Tuc:
I think it right to point out, again, that this and other fatal accidents would, in all likelihood, not have occurred if mandated airworthiness regulations and requirements had been implemented properly.
I completely agree. The airworthiness of the Nimrod before 2 Sep 07 has been found wanting and no-one can disagree with that point. I also agree with your 2nd paragraph. I wasn't aware that Adam Ingram had made such a bold statement. Regarding decisions made at the top, I'm certain that everyone who has a stake in Nimrod (and other aircraft) safety, since 2 Sep 07 is not now being as obstructive as the guy you mentioned in your 3rd para.
Nigegilb:
Can you provide any other example of a BoI report that failed to address specific shortcomings that instead were handed to a QC?
No. But, I believe this is the first case of 2 non-governmental organisations being cited by a BOI as authors of a flawed safety case: BAe and the independant civilian firm who checked BAe's work. The SoS cannot stand up in the HoC and blame them outright , so he has called in a QC to ask the appropriate questions and apportion blame.
Nigegilb:
Furthermore, compensation in principle has been agreed as a result of airworthiness issues before the verdict of the Inquest. Can you also name any other example in the last 6 years?
No. But, the contents of the BOI report, with unqualified support from CinC Air Command has clearly identified a gigantic cock-up, without attribution at this stage, in the relationship between the RAF and BAe that led to the loss of an aircraft owned by the MOD. Therefore, as owners and operators of the Nimrod, the MOD has no choice but to pay out compensation. The QC's investigation might find cause for BAe and the civilian company to compensate the MOD for failing to provide an accurate safety case, that in turn led the MOD and its crews into believing that the Nimrod was safe.
Nigegilb:
Ed Set, you are kidding yourself if you think the mountain of publicity and unearthing of facts had no influence.
Publicity brought pressure to bring closure. Regarding the un-earthing of facts: well, interesting discussions about irrelevant wing fuel leaks abound, but no-one here mentioned the possibility of a No 1 tank blow-off valve or a hot SCP/crossfeed pipe (leaking pipes were discussed) or a leaking fuel coupling before the end of Apr last year, which was when the BOI had completed its investigations. No-one here discussed the concept of remedial maintenance versus preventative maintenance on fuel couplings; a very central issue that the BOI painstakingly researched. Yes, sure, pprune "un-earthed facts", but they were either irrelevant or well behind the progress of the BOI team. Look at the date they adjourned and look at what had been discussed here before then. They only re-convened to analyse fuel leak rates per hour rather than per year. The BOI members are highly respected officers from our own front line, While they didn't speak out of turn, they were not invisible either and casual discussions about pprune's supposed influence were not unusual. I can tell you, for a fact, that they were not influenced by anything written here. They didn't need steers from pprune. If they did, they deserve to have their flying cats taken off them. So, no, I'm not kidding myself.
Nigegilb:
One final question which I hope you can help me with. Days after the tragedy it was deemed "operationally essential" to carry on with AAR sorties.
How so, if no AAR sorties have been carried out since Nov?
There was a temporary suspension in Oct/Nov 06 which was reversed once the details of the incident(s) were quickly analysed and found to be acceptable. Then, we had the diversion into Kandahar, with all the national news that it attracted. Unlikethe previous suspension, a formal investigation was required. Furthermore, unlike Sep 06, Nimrod AAR was not pivotal, operationally. The RAF had to be seen to investigate the incident. It was deemed sensible, pending the investigation, to suspend AAR because it would not be consistent with the raison d'etre for the investigation and the operational imperative is not there at the moment. I'm aware that the investigation is very thorough, hence the protracted period of non-AAR. Once the investigation is complete, the air staff will make a decision....
TD:
AAR was stopped due to an incident which made national news
Yes who broke the news ? Not the RAF
Indeed. More friction in our attempts to fight this war.
TD:
Sorry, where in the BOI do they mention the BAE report issued 28th Febuary 2007 on the Hot Air Ducting . It states the tested 35 ducts
Two of which failed proof pressure loading,
Corrosionn was present in the majority of Ducts,
Cracks in the weld beads of 14 Ducts
That was a report about hot air pipes inside the engine compartments; nowhere near the seat of the fire. The engine compartments have hot air leak detectors, a fire detection and extinguishing system and therefore contain the necessary level of mitigation against an unacceptable risk. The BOI was not there to review the safety of the aircraft as a whole. It's task was to find out where the fire was and what most likely caused it. You have been given a copy of their Terms of Reference. Hot air pipes in the engine compartments, leaking or otherwise, are totally irrelevant to their work, so your question to the member was outside his terms of reference.
TD:
he just said I don't think I should be talking to you and skulked off..
That is a most ungracious comment. The work that he and his colleagues, alone put in has resulted in the SoS apologising to you and offering compensation.
Nigegilb:
256,897, 1/4 of a million hits. And you think this thread has had no influence?
There is a difference between casual interest and influence.
TD:
Even the MOD posted on here nige along with an MP and numerous media parties.
It's a pity the BOI haven't taken any notice of Pprune perhaps they may then have mentioned in their findings the Fuel leak issues mentioned in the leaked emails.
The MOD has used this site to announce events, not to gain information. Once again, the fuel leaks mentioned in the leaked e-mails were outside the scope of the BOI. Anyway, as you have been told many times, all aircraft around the world, leak (seep) fuel from their wing tanks. Its not a problem.
Regards
Ed Sett