nigegilb
because as part of the post XV230 procedure a crew member was stationed to look for leaks in the bomb bay
That is factually incorrect; there is no formal requirement to monitor the bomb bay during AAR.
AC Ovee
Fuel and ignition. As aircrew we, and our leaders, always consider the effects of the next failure. ie if fuel leaks on a hot engine will the engine catch fire? yes, so we make sure that we have sufficient extinguishant available because we can never guarrantee that fuel will never leak onto a hot engine. That same principle of considering what could happen next with a fuel leak in the nimrod bomb bay, since Sep 06, has been very carefully thought through by specialists who know what it takes to ignite AVTUR, and it is not easily achieved. No-one ever said that fuel will never again leak in a Nimrod bomb bay. If the Nimrod leadership has any belief that there is any possibility of a fire developing (the next failure) with a fuel leak in the bomb bay, there is no way that we would be AARing (or indeed routine flying) if that were the case. We cannot guarrantee no leakage. No-one operating any aircraft in any organisation in the World can do that.
Do you believe that the leaders are that reckless?
There were no noxious fumes in the cabin while the aircraft was airborne. It was pressurized so the fuel vapours would not have entered the cabin. Shortly after landing, the fans at the back of the cabin drew the fumes up into the cabin from the bomb bay through an open valve near to the leak and dumped the fumes overboard at the back. That is the route that the air takes while on the Nimrod is on the ground.
Unstable load? The aircraft weighs more than 100,000 lbs. The unregulated movement of a few pounds is not going to change anything.
Reduction in available fuel: when it was first observed, the leak could have been in either a feed pipe or a refuel pipe. Stopping the AAR was clearly correct and that action would indicate if the leak was in the refuel pipes. The leak did abate after disconnect, and because it was therefore in a refuel pipe, the tanks had enough fuel to take the aircaft to its planned destination. There is no way that the crew would ever be without enough fuel to go home. If the leak had been in a feed pipe, we have a drill to stop it. Again, there would have been enough fuel on board to go to the destination. In either case, if there was insufficient fuel to go to the destination, for whatever reason, and that was the only concern, the crew had Kandahar a few miles away to use as an en route diversion in a routine manner.
Should they have been concerned? Yes, because they are human and they read the critical opinions on pprune and Timesonline and they lost some friends last year and no-one has yet told them why, and not everyone on the crew fully understands the logical and very careful thoughts of their leaders (my first answer above). On the day the aircraft was light enough for an immediate, safety first, landing at a friendly airfield. To continue with the AAR while the pipe was seen to be leaking would have been reckless. To stop the leak and contine to the destination with some residual fuel in the bay was an option (and it has happened many times before), but the crew are human. I don't believe I have been critical of their actions. I do believe that I have brought some balance to this dicussion about leadership and duty of care.
Nice post
