RAF Rivet Joint
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
I presume Cpants is actually referring to airframe 62-4137
.......RC-135E "Rivet Amber" was at that time the most sophisticated reconnaissance plane of the US Air Force. It was converted to this configuration in 1963 to fly reconnaissance missions against the Soviet re-entry range off the Kamchatka Peninsula. On June 5, 1969, Rivet Amber departed Shemya for a flight to Fairbanks for routine maintenance. About thirty minutes after departing Shemya, Rivet Amber (callsign Irene 92) transmitted the following message to Elmendorf AFB: "Elmendorf Airways, Irene 92 experiencing vibration in flight. Not certain of the emergency. We have the aircraft under control, Irene 92." This was the last radio contact with the flight. Unidentified microphone keying clicks continued until 10:22. The aircraft crashed at sea.
After more than three weeks of intensive search and rescue operations, the efforts were called off. Neither a single piece of wreckage nor any personnel were ever found.
A Report on the RC-135E "River Amber" (62-4137) Lost Over The Bering Sea - June 5 1969
.......RC-135E "Rivet Amber" was at that time the most sophisticated reconnaissance plane of the US Air Force. It was converted to this configuration in 1963 to fly reconnaissance missions against the Soviet re-entry range off the Kamchatka Peninsula. On June 5, 1969, Rivet Amber departed Shemya for a flight to Fairbanks for routine maintenance. About thirty minutes after departing Shemya, Rivet Amber (callsign Irene 92) transmitted the following message to Elmendorf AFB: "Elmendorf Airways, Irene 92 experiencing vibration in flight. Not certain of the emergency. We have the aircraft under control, Irene 92." This was the last radio contact with the flight. Unidentified microphone keying clicks continued until 10:22. The aircraft crashed at sea.
After more than three weeks of intensive search and rescue operations, the efforts were called off. Neither a single piece of wreckage nor any personnel were ever found.
A Report on the RC-135E "River Amber" (62-4137) Lost Over The Bering Sea - June 5 1969
Pardon this mere civvy joining in.
Putting those three airframes on a US military register may well be a solution to this particular issue. However, what remains to be solved is a deep systemic problem in the MOD/RAF. It is probably the case that those three aircraft are airworthy and suitable for the intended purpose, but they are haunted by a series of disgraceful and deliberate lapses in proper airworthiness maintenance.
I wonder if the powers that be in Whitehall would be willing to admit our shortcomings, accept that we have lost a degree of expertise and accept help to restore a meaningful airworthiness certification capability.
In the meantime, whilst admiring the truly gallant efforts of all military personnel at the sharp end, they deserve better. I have lost all faith in the top table.
Putting those three airframes on a US military register may well be a solution to this particular issue. However, what remains to be solved is a deep systemic problem in the MOD/RAF. It is probably the case that those three aircraft are airworthy and suitable for the intended purpose, but they are haunted by a series of disgraceful and deliberate lapses in proper airworthiness maintenance.
I wonder if the powers that be in Whitehall would be willing to admit our shortcomings, accept that we have lost a degree of expertise and accept help to restore a meaningful airworthiness certification capability.
In the meantime, whilst admiring the truly gallant efforts of all military personnel at the sharp end, they deserve better. I have lost all faith in the top table.
Just out of interest. If MOD/RAF are having such problems with crossover of US to UK acceptance/standards/airworthiness/documentation etc with Rivet joint that has been flying all these years what will be the situation with the F35.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Daily Mail Article from 12 April
This article is so totally wrong as to be unbelievable!
"U.S. Army Air Force", "gathering dust in a boneyard for retired planes...", buying to replace a Nimrod spy plane that crashed in Afghan...(that jet was a patrol aircraft). "RAF has completed a refit" (actually done by L-3 COMM not the RAF) are all totally wrong statements by a clueless reporter.
The only accurate statement in the whole article was: 'The fact it is a re-engineered older aircraft doesn’t affect the capability on board; it just means that a different safety case has to be presented.'
Wonderful 'Fleet Street' reporting. Guess is should have not expected anything better.
"U.S. Army Air Force", "gathering dust in a boneyard for retired planes...", buying to replace a Nimrod spy plane that crashed in Afghan...(that jet was a patrol aircraft). "RAF has completed a refit" (actually done by L-3 COMM not the RAF) are all totally wrong statements by a clueless reporter.
The only accurate statement in the whole article was: 'The fact it is a re-engineered older aircraft doesn’t affect the capability on board; it just means that a different safety case has to be presented.'
Wonderful 'Fleet Street' reporting. Guess is should have not expected anything better.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None!
Mickj3 asked about problems with the F-35. If MOD/RAF are having such problems with crossover of US to UK acceptance/standards/airworthiness/documentation etc with Rivet joint that has been flying all these years what will be the situation with the F35
Won't be any as it is a new aircraft and RAF are participating from the start. If the MAA has problems with those circumstances then the RAF had better decide never to buy any new aircraft.
Won't be any as it is a new aircraft and RAF are participating from the start. If the MAA has problems with those circumstances then the RAF had better decide never to buy any new aircraft.
Mickj3:-
Would that were all there was to this shambles. It's not so much the problem as you describe, more a problem with the MOD/MAA, which doesn't 'do' airworthiness. It doesn't do airworthiness because it rid itself of anyone who could and, just for good measure, binned all the Regs.
Of course, none of that happened according to the Haddon-Cave Report, which now has the status of the Holy Grail, so instead new Regs are made on the hoof as and when required. That is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone Military Airworthiness and it's all now coming to a head, with RJ just this week's item on an ever lengthening list that no amount of stove-piping can conceal.
For those who are of a mind that if someone else is happy then so should we be, I would remind them that others were happy with the airworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 and the Nimrod Mk2, which together killed 43 people in just two airworthiness related accidents alone.
UK Military Airworthiness Provision and Military Air Accident Investigation are both in dire need of reform. To achieve that they must be freed from the MOD and from each other.
Only then can the rebuilding of UK Military Air Safety commence.
Only then can we have confidence in being told that any UK Military aircraft is airworthy or not.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Just out of interest. If MOD/RAF are having such problems with crossover of US to UK acceptance/standards/airworthiness/documentation etc with Rivet joint that has been flying all these years what will be the situation with the F35.
Of course, none of that happened according to the Haddon-Cave Report, which now has the status of the Holy Grail, so instead new Regs are made on the hoof as and when required. That is no way to run a whelk stall, let alone Military Airworthiness and it's all now coming to a head, with RJ just this week's item on an ever lengthening list that no amount of stove-piping can conceal.
For those who are of a mind that if someone else is happy then so should we be, I would remind them that others were happy with the airworthiness of the Chinook Mk2 and the Nimrod Mk2, which together killed 43 people in just two airworthiness related accidents alone.
UK Military Airworthiness Provision and Military Air Accident Investigation are both in dire need of reform. To achieve that they must be freed from the MOD and from each other.
Only then can the rebuilding of UK Military Air Safety commence.
Only then can we have confidence in being told that any UK Military aircraft is airworthy or not.
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!
Bit Twiddler said:
"Say, for example, part of the fuselage needed changing and L3 swapped it with a part off the rest of the RJ fleet which had an incomplete history and completely different flying hours, then what happens."
This "exchange process" is actually quite common throughout the world's aviation regulations. However, it is (in 99% of all the requirements I've dealt with) based upon confirmed knowledge of the status of the replacement part prior to installation.
This works well where you have properly logged and documented parts removed, preserved and stored, from airframes withdrawn from service for economic reasons or even some that have been designated BER.
To use parts that have no known history or documented record of usage is just playing with fire. They may have the look and feel of OEM parts but they are no better than Bogus Parts.
"Say, for example, part of the fuselage needed changing and L3 swapped it with a part off the rest of the RJ fleet which had an incomplete history and completely different flying hours, then what happens."
This "exchange process" is actually quite common throughout the world's aviation regulations. However, it is (in 99% of all the requirements I've dealt with) based upon confirmed knowledge of the status of the replacement part prior to installation.
This works well where you have properly logged and documented parts removed, preserved and stored, from airframes withdrawn from service for economic reasons or even some that have been designated BER.
To use parts that have no known history or documented record of usage is just playing with fire. They may have the look and feel of OEM parts but they are no better than Bogus Parts.
Novanav
Agree about the Daily Wail. The point contributors are making is this is the bit MoD just don't get!
This doesn't necessarily follow!
The only accurate statement in the whole article was: 'The fact it is a re-engineered older aircraft doesn’t affect the capability on board; it just means that a different safety case has to be presented.'
Won't be any as it is a new aircraft and RAF are participating from the start.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The desperately sad deaths caused in the Chinook & Nimrod crashes was made much worse by the rush for VCO's and the MoD to shift the blame
We have to ask though if these two incidents should drive the whole policy of RAF equipment purchase and use.
The RAF has loses between 12 and 20 people every year in simple accidents, many of them related to vehicles. Are we saying that we shouldn't allow anyone to drive or ride in a vehicle?? Or is there an "acceptable" level of risk based on experience (e.g the chances of being struck by lightning) AND the need to get the job done??
We have to ask though if these two incidents should drive the whole policy of RAF equipment purchase and use.
The RAF has loses between 12 and 20 people every year in simple accidents, many of them related to vehicles. Are we saying that we shouldn't allow anyone to drive or ride in a vehicle?? Or is there an "acceptable" level of risk based on experience (e.g the chances of being struck by lightning) AND the need to get the job done??
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blame culture
Until the RAF resolves the two conflicting matters of military discipline and a blame free culture for honest mistakes ( not negligence ) it's flight safety culture will be unable to move forward.
A senior ex- RAF officer and airline post holder once said to me that if the RAF was an airline it's flight safety culture would result in the CAA removing its Air Operators Certificate .
A senior ex- RAF officer and airline post holder once said to me that if the RAF was an airline it's flight safety culture would result in the CAA removing its Air Operators Certificate .
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
"Or is there an "acceptable" level of risk based on experience (e.g the chances of being struck by lightning) AND the need to get the job done??"
Sadly, since the abolition of Crown Immunity then ambulance chasing lawyers combined with the modern vengeance culture will encourage claims against an individual. To protect themselves, the seniors of any company introduce "Health and Safety" regulations which are, in reality, anti litigation measures designed to protect said managers. If anything happens then someone somewhere must have broken the rules - preferably someone quite junior, who will carry the can and face the consequences. Under such conditions then higher management will NOT accept any risk to either their pensions or their freedom.
Sadly, since the abolition of Crown Immunity then ambulance chasing lawyers combined with the modern vengeance culture will encourage claims against an individual. To protect themselves, the seniors of any company introduce "Health and Safety" regulations which are, in reality, anti litigation measures designed to protect said managers. If anything happens then someone somewhere must have broken the rules - preferably someone quite junior, who will carry the can and face the consequences. Under such conditions then higher management will NOT accept any risk to either their pensions or their freedom.
I saw this adorning the walls of an MAA building the other week...
...if only they practiced it!
LJ
If there were no risks it probably would not be worth doing. I certainly believe an airplane is capable of killing you, and in that sense I respect it.
— Steve Ishmael, NASA Test Pilot.
— Steve Ishmael, NASA Test Pilot.
LJ
We have to ask though if these two incidents should drive the whole policy of RAF equipment purchase and use.
When asking such a question it is necessary to acknowledge one simple fact. The aircraft were not airworthy due to quite deliberate policy. This was not an oversight. The failures were notified well in advance and a conscious decision made to make false declarations that the regulations had been followed.
One cannot compare these illegal acts with the accidental loss of servicemen in road traffic accidents. There are exceptions of course. Snatch is one. Declared unfit for purpose in Northern Ireland in the 90s, and a replacement fully endorsed and funded (then cancelled), this was conveniently ignored by politicians and VSOs when declaring it fit for purpose in the, one assumes, infinitely more benign environments of Iraq and, especially, Afghanistan. Funny how that fact is never mentioned. MoD worked hard to hide that one as well.
It is not only the MOD/MAA that 'doesn't get it' it seems. Certain PPRuNe members too share that affliction, given comments posted here.
This is a canker lurking within the fighting ability of the UK Armed Forces' ability to wield Air Power. If the airworthiness of UK Military Airworthiness cannot be relied upon then, merely to take examples from airworthiness related fatal military air accidents posted in this forum, our aircraft can self destruct with the loss of 63 (becoming 65?) lives instead of being able to take the fight to our enemies. In such a manner are wars lost...
This was not the result of oversight or honest mistake, it was deliberate planned sabotage of UK Military Air Safety by RAF VSOs. That it continues to blight UK Military Air Safety is because those RAF VSOs are protected by a cover up perpetrated by succeeding RAF VSOs. Time perhaps for today's Royal Air Force to put a stop to such corruption and look to its very survival instead? Or don't we do leadership anymore?
This is a canker lurking within the fighting ability of the UK Armed Forces' ability to wield Air Power. If the airworthiness of UK Military Airworthiness cannot be relied upon then, merely to take examples from airworthiness related fatal military air accidents posted in this forum, our aircraft can self destruct with the loss of 63 (becoming 65?) lives instead of being able to take the fight to our enemies. In such a manner are wars lost...
This was not the result of oversight or honest mistake, it was deliberate planned sabotage of UK Military Air Safety by RAF VSOs. That it continues to blight UK Military Air Safety is because those RAF VSOs are protected by a cover up perpetrated by succeeding RAF VSOs. Time perhaps for today's Royal Air Force to put a stop to such corruption and look to its very survival instead? Or don't we do leadership anymore?
Heathrow Harry - to add my own take to the intervening posts -
There will always be risk with military activity. However - I think the point generally being made here (very well IMHO) is that the deaths involved in this particular group of accidents were in part or in whole caused by or contributed to by certain improper decisions or other failings at the top – going back 25 + years. Those decisions seem to have had little to do with airworthiness, safety, honesty or fitness for purpose and much to do with cost saving, incompetence, negligence, siloing and politicking – followed up by lying, concealment and ass-covering after the probably inevitable or predictable accidents. In other words, if a proper system was in place, and it worked properly, many of those deaths might have been avoided.
LFH
There will always be risk with military activity. However - I think the point generally being made here (very well IMHO) is that the deaths involved in this particular group of accidents were in part or in whole caused by or contributed to by certain improper decisions or other failings at the top – going back 25 + years. Those decisions seem to have had little to do with airworthiness, safety, honesty or fitness for purpose and much to do with cost saving, incompetence, negligence, siloing and politicking – followed up by lying, concealment and ass-covering after the probably inevitable or predictable accidents. In other words, if a proper system was in place, and it worked properly, many of those deaths might have been avoided.
LFH
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, can anyone prove that (lack of) airworthiness caused the Mull crash? Thought not.
The argument we (and I was part of it) presented about the Mull was that it couldn't be proved that John and Rick were grossly negligent. From that tortuous battle it was demonstrated that the aircraft was not airworthy and there should have been some very important lessons learnt. However, we should be careful not to assert that airworthiness issues directly, or indeed indirectly, caused the crash.
Nimrod is a different story.
The argument we (and I was part of it) presented about the Mull was that it couldn't be proved that John and Rick were grossly negligent. From that tortuous battle it was demonstrated that the aircraft was not airworthy and there should have been some very important lessons learnt. However, we should be careful not to assert that airworthiness issues directly, or indeed indirectly, caused the crash.
Nimrod is a different story.