Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

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

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

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

Old 17th May 2008, 12:48
  #521 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Nimrod Safety Case (NSC), which is not required for legacy systems before the HSAW Act, was carried out because the MOD's JSP indicated that, in general, it would be sensible to gather as much data as possible in order to provide an argument that the legacy aircraft also met the principles required under the HSAW Act.
EdSett, you have produced some of the more informative posts on this thread, but this is Twaddle !

Let's get something straight, THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR A SAFETY CASE. However, many regulated industries require a Safety Case to be produced and submitted for regulatory approval. The MoD has chosen this approach and has been using it for some time for new equipments, it has been well documented in successive issues of Def Stan 00-56. For legacy in-service aircraft, the MoD mandated the production of a Safety Case in (then ES(Air)) Business Procedure 1201.

S_H
Safety_Helmut is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 13:45
  #522 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
I think the point Chug makes is self-regulation is fine so long as one implements the regs properly. MoD has admitted it doesn't, a simple verifiable fact.
Thanks for covering for me tuc, but in all honesty I must nail my colours to the mast. It is my belief that self-regulation is never fine. It is a very British tradition practised by the Legal and Medical Professions among others, the purpose of which is to protect the professions rather than those seeking redress, IMHO. I see similarities in the MOD's process of self regulation regarding Airworthiness Provision to the military airfleets. The point isn't the discharge of responsibilities by particular organisations or individuals, the point surely is the actual quality of Airworthiness Provision by the MOD. Given the three threads running concurrently on this Forum concerning the Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook fleets and the serious Airworthiness shortcomings revealed therein, it seems to me that, for whatever reasons, the system is plainly dysfunctional and unfit for purpose, as are many of the aircraft it purports to protect. Put bluntly the proof is in the pudding, and I find this one well beyond its sell by date and a definite health hazard!
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 13:58
  #523 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Apologies Chug. I spoke out of turn. It's just that self regulation is what I've been used to, and have seen it work on Military Airworthiness. However, in the last 17 years it has not, and I agree with you that it is now almost impossible to resurrect. I certainly wouldn't relish the task. MoD would argue there is provision in the regs for independent assessment, although it is debatable exactly how independent some are. Worse, the regs don't actually require MoD to accept this independent advice or give reasons why they are rejecting it. It will be interesting to read what the Coroner recommends.

Best wishes
tucumseh is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 15:58
  #524 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 661
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think the point Chug makes is self-regulation is fine so long as one implements the regs properly. MoD has admitted it doesn't, a simple verifiable fact.
As Tuc says, whether you've implemented the regs or not is the key issue, hence:

The point isn't the discharge of responsibilities by particular organisations or individuals
...well, you could argue it is really. That is the whole point, and furthermore you need to question whether the regs you did/did not follow were adequate to have caught the underlying problem in any case or whether a new facet of regulation is needed (e.g. years ago failure to properly consider Human Factors during design & risk analysis).

You cite problems
concerning the Nimrod, Hercules and Chinook fleets and the serious Airworthiness shortcomings revealed
Nimrod, potentially yes, but why Hercules & Chinook? The Hercules was shot down - a military risk/threat decision was made long ago not to bother with some technologies which may or may not have had any effect in any case. This is not really an airworthiness issue in the traditional sense, as bad guys firing bullets/rockets at you is always going to be a dangerous situation with risks that cannot be fully mitigated. The Chinook was regrettably, but almost certainly (but not perhaps beyond all doubt due to lack of much evidence) flown into the Mull by its pilots. The MAR/FADEC issue was a red herring.

Be careful not to lump together and confuse different complex issues.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 16:46
  #525 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Safety Helmut,
EdSett, you have produced some of the more informative posts on this thread, but this is Twaddle !

Let's get something straight, THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR A SAFETY CASE.
I didn't say there was a legal requirement to do so, neither did the Air Cdre, so far as I know. He simply said (so I'm told) that, in accordance with the principles of the HSAW Act, the JSP required him to provide an argument that the Nimrod was safe. Its not worth debating this particular point anyway. In a nutshell, the MOD shot itself in the foot when it mandated a safety case that was not required by law, which then turned out to be erroneous. Apologies if I gave anyone a wrong impression of what was said.
EdSet100 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 17:36
  #526 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In a nutshell, the MOD shot itself in the foot when it mandated a safety case that was not required by law, which then turned out to be erroneous.
No Ed, it did not. Assurance of safety under a safety case regime is widely regarded as best practice in this country. Power Generation, Nuclear, Chemical, Rail, ATM, Offshore to name a few, all take this approach.

S_H
Safety_Helmut is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 18:20
  #527 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
JFZ90:
Be careful not to lump together and confuse different complex issues.
Well I am lumping them together, or rather they lump themselves together in my view, and the thing that lumps them together is their shortfall in airworthiness. The Nimrod you tacitly concede I think, so perhaps therein we agree. The Hercules was bereft of a technology, ie ESF, adopted by our closest ally from whom we obtained the fleet. You say:
a military risk/threat decision was made long ago not to bother with some technologies which may or may not have had any effect in any case. This is not really an airworthiness issue in the traditional sense, as bad guys firing bullets/rockets at you is always going to be a dangerous situation with risks that cannot be fully mitigated.
Well quite, and that decision adversely affected the military airworthiness of the fleet, ie its fitness for purpose. It is possible that the hostile action that brought down XV179 might have been survivable with ESF. We don't know, but without it there wasn't a chance. Mitigation of risks is surely what Airworthiness is all about isn't it?
You say regarding Chinook:
The MAR/FADEC issue was a red herring.
Really? I'm afraid I would disagree. As I understand it Boscombe Down disagreed also. Note, I do not say that problem was a factor in the Mull accident, as you say we don't know (well other than Messrs Wratten and Day). I do say that the type was being operated with less than proper Airworthiness protection. Another MOD decision?
My point about who said or did what etc, is not that it is unimportant, of course it is and must be revealed. It is rather that the urgent need is not for investigation or introspection, but total reform of the Provision of Military Airworthiness in the UK. I take note of tuc's conclusion that it is probably beyond resurrection in its present form. In order to mitigate (that word again!) future needless loss of life it must be speedily removed from the MOD and placed in an Independent MAA.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 19:19
  #528 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 661
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chug,

We'll have to differ on this one, but I can only reiterate that lumping them together as having 'common failures' is too simplistic.

I do not say that problem was a factor in the Mull accident
It is really a red herring though - the status of the MAR was an on-going issue which would have been very damning if it had had a bearing on the incident - but it didn't. I propose not to get into the debate here though - its too emotive - but by the same token that you can argue with me that it could be an issue, it is possible (& easier) for me to argue it wasn't. Suffice to say you can't draw parallels to what happened on Nimrod, and on balance of probabilities, Mull was 99.9% not a airworthiness issue.

For Nimrod it is clear that a design flaw which had a direct bearing on its safety during normal operations persisted in the in-service aircraft - no matter how you dress this up it is 100% an airworthiness issue. The MoD conducted a Safety Case exercise (which as discussed above was not even legally required, but did/does represent best practice) but which still failed to flag up the problem - the flaw goes back along way, probably to the days before the term Safety Case was even dreamt up (anyone know for sure when this term became common, late 80s/early 90s?). There are lessons to learn here, I've never questioned that - but from what I can see they are not necessarily obvious ones.

Hercules is a bit different in that its a capability/threat thing. To draw a simplistic extreme, you could find yourself shot down in combat by a Sukhoi Su-27 while flying your Tornado F-3, or even a Typhoon. In this case you could argue the MoD had been negligent by not sufficiently reducing the mission/combat risk to ALARP - it could have equipped the RAF with F-22s which is a bit of technology that is (perhaps only slightly) more likely to have shot down the Su-27 before being shot down itself. Should ALARP/fitness for purpose/airworthiness apply here to these type of risks? Training and tactics probably play a bigger part than the technology in the outcomes here anyway so where best to invest? You could debate this all day but I hope you can see this is not the same thing at all as an aircraft that may catch fire/expode all on its on during normal operation.
JFZ90 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 19:44
  #529 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
The common denominator here is the failure to implement the airworthiness regs.

The recent cases where this failure is absolutely clear cut, if only because it is spelt out in the BoI reports (so not just my own opinion), are Nimrod, Tornado/Patriot and Sea King ASaC. I won’t pre-judge C130, but suspect that one is more a fitness for purpose issue, which shares the same processes, procedures and Duty of Care obligation.

It is certainly a factor in the Chinook Mk2, because the evidence clearly shows the regs were not implemented properly. Whether or not this had a direct bearing on the crash nobody will ever know – which is the whole point of trying to have the verdict overturned. But it should not detract from the fact.

I’d say the above is a pretty damning body of evidence, all of it in the public domain. Of the five I’ve mentioned, at least 3 were predictable, predicted and ignored; with the MoD’s own airworthiness advisors having critical concerns about a 4th (Chinook). Yes, you very quickly get to the real problem. Lack of management oversight and leadership, and abrogation of responsibility. Start at 2 Star and work upwards.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 21:24
  #530 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
EdSett,

I think since your post others have re-iterated the MAA / Safety Case / airworthiness issues well enough, but I'd like to pick up on a contradiction in what you have posted:
Air Cdre Beber laid out the existing mechanism that provides the airworthiness requirements under BCARs. Regardless of individual opinion regarding a conceived need for a military aviation authority, that mechanism is robust. The mechanism and tools comprised the design, testing and limitations in the Release to Service and all supporting documents. These alone met the BCARs and the Nimrod was certified using the Comet and the Nimrod MR1 as the baseline design to meet the BCARs for certification of the MR2, as a modification of the original model.
vs
very critical in hindsight of the design of the 7 Tank Dry Bay and indicated that BAe produced a flawed design and that the IPT has missed an opportunity (the NSC) to identify that flaw.
If the mechanism was robust, a flawed design would not have been certified; or if the orginal design was robust, subsequent modifications would also be safe.

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 21:38
  #531 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The common denominator here is the failure to implement the airworthiness regs.
Absolutely.

It only remains for Mr Haddon Cave to find out who failed.

There was clearly a failure to accurately describe the risk controls in that dry bay.

S_H
Quote:
In a nutshell, the MOD shot itself in the foot when it mandated a safety case that was not required by law, which then turned out to be erroneous. Ed Set
unquote

No Ed, it did not. Assurance of safety under a safety case regime is widely regarded as best practice in this country. Power Generation, Nuclear, Chemical, Rail, ATM, Offshore to name a few, all take this approach. S_H
Thats true. But those working in/for the MOD failed to do the job properly, so they let down the MOD/RAF and the crews; one in particular). The irony of all this is that if the IPT had not carried out the NSC, the accident would still have happened and the Nimrod design and its operation would be subject to greater scrutiny. Maybe it will be, next week.
EdSet100 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 21:45
  #532 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JFZ90, as regarding lumping things together, the definition of airworthiness is:
The ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate
without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the
general public over which such airborne systems are flown.
Seems to lump them together nicely.

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 21:49
  #533 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Safeware,
Thats a good point. However, If you accept that a system is deemed robust if it meets BCARs, then we have to accept that BCARs is/was not robust in its requirements. It seems that the MR2 was accepted as airworthy because the manufacturer was able to maintain certification under a modified MR1 design, because BCARs allowed them to do it. So, on that basis, not even the BCARs were able to prevent the flawed system within the MR2.
EdSet100 is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 23:04
  #534 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Edsett,

What you can then come back to is that the mechanism was flawed in its implementation not its principle, something that tucumseh and I have long espoused.

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 23:10
  #535 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SW, I tend to agree with you and Tuc. However, I would also argue that a system that vests responsibilities of ownership, operation and regulation in the same body will lead to conflict of interest and will fail. I would agree with Chugalug and call for an independent authority.

S_H
Safety_Helmut is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 23:24
  #536 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
S_H,

But then we get back to the issue I covered a while ago of civil regulation of a military operation that, inevitably, involves risk beyond that which would normally be taken in the civil world. How would a civil regulator view strapping a number of soldiers onto the outside of an Apache and flying them into an enemy fort?

Or should such a civil regulator only concern themselves with the "civil" elements of an aircraft and leave the military stuff to the military?

But then how does one consider military equipment such as AAR, which become a core part of the aircraft?

In an ideal world, it may work. But realistically, would it?

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 17th May 2008, 23:58
  #537 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
Safeware, I don't call for a civilian authority per se, rather I call for an independent one, ie independent of the MOD. While it would seem sensible to "nest" such an authority with the CAA, its remit would be to manage and enforce Military Airworthiness. Given the consensus building here that the regulatory system itself is sound, I would propose that it be exported to an MAA manned by a similar mix of those who manage the in house MOD system, ie military (presumably ex in this case to avoid divided loyalty) and civilian. Hopefully the former would develop a more professional application to their work than a single posting presently allows, and both they and the latter would merely encounter support from above in their aim to make for aircraft and systems fit for the work they are put to. As regards the military aspect of their airworthiness, it is entirely fundamental to that fitness. AT aircraft having to fly low, land and take off in enemy infested areas need the basic protection of the likes of ESF. That may or may not be appropriate for their civilian counterparts, it is essential for them. It is an example of where the MAA would have a differing agenda to the CAA and would be complementary to it, not part of it. At the end of the day the task of a military aircraft and its crew is to successfully carry out the task allotted it, if necessary to its own destruction. The MAA would merely attempt to make that success more certain and the survivability of the crew more likely.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th May 2008, 00:07
  #538 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chug,

But how would it be independent of the MOD? If a SoS is still to have responsibility, then even if the deckchairs were shuffled round within the government, true independence isn't achieved, merely another smokescreen. Civil regulation is demonstrably independent of the manufacturers, owners, operators and customers - that's why it works.

sw
Safeware is offline  
Old 18th May 2008, 00:11
  #539 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 82
Posts: 4,743
Received 165 Likes on 58 Posts
I don't envisage the SoS for Defence being responsible, independence makes that impossible. Nesting the MAA with the CAA, to share expertise and facilities, would imply sharing the same SoS as them surely?
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 18th May 2008, 07:52
  #540 (permalink)  
Registered User **
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry SW, I don't see the word 'civil' in my post.

I have to say that your reply smacks of a 'it's all too hard to sort out attitude' that seems so prevalent. Are you really suggesting that a system involving some level of independent oversight and assurance could not be established ?

But then how does one consider military equipment such as AAR, which become a core part of the aircraft?
As for the question above, to be honest, for someone with your background, I am very surprised. Read some of the more recent posts and have another think about it !


S_H
Safety_Helmut is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.