Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety [Archive] - Page 3

tucumseh

13th May 2006, 10:01

Nigel

“It is complicated and I am getting the impression that we are paying lip service in certain areas. What is the point of all this if a senior officer can turn round and send in crews on grounds of "military risk" thereby negating all safety management measures?”

While no expert, I believe the answer can be summed up as “Establishing boundaries of responsibility / accountability”.

You ask, and if you don’t get then someone’s name is on the decision. If you don’t ask, I do not believe it fair to pin the blame on a politician. Always ask. There is a simple route for doing so. Line management. Talk of shortage of funding is often a crock and should never be a reason for not asking. Everyone knows the MoD wastes hundreds of millions every year but there is no political will to improve. (On reflection, I know of one project, never mind the MoD, that does this as a matter of course; and another which is proposing to do it). It’s actually a disciplinary offence to complain about it. If I were in the Treasury, I’d freeze the defence budget for a year until DPA and DLO had complied with the recommendations of report after report from the Select Committee, Public Accounts Committee and even their own internal auditors and advisors. Radical, but you'd see an overnight change in attitude and shift in power in DPA and DLO back to those who know how to do the job.

Having said that, the whole issue (safety) is blurred because very little of it is mandated or rigorously policed, not least because corporate experience of the subject has been largely ditched. There are many examples of DPA and DLO knowingly paying off contracts and offering unsafe kit for acceptance into Service. Astonishingly, there are seemingly no rules against this. To pass either of the project “gates” one must have a Safety (and Environmental) Management Plan which says all the right words, but often the approval doesn’t come with funding to actually implement the Plan. Very often safety relies on the integrity of the project manager, and his willingness to stick his head above the parapet and declare planning blight. (A career limiting move).

A final thing about safety. It is one thing to deliver safe kit in the first instance (notwithstanding the above, most Design Authorities usually try to ensure its fit for purpose) but it is quite another to maintain that safety throughout the life of the kit. This is especially so on anything that is integrated (all aircraft and their systems for example). A simple example. Systems A and B are, in isolation, safe; in that they have Certificates of Design and Performance. But fit them to the aircraft, and they become unsafe as a system of systems, perhaps due to EMC. The individual kit is safe, but the aircraft is not. Problem – system A is a DA Mod but system B is an unappraised Service Engineered Mod, so the MAR of the aircraft is probably based on a build standard which excludes system B. There is no safety audit trail from the in-use build standard (A + B) back to that of MAR. MoD will say the a/c is safe as it has MAR, but this statement only holds true for the tail number presented for MAR, at the presented build standard. For it to be true for the Fleet, they must have maintained that build standard, and incorporated design changes to it. I’ve heard this described as “splitting hairs”. Really? Understanding and knowing how to manage the difference is fundamental to maintaining safety. Pity large parts of DPA and DLO regard it as a waste of money.

nigegilb

13th May 2006, 10:54

I believe a practical example to prove what you are saying would be the maintenance of IRCM. Cannot go into the details here but I suggest those who still fly with it should ask a few questions. There are so many UORs flying around just now I am sure there will be other examples. However, Tucumseh, if a senior officer knowingly sends an ac into theatre without appropriate self-protection for perceived threat, under grounds of "military risk." What happens if said ac is shot down? What responsibility does that Officer bear? Nothing? If the weakness was pointed out in peace-time, does not the requirement for "Duty of Care" still exist? Throwing out crown immunity seems to have created many grey areas.....

airsound

13th May 2006, 11:54

Well, I’ve received my standard canned letter from Mr Gray - as have some of the relatives. It’s interesting, because mine contains no greeting and no signature, merely the printed sheets. Presumably it was sent in Gray’s absence by an assistant (perhaps the euphoniously named Catriona Sutherland-Hawes). In passing, I wonder why MPs don’t reply to emails by email - in my experience, they insist on replying by post. That impresses my local posties, because the reply arrives in a House of Commons embossed envelope, but I’d rather have an email, I think. For one thing, I can’t post a copy of his letter here - at least l don’t think I can.

Sir or Madam Moderator - can I post an attachment of my scanned letter? That would be helpful.

In the meantime, to sum up the contents of this Gray reply to my diatribe against him (posted here 051148 May):
1. He doesn’t respond to my suggestion that he should apologise to Nige.
2. He’s keen to emphasise his work on behalf of RAF Wootton Lynestoke.
3. He claims to have been doing “all I can to help the families of those who were so tragically killed in the accident.”
4. He doesn’t think ESF would “necessarily have saved the plane”,

I am awaiting some potential developments before I reply to Mr Gray.

airsound

engineer(retard)

13th May 2006, 12:09

Nige

There are many better qualified people on these forums to explain the saftey case but I can offer my twopennorth. The majority of safety cases that you will see in the course of your investigations are predicated on peactime operations and are concerned with airworthiness within a defined operational envelope. Although recently I have seen a shift towards some assessment that includes failure impacts during hostile operations.

The difficulty is that the operational risk assessment does not have the same rigour as the safety case that underpins the MAR. To do that you need a good understanding of the capabilities of the weapons being used against you. Not only the probability of interception of the store but also the lethality of the warhead/muntion and your platforms vulnerability. You will also need to have an understanding of the prevalance of the threat. Against this you need to know how your countermeasure performs against the threat.

Industry who usually provide the safety case does not have access to this information, hence you do not have this level of information. Quantative testing is also very expensive and it is unlikely that anyone would offer to underwrite the evidence but would only offer advice.

When you read the safety cases watch out for the weasel words advice and recommendation, they have different legal connotations. Recommendations are provided as a result of evidence, whether by testing, inspection or analysis and puts an onus on the organisation that provides to underwrite the recommendion. Advice is offered on a balance of probability based on incomplete evidence and the author does not hold responsibility for that advice.

regards

retard

nigegilb

13th May 2006, 12:31

It would appear that our process is flawed. You are not the first person to have pointed out that safety management mainly concerns peace time operations. What kind of basis is this to build on? Why is it that the Australian risk assessment at about the same time as the RAF assessment came to an entirely different conclusion regarding the fitting of foam, modern DAS and passenger protection? Forget Vietnam we are talking 3/4 years ago.

My only hope is that some kind of accountability will noe be delivered. This is a mess and all the time our AT assets are being exposed to unnecessary risk. Interestingly the Tornado has inerting systems. It travels twice as fast as C130 at low leve and is a much smaller target to hit. The boys have the ultimate get out an ejection seat. What a woeful state of affairs. Protection appears to be based on a lottery.

tucumseh

13th May 2006, 13:42

What Eng® says is absolutely spot on (as usual). To reinforce this, I’m sure a certain Aircraft Design Authority won’t mind me quoting direct from their Safety Case Policy (as hopefully it will deflect any criticism from ADAs)…

“The UK Ministry of Defence … requires to be satisfied that an aircraft or item of aircraft equipment is adequately safe for peacetime operation. MAR recommendations are made by Boscombe Down based on information prepared by the Design Authority in the form of a Safety Case”.

The requirement to provide Safety Cases only arose during 1992, and then only in the context of modifications to existing in-service aircraft. That is why any relevant contract is prefaced with something like “The MoD acknowledges the aircraft was built to standards prevailing at the time”. That is, the MoD underwrites the safety of the aircraft at its induction build standard, and the DA undertakes not to degrade it.

It follows that a good question to ask of any aircraft delivered (contracted?) before 1992 is “Does it have a Whole Aircraft Safety Case?” not just one whose baseline is an assumption of safety + mods. I’m not familiar with Hercules, but this may be a good question on Chinook Mk2!

Another, relating to new models of existing types (e.g. J/K or Mk1/2) would be “How much read across was permitted from old type to new, how was this validated and verified, and was a Whole Aircraft Safety Case retrospectively prepared for the older type?”

It also begs the question, alluded to by Eng, that if the a/c is “safe” for peacetime ops, what are the rules relating to assessing safety for non-peacetime, or if the boundary set by the Use Study moves? Lesser mortals like me never get to see these.

I’m sure there’s more, but footie calls.

Safeware

13th May 2006, 13:58

tuc - "very little of it is mandated or rigorously policed" - I think it is well enough mandated - JSP550, JSP553, Def Stan 00-56, BP1201 but I agree on the policing.

Eng - interested in your definition of advice vs recommendation. Boscombe Down provide RTS advice which contains recommendations, so how do you perceive that? An IPTL is not bound to implement this advice, but I wouldn't say that it was "offered on a balance of probability based on incomplete evidence ". Often the advice is based on more comprehensive evidence than industry offer and I'm sure that's how you would have viewed your work. What is different these days is that it is better seen as (to avoid using either advice or recommendation for a moment) expert independent safety assessment that the duty holder should consider. It is not regulatory direction as was often seen, and to be fair, often internally generated. As someone said, "we must stop using pseudo-regulatory terminology".

Nige, but we buy peace-planes, not warplanes! Industry (quite fairly in some sense) don't provide for more than a training role or 'delivery of a capability'. ie fighter x is delivered with the capability to deliver a wide range of ordnance but as industry can't predict how it is going to be used (flexibility the key to airpower) they can't say that it is safe in every environment. So, you can go off and shoot and the bad guys, but if the bad guys shoot back......

So this leads to operational safety assessment (which needs to be covered as the RTS needs to consider peace and war - CTW as one may say). Someone has to sit down and look at how platform x is actually going to be used / threatened. And UK plc isn't very good at that - it's a cultural thing. Those that *do* safety assessment are often seen as scaremongers (right up to the point where proven correct, by which time, sadly it is too late) and that sorting it out is too expensive and we'll just take the risk. :ugh:

sw

airsound

13th May 2006, 14:32

Thanks Mike - that is helpful!:ok:

Here are (separately) page 1 and page 2 of Mr Gray's standard canned letter as received by airsound. Note no greeting and no signature.

Page 1
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/Grayletbuck1.jpg

Page 2
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/Grayletter2.jpg

airsound

nigegilb

13th May 2006, 14:41

I am doing this whilst watching footie....
Let's talk A400m. 2 weeks ago, A400M was in line for 9 sets of DAS out of 25 and no fuel tank inerting. I have done some digging and discovered what I believe to be the rationale behind this thinking.

When the original bid was put in for the aircraft all 25 were to be equipped with the full suite, However, when the MOD (I think), realised the full cost they said no as it would be too expensive and so scrapped the idea for all of the aircraft and said that the aircraft would not be put in harm's way by limiting their military tasks! ( I can testify the flaw behind that thinking).

Not wanting to be put out, the DEC tried to think of scenarios where DAS would be required on non-military tasks and it came down to humanitarian airlift. When asked how many aircaft would be required for this task at any one time they said 9! It seems the fuel inerting study was done (well before 179) where the risk of loss of aircraft due to a hostile system which could not be defeated by the DASS was very small and so it was shelved.

All this saving on self-protection looked good until, erm a certain person got involved. These decisions on A400M changed last week, funny old thing. On what basis? Probably a dose of old fashioned bad publicity. Amazing!!!

Anyone who thinks we should let it lie please read this post carefully. It needs a health warning.

airsound

13th May 2006, 14:56

Nige - I'm not sure anyone who thinks 'we should let it lie' reads this forum. If he did, I don't imagine he would have been writing the way he has......

I'm doing this while not watching the footie:)

tucumseh

13th May 2006, 15:11

Safeware

I do agree with you that the process and procedures are well documented, but as I have been told when trying to get funding to implement them "They are not mandatory". Strangely enough, no-one with airworthiness delegation ever said that to me - it was always a beancounter or some other prat with plenty of authority but no responsibility. But of course they run the MoD so they must be right.

My view is;

If I am asked to procure say, a Missile Approach Warner, what on earth is the point of bolting it into the aircraft and then, along with the contractor, being allowed to walk away without integrating it and proving that it works, safely, as part of the whole aircraft? But, because a MAW (hopefully) is not required during peacetime ops, that's precisely what is permitted. It doesn't always happen, because some of us ignore the "rules" and make it safe.

One assumes the Transition to War plans, in addition to the prior RTS work you mention, adequately cover the inevitable safety assessments and remedial/update work which may be needed to ensure a required level of safety for forthcoming ops. And they have sufficient notice to do this. I suspect not, nor do I really believe that the senior staffs who have to make these decisions really understand that the baseline aircraft they are provided with is not necessarily safe. Perhaps they just assume it is because it has MAR? I don't envy them their position. If you are put on a weeks notice of deployment and topbean says it will take 3 months to let an assessment contract, what do you do?

Another interesting fact.... (at least to me)

"A Safety Case is required for all aircraft that are proposed for a change of role or operational use (i.e. of the aircraft or any part of its fit) which was not envisaged in the previous Safety Case, even where there is to be no change of aircraft configuration". I always found this quite significant and VERY wide ranging, but you'd have to ask an in-service aircraft IPT how often they actually do it. Not a lot I suspect.

flipster

13th May 2006, 18:42

I would be extremely interested to see the Herc CMk3 Safety Case for the ac being put into hostile environments like Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002. I suspect that if there is one at all, it would be a bit thin on details! :rolleyes:

ase engineer

13th May 2006, 19:02

Actually, no that isn't permitted, not in the contract with whichever responsible prime contractor is doing the job (can't speak for SEMs cos I dunno)
A MAW, for example, would be integrated and proved to work, safely, as part of the whole a/c before being signed off to the customer. What you need to ask, though, is how do you define, and prove, "works". If you have lots of time and money you can go and fire real missiles and see if it detects them, if you've integrated some reaponse, eg jammer, chaff, flares, you can test those at the same time. If you haven't got enough dosh to pay for that, then you need to start making a compromise and that is were the bigboys and their advisers have to stand up and be counted because everything that isn't tested becomes a risk which the head honcho of an IPT has to sign for as a risk he's willing to take - or rather he's willing to let you take. Now, you could use a missile simulator but you take the risk that it is a good representation of all the missiles the system is designed to detect. Of course all this can only be done in a peacetime environment, no-one can be expected to contract that it will work just the same in a war - for a start you can't count on the enemy to use exactly what you specified as the threat. What you can prve is that the installation and integration is safe from an operator point of view e.g when you turn it on the bombs don't go off due to EMC, but you can never "prove" safety in an operational i.e wartime environment

>>>>
If I am asked to procure say, a Missile Approach Warner, what on earth is the point of bolting it into the aircraft and then, along with the contractor, being allowed to walk away without integrating it and proving that it works, safely, as part of the whole aircraft? But, because a MAW (hopefully) is not required during peacetime ops, that's precisely what is permitted. It doesn't always happen, because some of us ignore the "rules" and make it safe.
>>>>

tucumseh

13th May 2006, 19:38

ASE Engineer

While we both agree on what SHOULD happen, I have it in writing and confirmed separately under FOI that what I describe is permitted and condoned. And can quote the contract numbers, equipment and aircraft. As I said, it doesn't happen too often because most of us do as you describe, but if you choose not to then fear not.

Best wishes

chappie

14th May 2006, 10:52

hello one and all,

i'm sorry for my absence, not that i would have been able to add anything worthwhile as it's all technical. i'm writing this feeling like the football that you boys watched.....or did'nt. having ended up in hospital overnight whilst at work i have been given strict instructions to take things easy. i am dutifully obeying....ish! i'm not a good patient, show me a nurse who is though! the reality of the loss of all those fine men is so far reaching. as i said before the loss of bob has cost me my family and i feel like i'm losing them. i have tried hard to keep things going but the stress got too much i got too run down one headache, one CT scan and LP later i'm finally home. but if any of you are in doubt this is the reality that we are trying to fight bloody hard not to happen again.

as for james gray MP which no doubt stands for muppet of the highest order he is talking out of his ***. i'm not sure exactly what it is he feels he is doing for the families. i can assure you it is diddly!

we...the families are not done yet. you might not hear from us but please be aware that there is much appreciation.

i have written my letter to blair and des. i will let you know what happens. anyway time to go as feeling pants of the highest order i'm sure that this little man lives inside my head. until i'm more in the land of the living.....see you.:ugh: :ok:

BEagle

14th May 2006, 11:46

Chappie - hope that you'll soon be feeling better. The stress and mental anguish you are suffering is awful; your vocation is helping others and you are indeed doing so by staying the course and refusing to let go. You are one very gutsy lady! But don't forget to keep your legal team informed of the detrimental effect the lacklustre behaviour of the MoD is clearly having on your health.

Some translation of the terms used in the preceding posts:

A full Defensive Aids Sub System needs something to warn the crew that a hostile device is being aimed at them. Radar-aimed missiles can be detected before being fired, due to the radar which is tracking the aircraft. But such a device (termed a Radar Warning Receiver - RWR) can't tell if a heat-seeking missile, rocket-propelled grenade or machine gun is being aimed. For a heat seeking missile (and possibly a rocket-propelled grenade, but I don't know), a device mounted on the aircraft can detect the approach of the missile - this is called a Missile Approach Warner (MAW). It can then either fire off decoying flares, or direct an active laser to kill the missile's guidance system. If no MAW is fited, an aircraft can use old 1970s technology and simply try to emit an infra-red signal during take-off and landing which will, perhaps, spoof the inbound missile by jamming its clever bits. But such things are highly reliant on knowing the specific type of missile being used - and are worse than useless against other missiles. Of course, both an infra-red jammer and a MAW-directed laser turret are useless against rocket-propelled grenades or bullets. So protection is needed in the aircraft itself. The rocket propelled grenade has relatively low range and is a one-shot thing; it is also difficult to aim and fire against an aircraft travelling at normal speed - although sadly helicopters are vulnerable to the wretched things, particularly if the enemy are perched on high rise buildings overlooking the landing site. But machine gun bullets have a much higher chance of hitting a vulnerable aircraft, so it is vital that not just detection devices and active defence systems are fitted, but also that the likelihood of a low-tech bullet hitting vital parts of the aircraft is taken into consideration when the aircraft is designed.

A civil Airbus transport was hit by an infra-red missile after take-off a year or so ago. The missile didn't hit the engine; it missed and hit the wing. This caused an intense fire and explosion in the outer wing tank, severing the hydraulics which left the crew with NO flying controls. By exemplary skill, the crew got the aircraft back on the ground by juggling with the engines to turn and descend.

However, most research still seems to be on trying to avoid detection. What the boffins have to take on board (as I've told them in words of half a syllable) is that there is still a possibility that, no matter how good the detection and defence devices fitted to the aircraft are, a bullet will still get through. The A400M, the next generation tactical transport aircraft, is designed with some damage tolerance built in. The aircraft wiring and major systems are so designed that damage in one area will not be fatal. But other systems, such as armoured cockpit seats and a system which fills the fuel tank 'air' space with inerting gas are 'optional'.....

There is an absolute need for ALL future large aircraft to have a comprehensive system of protection. Also, all current large aircraft used in hostile areas MUST have whatever protection can be fitted. If the MoD can't afford it, then the crews don't go. PERIOD.

Too much emphasis is placed on fast, pointy aircraft by the top brass. The 'fast jet-centric' RAF has GOT to wake up to the fact that the likelihood of EuropHoons being used in anger is microscopic when compared to Hercs, A400M, Nimrod, VC10, TriStar, FSTA, RW various etc. The money needs to go where there is the greatest REAL need..... But, of course, if the RAF doesn't show interest in a British Waste-of-Space design, how can BWoS and the government-sponsored gun-runners (DESO) shmooze the embassies to persuade oil-sheiks that they need to buy the new BWoS toy?

A 'UOR' (Urgent Operational Requirement) is something which is generated in response to a new, allegedly unanticipated, operational need. Very probably because the need was already considered, but the cash-strapped MoD couldn't afford to meet it. But when Bliar and his cronies elect to commit forces in support of yet another of Mad George's many wars, the lack of equipment becomes crucial. So a UOR can then be raised - but this is only a short term expedient and the new equipment is fitted to lower levels of engineering rigour than would be required had it been installed when the aircraft was first accepted into service.

nigegilb

14th May 2006, 12:50

Beags, thank you for neatly summarising the story so far. I am sure Chappie will not be the only one to benefit from an excellent insight into how we managed to get into this mess. I agree entirely about the fastjetcentric air force ignoring the plight of helos and AT ac. I was assured by AOC 2 that there is now a recognition that priorities need to change. Hopefully we will see movement towards this new thinking in the way of more funding, probably in 2007-08. Barring UORs, there is no new money on the table. And the big philosophical divide occurs where decisions have to be made about sending crews into danger without proper equipment. I am in the "no" camp. I also believe that "night" should be used as much as possible to reduce risk. Period. This is where we agreed to disagree. I do not think US or RAAF would ask their guys to do this. We should take a lesson from them.

Chappie, wish you a rapid recovery!

Safeware

14th May 2006, 16:48

Nige, "Barring UORs, there is no new money on the table." However, I have a lawyer friend (well someone has to do it) who deals in product liability. While I haven't discussed this issue with him, when he has told me about what goes on in general, the view of the judge tends to be that lack of money is not a valid defence, that you should have put it right. And if you try to make money the issue, you are likely to get hit harder.

sw

nigegilb

14th May 2006, 17:13

SW, thank you for pointing that out. The overwhelming reason given for not agreeing to fit foam over the decades was money. Now I am asking for a lot of expensive self protection. My idea is to ask for a windfall payment from the Treasury because the RAF does not have enough money to pay for all this protection. Supposedly the RAAF had a lot of unused money left over one year to pay for their own program. If we have any readers in Oz please contact me and tell me how they managed to afford it. Remember they did not suffer a TRAGEDY they just prioritised safety.

Now, I have not mentioned the legal case. I do not want to give anything away here. Things are happening in the background. Nuff said for the time being.

NG

chappie

14th May 2006, 19:41

thankyou so much for the good wishes. it has now transpired from a colleague from work who called me earlier that i apparently hit my head, though this was unwitnessed but i was telling people about it.let's hope it wasn't a patient who did it as my lot have a habit of doing that! the mystery deepens...super sleuth chappie ahoy! hence going completely doo lally tap! i knew there had to be a cause for the headache and i have got a v.sore head, however, according to my husband despite my telling the doctors i had a sore bit on my head (which seemed to be the only sensible thing i was saying!) they did'nt investigate any further than asking the sister at work hence i ended up not getting treated for concussion but lots of other yukky neuro things due to my raging confusion....one of which was a bloody lumbar puncture. so it's not just your employer who does'nt listen!! needless to say i think i'm owned a beverage or two. :ugh:

thankyou also, for the explanation i now understand....i think. i do really appreciate the effort made.:D

i have to say as a relative i do not buy the reason for the delay as not enough money in the pot as any sort of defence. reid seemed to indicate that although the aussie's implemented the system without losing an ac his words were that as we had not lost an RAF ac there was no need to follow suit. := no, no, no, mr reid you do not gamble with one ten or fifty of the worlds finest servicemen. that statement otherwise translated to a relative of the dead crew reads we were hoping that we wouldn't lose an ac, but in the liklehood of this happening we kept our fingers crossed that we didn't lose too many aircrew at the time. this is nothing but negligence. not an arguement that stands up in court. let's hope that one day i get to see that excuse for a defence laughed right out of court.legal matters are a no go for now.:oh:

BEagle

15th May 2006, 11:57

Has Reid's replacement 'Strangely Browne' made any contact or comment yet?

Surely if there's no 'more' money being made available, then a few £billion less squandered on the EuropHoon or Nimrod Y2K could better be spent protecting current aircraft used in actual operational theatres?

chappie

15th May 2006, 21:08

yet once again diddly. though i do have a very interesting letter from AOC 2 Gp in my paws. i am really stretching the truth as interesting. not sure that this is best forum for it. if i was in the mind to as a politican i could rip apart but won't. i just hope that none of the other families buy it. it will not stop me pursuing the truth, those blokes deserve that....

chappie

15th May 2006, 21:18

nige please empty your PM box please...chappie:\

nigegilb

15th May 2006, 23:07

Thanks for the advice about finding money via UOR and underspends. I think it is worth another try and -I feel we are close to getting what we want. Had some good news about the J today. I am less suspicious now. MoD is becoming paranoid about leaks. Guys, just put the good news out there. You are fighting cynicism, be honest and embrace safety, it is the only way.

This thing is about to take a new twist. Please help to keep the heat on and keep the suggestions coming in.

NG

airsound

16th May 2006, 08:17

In line with our leader's exhortation to "just put the good news out there.", here is the latest harrumphogram to Mr Gray, as always copied to Messrs Cameron and Fox (both of whom have acknowledged receipt). I'm hoping this one is free of typos - but you never know.....

Dear Mr Gray
I have received a letter dated 8 May that I assume is from you, because ‘James Gray MP’ is embossed at the top. I’m not sure though, because it contains no greeting and no signature. It says it is in response to an email from me. But the content of this letter does not deal with the main burden of my email. I understand that other people have received the identical letter.

You’ll note that I have included my original email below. In it I asked you to apologise to Nigel Gilbert for maligning him in a public print.

You will, I’m sure, be aware that Nigel Gilbert has given well-received evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee. His campaign was also referred to in the House of Lords, leading the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the MoD to admit “I absolutely agree that there is no excuse for failure to provide our troops with the equipment they need to do their job properly”. Nigel Gilbert was also invited to speak recently with a very senior RAF staff officer in the chain of command. Finally, I suggest you listen again to the significant admission of the Secretary of State for Defence that I referred to in my email. These are surely not the results of an “attention seeking” campaign. I believe they are, on the contrary, a credible indication that Nigel Gilbert has hit on something of life-saving importance, and that his extraordinary campaign is achieving unprecedented political results.

You should be aware that your arguments about the lack of efficacy of explosive suppressant foam (ESF) now seem to be a minority view - from the top of the MoD, through the RAF chain of command, and also amongst many experts in this field, the view seems clear that ESF should have been fitted as standard years ago. So, I repeat, you should apologise to Nigel Gilbert at your earliest convenience. You should also perhaps consider that the battle is not won until all UK military air transport assets have some form of fuel tank protection as a starting point for further defensive aids improvements.

This letter under your name also suggests that you have been “doing all I can to help the families of those who were so tragically killed in the accident.” It goes on to say “loyalty to the families..... led me to the conclusion that we should avoid embarking on any such campaign” (a campaign attacking the government for its failures in this affair). I have to tell you, Sir, that my information from those families , direct and indirect, suggests that you have made scant contact with them. You may also consider, on reflection, that your statement about your loyalty to them being the reason for your lack of action is regrettable. I think you will find, when you do contact them, that the great majority, and possibly the totality, supports what Nigel Gilbert is doing.

This letter with your name at the top ends “I do hope you will understand my thinking.” I have to tell you that I do not, and I look forward to your revising your thinking as a matter of urgency, and demonstrating some support for your courageous constituent.
As before, I am copying this correspondance to David Cameron and Liam Fox.

I look forward to hearing from you - and you may like to consider replying by email, which is perfectly acceptable to me.

Harrumph
airsound

chappie

16th May 2006, 11:42

airsound, hark what is that noise? ....methinks tis the sound of applause at a fantastic letter, thankyou for sticking up for nige and for the families. i think sometimes we get used to add weight inappropriately to arguments and he has done nothing but embark in a bare faced lie. he knows my views. i understand others have written to him as well. so thankyou.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

airsound

16th May 2006, 12:16

Why, thank'ee Ma'am.

As the automatic doors on Zafod Beeblebrock's space ship in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy used to say when you went through - 'Pleased to be of service'

airsound

nigegilb

16th May 2006, 12:33

Airsound, o scribe to the Gods, maybe it is time we prodded the Tory party into action. We need to know what Cameron's line is on all this. He has been happy to see Gray mouth platitudes. Maybe we should seek a meeting with Liam Fox. An acknowledgement from the great PR man is not good enough in my view. Remember the Tory Govt brought in Options for Change otherwise known as the cold war peace dividend. They are having too easy a ride in all this. If the Labour Govt continues to implode might be worth checking out the new green/blue Tory party to see if they have any plans to increase defence spending......

PS I bet James Gray checks his outgoing letters this time!...Nice one.

NG

airsound

16th May 2006, 14:20

Sorry. Zaphod Beeblebrox. Another typo....

But I digress..... Nige - I'm not sure I expect anything more than an acknowledgement from DC or LF at this stage. I was only copying an email sent to one of their MPs. Mind you, if they want to pick up on his less-than-fantastic performance, that would be good.
I'm afraid I'm not much available for the next few days to pursue them. But when you're around again, I would see absolutely no harm in contacting either of them. After all, from their point of view, it must be (yet another) stick with which to help the Government in its implosion process. Go for it.

airsound

indie cent

16th May 2006, 19:48

As requested, more ideas...

If one googles "aircraft survivability", there are 728,000 returns.
Here's a couple that may prove useful:

http://www.iqpc.com/cgi-bin/templates/singlecell.html?topic=221&event=9319

and

http://www.aircraft-survivability.com/

... A quote from aircraft-survivability.com:

"such as installing an On-Board Inert Gas Generator (OBIGGS) in fuel tanks to suppress internal fires and explosions"

Now, did I mishear this, or were the media not told that we (the UK) did not have an awareness of fuel-inerting due to a lack of participation in Vietnam.

From what I found, it does not appear to be a particularly elusive subject.

Indie

Farfrompuken

16th May 2006, 22:33

Scary all this.:\

On my a/c during Veritas/Telic we had no DAS, foam etc. and were far from being in a safe area. I think we were all very naive in our threat assessments:uhoh:

The airships have let themselves and us down. Okay they tell us how/when to go to war, but when we're there, they should be Bl@@dy well supporting us, bearing in mind WE are the ones doing the do, not them.:mad:

We've got our priorites wrong, but I hope that with your campaign, Nige, Chappie et al. the crews get what is needed.

Regards,

FFP'EN

chappie

17th May 2006, 12:50

don't worry the airships might let you down, but i won't . the crew will get what they need. bob always knew his 'lil sis was fiery and so i'm making sure i put it to use. thing may be quiet but do not feel this campaign is forgotten about. i have an online petition that is in the finishing touches requesting ESF for all alberts nearly ready. i have an MP that i met in the house of commons asking a defence question, so do not worry the heat is on.

mary_hinge

17th May 2006, 16:09

No real new information here,but puts the cost issue at the front again :ugh:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/62169.html

chappie

18th May 2006, 11:13

stop and remember those brave souls that lost their lives in basra crash. i know it's not the right thread but i just want to say to any of the doubters that read this thread contemplate this.

i endured the repatriation ceremony of my brother and the nine others that lost their lives in the hercules crash.i know that there is no way that you can understand the pain that i'm feeling and fear that i have about the impending repatriation. there is no dignity in standing and watching your loved ones body (you hope) being brought off planes and being left broken, while those around you can stand and do nothing but watch you in pain. let's not forget how many stations have to host these ceremonies as the effect is so far reaching and for so long. we have to keep the pressure and the support on this campaign up. please do it so i can somehow leave a legacy of safety so no more families have to endure this unforgettable raw, ugly pain. i'm not too proud to beg if i have to but if we don't get foam in all hercules we will be seeing this ceremony again with more bodies coming off. your colleagues , your friends.

do not give in and do not leave this behind. please.

airborne_artist

18th May 2006, 16:00

There's a very good article in today's Telegraph about Jack and Edna Wallace whose 17 year old son Eddie died in an accident in Aden while serving in the Army. It was the policy to bury them in the country where they died, and the family was informed by telegram. By the unceasing efforts of the parents not only was their son's body repatriated, but the Forces stopped sending telegrams, sending an officer instead, and gave all families the option of having loved ones repatriated.

More info here. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/pdfs/radio/week21/bbcradiowk21_mon.pdf)

So, keep going, no matter who tells you it can't be done, because Jack and Edna did, and they succeeded.

nigegilb

18th May 2006, 16:35

I live in a tiny village in Wiltshire. Our village gave up 6 of it's finest to the Great War. They died because of poor planning, a lack of artillery and dud bombs landing short because of a manufacturing process designed to cut costs. People have been dying in our Military for the wrong reasons for generations. Enough is enough, those who remain faceless and unaccountable will no longer enjoy that status...I am in the process of requesting the immediate reinstatement of J DAS program, the immediate procurement of passenger protection and a guarantee that every Hercules flying into a hostile country will have foam in the fuel tanks. Ignorance is not an excuse.

NG

Link to Flight International blog/article about LXX party, incl David Learmount view on foam

http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2006/04/25/2109.aspx

Farfrompuken

18th May 2006, 22:43

P.A.F.

Eeeerrrrrmmm.... Yup!

Doesn't give you the warm + fussy, does it?

Threat matrices-----depends on what time of day and colour of airframe doesn't it??;)

Apologies if it makes no sense... am totally pissed however:)

:E :E :E

chappie

18th May 2006, 22:45

" i am sure that our ignorance of the danger of a fuel tank explosion will continue to puzzle and perhaps anger you, especially since the USA and latterly Australia have fitted ESF to many of their aircraft, but the very unfortunate fact is that only hindsight has made it clear to us." this from a very senior RAF offical offered to the families as a platitude.

yet according to john reid on the channel four news following nigel he stated the reason as to why we had not followed the example of those countries as we had not lost an RAF aircraft.....oops. what will the next excuse be? if we do not bring about change there will be more lives lost.

i do hope thatalthough you are pissed you may still be farfrompuken! loving the name!

nigegilb

19th May 2006, 07:11

P-a-F,
You have just explained;
a. Why slicks were sent to AFG
b. Why slicks might be sent to Afg again
c. Why we need protection for all Hercs
d. The sort of thinking that has left us with AT fleet without adequate protection.
e. Why Hercs have been sent to Afg without foam in fuel tanks

Well done.

RE. Hindsight. We lost a Herc because of a lack of fuel tank protection. However up until a few days ago we were the only European nation not to have signed up to fuel tank protection for A400M. We should have been the first. We had only signed up to 9 DASS out of 25. Even though we lost a crew it appears we still wanted to save money. Without our intervention, we might have ended up with a handful of Hercules with foam protection. What is so disgusting is that even after suffering tragic loss of life HMG still dragged its heels. This does not impress me. This is why Ministers have been given a bit of foresight and a notice of corporate manslaughter to help them make their minds up.

flipster

19th May 2006, 07:14

Yep - spot on!

What I can't understand is why the MOD is not 'rattling its tin cup' in the direction of HM Treasury for some extra-urgent funding for foam and DAS for ALL Hercs and other 'at-risk' aircraft (including SH)........ASAP?

C'mon Leaders........please LEAD!

If the Treasury then say 'No' - they become liable, too. Perhaps we should put that nice Mr Gordon Broon on notice for corp manslaughter as well as Hoon, Ingram, Reid and 'Des'? Oh, Don't forget the next person who becomes Chancellor!

nigegilb

19th May 2006, 07:40

I will speak to my contact in the legal department.......

FormerFlake

19th May 2006, 09:18

Once again Sir Huphrey an co can sum it all up:

"In government, many people have the power to stop things happening but almost nobody has the power to make things happen. The system has the engine of a lawn mower and the brakes of a Rolls Royce."
"The first rule of politics: never believe anything until it's been officially denied."
"'The Government's position' means 'the best explanation of past events that cannot be disproved by available facts'."
"Press statements are not delivered under oath."
The Law of Inverse Relevance, the less you intend doing about something the more you have to keep talking about it
The three articles of Civil Service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly, it's more expensive to do them cheaply and it's more democratic to do them in secret.

This may explain the governments reluctance to fit foam to the C130s:

"'This would create a dangerous precedent'.

Translation: 'If we do the right thing now, we might have to do the right thing again next time'."

nigegilb

19th May 2006, 11:10

It appears the best thing to do is to put in a UOR. If it is not supported by highers then we can take it further. But as has been proven in the case of the Herc do not take a verbal no for an answer, fire in the paperwork. If the paperwork is already in, slide it in again. These requests have a habit of disappearing.

Nige

flipster

19th May 2006, 11:54

JTO

Please tell me you are mistaken?!!!

If not, I'm crossing fingers, arms, legs etc for the VC10 crews - eek.

The Timmys were so lucky in KAB in 2002 - most them that had a bit of 'nous' found the weather 'punk' and went on to KHI - not that KHI was a 'walk in the park' either, mind you!

Perhaps the MOD/2 Gp has procured some extra luck from somewhere? I do hope so - because we are fast using it up! Not that it did much good for 179 and the recent Lynx crew - RIP.

Flipster

FJJP

19th May 2006, 13:37

nigegilb, you're doing a fantastic job. Had the decision to retrofit foam been decided properly in-service, and you were heading up the project team, you'd be in line for an O/MBE!

I may be missing something here [and forgive a crusty old f*rt for an appaling memory... now where was I?] oh, yes, has the question been asked of the minister for defence as to whether or not the gov will order foam and full DAS for the whole A400 fleet and any other fleets in the pipeline?

nigegilb

19th May 2006, 13:41

FJJP, Amazingly contracts were signed 2 days after the R4, C4 news coverage on Tuesday 02 May. I understand that the A400M is sorted completely. This contract signing was in complete contrast to answers to PQs just a few days before....Good ere innit??!!

It's funny I was told by a very well repected broadcast journalist, if you want the ear of the Prime Minister, he listens to R4 Today, along with HM Queen. Guess he wasn't wrong then...

After the trouble I have caused our Govt, I am taking great care when exercising the dog!

nigegilb

19th May 2006, 18:49

If anyone had any doubts, then the events in the last 48 hrs should confirm that this deployment is about to kick off. Reports of hundreds of Taleban fighters driving vehicles with mounted heavy machine guns, rolling into a town close to Bastion for a full on shooting match confirms in my mind that the Brits are going to war and soon. We do not have many soldiers and we lack firepower.

As we seem incapable of learning lessons from US and AUS experience maybe now is the right moment to compare our risk assessment/threat matrix/minimum equipment list with those of our coalition partners. If we are allowing our ac into AFG with a self-protection standard lower than our partners then heads should roll. No more mistakes, no more excuses.

Get the kit and get it now.

NG

chappie

20th May 2006, 09:23

well, it transpires that my request to meet des browne has been forwarded to him rather than binned, and as i've mentioned previously words are being had in his shell like. when....if i get a date i shall let you know. i have questions i want to ask re: lack of protection etc but if there are questions you want asking make sure you let me know. the n of k from the XV179 have been invited to meet with charlie and camilla. perfect forum i thought to inform him of the atrocious lack in duty of care for our albert crews and our fight for their welfare, but i've not been invited. no suprise really! it's for those who have lost loved ones in conflicts. i guess i'll have to prime my parents before they go! can't afford to miss this oppurtunity. no one will intimidate me or be too big for me to approach about getting foam installed for all.

defence question going to be asked on monday. i thought it was going to be PMQ nonetheless still happy.

petition nearly finalised. once i've got signatures i plan to take myself off to downing street again oh, and the steps of whitehall. maybe i should stop at buck house.

meanwhile, stay safe.

theboywide

20th May 2006, 12:50

Nige - thanks for all the superb work on our behalf!

Can you expand on what we've signed for A400M DAS wise? Are we getting a fleetwide DAS fit?

nigegilb

20th May 2006, 16:33

tbw, I don't think it is official yet. The situation a few weeks ago as I am sure you know:

nil fuel tank inerting 9xDAS

Situation now and I am not sure about the contract signing for DAS, but I understand the following to be true. Usual Govt health warnings apply;

25 x Fuel Tank Inerting systems (extremely good ones)
25 x DAS

Like I say, good 'ere innit?

I am sure the MoD will claim this was always the plan, but I have some very good information to suggest the opposite. It would be churlish to split hairs I am just happy the boys/girls will be given good protection. There is no doubt that this campaign is helping to change thinking in a big way. I also understand that more protection is coming the way of existing 2GP assets. Good news all round. The only bad news is the amount of time it will take for the Herc fleet to get the foam. The next stage of our little campaign is to get a DAS upgrade for the majority of J fleet. I am not aware of any moves to protect passengers so I will be raising this issue soon.

NG

Squirrel 41

20th May 2006, 20:36

:)

Bravo Nige, top job!!

And for the rest of you - DO keep sending in the UOR paperwork. Again. And Again.

S41

highcirrus

21st May 2006, 04:04

From Private Eye, No 1158

News From The Sand Pit

Just before he was plucked from his job as Defence Secretary to save Tony Blair’s skin at the Home Office, John Reid appeared on Channel Four News to explain why Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) was not supplied to all transport aircraft, following the loss last year of 10 lives and an unprotected RAF Hercules, brought down by small arms fire in Iraq.

“The biggest threat,” he revealed, “is from surface-to-air-missiles, not small arms”; the destructive power of missiles making the use of ESF pretty pointless.

In fact the decision not to use the foam was made entirely for reasons of cost – small arms fire might not be the “biggest” threat, but it is a threat all the same. And if surface-to-air-missiles are so dangerous, why did the MoD cancel the fitting of the most sophisticated Defensive Air Suites (DAS) to Hercules transport planes back in 2004?

A plucky band of fly boys and ex-pilots have been urging the Ministry to see the error of their ways and they are now rushing to fit “some” aircraft with the updated DAS.

The loss of five lives and a Lynx helicopter over Basra illuminated another issue, this time a tactical one. The press has reported that helicopters are used like buses to transport troops and supplies around and this is what makes them vulnerable to ground fire. True; but helicopters are also used for “top cover” by troops on patrol, who rely on their onboard cameras and communications systems: during the troubles in Northern Ireland there was one parked above West Belfast practically all the time. These missions have currently been suspended, placing troops on the ground at greater risk.

The Americans use armoured helicopter gunships like the Apache for much of this work. Whenever a transport helicopter is in the air, a gunship goes along with it. But for reasons of cost, the Brits only have a tiny handful of these aircraft. Indeed, we’ve yet to see a British Apache over Basra accompanying the Lynx – which is “armoured” with ballistic Kevlar floor mats that are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

One assumes, of course that Reid’s transport, recently taking him into and out of Afghanistan, had a full ESF/DAS fit.

nigegilb

21st May 2006, 08:39

Maybe our friends at Brize Norton will kindly confirm this but I assume Reid travelled to Iraq in a C17-leased from US with a modern DAS and crucially fuel tank inerting. Strange how the RAF is denying knowledge of fuel tank inerting requirement for Hercules whilst simultaneously operating leased US ac with the protection on board. Remember the RAF did not have to buy OBIGGS it came standard. I hope this little fact was not lost on Mr Reid.

NG

rowan2

21st May 2006, 09:54

I am new to this thread but have read with interest. With all the information gathering taking place has anyone surveyed the guys and gals for a list of "wants" and "needs"

B eagle, thanks for explaining so eloquently for the non-tech participants.

Pazmanga, I knew Bob well, many hours we have spent discussing life, family, the job and the future . Bob had a long term partner who he considered his wife and referred to as "the Mrs" and he was very proud of her and his "sons".They were a major and important part of his life. They had not been told of the radio report containing Bobs voice and the impact this had was unbelievable and unnecessary so thank you for looking out for them
good luck with the campaign. You have my support :ok:

nigegilb

21st May 2006, 10:16

JTO, OBIGGS has big shortcomings but it still does a job. The system going on A400M is superb. Point is if C17 was not leased I doubt if we would have any fuel tank protection. Wider point, if an RAF engineer does not know about fuel tank protection after 26 years experience it is obvious that seniors are too highly focussed on staff courses and do not know how to fight and survive wars. Lack of funding in AT and Helo World is no secret. This stems from a lack of leadership and knowledge. In my view more emphasis should be placed on operational experience as a precursor to promotional advancement. In my short time on SF it was clear that superb operators (and I do not include myself), were being held back because of a lack of staff courses and worthless secondary duties. As a result we are lacking a great deal of equipment and lacking real leadership. Ignorance is not an excuse!

mbga9pgf

21st May 2006, 11:17

I know this is not technically "on topic", but I believe is applicable and some may find a step most definately in the right direction. The Sunday Times today has published a half-page spread on this matter.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2190144,00.html

nigegilb

21st May 2006, 11:37

I have made several references to the need for a military federation. It seems clear that highers have little interest in sticking their necks out for the safety of the guys on the frontline. Even more worrying, I am hearing of plans by this Govt to introduce new legislation to deal with deserters in Iraq or Afg. It behoves all service people to keep an eye on the law makers. Do not dismiss the idea of a Federation. They will look after your interests. Blair's Govt may have little in the way of military experience, the least his ministers could do is visit the injured and find out what is happening on the front line.

nigegilb

21st May 2006, 17:36

FF, Do you think there is merit in looking at the US threat assessments for the same theatres? I'd be interested in comparing minimum equipment lists. You say OBIGGS is mentioned, how is it that we are allowed to send in our TAC AT ac without fuel tank protection? Also the DAS standard varies enormously within the Herc fleet. Not asking to give away secrets here but I understand the US Threat Matrix is more rigorous and not equipment led. Please keep any answer open source. It is just that I that US Hercs would not have been allowed into Afg with the paucity of kit we had in 2002.

Squirrel 41

22nd May 2006, 15:46

Probably being a bear of very little brain, I'm having trouble getting this. :*
Situation seems to be:

- We've known about the threat since 2001;

- We've known that ESF and interting systems have a valuable role to play in minimising this risk;

- We've done precious little about it until now.

So the obvious - and very helpful - conclusion is that we've not had the money to sort this out, despite the fact that UORs are paid for with additional money. Natural result - everyone blames the Treasury for being bean-counters who don't get it.

However, do we know this is true? Do we know how many UORs that have reached the Treasury and been rejected? I could well understand that there will be sensitivities in detailing which UORs were and weren't funded, but the number of accepted and rejected ones would be very interesting.

IF it can be shown that the overwhelming proportion of UORs are funded by the Treasury, it could raise interesting questions about why there has been foot-dragging in fitting ESF / OBIGGS / DAS.

Keep sending in the UORs!!!

S41

nigegilb

22nd May 2006, 22:58

FF, Thank you for the clarification. I am in the process of writing to HCDC. We have a very close relationship with the US especially with regard to sharing intelligence. I think it is time to take a look at their threat assessment and min equipment list for Afg and Iraq. Obviously as a civvy I would not get a look-in, but maybe the HCDC should be allowed to scrutinise. With regard to Treasury I do not see merit in issuing Treasury with CM notice. As I see it our commanders could refuse to send in air assets if they do not have appropriate protection. CAS is already on record saying Hercules has appropriate protection so why should Treasury cough up? More useful to question the blanket reassurance of CAS concerning RAF AT ac.....

NG

Facilitator

23rd May 2006, 08:00

Nige

Check PMs

chappie

23rd May 2006, 09:57

petition calling for foam to be fitted to all hercules is finished. should be online hopefully later today. i'll check back later and then put the details on here. i know that i'm not in the forces so i can't help that way. it may seem that this is a simplistic idea but i think that it will be effective. it will help to get a visual idea on how many people want this now. please support me. when i stop and think about it, i find it laughable that a relative of aircrew who has died has resorted to such actions. desperate times call for desperate measures. i don't care about maintaining a dignifying silence i will do whatever it takes to ensure that no family has to go through this living nightmare because of these reasons ever again. XV179 was waiting to happen and now it stops. please please please lend me your support and your signatures.

chappie

23rd May 2006, 15:51

to all the good men and women of the british armed forces and those who love them, i am sending out the call for you to lend me your signature to support the call for fleetwide explosive suppressant technology with immediate effect. please follow the link to www.mfaw.org.uk (http://www.mfaw.org.uk) then follow the links on the left side of the page for the petition to des browne. there is the link to the blog page but i have yet to get this updated so you will not see anything there. a couple more days help from a teenager and that should be sorted! remember a lone voice in the wilderness will not bring about change but if we all call for the same thing we will be heard. i need the help of you all and your friends and family to enable the legacy that will be left by the brave crew of XV179. please spread the word. thankyou from the bottom of my heart.:)

flipster

24th May 2006, 00:07

Well done Chappie,:D

Everyone - please do the honourable thing.:ok: :ok:

airsound

24th May 2006, 09:54

Mike J

Your word is my command Sir!
http://s79.photobucket.com/albums/j134/airsound/?action=view&current=Grayletbuck3.jpg

I'm not sure which bit of 'maligned' Mr G doesn't understand, but I guess I'll have to write back again.

Are we nearly there yet?

airsound

nigegilb

24th May 2006, 10:26

Well done Chappie, lots of hard work. Some good news on the jungle drums. I understand that one of our coalition partners has agreed to fit foam to its fleet largely because of our endeavours. To be confirmed then all willbe revealed. Congrats to everyone concerned. Good luck with your request to see Des Browne. Would be great to get a result with him at the beginning of his tenure. If we could bend his ear now, he could achieve a lot in a short space of time.

NG

FormerFlake

24th May 2006, 10:40

I can not get the petition to load, any ideas?

I found the is quote from James Gray proving how accurate and up to date his information is:

This may be the appropriate moment to pay tribute to the flying skills and dedication of those based at RAF Lyneham, whose Hercules, of course, were the main aircraft used in the Berlin aiflift

Mr James Gray MP, House of Common Hansard Debate, 23 April 1998

nigegilb

24th May 2006, 11:29

FF are you clicking on the green writing against orange background? Doh hope you are not colour blind.

Scary thing is James Gray has been asked to advise Cameron on matters of military importance........First time I met him he told me all about his army service. Anyone know what the HAC do?

NG :ok: :ok:

FormerFlake

24th May 2006, 11:43

chappie

24th May 2006, 13:02

thankyou soooo much. i just want to let you all know that i've just checked the signatures and we are currently at 101. fantastic. this is more than we had in the call for relatives to meet blair after a few weeks. we've achieved this number in 24 hours. we will win this. i need the word to get round lyneham. i will be contacting the appropriate media types to see if they can help. have just seen sky news about herc on fire. i was terrified that it was happening again. i have since pulled myself together.

i'll be contacting the MP about the defence question. i'll let you know. talking of MP's i wonder if that nice mr gray would like to lend his scribe! ....just to show no hard feelings and all that! fnar fnar!

scroggs

24th May 2006, 13:26

Nige,

I don't know whether you noticed this quote from signatory no. 40 on the petition:
Argosy fuel tanks were fitted with explosive suppressant in 1962!
Could be worth following up if true!

nigegilb

24th May 2006, 13:31

Thanks Scroggs. I will. I am also concerned about the news today of the Herc burning in Afg. Have we just lost another one because of a lack of foam? I know it is wrong to speculate but I am angry that they were sent to Afg without foam.

Please everyone, use you distribution lists everything urge everyone you know to sign this petition. Let's embarrass them into it. Chappie you have done a fantastic job it is now up to everyone to muck in.

airsound

24th May 2006, 13:37

Aaahh. the Armlong Woolworth Allsoggy. Now there's a name to conjure with. Known as The Whistling Wheelbarrow, if memory serves. Dart engines made a very whistly sort of noise

When I was on the Andover, that was known as the Whistling Roller Skate. (Same engines) It nearly got called something else, because when we were at Woodford doing the manufacturers course before setting up the conversion unit, the Mayor of Andover got v grumpy that he hadn't been asked if their airships could call it the Andover. So we suggested it should be named after the village where we were staying. Thus it would have become the Avro Pott Shrigley Mk1. Shame it didn't really.

But I digress. Sorry mods.

airsound
aka the boring old fart

mbga9pgf

24th May 2006, 17:42

daughterof

24th May 2006, 18:29

Dont Know if anyone else is experiencing this, cannot read the signed section of the petitions.

They are upgrading their server apparently - hopefully be back soon

nigegilb

24th May 2006, 18:56

Des Browne put under serious pressure by Jon Snow tonight on C4 News. Not sure if you can see the clip again. Des said foam would not have helped. Do not see how he can make that assurance.

FormerFlake

24th May 2006, 19:43

Available here:

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=2432

Shame it wont work on the computers at work.

polyglory

24th May 2006, 19:52

Duly signed,over two hundred so far.

flipster

24th May 2006, 20:30

Not everyone reads pprune and I wouldn't mind betting that friends of ours would like to add to the petition. Lets get the word out on the street!

EVERYONE, PLEASE EMAIL and alert your friends - direct them to the site - and ask them politely to do the same.

http://www.mfaw.org.uk/

Keep going Chappie!

(260 and increasing rapidly!)

Flipster

chappie

24th May 2006, 21:44

i've just been on to check the petition. i wanted to let you know that earlier when i checked there was 101 signatures. then i checked 10 mins ago and there was 266. within the 5mins i was on the site there were a further 20 added in that timespan. i will be contacting the media about it. have spoken to C4 but understandably we could'nt quite work it into the interrogation that jon snow was taking part in! i have a press release going out later with the help of an ally! maybe i should send a copy of the petition to the airships....to file! seeing as they purport to not being able to find any files!

i will have the blog/campaign page done tomorrow. now i need to think of the next step. hope you are enjoying the view, bigwigs! seeing as you watch this thread i hope you find this all very interesting reading.

lasernigel

25th May 2006, 07:32

Have been following this thread for quite a time but haven't come in as being an ex brown jobbie thought would leave it to the experts and those personally involved.
Just to say I have posted the link to the online petition to colleagues and friends and insisted they should pass it on if they care about this calumny of responsibility this government has about our forces overall.

Keep up the good work.:ok: :ok:

nigegilb

25th May 2006, 08:15

Our Army friends have a vested interest in this. Can someone well known to arrse post the trail to the petition sight on ARRSE. I think I would enjoy reading their comments on the signature list. I made my comments without really thinking. Suggest anyone who has not yet signed takes time to read what other people have written. Brought tears to my eyes last night. I am somewhat taken aback. I thought there were just a few of us that cared. I am confident that with the support of many we have a mandate to sort out the higher levels of the military and our inept Govt on this issue.

Thank you for your support.

NG

Army Mover

25th May 2006, 09:17

Not that I'm well known there, but I have created a thread on ARRSE (http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/p=694425.html#694425) asking for their support.
Best of luck guys. :D

nigegilb

25th May 2006, 09:29

Thanks AM. Watch this space about a new move to support you boys by the way. I am hearing rumours of someting happening in the next few days.

NG

chappie

25th May 2006, 10:04

thankyou for doing that. i was trying to figure a way but both you and nige have done it. i have stood up in my local post office and canvassed people, i'm in the library doing the same. it may sound a bit pathetic but if everyone networks we have got a real voice. i got eleven signatures from one lady. at the mo it's just under 400. keep going please keep going. i've heard nothing from des brownes office. after his shambolic performance last night on C4 i've every reason to want to meet him.

i've gone through the papers and there is hardly anything covered....however the times have done and there has been some interesting information brought to light. it's on page 37. it states that

" officials said that fuel was seen leaking from the RAF Hercules C130, and the aircrew rushed the passengers off moments before it exploded."

the telegraph also states that ESF though requested will not be fitted until next month. seems no one knows what's happening. we all now that another hercules will go in it's place. that will mean another one that is not protected. yet des seems to think that we are appropriately equipping the troops. what about when reid pooped out to iraq? was he on the albert that the trrops use on a daily basis? no he was on a US leased Herc. what about blair popping into baghdad? no doubt that was a US leased Herc that also had every safety system known to man. that needs to get publicised.

anyway, time to go. thankyou so much for supporting me with this petition. :) :D :D :D :)

now i'm a happy chappie!:) :)

k3k3

25th May 2006, 10:18

413 signatures now.

safe single

25th May 2006, 11:30

I think you'll find that Mr B.Liar travelled courtesy of her ma'J'esties finest....

nigegilb

25th May 2006, 11:40

on her maJesties finest in day time sans foam.

whiz

25th May 2006, 12:00

Been following this since the thread started, Nige and Chappie you are both doing great jobs. :D Petition duly signed and url forwarded to my entire address book. Keep it up guys, great to see Des Browne squirming. Dont be too gentle with him when you get the chance to meet him chappie :}

pmills575

25th May 2006, 12:37

As the webmaster for Gatwick Aviation Museum I have added a request and a link on the Museums front page to the petition.

I hope that all of our visitors will use the link and sign the pertiton

nigegilb

25th May 2006, 13:14

pmills thank you for spreading the word, terrific idea. Like to come down and say hello some time. Could be that some of your ac have better fuel tank protection than those on the frontline!

;) ;) 465

MoD are now saying first ac ready by July. I understand that it will take between 1 and 2 years to complete the program. Don't get too excited about MoD press releases.

November4

25th May 2006, 18:26

I see the link is posted on the Movers site and people signing via there

flipster

25th May 2006, 19:44

575 and rising - keep prompting - email the world!

chappie

25th May 2006, 21:09

oops! i thought that blair had gone out on a US leased albert. i didn't think about the fact that now there is a rapid depletion in the stock of hercules will the foam programmme get suspended? i think that it should be taken up with even more urgency. the words of warning about losing more hercules have come to haunt us. thankfully , there was no loss of life, and the cause is difficult to determind but surely there are very worried bods up at whitehall? we must not become complacent. this only underlines the vunerability of the albert and the reality that unless we act now we will lose more frames and god forbid more lives. yesterday was a painful day for me. let's do our best to stop the suffering. the link is in the mfaw page follow links on left side of page to hercules safety campaign; for crew of XV179. or there is alink at the bottom of the petition.

the blog campaign page is up and running so people please feel free to add comments to it. it's only got the basics done and i will add more over the next few days. i think there might be something going to the papers tomorrow hopefully mentioning the petition.

Safety_Helmut

25th May 2006, 21:31

Flake

Thanks for the video link. What an inspiring sounding Defence Minister we now have !

S_H

sirsaltyhelmet

26th May 2006, 08:28

Nige, Chappie

It has made it to the Goat as well. Looks like the word is spreading

chappie

26th May 2006, 12:21

thanks for the tip off sir salty!! not a sentence i thought i'd be saying today! anyway, i'm afraid that yet again it means diddly....what is the goat, prey tell oh salty one? please do not answer it has four legs and bleats alot and has a habit of drawing admiring glances form very strange and depraved individuals! my mind is working over time on the potential imagery that can be conjured up from the the petition getting into a/the goat. please put me out of my misery someone and inform me. i'm afraid my lack of knowledge has let me down again.

just to say before i away, the press are showing interest in the petition. i have learnt today that frederick forsyth has signed it, not yet verified that fact but was told it. it's getting alot of interest. great work everyone. you should be proud of yourselves. there is no use congratulating me, i couldn't have done it woithout the help , love and support from all of you. i know for a fact my brother would be bowled over with what you've done for me. so thankyou. i don't have a big brother to look out for me. this crash caused me to lose my family in more than one way and so i am very alone. the shoulder to cry on and the ear to bend and the sticking up for me when some choose to try and veer away from the importance of this campaign and make it personal := have all been lifelines and so very much needed and appreciated. i will continue to fight my hardest for you all to get the protection you deserve, even if it's only to say thankyou for all you've done.:) :D :D :D i applaud you all and count my blessings every day. ....now pass the sick bucket, methinks i have had an unnecessary surge of hormones. i do apologise.

nigegilb

26th May 2006, 23:24

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters of each type (a) have and (b) have not been fitted with fuel tank protection, broken down by service; and if he will make a statement. [71154]

Mr. Ingram: All helicopters have some degree of fuel tank protection. Precise details of the specific fuel tank protection measures employed on particular MOD helicopter fleets are being withheld, because their disclosure could prejudice the safety of our Armed Forces.

883

chappie

27th May 2006, 10:08

the usual excuses i see from mr ingram. he's gettting so predictable. he clearly underestimtes the intelligence of the people he is dealing with. there is no way any baddie will know which ones have or have not got any protection on board. any way 925 signatures and counting. hopefully press coverage will help push this. please support the call and sign.

chappie

28th May 2006, 08:22

mike, i have done. very good point made. i've suggested to the powers that be we sort something. over a thousand signatures this morning. well done everyone.

i will be away/offline for all of next week as i'm taking my daughter away to the seaside to have a break and spend some quality time. she needs to remember what mummy looks like without being attached to a computer. i'm left hoping that there is nothing that i'm needed for next week but i'm on the end of a mobile phone so please do not hesitate to contact me.

i don't know how many of you remember that i'm trying to arrange a meeting with des browne?! well, i think we have a very worried defence secretary, as if we need any more confirmation after his bumbling interview on C4! anyway, there is an MP who has been fantastic in helping us in the campaign. he is friends with the honourable des browne and had a word in his shell like about me meeting with him. the response.....apparently he has met with the families already! so, i think that he is clearly using avoidance tatics and is very worried. if there are any other family members online please can you PM me asap. unless there was a meeting that my family wasn't invited to then i think it's pretty definite that i'm the last person he wants to meet. don't worry, i'm not giving up.

i'm waiting to hear back from our sparring partner james gray to see what tales he can tell. will keep you posted.

please keep spreading the word about the petition. i hope when i get back it will be in the thousands...!

nigegilb

28th May 2006, 14:07

Petition signature no 990 referred to explosion suppression on Hunters in 1950s! Can anyone expand on this? New to me.

1018

nigegilb

28th May 2006, 23:08

It appears Liam Fox is taking this issue much more seriously than the hapless james gray MP. More power to the Doctor's elbow. It appears he is supportive for the call to fit foam across the fleet. Wonder where this leaves Mr Gray now his own boss has decided not to "let it lie".

"I have been forwarded a copy of your e-mail to David Cameron, who has
asked that I respond on his behalf in my position as Shadow Secretary of
Defence.

I know that the other members of my Shadow Defence Team would want to join me in expressing our sorrow. I hope that I can respond to some of the points you have raised.

In Iraq our Armed Forces are doing a tremendous job under very difficult
circumstances. While we hope the situation will improve, Iraq is likely
to remain a dangerous place for the foreseeable future. It is not
possible to protect our servicemen and women against all eventualities,
but where a protection is feasible and practical the Government has a
duty of care towards those who serve to provide the optimum protection.

In the case of the C-130 aircraft, serious questions have been raised
over whether or not the Government failed in this duty of care.
Although the Government has provided the aircraft with the necessary
defensive aids suites essential when operating in an area like Iraq,
unlike the US and Australian Air Forces, the UK fleet of C-130s has not
been provided with fuel inerting technology. While there is no
guarantee that the introduction of this technology would save lives, the
chances of survival are increased. For this reason alone we have
supported the calls to provide this protection. Following the report on
the crash earlier in the year I wrote to the then Secretary of State,
urging the Government to adopt this measure.

This pressure, together with calls from the families of those killed and
those serving in the RAF, seems to have had some limited success, as the
Government has now agreed to fit this technology to those aircraft
operating in the most dangerous theatres. While this represents a step
in the right direction and will enhance the safety of our servicemen it
does not provide protection to the entire fleet, leaving them vulnerable
in some areas. The Government also has provided little detail over what
constitute the most dangerous circumstances.

There is therefore still progress to be made on this issue, but rest
assured that we on the Opposition Front Bench will do all that we can to
bring pressure to bear on the Government to try to ensure that the RAF
is afforded this protection."

nigegilb

29th May 2006, 13:46

Points West are on their way up. Might be wirth catching the local news tonight.

They are doing a piece for breakfast tomorrow morning.

NG

BEagle

29th May 2006, 17:08

For those with digital satellite TV, if your home region of BBC1 on Channel 101 is not BBC West, you can view BBC West on Channel 986.

One presumes that they know this in the MoD box and will be glued to one of the several hundred plasma screen TVs that hang on the walls there....

BEagle

30th May 2006, 06:35

Good piece on Points West this mornig, nige, well done.

Interesting that the dull 'Strangely Browne' should also be on the news. The man can indeed bore for Britain.

nigegilb

30th May 2006, 09:19

HTV news crew on the way over. Should be on channel 3 later today.

Keep signing the petition!

BEagle

30th May 2006, 10:02

There has just been a news item on HTV West which mentioned the petitition.

(If you have digital satellite TV and ITV1 (West) is not your local version on Channel 103, you will need to tune manually to 10832 MHz, Horizontal polarisation, with Forward Error Correction set to 5/6 and Symbol Rate to 22.0)

1199

nigegilb

30th May 2006, 12:03

HTV News from lunchtime on, Chappie might get on camera before the day out.

1217

k3k3

30th May 2006, 12:06

BBC South News at 13:28 BST will have a mention of the campaign.

daughterof

30th May 2006, 12:13

Is BBC South 984 on sky?

BEagle

30th May 2006, 12:15

Yes it is.

1222

ExHerkmate

1st Jun 2006, 02:03

1508
Back to the front page.

nigegilb

1st Jun 2006, 09:58

CAS is due at Lyneham for a visit. Not sure if he is taking questions, but if I was still putting my a$$ on the line in a Herc I would like to know why he saw fit to give a blanket assurance to HCDC that every aircraft being sent to Afghanistan has appropriate defences for the perceived threat.

Specifically, when not a single Herc has foam fitted 16 months after the tragedy. The original plan was to fit 5 airframes only. The J DAS programme was cancelled 2 years ago. No passenger is protected by kevlar matting. Not a record to be proud about.

Let's hope he has better news for his visit.

:) NG

Green Flash

1st Jun 2006, 10:27

1526 signatures as of now.

nigegilb

1st Jun 2006, 10:33

Just want to add that I think this petition is unprecedented. A Govt in a time of war being petitioned to spend money on the safety of its own troops because it is incapable of making the right decision on its own. There is an eclectic mix of military, ex-military, bereaved families and others against the Iraq war all on a military families against the war web-site! This must be raising a few eyebrows. Thank you all, especially the serving guys who are under the cosh and have been warned not to contribute to the debate. I believe there are one or two stooges on this thread, it's a good sign. Chiefs of Staff and Ministers do not like accountability, well they are stuck with it now.

flipster

1st Jun 2006, 13:23

A public meeting with nothing written down?
Contributing to debate is detrimental to safety?

What's next?

Unwritten but implied diciplinary procedures for those that disobey these unwritten 'orders'?

Is this legal........ or are our Services ruling by fear now?

I smell a rodent!

I agree that giving too much away on this site might be unwise but the enemy are not as thick as our leaders think. The militants are clever and in some cases, well organised - so do not believe that anything we say here, they did not know already nor appreciate - they've been there and done that. Our enemy, some of whom trained with the Mujhadeen, are well aware of how vulnerable large multi-engine and SH ac can be - ask the Russians!

We have to think like the enemy and ahead of them. That is why better ac protection is so necessary. Not that there will ever be a cast-iron guarantee but all the stuff for which people have been asking for yonks would make our chances of survival so much better. That said our ac are much better protected than they were but if we hadn't lost aircraft, I'm sure our crews would still be flying dumb frames!

If our debating the pros and cons of the dangers faced by the crews gets the leaders' and ministers' attention - good! We hold these faceless top-neddies accountable!

If those still serving are placed under pressure not to contribute, I would not be suprised - only saddened! Nonetheless, if any of you have fears and worries - write them down and try the chain of command and the flight safety chain (such as it is) ......again and again.

If, however, you feel sidelined or fobbed off, it might be possible for your familiy to write to their MP, or even the Parliamentary Defence Committee. If doing so, they need to be as unemotional as possible, state the facts, details and references, including when you tried and failed with the official channels. Keep copies of everything.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

nigegilb

1st Jun 2006, 13:52

Public meeting nothing written down! There is a fear and to an extent I understand it, that contributing to the debate might have a detrimental effect on the safety of the herc crews. Could be that is all that was meant by the warning. I would have more respect for the senior officers view if they were more honest about the need to fight side by side with the US. What I cannot bear is to see senior officers tell powerful policy makers that everything is fine on the Hercules fleet. A bit more honesty please.....

1544

MODS can we merge the fit ESF to Herc thread with this? How many pages before we need n new thread?

nigegilb

1st Jun 2006, 15:57

Deleted the wrong posting there!

Yes, for any stooges trying to blame this thread for the frailties on the Hercules fleet please read the following;

Before we started the campaign no contracts had been signed to fit foam to Hercules ac. No plan existed to fit foam to 'J' Herc. The only intention was to fit foam to 5 Herc ac- A DISGRACE.

Now after all the pressure and media exposure contracts have finally been signed and the new plan is to fit foam across both 'K' and 'J' Fleets. Furthermore, the A400M is now getting fleetwide fuel tank protection, as opposed to NOTHING before. A400M is also getting fleetwide DAS protection a opposed to just 9 ac before.

Stooges ask yourself the question is this campaign a good thing or a bad thing?

I thought long and hard before going public. What swung it was the decision by MoD to publish the BoI without acting on the recommendations first. A guide to shooting down Herc ac was handed to the enemy and the only plan was to protect 5 airframes. The Chiefs of Staff are in a mess. On the one hand they reasssure HCDC that the Hercules is fully protected. Even though 'J' DAS was cancelled 2 years ago and Hercs are in theatre without foam and passenger protection. On the other hand they are trying to blame us for exposing frailties that supposedly do not exist. You cannot have it both ways. That argument will not wash here.

Furthermore I pleaded with the Chiefs not to send Herc crews to Afg without foam, not to send Brize underprotected assets into theatre and to cease flying by daylight. The pleas fell on deaf ears. So, just who is taking undue risks with our crews?

Link to latest article about new Hercules crash

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/search/display.var.779861.0.new_hercules_crash_fuels_safety_crusade .php

BEagle

1st Jun 2006, 18:10

Certain inadequately testiculated senior officers will be spitting with rage at the fact that this campaign is doing so well. Because it has taken a very determined group to bypass all the **** filtering poodles ("I don't want to know that, young man") who would otherwise only pass on the news they knew their masters would want to hear....

And rather than doing anything productive, they will now move heaven and earth to try to silence those who dare to post on PPRuNe.

Believe me.....

Brown Bear

1st Jun 2006, 20:18

Good point BEagle, however, its the hard work of Nige and Chappie that has prompted me to add my opinion on the matter. Well done everyone and keep up the good work. To CAS. I sat in one of your briefings today and hope the UOR you referred to is actioned asap....I have also signed the petition and for the sceptics.....I have on very good authority that it is being viewed frequently!!!

flipster

2nd Jun 2006, 00:50

BB

UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc.

Nonetheless, improved ac protection (ESF/DIRCM/LAIRCM/FDA/Lox Armour/Ballistic matting/Groung fire indicators etc) should always aim to get EP funding rather than the continued, time-consuming and sometimes thankless, or even futile UOR paperwork and clearance-chasing etc etc.

One hopes the A400 is learning these lessons...hmmmmmm?

Flipster

ps Why is the petition 'being frequently viewed ?

To check the numbers of signatories and to address their concerns? Nope!
Or, perchance, to watch for any serving personnel of whom can be made an example? Typical!!!!!

I would like to see the bl@ggards try, however - as I think the number of sympathetic 'legal eagles' would out-gun DLA just a tad - and any action would only add to the adverse publicity for the MOD - countering any argument that security is important - pah, they don't know the meaning of the word!!

These people (DLA/PSS) are well intentioned amateurs, coerced by self-serving politicians, whom they are reluctant to criticise. But even these guys are not daft either - one day the 'worm will turn', as there are people involved who do not like the the 'party-line' along which they are being driven.

nigegilb

2nd Jun 2006, 06:37

Feeling quite good this morning. Heard that in tha last 4 months contracts and spending on self- protection has run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Well done everybody!

tucumseh

2nd Jun 2006, 08:29

“UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc”.

Flipster is correct. That is, you get a years funding for the UOR during which time the sponsoring DEC has to decide whether or not to run an EP bid. If he doesn’t, there is no more funding for the kit. If it is used after the one year nominal lifespan without a complementary EP bid, then something else has to give. Usually spares. In practice, this is the norm, mainly because the sponsor moves on and his relief has new things to occupy his mind. Also the norm is for the UOR to be an SEM, with associated shortcuts taken on installation design, incorporation and safety. One answer is for the Requirements Manager to stick his head above the parapet and demand proper trialling, installation etc for his UOR, but the last one I saw do that was crucified, as it delays introduction. It is the eternal conundrum faced by lower grades/ranks in DPA and DLO – and one which senior management show no interest in solving. However, it must be said that certain IPTs are good at managing this – as ever much depends on the experience of their staff and ability to do DEC’s job for them.

Nigel – I do hope the acquisitions you speak of are sustainable through proper EP funding, and not just short-term political expediency. A question you may wish to ask. I think I posted once before on the subject of very useful and much needed UOR DAS kit lying unserviceable, but fully repairable, because there was no money to repair it. The “system” permitted millions to be spent on replacement kit under another UOR, but not thousands on simple repairs to the originals.

nigegilb

2nd Jun 2006, 08:57

Tuc,
I think the Herc foam procurement is UOR based because that is the reason given for not fitting it fleetwide. Only ac designated in theatre can get the funding. That is the reason for the petition to appeal to SoS Def for direct funding to get the fleet fully covered. It is a very interesting point that Flip has raised. UOR is an instant fix. Parallels with the Falklands War spring to mind. The Herc then, secured a lot of kit at short notice. The boys then did not get everything they wanted. Post Op they asked for the rest of it and were told it was a one off spend. Tuc is wise to bring this up now. Interestingly, the ac that perished in Afghanistan should have had foam on board if the Defence Chiefs and Ministers had done their job properly. I do not want to step on anyones toes here but I do not believe we should be operating in Afg without foam. I understand it is becoming increasingly hostile, an entirely predictable situation. Meanwhile the spending on Typhoon continues, glass cockpit etc etc. And yet there are very worrying
aspects of Afg deployment crying out for more funding.

Food for thought.

flipster

2nd Jun 2006, 10:27

Aerospace International (Page 8)

U-Turn over Hercules Foam Issue

The UK MoD has agreed to fit its C130 Hercules military transport aircraft with explosive suppressant foam. The move comes after 4 years of requests from RAF pilots, recommendations from a board of inquiry in December 2005 and lobbying by relatives and friends of the dead RAF Hercules crew shot down over Iraq by ground-to-air fire in January 2005. US military Hercules have had fuel tanks fitted with fire suppressant foam since the Vietnam War.

Although not widely read by Joe Public, this magazine is produced by the Royal Aeronautical Society and is read by most of the very top people in the aviation industry - military and civil. It will be accutely embarassing for the senior RAF chappies. However, the only way they can regain respect is to 'front up' and say
'Yep, we messed up but now we are trying to sort it out by fitting fleet-wide foam'......one hopes!

nigegilb

2nd Jun 2006, 10:46

It is important to press for fleetwide foam, but I believe the highest priority should be given to hastening the fit of existing ac and a sustained campaign to reintroduce modern DAS for J Hercs. All they have to do is dust off the file, it was all agreed. Just DO IT NOW.

500days2do

2nd Jun 2006, 12:34

I to sat in on CAS talkshop yesterday.I must admit his buoyant mood about RAF plc didnt sit very comfortably.30 billion on 144 Tyhoons !!! What a waste..although he did give away his next position when he championed the British aeronautical industry and how we must keep british jobs and technology in mind when we procure equipment.Nice little earner im sure..!!!

500d2d

Biggus

2nd Jun 2006, 17:24

Sorry to diverge briefly on a very worthwhile thread, however,......

500days2do, if you joined pprune in Dec2004, as it says on my screen, then surely 500 days have expired (365 + 153 > 500?) and you should be out - so what are you doing hobbnobbing with CAS? Surely you're not working as an outside 'consultant'?

nigegilb

2nd Jun 2006, 17:49

Yes, I thought I knew who you were 500d2d, but I have to admit I think I am wrong. Come on give us a clue!

1613

500days2do

2nd Jun 2006, 21:58

Sat behind ya nige on many occasion...

500d2d

Biggus

3rd Jun 2006, 08:05

And how many days do you have left to do?

flipster

3rd Jun 2006, 09:57

Back to thread (sorry)!

I have heard from a number of people that CAS's visit to LYE was 'a bit weak' and 'wishy-washy'. He spoke most eloquently about 'nothing in particular' - Typhoon got a mention tho........grrreat!

The chaps and chgapessess were briefed NOT to ask about foam! :confused:

Communication break-down again!?

nigegilb

3rd Jun 2006, 10:16

no wonder he was chipper with all those Typhoons coming on stream. Any chance of a Herc gunship?

flipster

3rd Jun 2006, 23:46

Not likely!

flip

John Blakeley

4th Jun 2006, 10:54

An excellent editorial in the June issue of Aerospace International which sums up the situation nicely

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h99/JBconsult/DofC001.jpg

JB

nigegilb

4th Jun 2006, 11:10

Duty of Care is a grey area in combat operations. I know there are many Ppruners who dislike lawyers and the blame society but the response to the corporate manslaughter notices has been revealing. This is a Govt made up of lawyers, I think there is a real concern amongst them that one of them might end up in court. So much so, that I understand changes are to be made to the legislation. We need to explore the real meaning of Duty of Care, it might be the most effective way of getting decent equipment for our military personnel.

I am concerned that the programme to fit foam will be disrupted by the shortage of frames, it is a subject that I am hoping to raise via PQ.

One other thing, according to my info the A400M is now getting fleetwide DAS. A case of Govt nervousness?

Congrats to the editorial team for a hard hitting opinion.

John Blakeley

4th Jun 2006, 14:04

Nigel,

Obviously MOD will push the Combat Immunity argument as far as possible, and where it applies it seems a reasonable position. However as you will see from an excellent, although quite long, article on the following web site, combat immunity does not extend to failure to provide proper capbilities ie fitness for purpose;

www.byromstreet.com/publications/Combat_Immunity.pdf (view as html if pdf does not work)

As an example from the article, which you could easily see applying to the need to provide in peacetime operational planning a proper protection system for the C130, you may find this of interest.

The irregular supply of body armour in Gulf 2 has been a topic of discussion in the press and there has been at least one tragic case. Immunity would surely attach to the decision of a commander who required personnel to give up their armour for others in pursuance of the operational imperative.
A Court might be reluctant to look at how the planners decided to obtain and deploy body armour once the decision actually to deploy to the Gulf had been made. However, if a real, effective breach was the peacetime decision not to issue personnel with personal protective body armour (in a wider context there are, after all, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002) it is difficult to see how immunity could defeat the cause of action on that score.

Keep up the good work!

JB

nigegilb

4th Jun 2006, 14:29

JB I haven't waded through the article yet, too many domestic tasks this weekend! I have also done some research and I have spoken at length to a leading human rights lawyer (don't all groan!). I think you are spot on, we have taken care to establish a paper trail setting out MoD decisions to cancel DAS programmes etc. I have reason to believe they are s******g themselves. I stated quite clearly to AOC 2GP that Herc crews should not have been sent to Afg without foam. Are we getting to such a state of crisis that CAS is going to have to turn round to his political masters and tell him we cannot do all this tasking? I very much doubt it, if only because they would look foolish in the process. I believed all along that this deployment to Afg was one too many and would turn out to be a very big mistake. However, it might just provide the excuse to get out of Iraq ahead of time. Experts who are still serving please correct me if you think we can sustain these 2 ops indefinitely. If the Chiefs decide to press on at the expense of fitting self-protection there is a very big risk that we lose another crew.
All of this is a failure in prioritizing safety for personnel. Unforgiveable, but something that has happened for a number of years. One thing that could be done immediately is to utilise MK3 Hercs for an upgrade useable for current ops. Shouldn't cost too much and would allow other pressing ac mods to be made.

NG

Just like to add a thought to training. Because this is a 3 year Op in my view training must have the highest priority. I am not privvy to the kind of ops that are being planned in Afg but I do know that experience levels at Lyneham have dwindled in recent years. It would be a spectacular own goal to divert training resources just now. There is no easy decision. I cannot remember a situation like this in my time in RAF. The 'Yes' men need to turn into 'NO' men. For a while at least.....

chappie

4th Jun 2006, 15:24

hello girls and guys of the skies.

i'm back from deepeset darkest norfolk. i ended up doing some tv and radio work, not that i minded as all necessary.

now, my bright spark idea of resorting to the petition is ruffling feathers. good. i wouldn't want it to be too comfy in the upper echelons of power. i want you to sweat like the crew of XV179 and no doubt countless other crews have and do on a daily basis. unless i'm missing something nige, are you trying to tell me that we will now get foam fitted fleetwide to the hercs or am i dreaming? please clarify for me. remember, i've been away for a week and reliant on being filled in by the tv crews the latetest MOD statement. which, i have to say is has been trotted out before, or something similar. saying that the decision has beeen taken to fit foam to some of the hercs and they will review the technicalities and the life/seviceability left in the remailning ac. please, someone enlighten me. thank you.

FJJP

4th Jun 2006, 15:40

Nige, one way of addressing the shortfall in tac AT whilst the fleet is undergoing the foam/DAS mod would be to 'borrow'/lease/whatever a small number of USAF/ANG Hercs.

Perhaps the seed should be sown at a suitable level - it may not have been considered amongst the hand-wringing, sweating decision-makers.

You might just be the man to do it...

nigegilb

4th Jun 2006, 16:19

Jon Snow kindly fronted the idea to Des Browne the other week, he was sweating so much maybe he did not hear the question. More C17s please. Definitely worth trying again. I will take up your idea with the people I know best, HCDC. Chappie welcome back, we are not getting fleetwide foam, far from it. I cannot confirm the numbers, but I believe a majority of Hercs are getting foam. Not bad considering the original plan was for five ac but not good enough if you end up flying uinprotected into badlands. RAF does not have enough money to do all of them.

Keep stirring the pot. I have just read the Independent and Sunday Telegraph. The Armed Forces are all over the papers today, none of it good news for the Top Brass or the Govt. I think we helped to start something!!??

John Blakeley

4th Jun 2006, 18:20

JTO,

Unless there is a production capacity problem (possible on C17?) I think that you will find that DEC make the numbers decision - preferably based on dstl or QinetiQ OA but just as likely based on cash restraints. The DPA will buy what they are told!

JB

nigegilb

4th Jun 2006, 19:48

1689

Greatly moved by the emotions expressed on the petition page. Dignity, sadness and anger, a powerful combination. I hope our politicians and politico officers are reading and understanding.

flipster

4th Jun 2006, 21:19

JTO

What did the study recommend - 8/33 as mentioned or more/less. On what op tempo was this based - 2 med scale with out cancelling trg? Did the study go so far as to think how many crews and what DAS fit for the ac? Can you tell, or is that off-limits? If it is, sorry for asking!

Nige et al

Yes, I am frustrated that we seem incapable of managing even one med-scale 'war' without cancelling trg - as is mandated by all high-level planning and decision-making (hah). All the while, HQ 2 Gp and PMA continue to drive down the AT crew ratio. LYE started Afghan-1 with about 2-3 crews per ac - but even then we couldn't properly crew an 10 ac det!

Now the Herc fleet is down to less than 2 crews per ac. Which bright spark thought of that!? If all the aircraft at LYE were serviceable, we couldn't crew them for war-fighting!:ooh: :ooh:

Now of course, with too many ac sick, or in the hangar being modded, we can barely provide ac for the tasks we have - however, we can't provide any trg ac at all - NOT ONE, NEXT WEEK.

This year, there have been very few, if any, worthwhile Trials and Exercises - when did we last run a full Tac course!

I agree with JTO, I don't think the circle can be squared - But it could IF THE AOC CANCELLED OP TASKING!

ONLY THEN, WILL CDS GET THE 'AMMO' TO REQUEST THAT THE SofS DEF ASKS FOR MORE TREASURY SUPPORT

Are the AOC/CDS going to have the kahunas to do that? I do hope so and if they did, they would be regarded as real leaders - but the sad reality is that neither CinCSTC, CAS nor CDS will let the AOC make the first move! Life's a bitch!

Unfortunately, the intense pressure to fit out the ac might save a decision. Regrettably, and whatever happens, the trg will be first thing to suffer and we will be back where we were in 2002! ARRGGGHHH!!!!:ugh: :ugh:

flipster

nigegilb

4th Jun 2006, 22:18

Steady on Flip, you are a commercial pilot now, let someone else worry about all that. Everyone seems to have realised at the same time that the Armed Forces are suffering from underfunding, lack of manning and to an extent poor morale. BAFF launches tomorrow, mums being heard today, looks like the rug has well and truly been pulled from under.

My big beef with AFG is this, we already fought this war and won it in 2002. What on earth has happened since then. We got distracted by a war in Iraq and now the Talibs are back in town. I am astonished that 4 years on it looks as though AFG 2 is about to happen. Strategic shambles.

flipster

5th Jun 2006, 15:48

I'm only concerned because all this was so sadly predictable! But I am more worried because many of our friends are still 'in the thick of it' and are going over our 'old ground'. But while things are better in many respects, not least the fact that many of them were there last time, the boys and girls continue to be handicapped by the same lack of high-level support. Grrrrrr!

flipster

5th Jun 2006, 21:48

As ever, Chappie, one is left in awe of the strength of your passion. The rest of us don't even come close!

Ideas for whom to copy the petition? I would also include (if you haven't planned it already)

AOC 2 Gp
Chief of the Air Staff
Chief of the Defence Staff

along with ministers various (and obvious).

As for why -

AOC 2 Gp won't 'pull the plug' on AT Ops because CinC Strike Command writes the AOC's reports and has the final say on his promotion.

CinC Strike, in turn , gets the nod from the Chief of the Air Staff and he gets the CDS seal of approval or not.

Conversely, CDS won't have any reason to go to MoD/Treasury with cap in hand unless the Op is curtailed/hindered.

It would take a very brave man to put his career on the line in isolation. Nonetheless, I know there are very good and honourable people who get to such heights - it just takes kahunas!

Sirs, we know you read these posts - so, for once, stand up and be counted....please.

You will go down in history far more so than if you stand back and do nothing, letting the spineless politicians weedle their snide and self-promoting ways out of this.

Chappie - what you say comes right from the heart with such honesty and integrity, it would take an inhuman effort to ignore your pleas. We know you are right!:ok: :ok:

(Don't even bother with LJ - you have bigger fish to fry!)

All that the rest of us can do is to get more people to sign the petition.

So come everyone - back to the streets/computer!

kluge

6th Jun 2006, 02:59

Chappie - petition has been forwarded to UK expat contacts in Hong Kong (some ex military). Will continue to do so. I see one has signed this morning (HK time).

Keep it up.

K

nigegilb

6th Jun 2006, 08:19

Kam,
It is our gain that you share some of your dark times with us in such a painfully honest way. The military is good at the grand things, the repatriation and the funeral. However you have been able to read for yourself the indifference to danger and the lack of concern for the consequences of death that some people have. In many ways that is what makes our military so brutally effective but we have not been involved in a war of attrition for a long time. Many of those posting will not have been touched by death in such a personal way that you have. It might just give pause for thought. It might also get through to those running the war. Remember, this Govt has no connection with the Armed Forces, Blair's children will not serve on the ground in Iraq neither will his ministers' or the vast majority of parliamentarians' who voted for this war like sheep.
Blair has tried to divorce himself from the reality of war, he will not meet the widows he will not visit the injured and yet he espouses his christian values. This war was unnecessary but the two big leaders in the world just could not wait to get started, could not wait for the inspectors to do their job. I bet Blair regrets it now, in his dark hours but if he admitted it he would be finished.

I agree with you about the RAF's ignorance. AOC 2 flew Tornados, an ac that happens to enjoy fuel tank protection. It has been confirmed to me recently that foam was requested as far back as 1981. The RAF does not have a leg to stand on. Keep fighting for what you know is right and we will do the same on this side of the world.

Regards,

NG

chappie

6th Jun 2006, 09:49

kam, there are no words to say that can even remotely start to soothe your pain at all that you shared with us. thankyou for feeling as though you can. i am going to PM you my number as i do not want you to feel isolated anymore. i thought i'd already done that, but i guess not. please feel free to lean on me. i can't stop the hurt but i'm a shoulder to consider.i hope that somehow you have had some contact from the other families. i put out a rallying call and hoped the network would kick into action. i'm so sorry if my attempt has failed you.

i'm sad to say that i too know the pain of hearing your baby talking about the pain of the loss of someone so special and the way they try so hard to understand what has happened. we try to grasp around for something that will help to make sense to them but at the end of the day words are nothing when you long for flesh and bones. i'm ashamed to say that my five year old little girl has sometimes been the one to resort to trying to stop mummy from being so sad about uncle bob and the shame and guilt i feel from holding her and unable to stop the tears is too much to bear. this is not about me, sorry, i was trying to say that i understand your pain but i think that has come out wrong.

the thing is that doesn't seem to be grasped by the top brass is that we, as the families left behind, are not just to be dealt with and our needs met for the span of the ceremonies only. what happened to the family that the military once was? i hope that, sirs, you are reading this, we are not a hinderance to be endured then once the ceremonies are done that's it....times up. it feels like we're something to be embaressed of. that's not the case. the more you want to distance yourselves, the more i question as to why? please, please, stop and think what the outcomes of your actions actually acheive. do not ignore the letters, the questions. that will only fuel the concerns and the hurt. i for one will not go away. can you not even find it in yourselves to admit if you don't know what's happening on the case of the ebay fiasco then admit it. be the leaders that you purport to be, be the men you want your troops to be, lead by example. honesty will give way to respect. ignorance is tantamount to cowardice. think on, sirs, please. put this right. i expect the ebay nightmare was another thing not supposed to happen. like the attention to the apalling lack of ESF but you can help put that right.

chappie

6th Jun 2006, 10:17

guys, another call for help.....sorry.

on the other herc thread is a post from one of the other families. it has backed up what i was suspecting and that it wasn't just me not being informed of what has been going on. i know this is not the thread but in someways it will be helpful. the ebay fiasco a few weeks back where some sick sick bastard put on the net the video in all it's glory has not been solved. kellie had to see her husbands body. she has been met by a wall of silence and nothing is happening to either confirm or deny what she saw and or update about what is being done. no widow should have to have that image burned into her memory like that then left to deal with it. does anyone know on the grapevine what is happening. she is not the only familiy member to have been affected by the atrocity but that does not seem to have mattered. whether the ebay fiasco was another thing that was not supposed to happen i don't know. it may seem insurmountable to try and find out who did it but please some honesty from someone would be of some help. i have left a plea to the airships that i know read these threads to rectify this. we, the families that are left behind, are not to be endured for the duration of the ceremonies and that's it. we have so many questions, our loved ones did not need to die. knowing that is like putting a knife into an already open, sore,deep, gaping wound and twisting it constantly.

i urge, you again to please help us. please PM me. please help this pain by signing the petition. you can, as i've already stated, download it onto paper. i've done this and i've gone into my community and put out the petitions out there. every signature is needed. i will stand in the street and lobby people if i think that is what is needed. remember those signatures i told you about. well, one of them was bullied for having a dead dad. please help me stop there from being anymore dead dads. help me stop children learn about pain and sadness in such a brutal way as my daughter at the age of five has. only this morning because she gave me a picture to make me happy and not be sad about uncle bob becuase i cry and she hugs me. i try to hide it. sometimes i can't and my baby comforts me. so, sirs, while you read this thread and continue to hide behind your wall of silence remember that image. be proud of what you have achieved. your inability to stand and be counted and to lead has acheived that. do not be foolish to think you will not be affected. you stand to lose your lives if you fly in the ac without protection. so change this now. lend your voice to the petition. be the men you want your troops to be.

BEagle

6th Jun 2006, 10:34

The offensive e-bay item was number 9132424113.

I reported it to eBay UK Community Watch at 1132 on 7 May 06 - as did others - and it was withdrawn very shortly afterwards.

chappie

6th Jun 2006, 10:54

beags, thankyou. i'm fed up of waiting to find out if the cretin has been dealt with and so super sleuth chappie here we go. i guess, it's my pathetic way of trying to undo the image that kam saw. but i know there wil be nothing that can do that but i can't stand back and do nothing.

i'm all fired up so off to send my petition to lots of other people now. just had a thought shall i send it to AOC 2 Gp and ask them to circulate it and sign it? fnar fnar.oooo now the cogs are turning. i could do that to lots of people. mr blair, prince charles as he's meeting with families at the end of this month. right i'm off. bye.

ps kam please empty your pm box. ta.

chappie

6th Jun 2006, 10:57

kam, have just tried to send you PM but you are full. well, your inbox is. please can you make some space. ta.

if anyone out there in cyber space can help please can you tell me how to save a message. if you write it out then the recipients box is full how can i save it, or is it lost forever? sorry to be so thick!

highcirrus

6th Jun 2006, 11:10

scroggs

When I kicked this thread off in "Rumours and News", I had kept my fingers crossed that it might stay there, even though the subject matter did belong in the "Military Aircrew" section - my reasoning being that "Rumours and News" reached the full 120,200 Pprune membership/readership, rather than the more esoteric "military" readership of "Military Aircrew" - a wider readership being equated with a higher probability of petition signature whilst the more limited "military" readership exposure being, perhaps, detrimental to full signature potential.

I stand by my original words that:

"Whether you guys and gals are military (or ex), it doesn’t matter. Please support the safety and well-being of fellow aviators, doing a gallant and difficult job, currently flying into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, in small arms-vulnerable, non-ESF equipped aircraft."

You will have doubtless noticed that chappie is fighting a similarly gallant action against the sloth, ignorance, mendacity, inertia and stupidity of both the current UK "government" and the prevailing "appartchik" MoD mindset and that she asks one of the the most apposite questions of the whole thread and makes a similarly apposite point, in her latest post, to the effect that:

1. "What is the problem with the AOC going cap in hand to the treasury to ask for extra funds?"

2. "I need your signatures so that the three little ones sig.no's 1698,1699 and 1700 can see they've made a difference."

May I respectfully suggest that now is the time to fully support chappie and to harness the power of Pprune in a campaign for the safety of aviators in general, whether military or civil (remember the civil Baghdad DHL Airbus?), by giving this matter the widest airing possible.

May I similarly respectfully request that you and Danny consider a "sticky" in "Rumours and News" with a link to the petition website, to enable the collection of the maximum number of signatures that Pprune can manage, in aid of, in my personal view, a vital and worthy cause?

highcirrus

6th Jun 2006, 11:30

chappie

Precisely so:

"be the men you want your troops to be."

chappie

6th Jun 2006, 11:45

high cirrus, well what can i say? apart from thankyou so very much. it may seem weird this next bit but i hope that it's not too icky! despite the pain that i have endured i count myself to be very very blessed. this is because of the wonderful support and help that i receive from all of you. it may seem vain, pathetic even but the messages of support really spur me. i know that i lost my brother and i did n't need to, but the upside (if i can call it that) is the priviledge it is to be alongside all of you. you all lost in that crash. you too feel the pain and i try to be mindful of that because sometimes i worry i get too self absorbed im my grief that i'm unable to see yours to. this is a worthy cause and i'm confident that in time goodness will prevail, at the risk of sounding like a super hero!

nigegilb

6th Jun 2006, 11:51

SCROGGS,
Support what Cirrus is saying. Maybe the commercial pilots could make clear on the petition that they are aviators. There is an awful lot of work going on in the airlines to reduce the chance for fuel tank explosions. It would send out a strong message to the Govt if the commercial aviation world backed our demand for fuel tank protection.

Chappie maybe MFAW should hang back before pulling the petition. Does anyone have any contacts at Flight International? They appear to be on side in all this, maybe they could run an article. That would get world wide coverage.

Chappie your break seems to have done you some good, welcome back to our little front line!

highcirrus

6th Jun 2006, 13:21

nigegilb

Thank you for your support in this particular request - I merely continue to write in humble support of your own and chappie's remarkable efforts and achievements.

I do recall, from very many years ago, as a callow and testosterone charged youngster, not being particularly fussed about being shot at by opposing forces, whilst engaged in the ground attack role, during what now seems to be a forgotten and unimportant post-colonial, middle-eastern skirmish but which was, at the time, a life-and-death matter in an overarching Cold War context.

The idea of ESF in a strike aircraft of that time would have been both laughable and counter to the prevailing military ethos - as indeed were parachutes for aviators to the General Staff of 1914.

Times change, however, and whilst those of us who may have eventually reflected on our former "action" days and similarly marveled at our luck at still being here, those who seem never to have encountered the realities of counter-fire but who are now in power and hence in a position (though from what experience) to decide on what current equipment/protection for the fighting forces is appropriate, seem wedded to the old concepts of minimally equipped, gung-ho, macho can-do (as long as it's not themselves who are responsible for the on-the-ground-doing).

Why does this former military ethos prevails in the minds of the current decision makers? Perhaps they think it appropriate that British infantry forces should buy their own up-to-standard personal kit (fit for purpose. c.f John Read), that they can survive counter-insurgency ops without appropriate body armour, that RAF aircrew should fly unprotected, clapped-out C130 transports, in support of a contentious Middle East/South Asia policy, that the merest and politest query or protest should be fobbed-off as unfounded and ignorant nonsense?

A shame on you Bliar, your lickspittle generals and air marshals - you gutless cowards, you prevaricating paper-clip counters, you dissimulators, you weasel-word merchants. How do you sleep at night?

Four Wings

6th Jun 2006, 17:27

I'm an outsider (including the shipping industry amongst several past lives), but please don't jump all over me for venturing a suggested alternative approach to the strategic issue of how best to provide the resource of what used to be called Transport Command (today's C17s and Hercs).
From what I read there is the classic problem of a leadership who come from the cavalry and are not either knowlegeable about or really interested in the waggon train (I did my National Service in tank transporters - with civilian Polish drivers - carrying the cavalry's tanks).
The Royal Navy do not re-supply their own oil, ammo or rice - that is done by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary: a separate operation with their own ships, a long and honourable tradition, and their own flag - the Blue Ensign. They are legally civilians but they serve wherever the RN goes - remember the Sir Galahad in the Falklands. Their vessels are equipped with defensive armament which they are trained to use.
But they are independent of the RN with their own career structure and funding. With this separate identity they can fight their own corner when it comes to procurement: the RN says it will build two new carriers, the RFA says how many oilers, etc it must have to support them. Nothing is as simple as it sounds, and the views of RFA types might differ, but is there here just a thought for a new strategy towards handling this cultural divide?

Green Flash

6th Jun 2006, 17:43

nigegilb

6th Jun 2006, 22:05

Reaction to 727 fuel tank explosion in India.

"The tragic TWA 800 accident in 1996 highlighted the vulnerability of transport aircraft fuel tanks," said NTSB acting chairman Mark Rosenker in a statement today. "A decade later, the issue remains a major concern of the Safety Board and is on our Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements. I am hopeful what is learned in this investigation may provide added impetus for a resolution of this problem without further delay."

After a series of safety studies following the TWA-800 disaster, the FAA proposed a rule that would mandate fuel-tank "flammability reduction systems" on all commercial aircraft that have a center fuel tank and require retrofits on in-service aircraft. Center tanks are heated and more vulnerable to explosions than wing tanks.

The most likely way of meeting the mandated requirement is the fitting of inerting systems, which work by releasing non-flammable nitrogen gas into the space in the tank as the fuel level goes down in flight.

Boeing is currently testing an inerting system and expects in about six months to have it certified and ready to install on all new jets coming off its assembly lines.

flipster

7th Jun 2006, 00:09

It might be worth re posting the link to Chappie's petition, as it appears quite a few pages back

so....http://www.mfaw.org.uk

It is very encouraging to see so many of the 'great and the good' appending their names.
Treeeeeemendous!

Now, we must get all of our mates and families to sign.

BEagle

7th Jun 2006, 05:34

Direct link here:
http://www.petitiononline.com/XV179/petition.html

I note one ex-4 star has signed - and a top chap he is too!

nigegilb

7th Jun 2006, 07:44

Is that Cindy Sheehan as in Crawford, Texas?

Four Wings

7th Jun 2006, 08:53

4 Wings
Apologies for potential thickness, but are you suggesting that we have a privatised air transport org or Civil Service Air? (Presume the Blue Duster boys are civil servants, in it's widest sense?).
Read all about them at http://www.rfa.mod.uk/ Note the RFA is a uniformed service with military training and equipped with defensive weaponry operating under Service command.

nigegilb

7th Jun 2006, 09:10

We have our very own Chappie over here, KAM in Australia, I always knew that women were the real powerhouses, that's what my commander, err wife tells me anyway.

1858. Glynn Turner "Having served for 20 years in the RAF it appalls me that the senior management can try and abdicate responsibility by stating that they were not aware of the possible solution to this known risk; that is just inconceivable when it is known that the USAF and RAAF had this solution implemented, and they do all the victims and their families a great disservice by taking this line." Ex Military Air Traffic Controller

Well said that man

scroggs

7th Jun 2006, 09:24

Nige and HighCirrus: Not my call, I'm afraid, HC. Danny is aware of the issue, and it would be entirely up to him. I wouldn't get your hopes up; if we promote one political campaign, how do we say no to others? The issue is a live one among both civilian and military aircrew, and I know from personal experience that my ex-mil colleagues are bringing the petition to the attention of their all-through-civilian bretheren.

This website caters exclusively for those engaged in aviation. Others may read and even participate, but they are peripheral to the purpose of this site. While the campaign you are engaged in currently involves aviation as its focus, its primary cause is the wider moral issue of what physical protection a nation offers its fighting forces, and that is a political issue for the entire electorate. As such, it is correctly being discussed in the open media where all citizens (including the non-military members of Pprune) can access the discussion. On this board, however, its proper context is within the Mil Aircrew forum, and I suspect that is where it will stay.

Scroggs

Permanent Sand

7th Jun 2006, 15:47

In military history, there are people that stand out. Military personnel that before they were recognized, had an average level of authority. After they were recognized? Well, after being recognized they were names that were admired and respected, for a decision or stance that very few others were willing to take.

For these few, going through the chain of command was a non starter. They knew full well that they would be told to sit down and shut up. What did they do? They went as high as possible and made their case.

Now what is the difference between those that try then succeed, and those that try and fail?...........

Those that succeeded were called hero's in the eye of the public before a decision could be made on the matter.

Never under estimate the power of the print. Our national newspapers and television news channels can make or break people. Politicians play the press, why can't we? On a national scale, in the public eye this could have been pushed through at a time when needed. We all know the immense amount of work that has been done by the 'usual suspects' on this thread. But it maybe someone with a head start, closer to the decision makers, that is needed.

Sorry, now for the down side.

Have we got a hero sitting at a level where they have enough respect to be heard? Do the leaders at the very highest level have the plums big enough to even listen to what they have to say (never mind action on it)? And finally, will we have the backing of the national press to back this person up on their 'do or die' attempt to progress the situation?

I would love to say yes to all 3 points, maybe even 2. I fear that there will be a 50/50 chance that only 1 of these facts exist. If this is true, we live in very worrying times.

The fear of rejection has progressed to more than just being turned away for the last dance in a nightclub! This time though, no-one will get to dance at all.

There is always a chance that someone will step forward and chance it. If they do, they should make their intentions clear so that every person with a contact can prep the nationals before hand.

Keep the faith,

Permanent Sand.

flipster

8th Jun 2006, 00:58

flipster

8th Jun 2006, 01:12

Quite agree PS

I know there are people who share our feelings and wish they could do something - and some of them are quite 'high up'.

All it would take is for a couple of them to 'speak as one'. Who knows what might come of that?

Certainly, the tissue of lies currently spouted by their ministers would be 'shot to sh!t' (pardon my expletive).......but not before time.

Stand up, MEN....and be counted!:D :D

highcirrus

8th Jun 2006, 02:06

flipster

I was about to put fingers to keyboard to make exactly the points that you have well made.

In your post of 5 June 2006, you similarly well made the explanation as to why AOC 2 Gp – CinC Strike – CDS will not rock the boat, despite there being a widely publicised problem crying out to be rectified. The duality of this situation is that the UK “brass” have ever safeguarded their careers rather than their troops and the ongoing hatred between Bliar and Brown keeps the purse strings firmly drawn against anything more than the minimum defence spending that the latter can get away with. Imagine running a whelk stall like that? It’d be out of business in a week!

scrogs

Thank you for your cogent and well considered reply. Perhaps Danny could consider the points made by flipster?

nigegilb

Yes, an ejector seat was very comforting at the time but I’m not sure that I’d have liked to come down amongst the recent recipients of my rockets. I’m sure they would have been highly agitated and they had very sharp knives!

I am full of admiration for the Herc crews whose insouciance under fire, in relatively slow, large target, fuel laden aircraft, whilst regularly operating into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, is an inspiration to us all and entirely in keeping with the finest traditions of a Service which, despite the political meddling and incompetence of the past nine miserable years, remains a credit to the nation.

chappie

8th Jun 2006, 15:23

right, i'm in the throes of trying to get the petition signed by as many people. i carry one around in my handbag and whenever i talk to some unsuspecting individual out it comes. i've been around the local community and got them out in the businesses. i saw a brilliant suggestion to enter it into flight magasine. does anyone know the contacts necessary? please help. also, is there any other editorials that should run it? any other flight magasines? i don't suppose it will be welcomed by RAF news?!! we're nearly at about 2000 signatures. please do not get complacent though. please take heart with the fact that there are signatures from australia defence dept. friends in high places etc. remember, sunday is when i'm meeting up with others about the next step of the campaign.des browne aka swiss tony is still hiding from me. i'm sweetness and light, honestly. i don't bite, well not less you ask really nicely!

flipster

8th Jun 2006, 23:19

2000

Wow!:ok:

chappie

9th Jun 2006, 08:49

can i please say a huge thankyou to everyone of you who has taken the time to sign the petition and spread the word. i've just checked and there is
2020 thanks a billion, lets keep it going

flipster

9th Jun 2006, 10:00

Perhaps our journo friends may be able to help?

Jacko?

FormerFlake

9th Jun 2006, 13:02

can i please say a huge thankyou to everyone of you who has taken the time to sign the petition and spread the word. i've just checked and there is
2020 thanks a billion, lets keep it going

Chappie,

We should all be thanking you. You are an inspiration to us all.

FF

nigegilb

9th Jun 2006, 14:07

Found this one from James Gray.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many of the Hercules C130J and C130K fleet have been fitted with explosive suppressant foam; and when the rest of the fleet are expected to be fitted with it.

If he had read Ingram's earlier answer he would have seen that the first one has not been completed yet. I understand that there is overwhelming backing for improving Hercules protection within the RAF. Also understand DEC and IPT are working round the clock. I haven't requested a PQ to be asked for a while and aside from asking for J upgrade have no plans for the moment. Hopefully critical staff will now be able to concentrate on the job in hand. We are all working to the same aim. The reason for the 2nd letter was due to the criticism from Ingram for being single source. Hope you understand, good luck with the mods.

Regards,

NG

scroggs

9th Jun 2006, 18:35

Scroggs (and, in turn, Danny),
I can see your POV but I also believe you have, inadvertently, missed a vital point.
This campaign is totally apolitical - it is only about fellow aviators being put in harm's way - without the proper level of support and protection. The sad fact is that the military 'top brass' are rather reticent, so we have had to by-pass them and target their 'masters'.
These fellow aviators, whom we are all seeking to help, are our brothers and sisters - figuratively and, perhaps, literally in some cases.
Surely, the least we can do is help highlight their predicament? I would have hoped that we could count on the unconditional support of PPrune?
However, no-one is asking PPrune to actually endorse the campaign - only to help raise awareness of the campaign's existence.
You could add a disclaimer, if you so wish.......but I think you won't.
After all, each and every one of us is from the same mould - we have all been infected with the joy of flying and we all share the same desire to 'slip the surly bonds', in some way or form.
The brave souls who are risking their necks in-theatre are our family and I'm absolutely sure we won't want to let them down. Please tell me I'm right?
Flipster

As I understand it, Nige and Chappie's campaign is on behalf of all those who fly in British military transport aircraft within any field of battle. It is not a campaign to protect pilots, or even aviators per se, but one to protect all British and attached military and civilian personnel who are forced by the nature of their employment to travel in these aircraft. By extension, and as illustrated by the body armour debate referred to above, the campaign highlights and seeks to counter the somewhat cavalier attitude of the current government and military heirarchy to the safety of these personnel when in theatre.

While the campaign deserves (in my opinion) the widest coverage, it is encumbant on the publishers of any given journal or media to decide what is the appropriate place and style of such coverage. Your, and this forum's, focus is naturally on military aircrew, but there are many, many others who are affected by this issue. Pprune is not empowered or intended to speak to the wider, non-aviation, population, thus this issue, however important to us as individuals, must remain in the place where it has most relevance to our readership - Military Aircrew.

There are many, many issues which I'd love to raise in front of an audience as articulate, intelligent and influential as Pprune's - HIV/AIDS, starvation in Africa, globalisation of trade and its side-effects, climate change, EU expansion... the list goes on - but they are simply not appropriate for this site, however important they are to however many people. The political (and it is political) issue of the protection of our serving personnel is one for the wider population, and should be discussed in all those forums and media where such things are appropriate. The specific issue of the fitment of ESF to British military transport aircraft is appropriate to those places where those affected, those campaigning and those needing to be influenced can and do congregate. In the very limited context of Pprune, that is this very forum.

Scroggs

flipster

10th Jun 2006, 01:57

Ah yes, Scroggs you are quite right, this issue is also about the passengers and supernumerary crew and concerned fellow aviators, aviatrix and enthusiasts. After all, fire in fuel tanks concerns the whole the aviation community - why do think Boeing and Airbus make such a song and dance about switching off the fuel pumps in mostly empty centre tanks? Foam or OBIGGS would solve that problem, too.

Therefore, the awareness of this issue should NOT be confined to simply 'Military Aircrew'.

Surely then, however, you would have to agree to giving this issue a wider circulation on PPRune.....as humbly requested?

....I rest my case, m'lud!

flipster

10th Jun 2006, 11:17

I have just received a letter from Mr Gray stating that he is also concerned with the rate of fitment of ESF and has written to Des Browne to press for urgent fitment of the foam. While we must welcome Mr Gray's interest (a bit of a leap forward for him), he does not go so far as to ask for ALL ac to be fitted, or even other fleets - sadly!

Nonetheless, he is getting the message that we are not happy and his interest can only add to the prressure on the MoD to 'crack on'.

As they say, every little helps!

chappie

10th Jun 2006, 23:00

well, the day is nearly upon us where i meet with my friends and start the ball rolling for the next part of the campaign. i want to keep it online for a little longer but i'm unable to definitely say that will happen as mfaw are the hosts to the petition. thankyou, for the helpful suggestions. i will try to post on the thread either tomorrow night or on monday. so watch this space!! i'm going to try and get the petition into the house of commons and see if my MP friends are still prepared to help. i'm getting a little doubtful and concerned about how definite that offer is! i'm hoping for it to end up in canada in the next week, thanks to my patients family. anyway, i'll be back soon. what do people think about me sending the petition to CO of lyneham asking him to circulate it for me! or, should i let him just have the finished product? i've decided on sending it to blair,des browne and gordon brown. seeing as we need him to cough up some spondoolicks!!!:)

flipster

11th Jun 2006, 00:18

It might be amusing to watch his face!

However, I think it would be a token-gesture as I don't think we could ever expect him to circulate the petition.

On the other hand, asking for signatures in the immediate 'local area' might get more support!:E

highcirrus

11th Jun 2006, 10:25

chappie

Continued good luck with your efforts. Please, however, bear in mind the likely “Nu Labour” treatment of your petition unless you arrange the most artful and wide ranging pre-release publicity, thus preventing Bliar and new Brown cloned Defence Secretary, Des Browne, the opportunity to give it the “treatment”, below.

Private Eye No. 1158

A week before his promotion to Home Secretary, John Reid was striking a heroic pose in his constituency by leading protesters who handed over a 50,000-signature petition against the closure of the A&E unit at Monklands hospital, Airdrie.

Reid took a rather different view of protests against NHS cuts when he was Health Secretary. In May 2004 he received a 10,000-signature petition in defence of threatened maternity units at Devizes and Malmesbury – only to send it straight back, refusing to get involved. A year later, while he was visiting Gloucestershire royal hospital, campaigners handed him a 2,000-signature petition on behalf of a children’s ward in Cheltenham. The petitioners never heard from him – and a few weeks later their petition was found dumped in a skip!

nigegilb

Very pleased that you are now an avid Spectator reader. You may also wish to run your eye over selected writings of an august Spectator contributor, Dr Theodore Dalrymple, at this site (http://www.city-journal.org/author_index.php?author=47). Dr. Dalrymple casts a jaundiced eye over modern Britain and, in particular, the effect on civil society of nine glorious years under the Bliar terror. Happy reading!

PS. chappie. You mention:

(I will) try and get the petition into the house of commons and see if my MP friends are still prepared to help

Perhaps you should ask them to put forward an “Early Day Motion (http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/early_day_motions.cfm)” – defined as follows:

An Early Day Motion, or EDM, is a motion put down ("tabled") by Members of Parliament calling for a debate on a particular subject. In practice, there is rarely time to debate EDMs nowadays and their true modern-day purpose is to enable MPs to draw attention to an issue and to canvass support for their views by inviting other Members to add their signatures in support of the motion. Members may table amendments to existing EDMs.

chappie

11th Jun 2006, 17:22

well, that was interesting.

i'm now the press officer for mfaw!!! oh my gawd! i like a challenge. i've been getting grief from a particular journalist from a newsagency and i'm looking forward to depriving her of any information as a result of her inability to take what i say as the truth. i've made some good contacts over the last few months so that should help. once this exclusivity period is over i'll be on the phone to lots of papers. it was pointless entering the contract as there was not the coverage she promised me. it didn't even go overseas, which is why i signed. oh well, we all make mistakes i did'nt even get paid. just hassle! sorry for the rant. i needed to vent.

well, i'm keeping the petition on for a while longer. i've managed to get twenty signatures in the last 24 hours on paper and there has been 30 on the e-version. please remind those who have yet to sign.

i've taken on board suggestions of who to send the finished result to. those suggested AOC 2 Gp, chiefs of staff + defence. the ministers suggested also. i'm thinking of trying to do something at the labour party conference.

i know that the local paper swindon advertiser wanted to do something about the story (petition) how local that is to the community of lyneham? i can send paper versions down but i need support down there. i've tried to contact the lyneham village web page but been unsuccesful. i need someone down there to do what i've done up here. i've copies in the local bakery,post office, supermarket etc. any offers to help tout it down there for me please. the phone number for local bbc radio please.

i'll be asking for support in a lobby of parliament. watch this space...again.

BEagle

11th Jun 2006, 17:39

chappie - try Central News South, perhaps?
Tel: 01235554123

Good luck!

flipster

12th Jun 2006, 08:44

Most of the people of Swindon will know of the Hercules - the final approach to the main runway at Lyneham goes right over the middle of Swindon and Wootton Bassett and the overshoot towards Chippenham. Whether the residents of those erstwhile conurabtions like the noise of Albert remains to be seen. However, most would be mortified to hear that the lives of the crews and their passengers were being put at undue risk.

Try the following to get help with the petition

http://www.eveningadvertiser.co.uk/
http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/index.php
http://www.wiltshiregazetteandherald.co.uk

More of us could write too if that helps - though I suspect they would not appreciate being swamped!

There must be more but that's all I can think of right now, sorry! I think nige might have some more contacts...........cue

nigegilb

12th Jun 2006, 09:03

Bob Constantine broadcast journalist at Central South is knowledgeable on the subject.

Zoe Mills ( chief reporter) at Wilts Gazette and Herald has covered the Herc crash from the start.

BBC West I believe you already know. Mike Powell has taken a personal interest, but he has moved on. Not sure who is covering the subject now.

Both BBC and HTV covered the petition on the news with me whilst you were on holiday. They gave out details of the MFAW Website. Not sure if they will want to cover it again so soon. No harm in trying.

Regards,

NG

chappie

12th Jun 2006, 11:19

thanks for the suggestions.

i spoke with bob constantine and somone else as both bbc and htv were in contact while i was in holiday. in fact i came back during the middle of it to do tv link ups that were to be shown down your end at the time they contacted you nige. i'm guessing from the sound of it they didn't feature my interviews in either channels broadcast which is a bit rich and annoying as i messed up the holiday and was the one to action the petition so sounds like it was a waste of time. i've no intention of revisiting sources already accessed.

i would appreciate though any direct access to the community of lyneham both on base and off. i'll be contacting familiy memebers who i'm in contact with to action the paper version into the community. i need as much help as i can get. links to the petition and/or the paper version from every local source. i can't think of any other source that i need to contact unless of course there is something that i've not thought about. if so feel free to tell me.

my MP friend has gone to ground which i'm sad to say. maybe because he is friends with des that might be the reason. shame really. not that i'm giving up. this is not a quick fix solution. this whole process takes time. i've learnt over the past 24 hours that it is almost protocol that the MOD deny requests from you and state they've met you when they haven't. so game on. i'll just re apply again and again. i'll have to get the media to help me also. so i do hope they've not been foolish to think that i'm going to go away.

until the 25th june i'm unable to speak to papers, although the contract isn't worth the paper it's written on and i get questioned relentlessly over things i've not done that it's bordering on harassment but if the offer to contact them on my behalf is there please help, flip. ta.

nearly 2100 signatures on internet version. not including the paper version. still download the paper version and take it round the family get the mums/dads at the school gate etc to sign. anyone and everyone please.

nigegilb

12th Jun 2006, 11:24

Chappie,
I didn't see the broadcasts the other week. Could be they used your input. I too was on holiday! I am sure someone saw them. I have the distinct impression that Lyneham personnel are having to remain tight lipped at the mo. I also have the impression that they are happy for us to continue the fight. In particular the J. Don't want to say more here. I will try the Lyneham village website. They have posted an article about the foam controversy.

highcirrus

12th Jun 2006, 12:19

chappie

Below is a list (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/clnonmetro.cfm) of Wiltshire MPs, surrounding Lyneham, taken from the UK Parliament Website.

I wouldn’t be too worried about your tame MP going to ground as he/she (Anne Snelgrove?) is a buddy of Brownite Def Sec. Des Browne. Just contact the others and explain your position, request a meeting and mention an Early Day Motion. Any or all should be able to fit you into a weekly “surgery” rather than you having to go up to the Commons. You will be able to contact them either by email here (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alcm.cfm) or by letter/telephone here (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm). Do not be afraid to approach them – they are your representatives and your servants and they know that you can make life very difficult for them if they do not take you seriously – especially as your brother was a casualty.

I would imagine that the majority, being Conservative MPs, will be absolutely delighted to support your cause and wreak havoc with the present “government”. Better be quick though, before the summer recess.

Finally, I have in the past organised a lobby campaign with a cross party selection of MPs – all were absolutely delighted at the prospect of easy personal publicity and brownie points with their constituency voters! I'd guess that things have not changed too much in the intervening years.

Wiltshire (County including Swindon unitary authority)
Devizes Rt Hon Michael Ancram, Earl of QC (Con)
North Swindon Mr Michael Wills (Lab)
North Wiltshire Mr James Gray (Con)
Salisbury Robert Key (Con)
South Swindon Anne Snelgrove (Lab)
Westbury Dr Andrew Murrison (Con)

Keep at it and continued good luck,

nigegilb

12th Jun 2006, 13:06

Of those posted above.

Michael Ancram is on record saying he would not have voted for Iraq war knowing what he does now.

Robert Key pushed Ingram very hard on 07 Mar and is on HCDC

James Gray has received flack from relatives and constituents recently. Knowing you Chappie I think you could use force of personality on him!

Further afield. David Taylor (Lab) asked these PQs recently.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral Answer of 22nd May 2006, Official Report, column 1183, on Iraq, what the minimum standard is for body armour on land vehicles used by British troops in Iraq.

David Taylor (North West Leicestershire):To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral Answer of 22nd May 2006, Official Report, column 1183, on Iraq, what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of composite fibreglass in protecting the occupants of Land Rovers used by the British military for patrol purposes in Iraq.

I have spoken with his office and he is sympathetic to lack of protection issues. One of his constituents was killed in a fibre glass land rover.

Another MP worth trying is Adam Holloway (Con).. He has ( I think) flown in theatre on a herc and is keen to understand the situation.

Liam Fox is very switched on and I believe on side.

Finally I suggest you send a copy to Mike Hancock and James Arbuthnot. HCDC are very worried about the lack of proitection on the Herc. I am sure they would listen to you.

I would not worry too much about which party they belong to. I have learnt that it is the person that matters the most.

flipster

12th Jun 2006, 15:07

Chappie, it is the least I can do - check PMs

nigegilb

12th Jun 2006, 15:53

2098
Andrew Bartles Our government treats our armed forces personnel with thinly disguised contempt. The Hercules incident is an absolute disgrace.

Well said that man too

2114

airsound

13th Jun 2006, 06:03

If anyone is online at this hour of the day (0700 BST), Today on Radio 4 is interviewing Defence Secretary Brown at about 0750. I have reminded them they asked Reid a good ESF question (which resulted in his admission that "it might have helped") in his last interview with them, and pleaded with them to do it to the new guy. Don't know whether it'll work this time - but we can but hope.

airsound

BEagle

13th Jun 2006, 07:00

A very poor interview - and almost impossible to understand Dismal Desmond's barely coherent mumbling over a low quality phone line....

No questions put to him about ESF....:ugh:

chappie

13th Jun 2006, 13:12

i'll have to contact radio four and ask them what they're playing at. every time i see des browne the more i worry about our armed forces future. he seems to be terrified to take responsibility for anything and i suspect has the minimal amount of testosterone to make him a man. spineless doesn't come close. he has no passion, no impetus, no nothing. he seems to make shirking responsibility into an art form. he is however, a really worried man and i think we've got him over a barrel, feeling the pressure.

airsound

13th Jun 2006, 14:40

Chappie

Sorry it didn’t work this time. But the thing you have to remember about progs like Today is that getting something on is a matter of huge chance. The fact that we got you and Nige on first of all was perhaps not unexpected, because it is clearly ‘a good story’ in Today terms. But getting Jim Naughtie to ask Reid the question on 3 May was really a matter of luck - it is, after all, a live show - so it’s not all that surprising that we didn’t succeed this morning.

In fact, I think they’d backed themselves into a corner. The problem was that they had already had the Culture Minister on at 0740, and then they had a pre-prepared package from Afghan to run before they got to Browne, so they ended up with very little time before the weather forecast. A shame, but the point is we have to keep on at them, and be prepared for it not to work sometimes.

I did have a nice email from the Today Editor Ceri Thomas on 8 May saying they wanted to keep the pressure up on this - so maybe I’ll remind him subtly again!

I do agree all of the comments about Browne’s total lack of charisma....
Incidentally, Nige will know that I had planned to mention The Petition at the Cosford Air Show when the J had finished its display (as I did at Southend), but I’m afraid the RAF specifically asked me not to - and it is an RAF show on an RAF station. Never mind, there will be other shows.

Btw, Nige - thanks for kind words on Cosford Air Show thread.:) Glad you enjoyed it!

nihil carborundum

airsound

chappie

13th Jun 2006, 14:54

airsound, thanks for that. i've been thinking about contacting angus again at radio 4 to talk a follow up concentrating on the petition. what do you think? maybe, the same for channel 4 also.

re:airshows. what about duxford. it's in the local area and the positive effect that it's having for marshalls helps to tie in the petition and keeping it local for me to get the people of cambridge to continue to sign the petittion. what about getting duxford to have copies of it, iither as a link from their web page , at the airshows or at the admission desk at the exhibitions. i could run it there it'd take me 20 mins at the most. any other ideas where i could leave the paper petition, grarefully received. i've about 50 paper signatures and i'm hoping that a friend who works in high profile palce in london is successful in getting famous people to sign.

Permanent Sand

13th Jun 2006, 15:03

Chappie, I think your comments about DB, if maybe a little harsh, are around the mark. I wouldn't go so far to say that......yet, but I know where you're coming from. I don't know him personally, but we are all aware of his past areas of employment in this worrying government.

I always like to give people a reasonable amount of time to 'bed into' a new job. Unfortunately, this man does not give me much hope for the future of an undermanned, overstretched and underfunded department by which human lives can be lost or saved with a simple signature or decision (or lack of it).
Hence my first ever thread http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=230072

Keep the ball rolling guys, you're efforts are slowly being recognized at a higher level.

Permanent Sand.

airsound

13th Jun 2006, 15:21

chappie

By all means talk to Angus and/or Channel 4 News - can't possibly do any harm! As far as Duxford is concerned, my experience of them (we're doing their commentaries this year, though not Flying Legends) is that, because they are part of Imperial War Museum, they are very careful about not offending the guvmint. Their definition of 'offending' seems pretty widely drawn!

However I will PM you with a contact - once again, no harm trying.

Good luck.....

airsound

BEagle

13th Jun 2006, 17:45

'Inadequately testiculated' sums up Des 'strangely' Brownie....

That the RAF asked anyone to hush up the petition is utterly outrageous. Had it been me on the end of the mike, I would have said "Incidentally, RAF PR has asked me not to mention the public petition aiming to ensure that the C130 is fleet is adequately protected in war operations, so I guess I'd better not" or words to that effect....

The little men with lots of stars seem to be running very scared of you, chappie!

500days2do

14th Jun 2006, 06:58

Although I agree totally with the comments made about our short term leaders, my concerns with our 'blue' leaders are growing daily.Their decisions to request and then back a purchase of 144 fighters will always be the get out clause for any government.We as the airforce only recieve a finite amount of cash to pursue our goals and as always the fast jet centred leaders have chosen to spend the vast majority on a useless waste of space.
The main problem is, and always will be the airforce top brass...thats the area we should embaress at every opportunity.

5d2d

airsound

14th Jun 2006, 09:48

That the RAF asked anyone to hush up the petition is utterly outrageous. Had it been me on the end of the mike, I would have said "Incidentally, RAF PR has asked me not to mention the public petition aiming to ensure that the C130 is fleet is adequately protected in war operations, so I guess I'd better not" or words to that effect....

I have to say BEagle, that I think your comment is OTT, even for PPRuNe. I don’t see it as the RAF ‘hushing up’ the petition. They merely asked me not to mention it in the air display commentary. I was disappointed, but I wasn’t particularly surprised, and I don’t think anyone else should be either. I did, briefly, consider throwing my toys out of the cot and going ahead anyway, perhaps along the lines that you suggest - but decided not to. Didn’t think it would have been very grown-up behaviour. Also I was, after all, professionally employed by them.

In any case, whilst every little helps, I’m not sure how many people watching an air show as they stand in the sunshine will be bothered to write down a web address.

I’m sure you know, as an old warrior, that much of the success in a war comes from choosing the right battlefield whenever you can. Some are just not suitable - and you fight on them at your peril.

So, this way, I live to publicise the petition another day, as I have previously. And none of the air shows that we’re doing for the rest of the year is an RAF show, so there should be more opportunities.

All the best

airsound

Wee Weasley Welshman

14th Jun 2006, 09:51

Sounds like a reasonable judgement call.

WWW

BEagle

14th Jun 2006, 09:56

You're entitled to your opinions, of course.

But why do you think that someone actually had to ask you not to mention it? Are they that worried about freedom of expression?

flipster

14th Jun 2006, 10:45

I think Beags has a very good point - why are 'they' so worried? Certainly, it is very worrying that 'gagging' has become a secondary duty. Are there any other people out there who have been gagged 'off the record'?

However, Airsound, in my opinion, did the right thing at the time - it was probably best not to stir that particular hornets' nest - well not yet, anyway!

chappie

14th Jun 2006, 10:48

i have to say that i did go a little OTT myself with my comments on des browne. it's just that his inertia makes me so mad, when i'm pushing myself on a daily basis to fight for what i believe. i'm so lucky and blessed to have the help and support from all of you and you continue to inspire me on a daily basis. i know that the best way to get what you want is not to insult but i struggle to both accept and understand his unwillingness to do something about this mess.

there is of course both sides of the arguement i agree with re: RAF requesting that the petition doesn't get mentioned. you have a job to do airsound and i for one would never wish to jepordise that, but on the other i see regualry that RAF have requested that the foam issue/petition doesn't get mentioned. why should i let them have what they want? why, should i cover up the fact that through the unwillingness of someone being prepared to take responsibility and spend the money there are ten fine men who are not here right now. why should i keep quiet at the risk of highlighting and/or emabarassing the officials. i've always been taught to take responsibility for your actions. if you are going to do something then before you do it be sure you are prepared for the consequences of those actions and that you can take them on and deal with them. they made their choice so here's the consequences of those actions. i'm reminded every day about the consequences when i realise all i ahve left of my brother is a photo, so they should be made to call over this to. please airsound, do not think that it's a case of just an online petition. you can all get it on a paper version. people can come sign it at certain desks where the petitions are laid out. i've always got a petition in my handbag. not that i'm suggesting that you get a handbag! it is in your hands for you to make your decisions. you are not under any pressure. just the RAF etc.

Wycombe

14th Jun 2006, 11:02

Editted to agree with South Bound upon reflection that RIAT is perhaps not the time and place - if it was full of politicians though I don't think anyone should have any worries about making them squirm a bit - it's what the majority of them do for a living :mad:

Fantastic job on the XV179 "missing man" flypast last year by the way. I'm a humble southside spectator these days, but it had quite an impact where I was stood.

airsound

14th Jun 2006, 11:27

WWW, Flipster - thanks for support! (I'll wear it always, as we used to say)

But I honestly don’t think it’s surprising that ‘they’ appear worried - in their situation I would be too! You might take it as an indication that the petition is already doing its work.

After all, this petition is highly critical of the MoD - and, by implication, of the RAF itself. You guys all know how they work - there’s nothing new in their attitude. What would have been really surprising would have have been if they had said, Go ahead, do it.

But we are getting there - at least in part because we’re attacking on a variety of fronts. Let’s keep doing that, and let’s keep making use of the great variety of talent that PPRuNe allows us to access in a way that just didn’t exist before.

airsound

nigegilb

14th Jun 2006, 11:30

Chappie makes a valid point about Top Brass having to face the responsibility of their decisions. I would describe it as reckless, armed with the knowledge we have now, to send Herc crews to Afg without foam. Safety provided by foam was never a factor in the planning process for this deployment. I am awaiting with interest the BoI result for XV206.

Could be the "Top Brass" rue the day they did not prioritise the fitting of foam.

NG edited iaw sb /as cheers!

South Bound

14th Jun 2006, 12:47

Nige, Chappie, et al

Support the cause without question; however, I just don't see RIAT as the place for making the point. While embarrassing people into action is effective in certain situations, the only people one might embarrass at an airshow are the organisers and that could lead to reduced participation/trust in future events. Joe Public wants to see the air display, not get involved in a political fight over military spending priorities.

Perhaps a prompted moment of reflection as the C130 displays might be more appropriate, IMHO.

airsound

14th Jun 2006, 12:57

Folks - thanks for all the advice! I'm sorry that this was all prompted by my explanation of what happened at Cosford. But I do think nuff sed about RIAT. OK?

airsound

BEagle

14th Jun 2006, 13:14

Blond genug!

.

airsound

14th Jun 2006, 13:34

Now that does take me back, Beags. I find I have to explain it sometimes nowadays - not many people remember deutschlish.

There was also 'qu' est ce que c'est vôtre valise, mon père' ('what's your case, dad' for non-franglais speakers)

sorry - thread creep rears its ugly head again.....

son de l'air

BEagle

14th Jun 2006, 13:49

Es ist ein hübscher Polizist!

(C'est un joli gendarme!)

Thread creep? Tu me confuse avec quelqu'un qui donne une merde!

airsound

14th Jun 2006, 14:22

D'accord! Je donne dans.

Enough already

highcirrus

15th Jun 2006, 02:22

While watching CNN yesterday, I noticed that this month’s UK Defence Secretary, Mr Des Browne, was in Afghanistan as part of the crack “brown nose” squad, on roving platitude mouthing duty. About midway through the list was the one about “not letting the people of Afghanistan down again” but there was no sign of the one that concerns “not letting our armed forces down again”. Surely some mistake in the script?

CNN seemed unable to confirm if Mr Browne had arrived in country by RAF transport and, in that event, whether the aircraft had been equipped with DAS/ESF. Do we have any details?

airsound

15th Jun 2006, 06:32

Wycombe

Thanks - very much appreciated.

airsound

nigegilb

15th Jun 2006, 06:41

I don't know what he flew into theatre in. If it was RAF C17 leased from US his tanks were protected. If he flew in RAF Hercules not leased from US he would not have had tanks protected...Ingram admitted in a PQ recently that the first aircraft will be fitted with foam in July this year. It will take a long time to fit the remaining aircraft earmarked for the mod.

chappie

15th Jun 2006, 09:12

hi chaps, i thought the first herc to be operational will be ready in july not started in july. can someone confirm?

i'm afraid that the PQ question that was being asked will not materialise. i think that the guy who was doing it had maybe got upset that i was being horrible about his buddy des browne. when he lied about meeting me and i said as much i was then off the christmas card list as it were! ho hum.

over 2200 signatures now well done.

nigegilb

15th Jun 2006, 09:39

Yes you are quite right Chappie completed by July. That is what the Minister said. I have not been able to ascertain if the length of the entire program has been delayed by frame shortages. I think it more likely that frames will be shuffled around. The foam mod is obviously a high priority given the environment crews are operating in.

chappie

16th Jun 2006, 10:25

i've had my letter back from james gray. he has still to apologise for the comments he made about nigel he has done a complete 360 degree turn. it would seem our mr gray is apparently on side and as such had included the copy of his letter to des browne about the ESF issue. here goes.

i am supportive of the campaign to fit foam suppresant to the hercules fleet, and have for many years campaigned for this. i have recently written to the secretary of state for defence on the issue. i have also taken significant number of actions to assist the families of those who were killed in the hercules XV179 crash last january with such issues as housing and tax credit and i stand to ready to do as much of that as i can in every possibly way.
however i was reluctant to give the impression of taking party political advantage from the foam suppressant issue. that would lead to a degree of biterness in the bereaved families and i am not sure that would achieve any purpose.

all that was typed. at the end he has written by hand something that is impossible to document 100% as it's worse than a dr's scrawl but i think it goes i hope you're contented. he then includes the letter to des.

not the reply i was expecting and yet he still shies away from apaologising for the distress caused by the commnets made towards nige and the campaign. make of this what you will. i'm still unaware of the response to the PQ that was asked on my behalf weeks ago. i'm unable to get in contact with the MP in question. i'll keep you posted.

does anyone get the flight magasine as i want to get the petition into it but i need details etc to contact them, if you can help please PM me. ta!

highcirrus

16th Jun 2006, 11:32

chappie

Very well done with this response from the MP’s you’ve written to – I’m sure there will be more responses in a similar vein. If you have deciphered James Gray’s scrawled post-script correctly, it will mean that he hopes not to hear from you again, as he considers that he has now done as much as he thinks he can and would like to resume a quiet life – I would suspect that he hasn’t much chance of that, now that he is dealing with you!

If I may respectfully suggest, your very polite reply should include the information that you are extremely grateful for his continued support in this vital matter of national defence and could he see his way towards signing an Early Day Motion when you have found an MP who is prepared to put one down – you never know, he might do it himself if he is persuaded that enough “brownie points” might accrue from such an action. If not, I’m sure he’d be delighted to join the gang if someone like Michael Ancram was the instigator. A correctly timed EDM would severely embarrass the Bliar “government” and would directly attack the only person now with real power, Gordon Brown, through his proxy, Des Browne and, if carefully played, reveal that the fundamental problem with ESF has always been lack of funds from a Brown controlled Treasury, intent on torpedoing, by funding constriction, any initiative or strategy authored by the loathed Bliar, whatever the cost to the nation. A cautionary example of personal hatred and lust for power that has impacted all of us for almost a decade.

nigegilb

16th Jun 2006, 15:38

Chappie give me til next week. May have someone up the sleeve so to speak. James Gray has taken platitudes from the Govt at face value. He also has chums high up in the RAF. HC is, as usual spot on with his assessment. Hope you keep the heat firmly on Gray. He still seems to think ESF would not have made much difference.

Regards,

NG

BEagle

16th Jun 2006, 16:30

nigegilb - have you seen the Aircraft Accident Report yet?

nigegilb

16th Jun 2006, 17:03

Which one Beags?

BEagle

16th Jun 2006, 17:17

Hercules XV179 Aircraft Accident Report signed off on 11 Apr 06 by Air Cdre A T Hudson.

It is marked 'RESTRICTED'....

nigegilb

16th Jun 2006, 17:30

No, I have not seen a copy of the report, however, AOC2 was kind enough to explain his comments to the BoI, when I saw him in May. I don't want to be more specific in public, suffice to say that I do not believe we should have deployed hercs to Afg without ESF.

I do have a copy of the Govt response to the Committee's Fifth Report of Session 2005-06. The UK deployment to Afghanistan, received today.

HCDC: We note that concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of the DAS fitted to C130 Hercules used in Afghanistan. We also note MOD's assurances that the Hercules DAS is appropriate to conditions in Afghanistan.

MOD: Only Hercules C130 aircraft fitted with appropriate defensive systems are deployed to operational theatres.

Letter winging its way in to HCDC.

NG

highcirrus

16th Jun 2006, 17:36

chappie

I have been reviewing the posts that you have made in this and the other Hercules thread. Wherever your brother is now, he must be looking in admiration at the determined and spirited campaign that you are waging on his and his comrades’ posthumous behalves and on the behalves of other brave crews, continuing to operate in the most difficult of circumstances.

Please be in no doubt as to the power a bereaved sister possesses in her fight to prevail in this matter and do not be discouraged by minor setbacks. You merely require to find one powerful parliamentarian who will genuinely support you and who, if agreed as appropriate, will proceed along the lines that I have previously suggested. Once the political tide is in the flood, you’ll find the formerly unhelpful RAF “brass” very happy to jump aboard the boat and enjoy the sail!

I am particularly inspired by your earlier words.

“I see regularly that the RAF has requested that the foam issue/petition doesn't get mentioned.
Why should I let them have what they want? Why should I cover up the fact that through the unwillingness of someone being prepared to take responsibility and spend the money there are ten fine men who are not here right now?
Why should I keep quiet at the risk of highlighting and/or embarrassing the officials? I’ve always been taught to take responsibility for your actions.
If you are going to do something, then before you do it, be sure you are prepared for the consequences of those actions and that you can take them on and deal with them.
They made their choice so here are the consequences of those actions. I’m reminded every day about the consequences when I realise all I have left of my brother is a photo.”

You have many friends and in particular I would say that nigegilb is your staunchest and most effective ally – I am as impressed by his efforts and commitment as I am of your own. I am sure that you will avail yourself of all the assistance he can give you.

Good luck and good courage.

nigegilb

16th Jun 2006, 20:30

Just want to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread. An awful lot has been achieved since we started a few months ago. I hope we have helped change the way the MoD thinks about its most valuable asset, its people. I understand that so much heat is being generated it is hard for the experts to get on with the job of enhancing protection on the Hercules. It is for this reason that I am signing off from PPRUNE for a while. PPRUNE itself has been immensely powerful in all this, it is a very important forum. I do not want to overstay my welcome here.

Regards,

Nige

highcirrus

17th Jun 2006, 03:02

nige

I think that you ought to reconsider. You started the campaign, you continue to lead it and you’ve done a remarkable job. To withdraw from Pprune now could possibly leave us unfocused, uninformed, perhaps in disarray and certainly with feelings of loss and anticlimax. I, for one, continue to welcome your posts!

propulike

19th Jun 2006, 08:26

I do not want to overstay my welcome here.Do be brief Nige! Without your updates we wouldn't know what was going on.I understand that so much heat is being generated it is hard for the experts to get on with the job of enhancing protection on the Hercules.Err, without the heat, nothing at all was happening. If you back off now, so soes the driving force for the protection we want and need. I do not agree with your hope that the MoD has changed the way it thinks about its people, nor that it considers us to be its most valuable asset.

This campaign must be extremely demanding and time consuming - it's also been extremely effective. I look forward to your next posts.

chappie

19th Jun 2006, 11:31

just to let you know that i'm still around....not that i'm much of a consolation compared to nige! i have sent a suitable concerned email to him. i'll keep you posted. please do not go just because nige is no longer choosing to be on pprune. i still need you and your support.

i have emailed a politician this am to ask that he consider either meeting woith me so i can address him and his colleagues and i've also asked him to consider allowing the petition to get into the house of commons. i'll keep you posted. he's one of many who i plan to contact.:)

flipster

19th Jun 2006, 13:40

Hear, hear Chappie and Propulike

Nige,

I think you may have misjudged that - your support is very much welcome..... and needed - so hang in there, mate!

Flip

Permanent Sand

19th Jun 2006, 23:24

A step back, and maybe a few weeks away from the plate is needed sometimes.

We don't know the reasons and we shouldn't push for answers. I know Nige is still 100% on the case.

Don't worry, be happy. The show still goes on.....trust me.

Keep the faith,

Permanent Sand.

chappie

21st Jun 2006, 21:27

just to let you know that nige is still doing work in the background as he is trying to meet with MP adam holloway, who i emailed at his request. i'm yet to hear back from him.

i'm in the process of contacting flight magasine to see if they will run the petition as i understand that it's a global editorial.

i'm waiting to hear about the lyneham local area papers websites to see if they will run anything.

my fear now is that nige has left, albeit temporarily, this thread will disappear into the archive and support will wane and i'll be on my own.please be assured i am still trying to fight as hard as i can.:)

flipster

22nd Jun 2006, 12:27

FF

I'm surprised that we didn't pay extra to have it removed!! Nothing would shock me with our current budgeteers masquerading as leaders!

Flip

Are we all doing enough to get more signatures on the petition?

http://www.petitiononline.com/XV179/petition.html

flipster

22nd Jun 2006, 12:32

I have come across a small number of fellow aviators that believe that foam and inerting systems are of no interest to civilian operators.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

READ THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inerting_system

some info on this thread as well:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=231356

Flip

Keep up the petitioning everyone

Flip

chappie

24th Jun 2006, 09:13

well well well we are nearly at 2400 so well done. i've seen that on this is wiltshire webpage there has been a link to the petition which is brilliant as i want the links to be made available to the lyneham community as they are the ones who feel the loss the most when a herc and it's crew sadly go down. they are the ones who pick up the pieces when their children are bereft and without fathers/uncles and the like. the government need to listen to us if they do not want to breed a generation of anger and hate towards them when their constiuents are children.

i'm waiting for everyone who i've written letters to to get back to me. it's been suggested i get an early day motion and in the list of MP's james grays name cropped up. i've thought about it though. he states he will help the families from XV179. well that's what i am. when i wrote to him you could see he has shown that he supports the call for foam and he enclosed a copy of his letters to des browne in his letter to me. plus, it would be a picture to see his face! i do love a challenge!

regards blair, here's something that will come back to bite him on the bum. on the front of my local paper was a strory about blair helping local children to see the world cup as he intervened. they were ripped off and actually the tickets for the match did not exist so they had to come home. blair decides to intervene, have a word in fifa's shell like and away they go back out to germany to see a match....all because blair intervened. now, i do not want to appear heartless at the expense of these children but it goes to show he can step in for worthwhile causes. well guess what i'll be asking him to do!

i'll keep you posted.

please keep posting from time to time.....and keep the faith! we're doing fine.

Permanent Sand

24th Jun 2006, 15:18

Chappie,

All I can say is outstanding effort. You never fail to impress with the commitment you give to what you feel is right.

To everyone else who has mis-laid this thread....

I am no expert on the Hercules, but I do fly on them from time to time, and I ask these questions.....

Is the Hercules fleet, old and new, in perfect order to carry out the tasks required of them?
Are the operators totally happy carrying out these tasks?
And, can these massive deployments be manned in the air and on the ground without failure or delay?

I can't answer these questions, maybe you can.

PS.

Colonal Mustard

24th Jun 2006, 16:11

chappie, whilst not wanting to detract in anyway from your topic, i`m happy to offer my services and produce an animated banner or the like for websites in which you can use as a link, or anything else computer based if you like.

Keep up the good work

:ok:
CM

microlight AV8R

24th Jun 2006, 17:31

I've just spent some while reading through this thread. I recall the loss of our Hercules and how my heart sank when it became apparent that the cause was enemy action. Nige; I applaud your steadfast campaigning in this matter and also acknowledge the courage of chappie at such a sad time.

What makes me particularly angry is that politicians (supported by top brass) went to great lengths to assure us all that whilst trimming our armed forces was necessary, the benefit would be that those who remain would gain in terms of having tha best kit and specialised training.

At the time I was dubious and sadly I was right to be so. It was just more spin. Sending our transport aircraft into operational areas whilst insufficiently fitted for the task is one of many failings which our people have to endure. Lack of flak jackets, poor comms etc, the list goes on.

How many times do we have to hear of the death of soldiers on patrol as a result of a roadside bomb... Then see the TV footage of a burnt out plastic armoured LandRover!!! Those heaps of trash were 'armoured' to cope with 9mm pistols and the like in the streets of Belfast, not for a theatre where RPG's are around every damn corner.

We still seem to be under the old school influence which says that you can't sue the Crown. Such attitudes belong in the 19th Century.

Keep on exposing the lies. If you want an ordinary taxpayer to write to his (pro-armed forces) MP with any pertinent questions, just PM me.

chappie

25th Jun 2006, 21:55

all is well in the world of chappie. i'm releived to know that nige is safe and well. that fills me with utmost relief. thank you to all of those who have been very patient with me and my ramblings!

high cirrus prey tell sire what is an early day motion and what does it achieve? i'm intrigued and thinking of doing it. i'm also thinking of asking our old friend james gray. he is the one who has stated he has helped the families of those who lost their loved ones from XV179. he is the chap who distessingly called nigel a self publicist but he is supporting the call for foam. well, that is what he put in his letter to me and enclosed the letter that he sent to des browne pushing for answers about the foam. i would've asked my MP or the other chap who was helping but they have both fallen off the edge of the world it would appear! what do you chaps and chappesses think?

highcirrus

26th Jun 2006, 01:28

chappie

From my posts on this thread, of 11/12 June 2006:

Perhaps you should ask them to put forward an “Early Day Motion (http://www.parliament.uk/about_commons/early_day_motions.cfm)” – defined as follows:

An Early Day Motion, or EDM, is a motion put down ("tabled") by Members of Parliament calling for a debate on a particular subject. In practice, there is rarely time to debate EDMs nowadays and their true modern-day purpose is to enable MPs to draw attention to an issue and to canvass support for their views by inviting other Members to add their signatures in support of the motion. Members may table amendments to existing EDMs.

Below is a list (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/clnonmetro.cfm) of Wiltshire MPs, surrounding Lyneham, taken from the UK Parliament Website.

You will be able to contact them either by email here (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alcm.cfm) or by letter/telephone here (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm). Do not be afraid to approach them – they are your representatives and your servants and they know that you can make life very difficult for them if they do not take you seriously – especially as your brother was a casualty.

I would imagine that the majority, being Conservative MPs, will be absolutely delighted to support your cause and wreak havoc with the present “government”. Better be quick though, before the summer recess.

Finally, I have in the past organised a lobby campaign with a cross party selection of MPs – all were absolutely delighted at the prospect of easy personal publicity and brownie points with their constituency voters! I'd guess that things have not changed too much in the intervening years.

Wiltshire (County including Swindon unitary authority)
Devizes Rt Hon Michael Ancram, Earl of QC (Con)
North Swindon Mr Michael Wills (Lab)
North Wiltshire Mr James Gray (Con)
Salisbury Robert Key (Con)
South Swindon Anne Snelgrove (Lab)
Westbury Dr Andrew Murrison (Con)

Keep at it and continued good luck.

Probably best to try Michael Ancram, especially if James Gray may be a little unenthusiastic. From memory, Ancram is a shadow minister and he’s also a Privy Councillor. If he were to put down an EDM, it would certainly be taken note of and would draw other MP’s in for their share of any future brownie points which might become available. Another advantage of approaching Ancram is that he is new to this particular fray and may genuinely wish to help. He will also, of course, wish to embarrass the “government”.

Might be an idea to request nigegilb’s assistance in drafting the letter of request and his accompanying you to see Ancram, as he now has plenty of experience dealing with our esteemed representatives!

Keep up the excellent work.

PS. For an MP to call a member of the public a “self publicist” beggars belief and, coming from any member of that band of self-regarding, preening egotists, is perhaps the finest possible example of the “pot calling the kettle black”.

highcirrus

26th Jun 2006, 09:10

chappie

Further information on Michael Ancram here (http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=37&menu=45&biog=y&id=25776). As a Tory Defence Spokesman in 2005, with a majority of 13,194 and currently on the Conservative Defence/Foreign Affairs Policy Committee, I'd have thought he was a natural for an EDM on the subject of Hercules DAS/ESF. Contact him here (http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/l/55.html). Website here (http://www.michaelancram.com/).

lasernigel

27th Jun 2006, 07:13

As said before am ex squaddie but have RAF interests at heart as my Uncle is an ex pilot.This excerpt from yesterdays commons defence questions just sums up the attitude of this goverment.Full of empty promises and not wanting to resolve anything in the short term as they put it.So more lives lost needlessly.
Chappie All the best and keep up the good work.:ok:
Nige YYou have done lots and I presume you are extremely busy behind the scenes..well done.:ok:

As said sorry for cut and paste but this just sums up the whole Armed forces situation.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. The Snatch Land Rover was a popular option earlier in the campaign in Afghanistan, because it was mobile and a good all-rounder, and had the right profile to help our troops to engage with the people of Basra in Multi-National Division (South-East). I think Members will appreciate that a vision of our troops thundering down narrow streets with battle tanks was not exactly what we wanted to convey to the people of Basra and other parts of south-east Iraq.

Things are changing. As I have said, the level of violence in Basra has increased. I will not go into detail for obvious reasons, but the weapons that the terrorists are using have changed radically, as I have seen for myself on visits. I have seen that that is a serious issue, and have asked for a review. There are medium and long-term plans relating to vehicles, and I shall be considering what we can do to respond to the situation in the short term—although we do also respond by means of tactics and operational instructions.

So appearances to the locals are more important than soldiers lifes...What total BS.:*