learned and so they should,UNDER OPEN REPORTING PROTOCOLS, although that will not be open to debate (and should not,)here on this site.
The event could have happened to any aircraft at any airbase or airport worldwide.
So let us stop the witch hunt now.
Has someone shouted "Beadwindow" ?
No they haven't and there is no need to.
TW

[Saintsman]

If someone learns something about securing ground equipment in windy conditions the photos will have been well worth showing.

I remember reading lots of articles about the conflicts in the first gulf conflict. How everyone overcome the 'problems' and managed to get the job done. The trouble was nobody would say what the problems were, so how was anyone to learn? After gulf war 2 I read similar about similar problems...

If we supress our mistakes they will be made again by someone else. Lets at least take something positive out of this unfortunate incident.

[SamCaine]

... as the equipment travelled past at approx 30 mph (rumour estimate) before embedding itself into the other aircraft, there was a fuel loss as well.

Authorities are furious about this, the safe working max speed for the equipment is 20 mph ;)

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

There were actually two aircraft damaged! Still, it won't make any impact on current Ops as the E3-D don't do Ops; only exercises. They are, however, still very, very important so they keep telling us (especially those ground trades in a temporary flying role who think they are aircrew).


OOOOH Avtur, Harsh words. That will upset them, especially the ones who've gone and bought real aircrew flying jackets aswell!:=

[toddbabe]

The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.

Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.

If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Ranger get a life! who cares it's just a pic of some storm damage?
Sanctimonious twaddle!

[Tiger_mate]

Having browsed his photo collection and knowing the real photographer of some of the images therein, can I suggest that he may not be the photographer at all, and that he has borrowed them from elsewhere. In which case he is only guilty of providing a link here.

His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?

[N Joe]

A recent BOI for an aircraft lost in theatre saw most of the pics used as evidence leaked onto the net. Not aware of any action taken against anyone despite the sensitivity of the subject so whoever posted these pics should be safe.
I saw the RAFP unable to make charges stick to one of our techies who launched an unprovoked attack on a colleague at a station function in front of several hundred witnesses; so, even if they go after this guy, I would still say he's safe.
By the way, if you've seen this, should you report it to avoid being an accomplice?
N Joe

[Talk Wrench]

Further to my earlier posts which I omitted to say and something picked upon by Mike Jenvey.
AT LEAST NO ONE WAS HURT.
What costeth a life :uhoh:

[fantaman]

Having browsed his photo collection and knowing the real photographer of some of the images therein, can I suggest that he may not be the photographer at all, and that he has borrowed them from elsewhere. In which case he is only guilty of providing a link here.

His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?
Are you talking about me?

[xe624]

The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.

Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.

If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.

That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!;)

[Maple 01]

Has Ranger just 'outed' himself as a scuffer?

[TheWizard]

All he's done is taken a photo of a bit of GSE that just so happens to have an aircraft in the background.
Some people get their kecks in a twist over bugger all.

Obviously someone has, as the original post with the pics on another forum has been deleted!!:hmm:

[jumpseater]

My comment related to the fact that from my source, peeps 'close' to the incident were told in no uncertain terms that if piccies did appear, it would be 'goodnight Vienna' for the culprit. I didn't mention the second damaged frame though I knew of it before Avtur's post. That the pics have dissapeared from the other forum could indicate that the threat is being taken seriously!

[ranger703]

Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not?
They certainly are and I hope I have been wise in following them.
Sanctimonious twaddle!
Certainly not,its fact.
That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!
Certainly not,same subject happened to be on another forum that I am a member of Mr.P.You have done the same on occasion albeit under a different pseudonym.
Whats a scuffer???

I just get a bit peeved when I am told I can no longer bring my camera into work to take pics, although I have followed the rules over the years and had everything I have taken on base vetted prior to release.A DIN gets issued and I get told my photo permit is no longer any good regardless of my rule abiding.I ask why and am told its because of images appearing in the public domain without MOD approval or security clearance,such as the examples at the start of this thread. All I'm trying to say is that rule breaking by some,regardless of how petty some may think it is,screws it up for others.

[mayorofgander]

So then Ranger;

Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.:D

You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!:=

Hope they guy responsible for this accident (for it seems to be) gets reminded of his area of responsibilty in an appropiate and measured way. Aircraft can be fixed...just takes unnecessary time, manpower & money..

Later;
MOG:cool:

[ranger703]

So then Ranger;

Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.:D

You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!:=


Later;
MOG:cool:

I take my camera to work to capture images that Station clickies are not interested in,see my numerous threads on UKAR,also there is no station phot at my unit.I take pics whilst 'off duty'albeit still on a military establishment and I have DPA authorisation to do so,I also have my pics vetted when I have taken on other miltary establishments.They are not 'official'pics but they are approved and authorised.I have taken plenty of pics from 'on base' that have not been approved for one reason or another and these remain in my personal collection.

[mayorofgander]

What station is that then...without a Clickie...

Macrihanish/ Buchan/ Saxa Vord/ Boulmer?????

not interested in UKAR...

MOG:cool:

[ranger703]

Machrihanish:Closed
Buchan:Closed
Saxa Vord:Closed
Boulmer:Too far south for me!

I'm based at the Northen Air Weapons Range.

[mayorofgander]

Hope you have a fast shutter speed then.....:8
But then again, you are too far out of the way to be affected by an E3Dink.....so don't get so frothed up about someone elses illicit piccies.:sad:

Bet the NAAFI bop is a real killer up there!!!:ok:


MOG:cool:

[toddbabe]

Ranger havent got a clue what ukar is ? certainly haven't posted on any other sites, just think you are talking horse!
I don't see any harm in that Photo rules or no rules.
SADDO

[xe624]

That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!
Certainly not,same subject happened to be on another forum that I am a member of Mr.P.You have done the same on occasion albeit under a different pseudonym.

Sorry Ranger, that was slightly tongue-in-cheek....:)


Out of interest, are the images on here a link to the originals or copies that have been posted here? The post from which they came has gone so I suspect the person responsible has decided to take them off ... maybe someone should do the same here since he obviously doesn't want them online anymore....

[goosegander]

hello gents

well this is my first post......:)

all i want to say is............##I am the person who put these pictures on another website, infact i have put them on several websites........:hmm:

i was merly pointing out that the wind has caused havoc.......
sorry to say as a result of some comments made on this forum, one site has removed my post....

all i will say is, i know full well the rules of photography in the military,
and i will also go on to say i will and shall do as i please, :ugh:

if anyone has a problem with what i post on the internet, please feel free to send me an e-mail or personal message, i will be more than pleased to talk about my actions....

there are no dead bodies here....i did my fair share of repatreating them from iraq!!

[goosegander]

no actually im a bit annoyed that my post was removed from the other forum,

i posted the pictures, on several sites actually, as a point of interest not to point blame,

i know the rules on piccies in the military, but hey, i thought someone might have been interested!

not many here im guessing!!!

if anyone else feels they need to point out how wrong i was, feel free to email or pm me, i will be happy to discuss it!

[goosegander]

no not tired ratty....lol:}

just bloomin anoyed at the pettyness of some people:mad:

never mind, i will get some sleep....:zzz: ...honest:{

[xe624]

no actually im a bit annoyed that my post was removed from the other forum,

Oops. Stand corrected :sad:

Since the images here were posted my someone other than yourself, I wasn't sure if you actually knew they were here - I think most assumed you had asked from them to be removed from CBFS. Hope you didn't think I was trying to put word in your mouth....:sad:

As it happens, they were indeed very interesting to see :)

[Blacksheep]

Interesting discussion about possible security breach, but as a member of the public I reckon that this is something that shouldn't be covered up. The taxpayer will have to pay to fix it.

We had a B767-300 suffer similar damage at Heathrow when the handling agent's tow tug ran away and took a bite out of the forward hold's belly skin. Repair was by replacement of the damaged frames, stringers and skin. Follow-up was an 'overblow' check to seat all the parts and work harden the repaired area. Total bill came to just over US$8 million. Plus the aircraft was out of service for nearly three months.

I believe that wind damage is classed as an Act of God by the insurers. So, now you know the awful truth. God is a Mover... :}

[Archimedes]

Given that He moves in mysterious ways that are beyond the congnisance of mere mortals, I'd have thought that was obvious... ;)

[BEagle]

It's easy to underestimate the power of a good blow......:ooh:

Some years ago, an unforecast hurricane hit Bermuda where we were positioned for an air show with a VC10K. It was so suddent that we were locked in the hotel and unable to take any additional precautions over the routine ones of asking for extra chocks to be lashed in place.

The wind and driving rain hosed the chocks out from under the aircraft, which then went for a little walk before being stopped by spectator 'bleachers' set up for the air show. Damage was one bent pod impeller and one scratched slat; both were soon repaired. As an extra precaution, the ground crew also carried out the 'after flight through severe turbulence' and 'heavy landing' procedures - nothing untoward found.

We were very lucky, having been parked on the USN side of the base; the USN runs a tight ship and there was no gash or loose rubbish to dmage the aircraft any further. Whereas a Nimrod wasn't so lucky, with substantial damage over at the civil side of the airport.

When Big G / Big A (delete as applic) decides to show who's boss, you can take all the precautions imagineable, but at the end of the day the wind will often win.

[Set Me Free]

Some thread creep here me thinks?

Someone puts some pics of an E3 on here, damaged in a freak accident. Its hardly a secret aircraft?! You could probably have seen the damage from the road/viewing area with binos.

I seem to remember (although my mind has been warped by 3 pages of tedium) that it was asked as to a likely cat of damage and how likely it was to be back in service?

[RileyDove]

I would say Cat 3/4 at a guess with a Boeing /whoever working party required and a rather nice repair scheme .

[fantaman]

Not being one of you technical types, what does cat 3/4 mean and what do the rest mean. Does it go up to seven?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Safety_Helmut,
What an utterly stupid statement to make!
How on earth can the damage cat be possibly 'frigged' to let the aircrew off the hook? How stupid of you to even suggest a thing.
Just for the record, this particular piece of ground equipment, is operated solely by the ground crew and has got nothing to do with the aircrew whatsoever - arse!
TSM

[The Swinging Monkey]

Safety_Helmut

Sir, I do not believe you frankly. I am either being extremely naiave or you are telling big porkies. Accident catagories are NOT determined by someone's opinion, and cannot be frigged at all. They are a judgement (yes) based on actual damage to an aircraft, NOT the circumstances, and are judged by an independant team of experts (not, as you imply, the culprit of the damage and his mates) If you are really suggesting that you know factually of 'cover ups' on this matter or instances where damage has NOT been accurately reported, then I (and probably the staff at IFS and AAIB) would be most interested in hearing about them.

To suggest that... 'repair work took place at an inappropriate level of repair organisation' is disgraceful, appalling and if it is true, then it is almost certainly illegal and I would suggest that you either retract your remarks immediately or give some examples that can be investigated by the appropriate authorities to substantiate the 'illegal' repairs.

Comments of this nature will undoubtedly find their way into the press, and that is the last thing the RAF needs right now. Allegations of mis-practice, concerning aircraft engineering and ultimately safety will be investigated, make no doubt about that. Nevertheless, I am certain there will many aircrew who are now wondering if the aircraft they are flying has been fixed/repaired by the appropriate or maybe inappropriate organisation as you suggest.

You might have just opened a big can here Helmut, and I am genuinely shocked by your accusations!

Regards to all
TSM

[Safety_Helmut]

TSM

You have a PM

S_H

[Lyneham Lad]

Safety_Helmut,
What an utterly stupid statement to make!
How on earth can the damage cat be possibly 'frigged' to let the aircrew off the hook? TSM

Presumably Safety_Helmut has deleted the post which had TSM so worked up????

I cannot comment on current aircraft damage assessment methods but I doubt if they are much different from when I had the pleasure of being an Aircraft Surveyor (431MU, Brueggen). On notification of damage that the parent Station felt was beyond their capabilities, one of us would hot foot it, armed with the appropriate Vol 6's etc and carry out an in-depth examination. This is not just of the immediate visible damage but also looking for secondary damage caused, for example, by transmission of shock loads. If the damage could be repaired in accordance with (iaw) the Vol 6, the aircraft would be deemed Cat 2 but the Station could ask for help from the MU (Cat 2 Assist). Cat 3 would result in the arrival of an MU working party armed with repair schemes (in some cases drawn by the Aircraft Surveyor) and detailed repair instructions. Depending on the findings, we may well have needed to contact the Design Repair Authority for authority and/or additional repair schemes.
Damage beyond the MU's capabilities is CAT 4 (repair by Contractors working party) and if beyond economical repair then CAT 5.

I cannot imagine that standard of the actual repair work has ever been influenced by what earlier posts imply but politics can and did influence whether something was deemed as CAT 3 or CAT 4.

[Winco]

Lyneham Lad

Could you elaborate on what you mean by politics affecting categories? I was always of the opinion that, as you state, the difference between 3 and 4 is down to an MU being able to repair as opposed to a civilian organisation/manufacturer? I don't see where politics comes into it.

Clearly S_H you have rattled TSM's cage somewhat! What did you say? From the Monkeys comments it must have been something pretty serious!

As for the AWACS, I too am not an expert, but I would have thought cat4 myself, if for no other reason than Mr Boeing will be wanting to fix the aircraft correctly and properly. That said, the bill from him will be astronomical, and if Joe Bloggs down the road will do for a bit less, chances are he'll get the job!

The Winco

[Exrigger]

Winco

I mentioned in #5 that Northrop Grumman are now the Design Authority, as well as prime contractor for the Sentry support. The decision will be, as I understand it, either the team at Waddington or RSS (or whatever they are called nowadays) from St Athan. The last repair for spar corrosion was carried out by a St Athan team. HTH

[Wrathmonk]

I seem to recall being told in the dim distant past that one of the differences between Cat 3 and Cat 4 (other than the obvious damage and repair means) was that the cause of / reason for a Cat 3 could (but not necessarily always) be investigated by a Unit Inquiry (appointed by, and reporting to, the stn cdr) whereas the cause of / reason for a Cat 4 or Cat 5 had to be investigated by a Board of Inquiry (convened by, and reporting to, the AOC). Maybe this is the politics that Lyneham Lad refers to?

Purely out of curiosity I would be grateful if anyone who knows for sure could confirm if this is one of the markers for deciding whether to run a UI or BoI.

W

[Lyneham Lad]

I seem to recall being told in the dim distant past that one of the differences between Cat 3 and Cat 4 (other than the obvious damage and repair means) was that the cause of / reason for a Cat 3 could (but not necessarily always) be investigated by a Unit Inquiry (appointed by, and reporting to, the stn cdr) whereas the cause of / reason for a Cat 4 or Cat 5 had to be investigated by a Board of Inquiry (convened by, and reporting to, the AOC). Maybe this is the politics that Lyneham Lad refers to?W

I cannot possibly comment on the above............

The particular case I had in mind when I made my comment was about a Harrier in RAFG. It suffered engine failure on the approach and impacted very heavily in the undershoot at Guetersloh. The damage to the fuselage in particular was very extensive and even BAe (as was) sucked their teeth and shook their heads. However, 431MU was short of work and was fighting to justify it's existence as a repair organisation so (AIUI) a political (or perhaps deemed tactical) decision was made to declare the aircraft Cat3 in order to justify keeping a RAFG aircraft repair resource.

We ended up carrying out repair work that went beyond even what BAe had carried out previously and for the first time ever (AFAIK) BOTH of longitudinal beams for the main U/C were replaced as well as much other work to the fuselage. Nigh on 3 years of continuous work by the team saw the aircraft successfully returned to Guetersloh in fine fettle.

[Blacksheep]

The military Vol 6 is called the Structures repair Manual or SRM in civil parlance. Damage beyond the SRM requires a repair design done by a suitably approved design organization. Looking at the damage to that E3 I'd say its well beyond a B707 or KC135 SRM and is therefore beyond the RAF Vol 6. Boeing would easily design a repair and also provide many of the parts needed to carry it out, but its well within an M.U.'s capability to accomplish it. I don't know if any RAF M.U. has the overblow equipment to 'work' the completed repair, but that could be hired in from Boeing too. Repair design contracted out with accomplishment in-house? I reckon that makes it Cat 3.

[dionysius]

Sorry to digress, Ratty 1 stated :
Like I said earlier if you just blame the movers then nothing will happen and it will be forgotten in a jiffy.
Yet again another sensible thread has an attempt to hijack it into being a "we all hate movers" list.
Ratty, was your mother shagged by a mover or maybe you were rejected by the movements trade ? either way :
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B0001MXRLQ.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
My apologies to all for the interuption.:ok:

[Wader2]

Nigh on 3 years of continuous work by the team saw the aircraft successfully returned to Guetersloh in fine fettle.

I think the quote above touches on the political side. Ie the time factor to repair.

Let us say the damage is borderline Cat 3/4. In other words the station resources could do a competent repair to the same standard as the contractor. If the work is Cat 4 it will cost money to the contractor but free up station resources and possibly be done quicker.

OTOH as Cat 3 it will eat up station resources but cost less and may take longer.

How you pay therefore is the political drive to fudge the Cat.

Could that be the case?

[N Joe]

Safety_Helmut
Accident catagories are NOT determined by someone's opinion, and cannot be frigged at all. TSM

Having spent many hours arguing with the structures desk at the IPT, I would say that Damage Cats are often determined purely by one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage. The issue is not, however, anything to do with a cover up, it is purely a battle of wills over who has the money and manpower to carry out the repair.

N Joe

[Winco]

N Joe,

I have been on a couple of BoI's and I am slightly bemused by your comments also. Are you actually saying that, in your opion and experience, an individual can make a decision of an aircraft damage cat based purely on 'one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage' ??

In my experience, the issue has been about getting together a bunch of experts to inspect, determine and try to put a value on the amount of damage the aircraft has sustained. I would agree perhaps, that station resources and £££ may have a very slight effect on the final outcome, but I can't agree about the 'passing regard' bit.

The winco

[Aeronut]

Is the jet fixed and flying now?

[cornish-stormrider]

Two SAC riggers an a roll o speed tape slapped her up an said "She'll be right boss, it'll do a trip!!":p

Not!!

I would surmise it's still sitting somewhere waiting for the flying buns to finish before a man with egg on his hat makes a decision

[Nopax,thanx]

Repair contract now awarded.....

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=215832

Didn't take too long :rolleyes:

[Daysleeper]

Didn't take too long
And the repair will only take another 11 months :eek:

[trap one]

Just glad it's being fixed. Had visions of her being laid up in Alpha as a hanger queen with no chance of being repaired.

[Ivan Rogov]

Why is it being fixed? Do we need 7 E-3's in the forseeable future, aren't we looking to save £1 billion

[mary_hinge]

Compare to the time scale for this repair:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=301696&page=4

OK, the E3 puncture is far "deeper" than the B737, and will require further interior strip out, but the 737 damage is spread over a larger area.

The construction / build / repair of the E3 / B707 / B737NG is very similar.

So whilst the 2 year repair drags on, RAF down another airframe and increased pressure for all concerned to maintain the few left not in repair or sched maintenance!

[Magnersdrinker]

WOW after all this time am i right in thinking this jet has been hangared and has not flown and only now are they going to repair it ?

[Nopax,thanx]

Yep, that's normal speed for the Ministry.

By comparison, when I worked for TNT we once tw@tted a 146 in similar style at LGG when the tractor pushing the aircraft out of a hangar following maintenance lost traction in the snow and skidded around on the towbar, taking out two fuselage frames. The aircraft was repaired on site inside four weeks, IIRC.