Nimrod MRA.4
Agreed one is for fuel the other for hot air, but both conclude that the systems can not be declared ALARP.
Neither were the same as saying the ac is not ALARP.
Selectively quoting from reports out of context can be misleading - as you have proved above. It is quite possible for instance for a report to look in detail at a very specific part of an ac system, provide advice on risks and probabilities and not draw conclusions as to whether the aircraft it is installed in is safe. Such conclusiosn could vary depending on the application, and maybe down to a higher level analysis of ac architecture, systems and its operations, in the context of an overall safety target.
Still, its too late to learn about all this now - the damage is done, and the project is buried. Your contribution is noted however, and has been recorded for the TSR-2 type books that will no doubt rake over the coals of what went wrong. It may also feature in future training courses when looking for examples of Social factors when conducting PESTLE analysis.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh
You remind me of the many civil servants I had to deal with. You know everything about process and very little about the product. Have you ever been in or near a Nimrod or are your comments based solely on your knowledge of the regulations and reports. I have no doubt what you say is true and that in some cases decisions further up the chain might disagree with yours, that’s what happens. Whether safety should be treated like this another question and probably one of degrees.
I have retired now and do not know why Dave has cancelled the MRA4, but as the support costs, I believe, are quoted at £200m a year and the project has hemorrhaged money over the years, I am therefore quite sure its reasoning is fiscal. I also know enough of the people on this site to know, they know, what they are talking about when it comes to an airworthiness issue. (Awful grammar but read it 3 times and you'll see what I am getting at)
The loss of the MPA resource will only be realised later down the line, and politicians seldom think of that.
And finally, if you have spent 20yrs disagreeing with your masters over safety issues because none can see you are correct, then surely most people would have resigned and moved somewhere where they are appreciated.
Just a thought.
You remind me of the many civil servants I had to deal with. You know everything about process and very little about the product. Have you ever been in or near a Nimrod or are your comments based solely on your knowledge of the regulations and reports. I have no doubt what you say is true and that in some cases decisions further up the chain might disagree with yours, that’s what happens. Whether safety should be treated like this another question and probably one of degrees.
I have retired now and do not know why Dave has cancelled the MRA4, but as the support costs, I believe, are quoted at £200m a year and the project has hemorrhaged money over the years, I am therefore quite sure its reasoning is fiscal. I also know enough of the people on this site to know, they know, what they are talking about when it comes to an airworthiness issue. (Awful grammar but read it 3 times and you'll see what I am getting at)
The loss of the MPA resource will only be realised later down the line, and politicians seldom think of that.
And finally, if you have spent 20yrs disagreeing with your masters over safety issues because none can see you are correct, then surely most people would have resigned and moved somewhere where they are appreciated.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the criticism being levelled at the safety case cabal (it isn't meant to be derogatory) is only partially justified, and inclined to overlook the real culprits.
I think (think, I doubt anybody 'knows' for sure) that a couple of years ago Nimrod MR2 probably became as safe as any aircraft is likely to be in anyone's armoury - but due to a failure to enforce and maintain the processes (and documentation) required by our own safety rules it was difficult to prove it was now safe. At that point the complaints continued to be made, and I would personally agree that at that point it became counter productive... it is debatable, imo, whether the 'noise' from that point on really did scupper the MRA4's chances, or whether the damage was already done by the RAF, MoD and BAE.
Tucumseh particularly, in my view, has pointed out that the RAF didn't follow it's own procedures, and I'd suggest that if the RAF HAD done so, and BAE hadn't done there creative fudging along the way (let's face it, they really SHOULD have damn well known the effects of bodging the AAR into the kite 30 years ago) then perhaps MR2 would never have ended up where it did.
Yes, the complainers might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but the other 5 million straws were already in place beforehand. I prefer to blame MoD, BAe, and those who allowed the safety of the MR2 to degenerate to such a level, making it a far from attractive option for a politician who probably thinks all aircraft have drinks trolleys.
Tuc etc could have banged on less about it, it bored me *****g rigid long ago and at least the loss of MRA4 will hopefully have the positive effect of stopping the endless churning of the same story, but I don't think you can blame Tuc, Chug, DV etc for the fact that the aircraft's reputation was bad...if it had been up to scratch there'd have been nothing to bang on about, so blame those who are far more guilty perhaps?
Dave
I think (think, I doubt anybody 'knows' for sure) that a couple of years ago Nimrod MR2 probably became as safe as any aircraft is likely to be in anyone's armoury - but due to a failure to enforce and maintain the processes (and documentation) required by our own safety rules it was difficult to prove it was now safe. At that point the complaints continued to be made, and I would personally agree that at that point it became counter productive... it is debatable, imo, whether the 'noise' from that point on really did scupper the MRA4's chances, or whether the damage was already done by the RAF, MoD and BAE.
Tucumseh particularly, in my view, has pointed out that the RAF didn't follow it's own procedures, and I'd suggest that if the RAF HAD done so, and BAE hadn't done there creative fudging along the way (let's face it, they really SHOULD have damn well known the effects of bodging the AAR into the kite 30 years ago) then perhaps MR2 would never have ended up where it did.
Yes, the complainers might have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but the other 5 million straws were already in place beforehand. I prefer to blame MoD, BAe, and those who allowed the safety of the MR2 to degenerate to such a level, making it a far from attractive option for a politician who probably thinks all aircraft have drinks trolleys.
Tuc etc could have banged on less about it, it bored me *****g rigid long ago and at least the loss of MRA4 will hopefully have the positive effect of stopping the endless churning of the same story, but I don't think you can blame Tuc, Chug, DV etc for the fact that the aircraft's reputation was bad...if it had been up to scratch there'd have been nothing to bang on about, so blame those who are far more guilty perhaps?
Dave
Thanks davejb. A pretty fair assessment.
Sorry you were bored ******* rigid, but as so many were in denial, sometimes it is wise to keep at it until the truth sinks in.
For my part, I remain ******* annoyed that so many lost their lives when the problems have been formally notified since 1988. Hope you see that point of view as well.
Sorry you were bored ******* rigid, but as so many were in denial, sometimes it is wise to keep at it until the truth sinks in.
For my part, I remain ******* annoyed that so many lost their lives when the problems have been formally notified since 1988. Hope you see that point of view as well.
Well 6 hours ago I laid down the gauntlet for Navy types to comment about how they couldn't do without MRA4 - the result, no replies, complete silence.
I honestly think that if we were in such mortal danger as some of the posters on here would have us believe then the Royal Navy would have kicked off big style.
A measily 6 posts on Rum Ration (half of which is about Harriers!) see here: The Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches The Fleet Air Arm Kinloss and Nimrod no more
Nothing on the Submariner's forum: The Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches Submariners
So the vehemence of the argument to reverse the decision for MRA4 does not seem to add up.
Now awaiting the incoming...
The B Word
I honestly think that if we were in such mortal danger as some of the posters on here would have us believe then the Royal Navy would have kicked off big style.
A measily 6 posts on Rum Ration (half of which is about Harriers!) see here: The Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches The Fleet Air Arm Kinloss and Nimrod no more
Nothing on the Submariner's forum: The Navy Net: Rum Ration Forums Royal Navy Branches Submariners
So the vehemence of the argument to reverse the decision for MRA4 does not seem to add up.
Now awaiting the incoming...
The B Word
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to get back to the current issue of SDSR:
Local MP Angus Robertson said: “This is a serious issue and raises concerns about a lack of vital cover normally provided by Nimrod aircraft.
“It’s been reported that US P3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft are having to operate from Scotland to cover the gaps that Nimrod used to fill.
“If true, this exposes the folly of David Cameron’s decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 program and close RAF Kinloss.”
Navy's nuclear super-stealth submarine stuck off Skye for ten hours - The Daily Record
Local MP Angus Robertson said: “This is a serious issue and raises concerns about a lack of vital cover normally provided by Nimrod aircraft.
“It’s been reported that US P3 maritime reconnaissance aircraft are having to operate from Scotland to cover the gaps that Nimrod used to fill.
“If true, this exposes the folly of David Cameron’s decision to scrap the Nimrod MRA4 program and close RAF Kinloss.”
Navy's nuclear super-stealth submarine stuck off Skye for ten hours - The Daily Record
The Dark Blue
Mate, we're f*cking gutted.
The utility that an MPA brings to the party is probably not as well understood by the wider RN Community, but those who used you/would've used you, we are keenly aware of precisely how much capability we've just lost.
You won't find old and bold killicks/Lt Cdr's lamenting your loss because they rarely interacted with you, which would explain some of the lack of "trade" on RR.
RAF 'offer to scrap £3.5 billion Nimrods'
the above makes clear 1SL's feelings.
More to the point, it does seem like the RAF have offered up "joint" (MRA4, ASTOR) in an attempt to maintain their FJ capability. I have to admire CAS' political skills in f*cking the RN over in so many different ways, perhaps we should send some of Senior Officers over to learn the tricks of the trade.....
The utility that an MPA brings to the party is probably not as well understood by the wider RN Community, but those who used you/would've used you, we are keenly aware of precisely how much capability we've just lost.
You won't find old and bold killicks/Lt Cdr's lamenting your loss because they rarely interacted with you, which would explain some of the lack of "trade" on RR.
RAF 'offer to scrap £3.5 billion Nimrods'
the above makes clear 1SL's feelings.
More to the point, it does seem like the RAF have offered up "joint" (MRA4, ASTOR) in an attempt to maintain their FJ capability. I have to admire CAS' political skills in f*cking the RN over in so many different ways, perhaps we should send some of Senior Officers over to learn the tricks of the trade.....
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aqua5, you've hit a point there. I'm ex coastal, but as a civvy I spent a lot of time in the Pot Shriggly hotel when being reemed out on the 146 sim, where I inadvertantly (as one does) became involved in a couple of Bae staff hoolys. I was totally amazed at the lack of knowledge or interest in the project, people only thinking of their own little gizmo and how long their job would last. I couldn't help thinking this was a scheme just for spending vast amounts of tax-payers money, if it was a private commission, the s--- would have hit the fan years ago.
TBW, if the worst that can be thrown at me is that I bored you ***** rigid, I'll gladly put my hand up to that and be grateful for small mercies! To be honest it would have been far more enjoyable posting my really interesting stories and really interesting pics about the good old days. Well to be even more honest I've done that as well, to much the same effect as I had on you, I fear! As tuc says the real bugger here is the needless deaths. When you are young you are indestructible, or think you are, but when you grow as old as me you realise of course that you are not. If that is of little consequence to you personally, it is of great consequence to those who love you and rely upon you. They are the real victims of this scandal (the "A" one, that is). I don't complain about the cut and thrust I've received on this forum, kitchens and heat and all that, but they have had a rough ride from time to time on various threads here. Poor show in my book!
As to hoping that the Senior Service will now bang the table and demand a restitution of MAR, my only thought is don't hold your breath. It seems they are in an even more parlous state than we, despite all the hints to the contrary. The Ark to go, Harrier to go, numerous ships to go, and all banked on a promise of two, well one at least, carriers in the future, though not it seems planes to fly off them! No wonder their concentration seems to have gone awry recently. The Springfield Monorail was a viable concept in comparison, but then that brings us right back on thread doesn't it? So sorry for the diversion.
As to hoping that the Senior Service will now bang the table and demand a restitution of MAR, my only thought is don't hold your breath. It seems they are in an even more parlous state than we, despite all the hints to the contrary. The Ark to go, Harrier to go, numerous ships to go, and all banked on a promise of two, well one at least, carriers in the future, though not it seems planes to fly off them! No wonder their concentration seems to have gone awry recently. The Springfield Monorail was a viable concept in comparison, but then that brings us right back on thread doesn't it? So sorry for the diversion.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if the MRA4 was binned due the expense then it David Camerobns words it would be too costly dobnt make any sense.
JSF is hugely out of budget and can only get worse, A400M wish for funding before the company will do any further work. 2020 aircraft carries, we all know that will be at least 4-5 years delayed.
Camerons decision will cost a lot more moving thousands of people to other locations in the UK.
As for CAS he is a joke, lies lies and even more lies. Winco totally 100% agree with your words.
JSF is hugely out of budget and can only get worse, A400M wish for funding before the company will do any further work. 2020 aircraft carries, we all know that will be at least 4-5 years delayed.
Camerons decision will cost a lot more moving thousands of people to other locations in the UK.
As for CAS he is a joke, lies lies and even more lies. Winco totally 100% agree with your words.
Alfred
Thanks for taking the time, I guess another reason for the loss of MRA4 is in your initial statement then?
Strange, though, I would have expected the majority of the RN to understand.
The B Word
Thanks for taking the time, I guess another reason for the loss of MRA4 is in your initial statement then?
Mate, we're f*cking gutted.
The utility that an MPA brings to the party is probably not as well understood by the wider RN Community, but those who used you/would've used you, we are keenly aware of precisely how much capability we've just lost
The utility that an MPA brings to the party is probably not as well understood by the wider RN Community, but those who used you/would've used you, we are keenly aware of precisely how much capability we've just lost
The B Word
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
As a lot of LRMP work was indirect support searching the oceans well ahead of any surface, or subsurface, vessels then it was out of sight, out of mind.
I would guess that the "Air Plan 4 sectors 1 and 2" were carried out infrequently and even 10 miles from the force were out of sight. Those who were on Corporate probably missed the big picture and it will be a while before their successors notice the dark areas on the data link plots.
I would guess that the "Air Plan 4 sectors 1 and 2" were carried out infrequently and even 10 miles from the force were out of sight. Those who were on Corporate probably missed the big picture and it will be a while before their successors notice the dark areas on the data link plots.
Well someone seems happy:
Taken from BAE Systems PLC ? Business Update - BAE Systems
Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR)
• The business is planned on conservative assumptions and although the detail behind the changes identified by the SDSR will take some time to refine, the removal of a number of uncertainties with regard to our UK business is welcomed.
• BAE Systems has made allowances in its planning assumptions for possible changes and has accelerated efficiency improvements to both mitigate likely reductions in activity and to improve programme affordability for the UK customer.
• Some modest impact on UK performance for 2010 is anticipated with a reduction in the Group’s financial planning assumptions resulting in an approximately one pence reduction in earnings per share, per annum, thereafter.
• The Company will now work with the UK Ministry of Defence to address the detailed programme implications of the changes.
• The business is planned on conservative assumptions and although the detail behind the changes identified by the SDSR will take some time to refine, the removal of a number of uncertainties with regard to our UK business is welcomed.
• BAE Systems has made allowances in its planning assumptions for possible changes and has accelerated efficiency improvements to both mitigate likely reductions in activity and to improve programme affordability for the UK customer.
• Some modest impact on UK performance for 2010 is anticipated with a reduction in the Group’s financial planning assumptions resulting in an approximately one pence reduction in earnings per share, per annum, thereafter.
• The Company will now work with the UK Ministry of Defence to address the detailed programme implications of the changes.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Odiham
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For my 2 peneth worth:
We need MRA4, we need it now. The full list of its missions and tasks is not for publishing on this forum, but believe me it is very extensive! Someone in government/MOD/Defense is missing the point in a pretty huge way. Simply put we now have NOTHING to plug the gaps left by the demise of the MR2 and the cancellation of the MRA4; from ASW to long range SAR to SF Special Mission requirements and everything inbetween, the MRA4 would have been a mega capable platform and with a bit of tweaking and a (relatively) small amount of extra funding, who knows what capability it might have brought to the party!
How can they (those in power) make such stupid decisions?
Its not just about money.........
We need MRA4, we need it now. The full list of its missions and tasks is not for publishing on this forum, but believe me it is very extensive! Someone in government/MOD/Defense is missing the point in a pretty huge way. Simply put we now have NOTHING to plug the gaps left by the demise of the MR2 and the cancellation of the MRA4; from ASW to long range SAR to SF Special Mission requirements and everything inbetween, the MRA4 would have been a mega capable platform and with a bit of tweaking and a (relatively) small amount of extra funding, who knows what capability it might have brought to the party!
How can they (those in power) make such stupid decisions?
Its not just about money.........
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wing Roots and whatnots
Just a bit of ancient history for you - but the original intent was to use GE engines on the MRA4 which would have more or less fitted into the original bays, leaving only a new outer wing. At the 11th hour of the proposal (I'm talking mid 1996) the Company received the edict of 'if you can't fit RR engines you can't have the deal' - a last minute political/commercial decision, but one which the Company took on and underestimated as a much greater level of wing design was needed, including all of the inherent intake issues around using pod-designed engines onboard, which took much longer than originally planned to reolve. It also left the ' how to fix a CAD wing to a bespoke wing box' question open until well into production and the actual items were available.
One for the history books.
One for the history books.
wokkamate:
Or perhaps that is precisely what it is about?:
TBW:
and:
Perhaps reports of the death of MRA4 have been greatly exaggerated?
Its not just about money.........
TBW:
... to improve programme affordability for the UK customer.
The Company will now work with the UK Ministry of Defence to address the detailed programme implications of the changes.
Siggies alive and well on Nimrod R1, soon to be RIVET JOINT.
NCA on Chinook, Puma, Reaper, E3D, Shadow, Sentinel, Sea King, Tristar, VC10, C17, C130J and K - sorry if I missed any.
So no, not the end of NCA
NCA on Chinook, Puma, Reaper, E3D, Shadow, Sentinel, Sea King, Tristar, VC10, C17, C130J and K - sorry if I missed any.
So no, not the end of NCA
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ, yes the types you list all have some element of the crew from the NCA cadre (and long may that last!) but, with the demise of MRA4, 55R Sqn have now lost the destination for @65% of their output, as well as the death of the acoustics specialisation.
It may also be worth looking at the Flight Testing forum to see what impact the recent announcements are likely to have on our ability to carry out Flight Test and Development.
It may also be worth looking at the Flight Testing forum to see what impact the recent announcements are likely to have on our ability to carry out Flight Test and Development.