There is conflict here between those who want the Nimrod aircrew (current) to be safe - in effect we want the aircrew to (1) only have to contend with enemy action from the Afghans, not MOD parsimony.
But....
(2) We also want the Nimrod on task, to provide much needed support to the troops on the ground, who are themselves suffering from lack of investment - it's not only Landies with Baco foil instead of armour plating, defective GPMG ammo (what a laugh that muse have been in a firefight), and terse memos from MOD if you use too much mortar ammo replusing attacks.
You know, there's a pattern emerging, and strangely enough it's actually one of our oldest traditions as well...
- Spit and Hurri pilots in WW2 during the battle of France were considered lily livered whoopsies for wanting armour plate behind their seats, ie where the BF109 cannon shells had a habit of arriving? Wanting adequate protection is OLDER than the RAF, and is traditionally opposed.
At present we have servicemen (I'm an equal opportunity bigot, I include ladies here) getting furious with other servicemen, and the odd onside civvy, when surely we all have the same aim - minimise 1 and optimise 2?
I'm amazed that some people apparently believe the BOI should be trusted 100% in one case, but ignored as dipsh1ts in another - surely BOI's are competent or not? They might vary a bit in competence, but surely not from divine revelation to complete t0sspots? I think the Nimrod BOI did a damn good job...I don't know they were %100 right, but I'm sure they did a good job.
The MOD resigned itself, before the coroner started work, to paying compensation because in the cold light of day - very soon after the loss of 230 - it was realised that there was no chance of defending any action. That compensation is going to provide schooling, and eventually University placings, for children who now don't have Dad around to help with the homework. If you'll forgive a rant at this point, for all those who are implying that losing Dad was a bonus, I know a number of the children and parents, and that is a gross, unforgiveable suggestion that says a great deal more about the poster than the family. To ask whether they will be donating the cash etc - you have wasted enough oxygen, rethink your ideas, and appreciate what it must be like to have a young family and suddenly Dad isn't coming home ever again... or try wearing a plastic bag.
The RAF and MOD realised very early on that a mistake had been made that rendered the Nimrod unsafe...nobody realised it in advance, it wasn't down to anyone deliberately screwing up, but a mistake was made, and our failure to implement our own regulations on safety led to that mistake being present but not spotted for almost 40 years.
I for one believe the BOI did a stirling job, almost certainly found the cause of the loss, and actually I think the aircraft is presently safe to fly...then again, I retired and it's not my kids' futures on the line, so I quite understand if current aircrew see it differently. I might THINK it's safe, but would I go for a quick circuit bash in it? Dunno - I do think Torpey and everyone from Wingco upwards should do a practise display in it before any old mates go up in it again.
I think Mr Walker made a very valid point - he emphasised it somewhat by repeating what expert witnesses said about airworthiness - that this was the time for the RAF to stop taking shortcuts with safety, and start to implement its own regulations. I cannot fault anyone for doubting Torpey or Ainsworth, why should they - they've said the same
PR rubbish after every event... it's indicative of their ability to absorb and debate opinion that they had every faith in Nimrod before the ink was dry on the inquest.
We should not be fighting each other here - the ideal solution is a reliable Nimrod that nobody has to worry about. Money won't solve everything, but I suspect it will cause a lot of problems to reduce or be resolved faster - so spend some. Is Northern Rock really more important?
Labqueen #845: Spot on.
Equivaocator
By your estimation then, anyone with more than 300 hundred hours should have been subject to a significant flight safety incident...
Yes, I'd say I had a major in flight heart attack on something like that periodicity...maybe a bit longer between engine fire warnings, locked controls, multiple birdtrikes , lightning strikes - maybe I'm a Jonah, but I probably DID have something untoward about that often. (I also sat on the pan three times waiting to taxy out, and watched three aircraft crash, killing crew each time - that was a right laugh). I also got quite airsick - never barfed but felt crap - on my first tour. On the plus side I got to attend a war and visited all sorts of places.
Mac : the Auth Off does not weigh the strategic or Tactical position up as risk v necessity of the op. The auth off is a very minor cog (sorry if this offends) far removed from the decision of whether the flight is necessary for the prosecution of the war.
Dave
(Being a maverick - not the Tom Cruise type obviously- I also think the Army and Navy should get a few quid more, I'm sure you need more than 5 tanks for an army, and you probably need more than 6 frigates to patrol the 7 seas).