Nimrod Fires
Magnesdrinker,
The Sunday Times today carries a similar report regarding the number of incidents (fire and smoke related) that the BAES Fire and Explosive Hazard Report of March 2004 identified. One has to assume that in all cases there must have been some paperwork raised ranging, I assume, from an IR if fire extinguishers were used to a defect report and an engineering investigation. Having been involved in a similar incident in a Shackleton many years ago the smoke/fumes emanating from one of the avionic bays were taken very seriously indeed and following a Pan call we landed with the fire crews deployed so I don't accept that such incidents should be (or are) taken as lightly as you suggest.
Presumably the IPT paid good money to have this report done as they had some concerns about keeping the aircraft in service for at least another 6 years, and, as we now know, somewhat longer! The report covered both the Mk 2 and the RMk1, and was 125 pages long - I have only seen the ES (2 pages) released under FOI, and I have not seen the full analysis of the 880 "incidents".
However, what is a fact is that in the ES, amongst a pile of other findings and recommendations, BAES recommended that "MOD consider utilising the extended range tankage role fit fire detection suppression system in normal operations" (their emphasis not mine). I know others have said that this would not work. I would not know, but BAES are design authority so presumably they had a good idea that this would work, or could be made to work. Although, as is so often the case, the wording is somewhat "fudged" there is little doubt that the BAES assessment that fire/explosion risks could be reduced to the ALARP level was based on the IPT not just reviewing but also actioning their (BAES') recommendations. I also wonder if such protection is now fitted in the MR4 - perhaps someone knows.
I hope the the BOI will look at what happened to the BAES report and its recommendations and comment on why, as appears to be the case, they were never actioned - money being my guess. If it does not then I would start to look at this with the same jaundiced view that I have of the engineering aspects of the Chinook Mull Inquiry - so I hope that this will not be the case.
JB