Nimrod Information
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC Ovee
REMARKS OF STN CDR on XV227 incident November 2004,
When the insidious nature of this technical failure and severity of damage to the wing spar became clear, I ordered a UI to establish the cause. The area of the SCP involved was not subject to a maintenance policy; a particular concern as the ageing Nimrod MR2 is extended beyond its original OSD. The F765B comprehensively covers all the issues raised within the UI.
This incident also highlights that it is particularly important that all who are involved in operating ageing aircraft be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes. This is not the first on the Nimrod MR2 in recent months. Airworthiness and design authorities need to be cognisant of this fact as new servicing schedules are proposed/debated; the unexpected failure should be ever at the forefront of our minds.
I agree that Proper post-flight checks are carried out on 230 but as we see from the remarks above they check areas they are told to check if its not on the list it doesn't get checked.
Potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes, shows some areas are not subject to inspection.
dodgysootie
As i said above it was said that people should be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes.
This hasn't helped
The incident reports were obtained under the FOI
everythingbuttheboy
I spoke to a senior Officer in Kinloss in Sept and asked him if he would be happy to fly the Nimrod if the Limitations on using Tank 7, the SCP and AAR were removed. He wouldn't answer the question so I said if the were OK for XV230 to fly without the limitations why aren't you flying them now without limitations. After all the BOI hasn't reported yet so what makes you think those limitations will make a difference again no answer.
If your son was killed in a car crash driving a Ford and the inquiry was done by Ford and the people doing the inquiry had never investigated a car crash before would you be happy with that?? Would you have faith in their findings given the F700 was destroyed.
Would you be happy to be told in Sept the BOI will report in June then in June told it will be Sept then in Sept be told Nov then late Oct told next year.
As for the BOI we are waiting and waiting and waiting .
Ben's mum and I and his brothers want to know why he was blown into pieces in a so called reliable ac with a good safety record.
Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults.
When the insidious nature of this technical failure and severity of damage to the wing spar became clear, I ordered a UI to establish the cause. The area of the SCP involved was not subject to a maintenance policy; a particular concern as the ageing Nimrod MR2 is extended beyond its original OSD. The F765B comprehensively covers all the issues raised within the UI.
This incident also highlights that it is particularly important that all who are involved in operating ageing aircraft be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes. This is not the first on the Nimrod MR2 in recent months. Airworthiness and design authorities need to be cognisant of this fact as new servicing schedules are proposed/debated; the unexpected failure should be ever at the forefront of our minds.
I agree that Proper post-flight checks are carried out on 230 but as we see from the remarks above they check areas they are told to check if its not on the list it doesn't get checked.
Potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes, shows some areas are not subject to inspection.
dodgysootie
Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults
This hasn't helped
incident reports leaked to Sky news
everythingbuttheboy
Is it just me, or is anybody else concerned about the amount of coverage that the nimrod is currently receiving in the press, concerning fuel leaks and "crew uncertainty" about whether or not the aircraft is safe to fly.......
If your son was killed in a car crash driving a Ford and the inquiry was done by Ford and the people doing the inquiry had never investigated a car crash before would you be happy with that?? Would you have faith in their findings given the F700 was destroyed.
Would you be happy to be told in Sept the BOI will report in June then in June told it will be Sept then in Sept be told Nov then late Oct told next year.
As for the BOI we are waiting and waiting and waiting .
Ben's mum and I and his brothers want to know why he was blown into pieces in a so called reliable ac with a good safety record.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
I'm sure you do, and we all do I'd imagine.. you need this put to bed for yourselves and for Tapper. But outing those e-mails wasn't a particularly decent thing to do though, and more importantly, I can't see what good it served you, or Tapper, or the cause. And I say this as someone who admires your resolve, your drive and your determination. You have lost your son, and I can't begin to imagine the pain.. as I can't begin to imagine the pain felt by the dads of those 2 lads run over on the motorway the other day.
Whatever I say will sound patronising, but there's a fine line between allowing something to eat you up, and doing the right thing for your little boy (they'll always be little boys, wont they?). Those e-mails weren't indications of corporate manslaughter, or whatever.,. they seemed to me, to be from blokes who (like yourself most prob.. dads too, hard working officers and with their hearts in the right place) were just trying to sort out one hell of a problem. If they had had the time, and different circumstances, they would have expressed themselves differently I'd imagine. E-mail is like jotting down random thoughts in many ways.. its a modern curse. We spend 4 times as long writing stuff that is 4 times too long.
Let the BoI announce its results, look at the big picture from every angle and then act. I know its frustrating as hell, although as I said, it must be awful for you and I thank God, have never had to know just how awful. But sometimes you might need someone to play devils advocate? Don't lose perspective, stay dignified and if and when you do realise you can nail the bastards.. do it properly but make sure that your aim is true, and pointing at the right culprits.
All the very best.
I'm sure you do, and we all do I'd imagine.. you need this put to bed for yourselves and for Tapper. But outing those e-mails wasn't a particularly decent thing to do though, and more importantly, I can't see what good it served you, or Tapper, or the cause. And I say this as someone who admires your resolve, your drive and your determination. You have lost your son, and I can't begin to imagine the pain.. as I can't begin to imagine the pain felt by the dads of those 2 lads run over on the motorway the other day.
Whatever I say will sound patronising, but there's a fine line between allowing something to eat you up, and doing the right thing for your little boy (they'll always be little boys, wont they?). Those e-mails weren't indications of corporate manslaughter, or whatever.,. they seemed to me, to be from blokes who (like yourself most prob.. dads too, hard working officers and with their hearts in the right place) were just trying to sort out one hell of a problem. If they had had the time, and different circumstances, they would have expressed themselves differently I'd imagine. E-mail is like jotting down random thoughts in many ways.. its a modern curse. We spend 4 times as long writing stuff that is 4 times too long.
Let the BoI announce its results, look at the big picture from every angle and then act. I know its frustrating as hell, although as I said, it must be awful for you and I thank God, have never had to know just how awful. But sometimes you might need someone to play devils advocate? Don't lose perspective, stay dignified and if and when you do realise you can nail the bastards.. do it properly but make sure that your aim is true, and pointing at the right culprits.
All the very best.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD said
230 had an equalized servicing May to July and the Tanks repaired in july and yet 3 weeks later was sent out to the gulf after only one flight with "Acceptable" leaks from the same areas that were leaking prior to all this maintenance.
This is totally standard procedure. There are a lot of items that need to be fitted to an aircraft prior to it deploying to the gulf. Once maintenance has been completed there is little time before the jet leaves therefore only one or two sorties are usually conducted before leaving.
As for "acceptable" fuel leaks, that is EXACTLY what they are, ACCEPTABLE. I am again sat here wondering what the acceptable wing leaks have to do with the loss of 30.
Fuel SEEPING from a wing tank will not cause an aircraft to be lost. Unless of course a tank ruptured, and they were firing flares off at the same time but it was reported as a bomb bay fire not a wing fire so the wing leaks are irrelevant and detract from what the BOI might report.
230 had an equalized servicing May to July and the Tanks repaired in july and yet 3 weeks later was sent out to the gulf after only one flight with "Acceptable" leaks from the same areas that were leaking prior to all this maintenance.
This is totally standard procedure. There are a lot of items that need to be fitted to an aircraft prior to it deploying to the gulf. Once maintenance has been completed there is little time before the jet leaves therefore only one or two sorties are usually conducted before leaving.
As for "acceptable" fuel leaks, that is EXACTLY what they are, ACCEPTABLE. I am again sat here wondering what the acceptable wing leaks have to do with the loss of 30.
Fuel SEEPING from a wing tank will not cause an aircraft to be lost. Unless of course a tank ruptured, and they were firing flares off at the same time but it was reported as a bomb bay fire not a wing fire so the wing leaks are irrelevant and detract from what the BOI might report.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sorry I should have said some of the "Acceptable leaks were from the same area.
I have under the FOI a list of of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006 and strangely there were no fuel leaks Acceptable or otherwise recorded from 2nd Aug until the 2nd Sept /
Perhaps Mighty Hunter Age you could tell me how many Acceptable leaks an ac can fly with 1,3,7,10,15 all dripping at 9 drips per minute?
I have under the FOI a list of of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006 and strangely there were no fuel leaks Acceptable or otherwise recorded from 2nd Aug until the 2nd Sept /
Perhaps Mighty Hunter Age you could tell me how many Acceptable leaks an ac can fly with 1,3,7,10,15 all dripping at 9 drips per minute?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD said:
I hope that you never fly on civilian airlines if this is your concern. The turn-round procedures, items checked and time taken over these checks on RAF aircraft is far greater than the cursory 30 minute glance that most airlines get in order to maximise profits!
Using your own argument:
Would you have expected them to have carried out pre-drive checks before his journey on EVERY component of their car? Probably the answer would be no. You would reasonably expect them to have checked the standard items (fuel, oil, water, hydraulic fluids, tyres and lights), the items that have been identified as the most likely sources of failure/accident.
If all aircraft were checked to the degree that you are implying then you would see only about 10% of scheduled flights compared to current levels and it would probably take a few days to turn a Nimrod rather than a few hours! Keep things in perspective.
And, surprisingly, I find myself for once agreeing with MightyHunter AGE
It appears that you do not understand what is classed as a fuel 'leak'. Using your car analogy again, I am sure that the underside of your car engine shows evidence of oil leakage, probably just a slight damp staining. Does this overly concern you? Does it make your car unsafe to drive? If you saw the odd drip from coming from the sump you would probably investigate to see if there was a risk to the safety of the engine, car or yourself. If the oil was flowing as a steady stream from the sump I would imagine you would get your car fixed straight away. All of these are oil leaks, just of differing severity and potential risk, at one end of the scale the risk is totally acceptable for a safe journey to be made, at the other end the risk is not.
As I have said to you before, I lost several friends on 230 but can not begin to imagine how you and the other families must be feeling. BUT, you need to keep things in perspective. A slight seepage leaving little more than a stain is classed as a leak, as is a steady flow of fuel - both leaks - one acceptable the other not.
MadMark!!!
dodgysootie
As i said above it was said that people should be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes.
Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults
Using your own argument:
If [someone] was killed in a car crash driving a Ford...
If all aircraft were checked to the degree that you are implying then you would see only about 10% of scheduled flights compared to current levels and it would probably take a few days to turn a Nimrod rather than a few hours! Keep things in perspective.
And, surprisingly, I find myself for once agreeing with MightyHunter AGE
It appears that you do not understand what is classed as a fuel 'leak'. Using your car analogy again, I am sure that the underside of your car engine shows evidence of oil leakage, probably just a slight damp staining. Does this overly concern you? Does it make your car unsafe to drive? If you saw the odd drip from coming from the sump you would probably investigate to see if there was a risk to the safety of the engine, car or yourself. If the oil was flowing as a steady stream from the sump I would imagine you would get your car fixed straight away. All of these are oil leaks, just of differing severity and potential risk, at one end of the scale the risk is totally acceptable for a safe journey to be made, at the other end the risk is not.As I have said to you before, I lost several friends on 230 but can not begin to imagine how you and the other families must be feeling. BUT, you need to keep things in perspective. A slight seepage leaving little more than a stain is classed as a leak, as is a steady flow of fuel - both leaks - one acceptable the other not.
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Eastbourne, UK
Age: 99
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod
For what it is worth - in WW2 the pilot checked the aircraft as being airworthy before signing off from the ground crew. As far as I remember this was standard practice.
MadMark, the difference is that very few, if any, airliners are as ancient as the Nimrod - and none are subject to the same flight profile.
Tappers Dad has every right to view the BoI with scepticism; I hope that his fears will prove to be unfounded.
Although in a culture where cash is king, somehow I doubt it.....
Tappers Dad has every right to view the BoI with scepticism; I hope that his fears will prove to be unfounded.
Although in a culture where cash is king, somehow I doubt it.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
Tappers Dad has every right to view the BoI with scepticism; I hope that his fears will prove to be unfounded.
I certainly wonder what good the probing of this forum and E-Goat is serving? TD is trying to make sense of a terrible loss, I appreciate that, but he is trying to examine an extremely complex jigsaw puzzle with innumerably more pieces missing than he actually has available to him and no picture on the box to help place information into context. Yes there is a chance that he may unveil the answer to the loss of the aircraft concerned, but it is rather more likely (particularly on E-Goat) that he will seriously offend the sensibilities, professionalism and judgement of those who have made it their career to keep these venerable machines in the air. And with respect to all concerned, I fail to see how that will help.
the difference is that very few, if any, airliners are as ancient as the Nimrod - and none are subject to the same flight profile
"Using your car analogy again................"
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?
MoD beancounters, personnel and various other breeds of sycophant are taught to use this when considering requests for additional funds to maintain aircraft or when selecting engineering staff for advancement or new posts. I was once criticised on a promotion board for stating I would take disciplinary action against any engineer whom I found falsifying maintenance records. I was told I was wrong - their feelings were more important than aircraft serviceability and safety. When I asked what the official policy was in such a situation, I was told - Do Nothing. I should simply sign to say the aircraft or equipment was serviceable, even if I knew it was not. I should always wait until it failed and quietly arrange for it to be fixed, "just as I would with my car".
A one-off you may hope, but she was utterly gobsmacked when I told her she was barking. It seemed she'd been using this analogy for a long time and this was the only time anyone had argued. And you know what? It is MY personnel record which says I'm wrong. And the principle she supported that day, that making false statements on serviceability and airworthiness is acceptable, has been upheld by 2*, 4* and the last 4 Mins (AF). In writing. (Although I accept that Mins don't actually write or read what they sign).
And this is precisely why TD should continue to dig deep. I have the utmost respect for the engineering views expressed by maintainers here - in a previous life I was one of you - but until you experience first hand the sheer scale of the lies and deceit "HQ" is capable of in their efforts to hide the truth, then please accept that there are hidden depths beyond which even they have descended, and which even the greatest cynic cannot begin to imagine.
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?
MoD beancounters, personnel and various other breeds of sycophant are taught to use this when considering requests for additional funds to maintain aircraft or when selecting engineering staff for advancement or new posts. I was once criticised on a promotion board for stating I would take disciplinary action against any engineer whom I found falsifying maintenance records. I was told I was wrong - their feelings were more important than aircraft serviceability and safety. When I asked what the official policy was in such a situation, I was told - Do Nothing. I should simply sign to say the aircraft or equipment was serviceable, even if I knew it was not. I should always wait until it failed and quietly arrange for it to be fixed, "just as I would with my car".
A one-off you may hope, but she was utterly gobsmacked when I told her she was barking. It seemed she'd been using this analogy for a long time and this was the only time anyone had argued. And you know what? It is MY personnel record which says I'm wrong. And the principle she supported that day, that making false statements on serviceability and airworthiness is acceptable, has been upheld by 2*, 4* and the last 4 Mins (AF). In writing. (Although I accept that Mins don't actually write or read what they sign).
And this is precisely why TD should continue to dig deep. I have the utmost respect for the engineering views expressed by maintainers here - in a previous life I was one of you - but until you experience first hand the sheer scale of the lies and deceit "HQ" is capable of in their efforts to hide the truth, then please accept that there are hidden depths beyond which even they have descended, and which even the greatest cynic cannot begin to imagine.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I may have missed it but there was an error in the DT article today. LIMS is short for LIMITATIONS not limbs.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tucumseh said:
I did not hint at anything of the kind, I simply used the analogy, as did TD, to highlight certain points; not to compare the maintenance and operating of the 2 types of vehicle.
My first point was in connection with the statement by TD that only some areas of the Nimrod are checked during the AF/BF maintenance procedures. My point was that this is true of any vehicle. You check what is known to be a major potential hazard or what you know to have a history of failure - you do not, and can not, check EVERY single item of the aircraft (or car). I will use this again to help you understand - do you check your brake pipes at the start and end of every journey? No? Why not? These are a potential source for the cause a major accident. You don't check them because there is no recognised history on your car of them failing and as such do not fall under the normal items to be checked. You probably do, however, check your tyres regularly.
My second analogy was used to highlight the differences in the rate, severity and potential risks to the vehicle of leaking liquids (be it fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids or water). A slight seep and a steady flow are both leaks, but one is acceptable whilst the other is not.
And Beags, I am fully aware of the differences between Nimrod and airline ages and operations, I was simply pointing out that nobody in the aviation industry checks EVERY component of the aircraft, just in case. Even vintage bi-planes probably do not have every single nut, connection and component checked before every flight - although I imagine the checks would be more thorough than those carried out on a C172. Nimrods undergo hours of checks during turns, but you can not check every single component for every flight - that is what minor and major servicing is for.
MadMark!!!
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?
My first point was in connection with the statement by TD that only some areas of the Nimrod are checked during the AF/BF maintenance procedures. My point was that this is true of any vehicle. You check what is known to be a major potential hazard or what you know to have a history of failure - you do not, and can not, check EVERY single item of the aircraft (or car). I will use this again to help you understand - do you check your brake pipes at the start and end of every journey? No? Why not? These are a potential source for the cause a major accident. You don't check them because there is no recognised history on your car of them failing and as such do not fall under the normal items to be checked. You probably do, however, check your tyres regularly.
My second analogy was used to highlight the differences in the rate, severity and potential risks to the vehicle of leaking liquids (be it fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids or water). A slight seep and a steady flow are both leaks, but one is acceptable whilst the other is not.
And Beags, I am fully aware of the differences between Nimrod and airline ages and operations, I was simply pointing out that nobody in the aviation industry checks EVERY component of the aircraft, just in case. Even vintage bi-planes probably do not have every single nut, connection and component checked before every flight - although I imagine the checks would be more thorough than those carried out on a C172. Nimrods undergo hours of checks during turns, but you can not check every single component for every flight - that is what minor and major servicing is for.
MadMark!!!
MM
I can't see what prompted your last post, given the context of my own post.
Referring to the point I made, I assume you don't agree with the (various) 2* and 4* (I never mention the 3* as he refused to respond to correspondence) that it is acceptable to knowingly make false declarations -re airworthiness?
In the face of that particular ruling (made, to my certain knowledge, at least 10 times now), I also hope you agree we should all be concerned.
I can't see what prompted your last post, given the context of my own post.
Referring to the point I made, I assume you don't agree with the (various) 2* and 4* (I never mention the 3* as he refused to respond to correspondence) that it is acceptable to knowingly make false declarations -re airworthiness?
In the face of that particular ruling (made, to my certain knowledge, at least 10 times now), I also hope you agree we should all be concerned.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haunting words indeed considering the outcome!
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_...---the-wa.html
The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of one electronic optics [video-equipped] aircraft in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all to replace it with,” one officer at Kinloss said.
There was relief verging on jubilation at the discovery that the civilian company MPI had “a crack squad of fuel leak fixers”, which normally worked on civilian airliners, and in February it was called in to work on XV230. A few weeks later, QinetiQ reported the results of its investigation, concluding that the aircraft was simply too old, and being pushed too hard, leading to excessive strain on the airframe. QinetiQ found that “the aggressive tempo with which we are flying the jets in stark temperature shifts is contributing to our leak headache,” one officer noted in an email.
XV230 resumed flying in March. But no sooner had it done so than the leaks returned. In the six months before the explosion, there were more than 50 fuel leaks on Nimrods, at least 12 of them on XV230. During June and July, it was the first RAF aircraft to be put through a new system of “equalized maintenance” designed to save time and money which cured only five of the 12 leaks.
The explosion confirmed all the worst fears. Immediately, the hot air pipe in the bomb bay and the fuel tank at the base of the starboard wing were taken out of use on the rest of the fleet and within two days they were back up in the air. Even before the decision was made to start flying again another Nimrod suffered a fuel leak. A Serious Fault Signal in October 2006 reported leaks with three aircraft, one of them the day after the explosion during refueling on the ground.
On 13 October, fuel was found to be leaking out of two of the tanks of a Nimrod. It was kept flying with the two tanks put out of use but a week later a third tank burst leaking fuel into the bomb bay. Then on 8 November, a Nimrod suffered a major leak during mid-air refuelling with hundreds of gallons of fuel running along the fuselage and pouring out of the rear of the aircraft. Pressure built up in the air-to-air refuelling system to twice the normal limit. Fuel flooded the bomb bay, which had to be opened twice to get rid of it. The RAF suspended air-to-air refuelling briefly, introducing new operating procedures limiting which tanks could be used. But a month later, another Nimrod lost nearly 1,000 gallons of fuel as a result of a leak during mid-air refuelling.
There was relief verging on jubilation at the discovery that the civilian company MPI had “a crack squad of fuel leak fixers”, which normally worked on civilian airliners, and in February it was called in to work on XV230. A few weeks later, QinetiQ reported the results of its investigation, concluding that the aircraft was simply too old, and being pushed too hard, leading to excessive strain on the airframe. QinetiQ found that “the aggressive tempo with which we are flying the jets in stark temperature shifts is contributing to our leak headache,” one officer noted in an email.
XV230 resumed flying in March. But no sooner had it done so than the leaks returned. In the six months before the explosion, there were more than 50 fuel leaks on Nimrods, at least 12 of them on XV230. During June and July, it was the first RAF aircraft to be put through a new system of “equalized maintenance” designed to save time and money which cured only five of the 12 leaks.
The explosion confirmed all the worst fears. Immediately, the hot air pipe in the bomb bay and the fuel tank at the base of the starboard wing were taken out of use on the rest of the fleet and within two days they were back up in the air. Even before the decision was made to start flying again another Nimrod suffered a fuel leak. A Serious Fault Signal in October 2006 reported leaks with three aircraft, one of them the day after the explosion during refueling on the ground.
On 13 October, fuel was found to be leaking out of two of the tanks of a Nimrod. It was kept flying with the two tanks put out of use but a week later a third tank burst leaking fuel into the bomb bay. Then on 8 November, a Nimrod suffered a major leak during mid-air refuelling with hundreds of gallons of fuel running along the fuselage and pouring out of the rear of the aircraft. Pressure built up in the air-to-air refuelling system to twice the normal limit. Fuel flooded the bomb bay, which had to be opened twice to get rid of it. The RAF suspended air-to-air refuelling briefly, introducing new operating procedures limiting which tanks could be used. But a month later, another Nimrod lost nearly 1,000 gallons of fuel as a result of a leak during mid-air refuelling.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only the BOI know all information and only they can come up with the answers.
Speculation is only going to hurt other people involved, as has been seen on other forums. It only allows the sensationalists to earn their crust.
I am sure that the BOI will reach an acccurate conclusion. Do presently serving members of the service need to do washing in public??
Please let the BOI finish their job. If a rat is smelt, there are more than enough people in positions of knowledge to see it and to advertise the fact.
Speculation is only going to hurt other people involved, as has been seen on other forums. It only allows the sensationalists to earn their crust.
I am sure that the BOI will reach an acccurate conclusion. Do presently serving members of the service need to do washing in public??
Please let the BOI finish their job. If a rat is smelt, there are more than enough people in positions of knowledge to see it and to advertise the fact.
Last edited by Alber Ratman; 28th Oct 2007 at 00:29.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caution
TD beware the rats, parasites and those passed over on promotion boards who will use your case to further their own. In perspective how many of the men and women who were and are still Ben's loyal comrades, loyal mates and more importantly pals whom step each day to conduct operational missions have "leaked information".
Maybe they trust their mates who are on the BOI, they are not CSI crash investigators they leave that to the nerds at Farnborough, maybe you should and then act. I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.
The only "conspiracy" are those fuelled by self serving journalists, not forgetting the odd "military expert" thrown in for a fee and a free liquid lunch.
Honour is a term that should be considered, I humbly consider it every time I accompany my loyal comrades, loyal mates and more importantly pals on operational missions over hostile lands.
To the rest I am sorry if I am late getting back to your following comments but I am trying to prevent another parent, partner or child ,including mine, from getting the knock on the door we all dread, do you do the same from your soft armchair or frustrating job. To the lads please dont drink the bar dry before I get there you know what I will have
An angry and pissed off Charlie sends
Maybe they trust their mates who are on the BOI, they are not CSI crash investigators they leave that to the nerds at Farnborough, maybe you should and then act. I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.
The only "conspiracy" are those fuelled by self serving journalists, not forgetting the odd "military expert" thrown in for a fee and a free liquid lunch.
Honour is a term that should be considered, I humbly consider it every time I accompany my loyal comrades, loyal mates and more importantly pals on operational missions over hostile lands.
To the rest I am sorry if I am late getting back to your following comments but I am trying to prevent another parent, partner or child ,including mine, from getting the knock on the door we all dread, do you do the same from your soft armchair or frustrating job. To the lads please dont drink the bar dry before I get there you know what I will have
An angry and pissed off Charlie sends
This conversation has indeed been going on for a considerable time now. It seems to me that there are people speculating over things that they have no real knowledge of and are in most cases coming up with incorrect information that just fires the speculation, lets just take a step back and look again what we have.
XV230 exploded in Afghanistan shortly after AAR. We know of no other official details about it so anything that comes up is mostly pure speculation I lost friends on board but no family, to the families my condolences which I have sent before.
Lets look at life outside and inside the forces. I have flown both. Nimrods, Hercs and Tristar. The first two in the military and the latter in Civvy Street. The one thing that is common on all types is that they have fuel leaks, they have hot air leaks and they also have other major malfunctions. Now I trusted then and if I was still flying would trust them now……What am I talking about…..my ground crew, they are the guys who look with skills that they have acquired for any faults that would endanger the aircraft and the crews that fly them, they would not willingly send an aircraft flying with dangerous faults, fact they would not. The crew chiefs then check again and they also would net send an aircraft airborne with faults. Then the crew checks the aircraft, any fuel leaks will be entered in the log……the position and the rate of leak is put there, any leak found and allowed to go flying would have been assessed against a written guideline and either allowed to fly or not. This is a system that has been around for many years tried and trusted by aircrew and ground crew alike at any stage someone could have said no to taking the aircraft flying the crews are briefed what defects they are carrying, they were red and greens in my day not sure now. People spend time writing up faults, leaks etc so we all know what is happening. These are people I trusted then and would trust now.
Now to the next lot, the press and anyone who leaks unofficial document emails etc to anyone who will listen to them…….words fail me. Cannot think of anything nice to say about them so that should give you an idea of what I think about them. All the armchair experts……when will you stand up in front of a board and say what you think I have done so and it cost me a lot but I came from facts and thorough knowledge of the situation. I did not use hearsay just knowledge that I got myself and used at the inquiry. Facts that I could check myself .I used the details that the BOI had and quashed rumour with fact. Now at the inquiry you will find people that know only what is written in front of them, don’t waste time asking them what they know or think, arm yourself with experts that will know facts and let them speak on your be half.
TD I respect what you are doing in trying to find facts but don’t let sentiment delay the BOI answers, wait till you have their facts before getting in their faces with other information. Remember the more you give them the more they are prepared for your Questions.
I have ranted on enough take a step back all, wait for the BOI results and then take action.
Regards
Fergi
XV230 exploded in Afghanistan shortly after AAR. We know of no other official details about it so anything that comes up is mostly pure speculation I lost friends on board but no family, to the families my condolences which I have sent before.
Lets look at life outside and inside the forces. I have flown both. Nimrods, Hercs and Tristar. The first two in the military and the latter in Civvy Street. The one thing that is common on all types is that they have fuel leaks, they have hot air leaks and they also have other major malfunctions. Now I trusted then and if I was still flying would trust them now……What am I talking about…..my ground crew, they are the guys who look with skills that they have acquired for any faults that would endanger the aircraft and the crews that fly them, they would not willingly send an aircraft flying with dangerous faults, fact they would not. The crew chiefs then check again and they also would net send an aircraft airborne with faults. Then the crew checks the aircraft, any fuel leaks will be entered in the log……the position and the rate of leak is put there, any leak found and allowed to go flying would have been assessed against a written guideline and either allowed to fly or not. This is a system that has been around for many years tried and trusted by aircrew and ground crew alike at any stage someone could have said no to taking the aircraft flying the crews are briefed what defects they are carrying, they were red and greens in my day not sure now. People spend time writing up faults, leaks etc so we all know what is happening. These are people I trusted then and would trust now.
Now to the next lot, the press and anyone who leaks unofficial document emails etc to anyone who will listen to them…….words fail me. Cannot think of anything nice to say about them so that should give you an idea of what I think about them. All the armchair experts……when will you stand up in front of a board and say what you think I have done so and it cost me a lot but I came from facts and thorough knowledge of the situation. I did not use hearsay just knowledge that I got myself and used at the inquiry. Facts that I could check myself .I used the details that the BOI had and quashed rumour with fact. Now at the inquiry you will find people that know only what is written in front of them, don’t waste time asking them what they know or think, arm yourself with experts that will know facts and let them speak on your be half.
TD I respect what you are doing in trying to find facts but don’t let sentiment delay the BOI answers, wait till you have their facts before getting in their faces with other information. Remember the more you give them the more they are prepared for your Questions.
I have ranted on enough take a step back all, wait for the BOI results and then take action.
Regards
Fergi
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An awful lot of trust is being given to the BoI. A BoI which has been frustrated by having little physical evidence of the XV230 crash site. The BoI report was written several months ago and then re-convened. This is highly unusual. I have been told this may have been due to conflicting advice from the boffins themselves. TD has concentrated on procedure running up to the crash. There is plenty enough evidence out there to suggest that this was a fleet operating flat out, running out of resources and operating aircraft that were simply too old. And immediately after the crash, the rush to get back to AAR ops a move questioned by highly experienced pilots at Kinloss. All this speculation is damaging for sure, but the failure to publish the BoI is the reason. Publish and be damned.
The Hercules Inquest will reconvene shortly. I am expecting the MoD line of defence to claim that they have learnt their lessons. Looking at the handling of fuel leaks on Nimrod and the failure to provide protection for MRA4 into the future I would reject the statement that the MoD is learning any lessons here.
How can safety be claimed to be the highest priority when MRA4 is now being rushed into service with less protection on board than its predecessor?
From GK's emails, an anguished statement from an engineer.
The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of 1 EO ac in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all (EO or non-EO) to replace it with.
Article as it appears in ST.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2753527.ece
The Hercules Inquest will reconvene shortly. I am expecting the MoD line of defence to claim that they have learnt their lessons. Looking at the handling of fuel leaks on Nimrod and the failure to provide protection for MRA4 into the future I would reject the statement that the MoD is learning any lessons here.
How can safety be claimed to be the highest priority when MRA4 is now being rushed into service with less protection on board than its predecessor?
From GK's emails, an anguished statement from an engineer.
The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of 1 EO ac in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all (EO or non-EO) to replace it with.
Article as it appears in ST.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2753527.ece
Last edited by nigegilb; 28th Oct 2007 at 09:34.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Carry On TD
Rant On
As Chugalug2 said there is independent regulation of the civil world. It is there for a reason. In the event of an accident (or incident) an investigation is launched by an independent body who is there to find out what went wrong. FACT not blame. The AAIB establishes fact, and if necessary the authorities allocate blame (CAA/Coroner/CPS?).
And by comparison it seems to work.
The military on the other hand seems to want to allocate blame (or avoid blame) even if it means that the facts are lost.
If nothing else TD's comments may act as a wake up call to the military in that e-mails should be treated as serious, thought through legal records.
The Military have a duty of care to the civilians who live below their aircraft, and that is true at all times. The RAF also has a duty of care to its own staff and this seems to be presenting real difficulties.
If you cannot afford to operate and maintain the fleet of aircraft then dont.
The idiotic "can do" mentality has made a rod for its own back. The politicians love it. If you can do then the treasury can lean more out, and you can do.
My observation from the comments on this thread are that the ones who will not question government policy will question the ethics of a father who has lost his son. Maybe their OBE, MBE and Knighthoods are more important.
Rant Off
As Chugalug2 said there is independent regulation of the civil world. It is there for a reason. In the event of an accident (or incident) an investigation is launched by an independent body who is there to find out what went wrong. FACT not blame. The AAIB establishes fact, and if necessary the authorities allocate blame (CAA/Coroner/CPS?).
And by comparison it seems to work.
The military on the other hand seems to want to allocate blame (or avoid blame) even if it means that the facts are lost.
If nothing else TD's comments may act as a wake up call to the military in that e-mails should be treated as serious, thought through legal records.
The Military have a duty of care to the civilians who live below their aircraft, and that is true at all times. The RAF also has a duty of care to its own staff and this seems to be presenting real difficulties.
If you cannot afford to operate and maintain the fleet of aircraft then dont.
The idiotic "can do" mentality has made a rod for its own back. The politicians love it. If you can do then the treasury can lean more out, and you can do.
My observation from the comments on this thread are that the ones who will not question government policy will question the ethics of a father who has lost his son. Maybe their OBE, MBE and Knighthoods are more important.
Rant Off
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie Luncher
Why should anything I say, an ordinary bloke off civie street, have any affect on an independent BOI made up of RAF experts; unless I have uncovered something that they didn't look at.
Here is part of some FOI information I have.
Thank you for your e-mail to the MOD feedback website on the 30 August 2007 requesting a detailed list of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006. I have been asked to reply as this is an area for which Air Command has responsibility. Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000. I will answer each question in turn.
Please see the attached Table 1 that provides a list of fuel of leaks with dates, fault and rectification details.
Limitations Log (F703) – XV230
Acceptable Deferred Defects Log (F704) – XV230
Maintenance Work Orders (F707A) – XV230
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs. Original Limitations Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs Original ADF Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.
How many people have read these ???? I have and the BOI has, therefore I can comment on them.
I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.
Here is part of some FOI information I have.
Thank you for your e-mail to the MOD feedback website on the 30 August 2007 requesting a detailed list of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006. I have been asked to reply as this is an area for which Air Command has responsibility. Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000. I will answer each question in turn.
Please see the attached Table 1 that provides a list of fuel of leaks with dates, fault and rectification details.
Limitations Log (F703) – XV230
Acceptable Deferred Defects Log (F704) – XV230
Maintenance Work Orders (F707A) – XV230
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs. Original Limitations Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs Original ADF Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.
How many people have read these ???? I have and the BOI has, therefore I can comment on them.