Gentlemen,
I am happy to take all the stick that you want to give me, but please don’t read me the rules for pprune and then ignore them yourselves. You will all see, that it was infact safeware who began the personal insults – but enuf said.
Let me begin by saying that I know very little about the MR4 other than what I read on here and the info I get from some mates at BAe and ISK. I do however, still remember quite a bit about the MR2 and the aircrafts systems, fuel, engines, hydraulics blah, so I’m not a complete ‘numpty’ on the aircraft. So let me just go through a couple of points if I may……
In an earlier posting from SFO, he stated: “Where you are not correct is in giving the impression that the fuel pipework et al is refurbished. It is of a similar/same design but, apart from the fuselage (and one or two minor items) the rest of the aircraft (and pipework) is new build. Indeed, around the important areas (engine bays etc) the fuel pipework will be double skinned.” Is it not right therefore to assume that given the AAR system is a ‘new build’ that all of the AAR pipework should have been double-skinned?
Distant Voice says: “And Safeware, I am not sure what the risk factor is for one accident and two major incidents involving AAR in four months (Sept, Nov & Dec). I suspect it is worse than 1:1000” How can anyone disagree with that? Is that not, at the very least, sufficient cause to re-think the AAR system?
Now lets talk about Bomb Bay fire fighting.
It is a fact that MR2 has NO fire fighting capability in the bomb bay. It is equally true that MR4 will have NO fire-fighting capability in the bomb bay either. Now many on here say that its down to cost, and I would agree entirely. But others claim that it isn’t needed, because the incident rates for bomb-bay fires are small. I would just refer you to my earlier post when I said that any form of extinguishant in the bomb bay might just have afforded XV230 a few extra vital minutes to get the jet safely on the ground. IMHO that is worth serious consideration and should be incorporated in MR4 (I even agreed that to retro fit MR2’s was a non- starter)
Biggus says that:
“The design was 'frozen' before bomb bay extinguishers and fuel tank protection were considered issues. Yes, no doubt they could be added”
Nigel Gilb says:
“Mr Boeing provides 215 minutes worth of fire extinguishant in the FWD/AFT Cargo hold of a 747. Mr Boeing is also fitting state of art fuel tank protection to the latest Boeing airliners coming off the line. There have been about 5 attributed fuel tank explosions in airliners in the last 25 years or so. The RAF has had probably 4 in the last 30 months in it's tiny inventory”
The Winco wrote:
“What the public will not be told however, is that the aircraft will NOT have foam in the wings, it will not have state of the art fire suppressant. Infact, it won't even have a single fire extinguisher located in the bomb bay” Now feel free to ignore me and ridicule me, but are we all wrong about our concerns?
And finally, lets talk about airliner safety. I am not an airline pilot, when I left the mob, I stayed flying, but I do not fly for an airline. But ’the winco’ appears to be an airline pilot, and yet he has also come in for criticism about his comments regarding airline safety. Infact, SFO said the following: “If you seriously believe that Boing or Funbus make aircraft that are as safe as they can be, no matter what the financial implications are, why have there been so many accidents and incidents in commercial aircraft over the years, or is it just that they do not show the 'Aircrash Investigations' programme on your home planet?” (Betty S, do you remember what you said to me: "Be Courteous! Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack.")
Anyway, it was my response to this which has clearly upset some of you, and for that I apologise. But I still think it the wrong thing for SFO to say. How you feel that the loss of a Nimrod, one of only a dozen or so, flying very little, can possibly be compared to the airline industry is beyond me. At best, if all 12 Nimrods flew one trip a day (5 day week) we are looking at very best, at about 3000 trips a year. I think the table I posted, showed tens of millions of trips a year from the airline industry! I’ll leave you all to draw your own conclusions from that.
Gentlemen, I apologise if my mocking of SFO has offended anyone, including SFO (apologies). I would only reiterate that I feel passionately about the state of the fleet and things at ISK in general aswell as for the safety of friends still there. I knew most of the crew on XV230. I had flown with most of them on countless occasions and was as devastated as everyone else at their loss. We all know that the safety of military aircraft is largely governed by the bean-counters, but that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. We must keep plugging away at the safety argument and not just role over and accept it as a ‘done deal’ It isn't!
Difar69:
You and I have also flown together on countless trip during the 80’s and 90’s. I have explained that I am not an expert on MR4 at all. But is anything I have said about MR2 or MR4 factually incorrect? I haven’t heard anyone say it is yet. Like Tappers Dad, I couldn't couldn't bear to hear about another Nimrod being lost due to a fuel leak.
TSM