A shortened version of this article appeared in the Sunday Times yesterday. The full article shown below appeared on the Times website. It was written by Michael Smith, if you would like to comment on the article you can do so at this link:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_...andal_of_.html
March 17, 2007
The Scandal of the "Unsafe" RAF Aircraft Forced to Keep Flying
When an RAF Nimrod exploded over southern Afghanistan on September 2nd, everyone I know was struck by the sheer horror and tragedy of it all. It was that incident which led me to set up the
In Memoriam post on this blog which lists all of those who have died in action since the British deployed to Helmand province. I railed against the MoD’s insistence that the 14-man crew of the Nimrod would not be categorised as having died in action but accepted that it was a mere technicality. Like everyone else I assumed that an inquiry would get underway and the problems that caused the explosion, and the tragic loss of life, would be sorted out. What a fool I was.
A series of emails from a number of air crew at the Nimrod’s base at RAF Kinloss in north-east Scotland have been passed to this blog. They show the abysmal way in which they have been treated, forced to keep flying and to continue with the air-to-air refueling process that is believed to have caused the tragedy.
The Sunday Times revealed last year that a leaking fuel pipe led to the explosion that brought down the 37-year-old
Nimrod XV230. But the emails reveal that there have been six fuel leaks on board the aircraft since the explosion. Such is the pressure to keep the aircraft in the air to collect intelligence over Afghanistan and Iraq that they have been grounded just once – last month. Crews have even been forced to continue the air-to-air refueling process thought to have led to the explosion and loss of life.
The Nimrod that crashed had just refueled in mid-air and while the difficulties of investigating an accident in Taliban-held territory have hampered the inquiry, it is believed the pressure from the fuel pumped into the aircraft caused the leak in the fuel line. Escaping vapour was ignited either by an electrical fault or hot air and the resultant fire caused the starboard wing fuel tank to catch fire and explode.
A Harrier ground attack aircraft filmed the incident, following the Nimrod down to 3,000 feet above the ground when the fuel tank in the wing exploded and the aircraft broke up. The emails describe how pressure to keep the aging aircraft flying amid uncertainty over the leaking fuel pipes has led morale to plummet. Angry crew are leaving the Kinloss base “in droves”, either by resigning or demanding transfers to other aircraft.
“It’s not a nice place to work just now,” one Nimrod crew member said. “Confidence in both the aircraft and the hierarchy are at an all time low. Ground crew are leaving in droves and a number of aircrew, pilots, engineers and back end [surveillance operators], are jumping ship. More worrying are the six major leaks we have had since the accident and the hurry to resume air-to-air refueling after each one.”
There was intense anger at RAF Kinloss when the crews were ordered to resume flying just four days after the original explosion. All the most experienced Nimrod pilots are leaving to work for civilian companies with some paying back bounties worth tens of thousands of pounds rather than stay in. The base is short of eight flight engineers, the air crew with the best technical understanding of the aircraft. Engineers from other bases are being forced to move to Kinloss but a number have resigned rather than do so.
In an email written shortly after the aircraft crashed, another RAF officer complained that the way in which crews were being kept in the dark was making matters worse. “We've not heard a dicky bird then suddenly the ACC [the then Air Component Commander] in the Gulf wants us airborne and tanker capable again. So, we had a jet air-to-air refueling over Kandahar four days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management.”
Adam Ingram, defence minister, insisted last week that the aircraft was safe and being flown in “adherence to the procedures detailed within military airworthiness regulations”. But one recently retired RAF pilot said: "I would describe the actions taken by higher level commanders following the crash of Nimrod XV230 as reckless. The task is clearly taking priority over safety, and airmen are being asked to take unnecessary risk. This aircraft is so old, I am not even sure it is possible to make it safe, however, the simple step of fitting fuel tank protection would go a long way to providing such safety."
The explosion in the wing tank is bound to lead to demands for suppressant foam to be fitted in the Nimrod wing tanks as well as those of the RAF’s Hercules transport aircraft. US Air Force Hercules and the US Navy P3 Orion, the American equivalent of the Nimrod, have had suppressant foam in their wings since the Vietnam War. As the fuel level in the tank goes down, foam fills the gap eliminating any air and therefore preventing combustion.
But typically cost-cutting left RAF aircraft unprotected until ten British servicemen were killed when a special forces Hercules was shot down over Iraq in January 2005. Insurgents managed to hit the aircraft wing fuel tank which exploded. An inquiry recommended that all operational Hercules have the foam fitted to their fuel tanks. More than 18 months later only seven of the RAF’s 48-strong fleet of Hercules have been converted. The Board of Inquiry into the Nimrod explosion is now expected to recommend that foam be fitted to the Nimrod wing tanks as well. I hope those who decided previously that it was not worth doing so can live with themselves.