Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety [Archive] - Page 5

herkman

7th Oct 2006, 09:29

Sealing tanks is not rocket science. But it does require absolute cleanliness and people who are totally dedicated to doing a good job.

Every trace of the old sealant needs to be removed, with the surface repaired from any scraping/removal process, and the priming must be 100%. A years warrantee may be fine, but from my days I recall it lasting many years.

The RAAF has a program of continually monitoring the tank sealant, as we learned the hard way with our C130A models, that cutting the corners comes back to bite you.

Of course if you have people supervising who have little C130 experience, then the workers who also may lack experience will not get checked when things are going wrong.

It looks to me from outside, that the aircraft are working hard, maybe too hard, and so when the maintenance program goes by the board, it always comes back to haunt you. Then you end up with more aircraft in the shop, than are available for work.

Sounds to me that you may have a real problem hiding in the wings.

Regards

Col Tigwell

flipster

7th Oct 2006, 09:40

Perhaps it is time to out-source this to people who can actually do the job in Oz/US - it will cost a bit but it seems as though Marshalls cannot hack it and they are failing our boys and girls.

Bottom line:
No Ks to fight nor train - Js overworked - both sets of crews brassed off and both sets of execs fighting to maintain morale and skill-levels, while going around the same buoys we did in 2001/2/3. Its all a bit sad really but it need not be so.

Keep smiling!:) :)

ORAC

8th Oct 2006, 05:49

Torygraph: No Government cash for families' lawyers at Hercules crash inquest
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/nsoldiers108.xml)

nigegilb

8th Oct 2006, 07:52

flipster

8th Oct 2006, 08:58

It doesn't bode well for the MoD when their spokesman can't get his facts right!

As a tax payer, I am astounded by the MoDs double standards. Please, no highly-paid, two-faced, forked-tongued, weasley, legal parasites to protect MoD blunders and cover-ups

Not in my name!

Chugalug2

8th Oct 2006, 11:50

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "This is not a complicated case."
.
I quite agree. An RAF aircraft made more vulnerable to hostile action by MOD inaction, is hit and all on board are lost. British Armed Forces are pitched into the bitterest conflict with insufficient manpower and insufficient equipment, some even inappropriate, particularly in CAS and SH aircraft, due to MOD policy. At the same time their pay and administration is turned upside down, due to MOD policy.
The person in charge of the Herc ESF mod, who has gone sick, should be just the first. Anyone in the MOD or CoC, who looks at themselves in the mirror and thinks "I can't do this" should follow his example. Those who think they can, but obviously can't, should be fired. Its time to get rid of ALL the dead wood and promote the awkward squad. Those who don't fit in, who aren't one of us, who are always rocking the boat, whose annual assessment ends with the clever phrase that means so far, but no further.
The most resolute enemy that we face is not the Taliban but sheer incompetence.
To those whom it might concern; "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us be done with you. In the name of God, GO!"

nigegilb

8th Oct 2006, 22:44

Chug, I have been reassured that the deputy fronting Herc ESF is on top of the job and that we should be seeing more progress soon on the program. Previous manager has done a lot of good work improving the Herc, please get well soon. Probably best to step back for a little while and see if the progress manifests itself.

NG

Chugalug2

9th Oct 2006, 08:41

Nige, you were quite right to upbraid me. I unreservedly withdraw my remark and apologise to the person concerned, his family, and anyone else that I gave offense to. Of course, like you, I wish him a complete and speedy recovery. It was a cheap and totally unjustified shot to instance one individual for the failings of many. I am sorry.

nigegilb

9th Oct 2006, 08:51

Chug, there is a lot at stake here and passions are running high. The current leadership understand that we are working to the same aim but using different techniques. Occasionally we will step on toes. There is no denying that a lot of time was wasted earlier in the year and that the program should have been started much sooner. We have reminded the leadership all along that we will not stand by and see another crew blown out of the sky while the MoD reacts in its normal sloth like manner. I received reassurances over the weekend. I am happy to sit back for a little while and see what happens. After C4 News item much parliamentary action followed. We have done our bit for the moment.

Chug stay angry, the boys need as much support as they can get, the J takes about 2 weeks to get fitted with foam, lets see what happens.

flipster

9th Oct 2006, 09:45

Wise words Nige and I totally agree that occasionally the MoD might need to be reminded that little brother is watching them.

I really do hope, however, that the IPT, 2 Gp and Marshalls have thoroughly investigated all options to fit ESF - including out-sourcing . Further delays are unacceptable but so is a botched or rushed job.

Politics, cost-cutting nor saving of face have no place in the solution to this problem; just alacrity, honesty and thoroughness.

The IPT should be given a 'blank check' signed by Blair and the Browns to ensure the sqns get the kit to do their job of supporting the troops on the ground.

GlosMikeP

9th Oct 2006, 13:12

The IPT should be given a 'blank check' signed by Blair and the Browns to ensure the sqns get the kit to do their job of supporting the troops on the ground.
Well if you believe it, the PM gave his undertaking the Services could have anything they wanted.

flipster

10th Oct 2006, 00:42

I'm not holding my breath but at least it is a step in the right direction.

But will TB be around for long enough to honour his promise?:suspect:

Antique Driver

10th Oct 2006, 06:56

Well if you believe it, the PM gave his undertaking the Services could have anything they wanted.

How about a modified aircraft I can not only fly in-theatre without it breaking in minutes of arriving from an MOD contactor but train on in the UK to preserve operational flying skills.

A personal weapon that is actually mine and not a pool weapon that I have to share.

Flying kit designed to protect me on the ground and in the air.

Body armour that will stop more than a sharpened mango and has not taken over 2 years to reach the frontline.

A chain of command that I can trust to look after me and my crews.

A welfare package I can actually use to communicate with my loved ones that is not always 'down for maintenance'

The ISAF pay I am entitled to.

A pay and admin system I can get an answer out of within 48 hours. The correct pay would also be nice.

A way of getting out of this chicken**it outfit that takes less than 12 months.

Over to you Mr Blair:ok:

flipster

10th Oct 2006, 09:05

Antique Driver Is 'the Voice From The Front-line'.

Mr Bliar Are You Listening?

Chelskiboy

10th Oct 2006, 14:11

So, a straight forward case. The MoD said they were not aware of any vulnerability before this aircraft was shot down. We then showed that pilots had requested foam many times over many years. When this aircraft was shot down, we were not at war, so why should combat immunity apply?
Combat immunity is a highly complex legal subject. When I visited AOC 2 Gp I was told that there was no case to answer. Sir, I beg to differ. The MoD will try and rail road this inquest through as fast as possible. Well, I don't think that is going to happen now. Double standards, just about sums the MoD up.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: "This is not a complicated case. The C-130 was struck by a missile and it crashed. Legal representation is not necessary and it is quite appropriate for those deemed interested persons by the coroner to ask questions of witnesses at an inquest without legal assistance."

Not quite accurate there Trevor, legal representation is not necessary for the families but highly desirable for the MoD. Hope you sleep well at night.

It should be irrelevant what the MoD think they are participants in not the inquest not the coroner. Legal representation is there to ensure the right questions are asked in the right way. If the MoD deem it necessary to have legal representation then it should, by default, be necessary for anybody else.
As for protection systems when it is acknowledged that there is still a high manpads threat why do the MoD feel that aircraft do not need to be equipped with a Missile Warning System and Counter-measure Dispensing system as a minimum with an adequate fire protection system.
I recently found the BoE report on a Puma that had crashed in Iraq. The surviving crew were badly burnt because they were wearing desert combats that were not fire proofed.This is just another example of the lack of forethought given. Fire is an ever present hazard to anybody so why aren't combats proofed against fire as standard? it took this to happen for crews to be issued them.
Until the Govt. realises that in order to go to war you have to pay for it then driver will always be cost. The Govt. need to have best for purpose as the driver. This does not mean most expensive. For example a combined active/passive MWS with CMDS is relatively inexpensive and means that the immediate threat is addresed. An RWR is not necessary in the current theatres but should be retrofitted soonest. A fire protection system is also relatively inexpensive.
Having been in the position of having to cope with inadequate body armour etc. it galls me to hear the same tails every time.

GlosMikeP

10th Oct 2006, 20:00

Just a couple of thoughts to kick around:

1. Has anyone thought to contact the Forces Pension Society and see if they will offer support to the families? It is they who fought the government hard and long for a better deal for War Widows, and succeeded. How many are now as a result of this classed as 'war Widows'? FPS has clout and uses it. http://www.forpen.co.uk/

2. When I was a University Cadet I was paid about half by 'pay' and half by 'University Allowance'. The Inland revenue classed it all as 'pay' and taxed accordingly. After Uni someone took exception to this, filed suit and asked many of us to chip in £10 for a fighting fund. In short, we won and got our tax back, and donated the remainder of the fund to charity (RAFBF I think).

If 1 doesn't come off, why not 2? Couldn't something similar be done to get the families' legal representation, with or without MOD help? On the basis of 'there but for the grace of God go I' I'm sure lots of us would pay into a fighting fund with the FPS or some other bona fide organisation (such as through The Daily Telegraph or Times or some such quality newspaper) set up in this specific cause. Lots of £10s quickly add up to £1000s.

flipster

10th Oct 2006, 20:10

The argument over lightweight desert soldiering kits versus sweaty nomex grow-bags goes on? I thought everyone now had access to lightweight desert growbags (or fireproofed soldier kit for SH and AT). I can't believe that this buoy has not been 'left astern' ages ago, what the heck is going on????

Bottom line - Everyone who operates ac in thatre, needs lightweight, fireproof flying kit - ideally stuff that does NOT make you look like highly paid aircrew, which in turn, makes you a high priority target on the ground - for snipers (that was a lesson from Sarajevo)!

While the kit needs to be fireproof, it also needs to be 'dipped' to help prevent attack by nasty insects that carry many nasty diseases - all of which can take you from the cockpit to the RMC or even morgue while severely hindering your sqns' op output!

I can't believe this small problem has not yet been sorted it was a simple fix that was well underway 2 years ago! Anyone care to enlighten us?

nigegilb

10th Oct 2006, 20:16

I think we should explore the possibility of setting up a fighting fund. 2 Test cases are going through at the moment concerning combat immunity. The result of these cases could have far reaching effects. A lot of the legal cost in terms of research has already been paid for, so it should not be too expensive.

I will make some enquiries and report back.

GlosMikeP

10th Oct 2006, 20:32

I think we should explore the possibility of setting up a fighting fund.....

I will make some enquiries and report back.

Good idea. It's just the sort of thing that sells newspapers, too. I know there's a natural reticence to this sort of action, but sometimes it works to the good. I wonder how many readers of such as the Telegraph would also chip in, serving, ex or always civilian. Perhaps one or more of the journos who keep watch here could help out?

HrkDrvr

11th Oct 2006, 03:33

Bottom line - Everyone who operates ac in thatre, needs lightweight, fireproof flying kit - ideally stuff that does NOT make you look like highly paid aircrew, which in turn, makes you a high priority target on the ground - for snipers (that was a lesson from Sarajevo)!

Tough choice - look like high priority target or look like hard bloke that's been shooting up your neighborhood, slotting your family, & generally dealing chaos...I'll take high priority target = valuable alive, he said hopefully. ;)

Sarajevo was unique in many ways...

mayorofgander

11th Oct 2006, 06:15

The argument over lightweight desert soldiering kits versus sweaty nomex grow-bags goes on? I thought everyone now had access to lightweight desert growbags?

Dear Flipster;

I am reliably informed that dessie suits of the most popular sizes are currently 'Inability'. :ugh:
Some mutterings about contract change too!!!:sad:

MOG

flipster

11th Oct 2006, 20:43

Hrk Drvr

Quote "Look like a hard bloke who...."

A valid point but it is pretty damn difficult for most SH/AT crew to look hard - too many pies, you see! This, after all is part of our cunning disguise!

Perhaps it would be better just to wear dish-dashes etc - oops, that works too!

You see, you've got to get 'em unsure or guessing - then before you know it, they've missed an opportunity to put a round between your eyes! I know all my 'walk-rounds' were either done in the dark or from inside!

But whatever you do, don't wear a suit and tie (even jacket-off). If you do, everyone will think you are a politician and you will get caught in the cross-fire from BOTH sides!!!!

MOG

It defies belief!!! - perhaps a letter to Mr Blair?

In the overall (pardon the pun) scheme, this is relatively small beer but it IS very important that crews are wearing the right kit. What is more important? - heat strress or flame-retardant properties?= Well, it depends on whether you prevent accidents because you are not overheated, dehydrated and flustered, or if you do have a accident and susbsequently get too close to the seat of the flames?!

Individuals then have to do a risk-assesssment every day, rather than being provided with the right kit! Put your concerns in writing to your boss (and your solicitor)!

nigegilb

11th Oct 2006, 20:56

Oxford Coroner reckons inquest backlog will be dealt with by the end of the year.

Iraq inquest backlog 'will end'

Harriet Harman has pledged to clear the backlog
The backlog of inquests for British servicemen killed in Iraq is "unacceptable" and will be "sorted out", Harriet Harman has said.
The constitutional affairs minister promised that the situation would not be allowed to repeat itself.

Some families have waited more than three years for inquests, with 100 families waiting in total for hearings at Oxfordshire Coroner's Court.

Extra funds have led to the appointment of three assistant deputy coroners.

"We do not intend to solve this problem in order for it to happen all over again to others," said Ms Harman.

Military deaths

She added that checks were being made on a weekly basis to ensure that the backlog was cleared. Government officials have visited the court to assess the situation.

Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner handles the majority of military deaths as their bodies are flown back to RAF Brize Norton, in Carterton.

The jurisdiction for the inquest arises where the body lies and once an inquest has been opened it is not possible for it to be transferred.

In a written statement to MPs to be given on Thursday, Ms Harman is expected to say that future cases will be transferred to the serviceman's home county.

Casualties

Figures show that 119 services personnel have so far been killed in Iraq and 40 have died in Afghanistan.

In May, Ms Harman told the House of Commons that 47 inquests still had to be heard, including 31 relating to the deaths of soldiers in 2003, nine from 2004 and seven from 2005.

Since then, 15 more service personnel have died in Iraq and 33 have died in Afghanistan.

Inquests into civilian deaths in Iraq are also being dealt with by the court, including that of ITN correspondent Terry Lloyd, who was shot dead in crossfire outside Basra in March 2003.

His inquest is currently being heard by deputy coroner Andrew Walker.

In August, Mr Gardiner said he hoped the outstanding inquests could be heard by the end of the year.

flipster

12th Oct 2006, 12:49

Nige,

Any news on harder dates for XV179?

MOG

What is the blanket stackers' desriptions and nato stock numbers for the "suits, flying, desert, size unavailable"?

Flip

Chelskiboy

12th Oct 2006, 17:30

I think the point is being missed here on the subject of flame-retardent clothing. The point was why does it take people to be killed or injured due to a lack of these items (when common-sense that, accidents to one side, anybody in a place where people are shooting at you may run the risk of crashing/explosion etc with a resulting fire) before it is rectified.
Of the 159 servicemen killed - how many may have been prevented if proper or adequate equipment been issued.

nigegilb

12th Oct 2006, 20:06

According to Lord Drayson, Minister for Procurement not a single serviceman in either Afghanistan or Iraq has died because of procurement issues with equipment.
Link here. Click on the program and move to minute 36.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/default.stm

Not sure how well known he is so I included a biography.

Paul Rudd Drayson, Baron Drayson (born in 1960) is a British businessman and entrepreneur.
After attending St Dunstan's College, Paul Drayson graduated from Aston University in Production Engineering, followed in 1985 by a PhD in robotics. From 1986-1991 he was Managing Director of the Lambourn Food Company.
In 1993 he co-founded PowderJect Pharmaceuticals plc in Oxford which specialised in the production of vaccines, and was Chief Executive until 2003 when PowderJect was acquired by Chiron Corp.
Drayson has been involved in public controversy on two occasions:
In 2002 PowderJect was awarded a £32 million government smallpox vaccine contract without competition shortly after Paul Drayson donated £50,000 to the Labour Party. Following a Parliamentary enquiry no improper activity was identified.
Following his elevation to the House of Lords, made a working peer entitled Baron Drayson, of Kensington in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, in May 2004, he gave the Labour Party another £500,000, raising allegations that his peerage had been 'bought'.
In May 2005 Lord Drayson replaced Lord Bach as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Procurement and as Government Spokesman for Defence to the House of Lords. Lord Drayson's responsibility for defence procurement in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is one of the most high profile jobs in the MoD. His remit includes oversight of the Defence Procurement Agency and Defence Logistics Organisation. In December 2005 Lord Drayson published a report entitled The Defence Industrial Strategy[1].
Between 2001 and 2002 he was the Chairman of the BioIndustry Association, and has been Chairman of the Oxford Children's Hospital Campaign since 2002. Since 2003, he has been the Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Said Business School, Oxford University.
In 2006 he purchased Nether Lypiatt Manor in Gloucestershire, formerly the country home of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. [1]
[edit]

lightningmate

12th Oct 2006, 20:15

The term is 'Fire Retardant' clothing. It cannot protect anyone from the obvious effects of exposure to extreme heat who does not rapidly escape from the environment where fire is present. The aim of the fire retardant property is to prevent clothing from sustaining combustion once escape from the hostile environment has been achieved. Moreover, the real killer is high temperature toxic gas inhaled into the respiratory system.

The high-level push to introduce fire retardant clothing started many years ago after a young lady ejected from a Harrier and ended up in in a fuel fire. However, just consider what actually needs to be worn to survive in a fire; how compatible would such clothing be with SH ops or any type of military aircraft ops in any climate.

If you are inside an aircraft when fire is present you need to be outside very quickly otherwise you are in big trouble, regardless of what standard of aircrew clothing is being worn.

lm

flipster

12th Oct 2006, 20:56

When operating in 40-50+ degree ambient temps, thermal stress becomes a very big issue, as working, unairconditioned, in these temps happens day-in day-out and is, I'm sure you'd agree, a major impediment to safe aircraft operation. Whereas the fire/flame scenario is a very rare occurence (but, admittedly, more likely in AFG/IRQ) and the balance of risk has to be weighed!

Long ago people were given the option of flying in thin, cotton, desert dpms or more latterly, CS95 rather than sweat to death in the regulation flying suits, green as we did not have access to desert flying suits - those were only for FJ mates on exercise in Oman!

Many days I spent writing requests for a lightweight, desert, CS95-type flying kit only to be told that it was 'under development'. I can only hope that enough of the stuff is now available.

As an aside, I wonder what the guys were wearing on XV206 and whether the BOI considered this; they normally do, so we will have to wait. Non-availability of the correct fg clothing would be nothing short of scandalous.

It seems as if we are destined to stay in 'groundhog' mode!:ugh:

chappie

13th Oct 2006, 10:26

hi guys and gals, long time no hear and catching up has made eye watering reading. in respect to the lackof funds coming forward from the MoD as hoped was explained in a way to us as they will be there to protect their own interests and therefore will not participate in funding our need to have legal representation there to ensure that the right questions are asked. if we don't stand up and make it known that we are here we will be looking at the inquest process to be over asap. as for a date, a family member called the coroner and told that work is being done on the case by the coroner but there is no date, projected or otherwise for the inquest. so the pain and waiting continues for us. it is the same for many families too. it doesn't make it easier though. the reality of all that has happened and it's effects can be seen on news 24 between 5-6pm next fri as i take part in a short film outlining the effect on the loss of bob.

the sky around cambridge is filled with hercules as i have gonhe from hardly seeing them to daily looking up and clearly seeing a herc on a test run flight. what matters is that even with all the faith in the world there is still no plane operational....no plane...no protection. good luck and crossed fingers for the crew of the hercs is not infinite and so pressure needs to be maintained.

on 24th oct you will see me and other family members take the petition to downing street. the moment will be logged by the media as the moment that nearly 3000 signatures calling for foam will be ignored by the governemnt despite the urgent need and it's overdue timespan.

Chugalug2

13th Oct 2006, 20:15

. in respect to the lack of funds coming forward from the MoD as hoped was explained in a way to us as they will be there to protect their own interests and therefore will not participate in funding our need to have legal representation there to ensure that the right questions are asked.
there is still no plane operational....no plane...no protection. good luck and crossed fingers for the crew of the hercs is not infinite and so pressure needs to be maintained.

Hi Chappie, welcome back! I'm afraid everyone else is out at the moment getting very excited about an army general standing up and being counted on behalf of his troops. Wouldn't it be nice if the Chief of the Air Staff did the same thing and demanded that the MOD reverse its mean minded and prejudiced stance on denying yourself and the other loved ones the right to legal assistance at the Inquest? But the spotlight is really on them now and they will be getting in a sweat so keep up the pressure. No still no protected airworthy airframe. Nige is on a countdown on this one, but it has to be done right this time. Good luck with the petition, again they are starting to crumble "the Forces can have whatever they need" says the PM, well they want ESF in all the Hercules, and here's the proof. Do it!Its always darkest before dawn Chappie, you and the other brave next of kin are on a roll. You will prevail because you are right and these apparachiks are wrong, and they know it!

flipster

13th Oct 2006, 22:32

Just a thought for all the guys and gals 'doing the business' for His Majesty, Tony the First.

It never actually occurred to me when I was dutifully serving Our King but what exactly would your family get should you 'buy the farm' whilst on duty in the sandpit?..........It is rumoured to be 'next to f@ck all'.

Therefore, I heartily recommend you investigate your own circumstances and think long and hard before you go 'sausage-side' next time.

I do not doubt that the exhilaration of combat ops and fighting alongside like-minded fighters is probably the pinnacle of your career ( It was for me in a most selfish way).

Please, however, remember those at home who are not getting that bond of comradeship-thing and who will always be picking up the pieces whether it goes 'Pete Tong' or not!

And always remember this:

The bit of kit you are depending on to save your life will have been procured from the lowest bidder AND the politicans that signed it off (the same ones who sent you to the sandpit) would have prefered a cheaper option!!!!!!!

God bless those at home!

Flip

daughterof

14th Oct 2006, 06:59

Just a thought for all the guys and gals 'doing the business' for His Majesty, Tony the First.

It never actually occurred to me when I was dutifully serving Our King but what exactly would your family get should you 'buy the farm' whilst on duty in the sandpit?..........It is rumoured to be 'next to f@ck all'.

Therefore, I heartily recommend you investigate your own circumstances and think long and hard before you go 'sausage-side' next time.
Flip

Just following on from Flipsters comments above. If you are divorced and have children which you love and care for and financially support – look carefully into how you would continue to offer financial support should something happen to you. I don’t think this is the place to comment further but just food for thought.

mbga9pgf

14th Oct 2006, 08:20

Just following on from Flipsters comments above. If you are divorced and have children which you love and care for and financially support – look carefully into how you would continue to offer financial support should something happen to you. I don’t think this is the place to comment further but just food for thought.

Does anyone know of an insurnace company that will offer me a policy? Just rang round a few insurance companies, apparently I am uninsurable?!?!

Oh, is it true that as aircrew, the RAF will cover a percentage of life insurance costs, or is this just a rumour? (This is PPrune after all!!)

On_The_Top_Bunk

14th Oct 2006, 11:34

http://www.forcesfinancial.com/life/index.asp

Don 't forget you can claim back upto 90% of increased premium cost over a person in a normal lifestyle.

All details in the JPA JSP's with a claim form.

I'm not at work at the moment so can't give you the correct JSP and Annex.

mbga9pgf

14th Oct 2006, 12:29

:ok: http://www.forcesfinancial.com/life/index.asp
Don 't forget you can claim back upto 90% of increased premium cost over a person in a normal lifestyle.
All details in the JPA JSP's with a claim form.
I'm not at work at the moment so can't give you the correct JSP and Annex.
Thanks very much.!!!

BEagle

17th Oct 2006, 08:25

An interesting article in this week's Flight at http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/10/17/Navigation/181/209971/UK+MoD+looks+to+fund+wing+upgrade+for+RAF+C-130Ks.html :

UK MoD looks to fund wing upgrade for RAF C-130Ks
By Craig Hoyle

Up to 10 transports will need refurbishment to reach planned out-of-service date

The UK Ministry of Defence must fund a refurbishment project for the outer wings of up to 10 of the Royal Air Force's 24 Lockheed Martin C-130Ks if the tactical transports are to achieve their planned out-of-service date, according to a new solicitation document released by the UK Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO).

Expected to be retired from 2010-12 and replaced by 25 Airbus Military A400Ms, the RAF's C-130K fleet entered service from 1966 and is currently employed supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Manufactured to Lockheed's C-130E standard, the type's outer wings underwent refurbishment by Marshall Aerospace in the 1970s, but the DLO says that "between five and 10 sets of wings now require further refurbishment to reach the aircraft out-of-service date". This stems from "an increased rate of outer wing fatigue experienced during recent operations," it adds.

The new work package is unrelated to an ongoing safety upgrade initiated following the combat loss of RAF C-130K XV179 over Iraq in January 2005. An undisclosed number of the UK's Hercules are being equipped with explosion-suppressant foam to prevent a fuel-air explosion should a fire affect their wing fuel tanks, and the first modified aircraft has already been returned to service. Conducted at Marshall Aerospace's Cambridge airport site for an estimated unit cost of £600,000 ($1.1 million), the work involves accessing the outer wing box area.

The DLO says: "The [outer wing box] work will include salvage and re-use of existing wing components such as flaps, leading edges and wing tips where possible." Secondhand and new wing boxes could also be acquired, it says. Expressions of interest are sought by 18 October from companies qualified to conduct the refurbishment. A formal invitation to tender will be issued around 20 November, with responses due by 20 December. The project will cost an estimated £20-100 million and take between 18-24 months to complete, the DLO says.

• Northrop Grumman will open a new diagnostic and engineering support centre in Chester, Cheshire late next month to provide enhanced in-country support for the directional infrared countermeasures equipment used to protect RAF transports, including the Boeing C-17 and Lockheed C-130K and TriStar.

Northrop says the measure will "increase responsiveness to support issues" which arise during the system's operational use.

Hang on a minute..... "An undisclosed number of the UK's Hercules are being equipped with explosion-suppressant foam....."

Why is this modification not being embodied on ALL Uk Hercules?

airborne_artist

17th Oct 2006, 08:37

mbga9pgf - check yr PMs re yr Q above.

nigegilb

17th Oct 2006, 13:39

Beags, I have established the current number of C130's programmed for foam (I think). The program is being paid for through UOR funding and so not all Hercs will get the conversion. I will not give a breakdown here, but I understand that every Herc currently earmarked for ops in Iraq and Afg will eventually get foam. The final figure is around 2/3rds of the fleet. Not bad when you consider that the original program was for 5 x airframes, but short of what many people, including the Defence Committee, would like to see.

Hope this helps.

nigegilb

17th Oct 2006, 20:01

FF I think the RAF and MoD response to fuel tank protection has been woeful. It is as though TWA 800 never happened. VC10s and Tri stars should be fitted with fuel tank protection as a matter of priority. The debate has turned to airliners in the US because military aircraft are considered to be highly vulnerable to fuel tank explosions and are already protected.

Bit of good news is armour for the VC10, 12 Oct 06. See below. More power to this thread.

Flight decks on the RAF’s 10 VC10 CMk1Ks air transport aircraft have been protected by a combination of steel and Kevlar armour.

Revealing Colours: a VC10 of 101 Squadron celebrates 40 years of continuous RAF service
The modification to the aircraft, which risk hostile fire from the ground when they fly into the Gulf area, has been completed through the Air Refuelling and Communications IPT.

Armour must defeat incoming fire and protect the aircrew but must not interfere with the safe operation and handling, including maintenance, of the aircraft. It must also be viable for the long term.

With these factors in mind, the VC10 branch of the IPT has carefully modified the inside of the flight deck. Armoured steel plating is installed under the floor, seating and forward bulkheads, with Kevlar tiles in sealed packs arranged in modular patterns to fit the arrangement of the flight deck and applied to the steel plating.

The armour provides more than 95 per cent protection against ground-based hostile fire and aircrews can vary the level of protection they carry according to need.

Gp Capt Peter Ewen, IPT leader, said:

“This critical operational requirement was carried out in very short order, and to excellent effect and at minimal cost. It’s a prime example of responsive support to front line customers.

“Such a requirement is a timely reminder of the seriousness of the operations being undertaken by our fleets.”

Chugalug2

17th Oct 2006, 21:27

Nige, FF is quite right. there has to be a complete shift in thinking in MOD policy. Peacetime programmes that take decades to implement in incremental packets, and which can be reduced, stopped or even put into reverse are totally inappropriate now that we are at war. Moreover we are at war as a direct result of the policy of this Government. If they now feel that the cost in lives and material is excessive then their policy was irresponsible and foolhardy. Either withdraw now and take the political fallout that follows or go all out to win. Any other course will be disastrous. As far as the subject of this thread is concerned, commit expenditure to protect ALL the AT fleet with ESF now, then go on by protecting every other operational aircraft in the UK military fleet using the appropriate technology. Start procuring off the shelf additions to the SH, AH and CAS fleets that can go straight into service without complex British mods! Attend to the urgent operational requirements of the other services as well. Stop the haemorrageing of manpower from the Forces by offering decent pay and conditions and a career that will not be cut short by the ever contracting effects of cuts. If any of this is out of the question then pull out now, otherwise payup!

nigegilb

19th Oct 2006, 07:59

Following the revelations that a Herc pilot made his own presentation to 47 Sqn outlining the urgent need to have foam fitted to SF Hercs in 2002 this PQ was asked.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were received by his Department concerning the vulnerability of the fuel tanks of Hercules aircraft prior to January 2005, with particular reference to (a) 47 Squadron in 2002 and (b) the period before and after the Falkland's war; and if he will make a statement. [92693]

Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Anyone know how to get the answer from the library?

philrigger

19th Oct 2006, 10:24

;)

Nigegilb

I have just found these pages, but the last reply is dated 4 Sep 06. No doubt the relevant questions/answers will appear in time.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm061018/indexes/dx61018.html#wa-1

and

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060904/index/60904-x.htm

'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'

nigegilb

19th Oct 2006, 10:44

Thanks, Phil, this is slightly unusual, 'til now Ingram has answered in the normal way. I am sure something will come my way, normally does!

chappie

22nd Oct 2006, 18:26

two things chaps and chapettes, we are very close to the petition being handed in to downing street, on tues in fact. keep an eye on the local media and national press etc. last check on the petition showed 2848 signatures.

i was recommended a very good and eye opening book about waste in the armed forces. it's by lewis page who is ex military and is called lions donkeys and dinosaurs which discusses waste and blundering in the armed forces. i have bought it and it's well worth a read.

the fight will continue for all hercules to be protected.

mary_hinge

22nd Oct 2006, 20:16

The foam fit might have also saved hard $$$$$$

How £1m bribe cash for Afghan warlords went up in smoke
A secret slush fund of more than £1million sent to Afghan-istan to bribe local warlords was destroyed when the Special Forces aircraft carrying it burst into flames as it came in to land.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411826&in_page_id=1770

Chugalug2

22nd Oct 2006, 21:47

two things chaps and chapettes, we are very close to the petition being handed in to downing street, on tues in fact. keep an eye on the local media and national press etc. last check on the petition showed 2848 signatures.
the fight will continue for all hercules to be protected.

Hi Chappie, I'll be looking out for you all on Tuesday, I hope it goes well for you. Do give our love to that nice Mr Bliar, I understand he's moving soon so perhaps we could all lend a hand! Despite all the lead time your petition has beaten into service the first Herc to be properly protected. That is a scandal and No10 needs to be told in no uncertain way how absolutely unacceptable that is. Maybe they are thinking of wrapping it with a ribbon and delivering it Christmas Eve! Good luck
Chug

On_The_Top_Bunk

22nd Oct 2006, 21:59

had flown in secrecy from Kabul, in what is termed a 'black operation',

Real james bond stuff

nigegilb

23rd Oct 2006, 17:35

Big day tomorrow for the families. I would like to wish you the very best of luck.

Crash families take protest to Number 10
Servicemen's relatives in safety call
Julie Hemmings
FAMILIES of servicemen killed when their aircraft was shot down over Iraq travel to Downing Street tomorrow to demand safety improvements which might have saved the lives of their loved ones.
Nearly two years after the Hercules crash which claimed the lives of nine British servicemen – four of them from Yorkshire – their families say protection for the aeroplane's fuel tanks has yet to be fitted to any Hercules, despite the aircraft's continuing use in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Richard and Pauline Stead, whose son, David, was captain of the aircraft, will travel from their Yorkshire home to hand in the 3,000-signature petition calling for explosion suppressant foam (ESF) to be installed in every aircraft in the Hercules fleet.
The move was recommended last December by the board of inquiry set up to investigate the crash, on January 30 last year, which was the single biggest loss of British forces in Iraq since the invasion began.
Flight Lieutenant David Stead, 35, a father of two from Burley-in-Wharfedale, died with all those on board – including Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, of Hull, Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith, born in Doncaster, and York-born Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson – when the Hercules C130K was hit by a missile north-west of Baghdad.
The petition, addressed to Prime Minister Tony Blair and Defence Secretary Des Browne, has been signed by serving and former armed forces personnel, as well as civilians.
It was organised by Sarah Chapman, whose brother, Sergeant Robert O'Connor, also died in the crash.
"From what we are led to understand, it seems there still isn't one Hercules in operation that is fitted and serviceable with ESF, and that these aircraft are still operating in theatre in areas of insurgency in both Iraq and Afghanistan," Mr Stead said.
In August an all-party Defence Committee backed the recommendation in a critical report about the under-equipping of British forces and demanded the MoD fits ESF to all Hercules planes.
The board of inquiry had heard the protective system was fitted on American, Australian and some European aeroplanes but had not been a priority for British aircraft.
The bereaved families believe this was for cost reasons and want to raise the matter at the forthcoming inquest into the men's deaths.
However, the MoD has refused to pay for their legal representation at the inquest, a decision which angered the families, particularly as the widow of an Australian serviceman, Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, also on board the Hercules, was automatically given legal representation by the Australian Air Force.
The other British servicemen killed in the crash were Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall, Chief Technician Richard Brown, Corporal David Williams and soldier Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones.
[email protected]
23 October 2006

flipster

23rd Oct 2006, 21:36

Chappie et al

Thinking of you - best of luck

Flip

kam

23rd Oct 2006, 21:53

I'm sending all my well wishes for you all today. Lets get ESF installed ASAP, the RAF community at Lyneham is close to my heart, it was our last and longest family home, we had our third baby here and so many cherished memories, so many good friends. You deserve better from the the MoD, the crew deserve better. As a very good friend of ours commented on the petition, RAAF installed this equipment rapidly (comparitively cheaply) and with no fuss, where is the will?
I tried to get some attention here for the cause and not too sure what kind of exposure will follow, the media can be a little unpredictable and do at times have other agendas, by the way I have not received any funding from the Aussie government!
George and Sarah say g'day to the big TB for me.
Kxx

nigegilb

24th Oct 2006, 08:13

Hercules' safety boost demanded

So far one Hercules has been fitted with ESF
Relatives of 10 RAF crew members shot down in a Hercules over Iraq are to present a petition calling for safety improvements to Downing Street.
The petition of 2,858 names demands the entire fleet of Hercules, based at Lyneham, Wiltshire, be fitted with explosive suppressant foam (ESF).

The families say ESF would have offered a greater chance of survival.

Link to full story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6079524.stm

BEagle

24th Oct 2006, 09:12

Good luck to nigegilb, chappie and to everyone else involved in the campaign.

May the outcome be favourable!

Shall be watching the TV news today....

FormerFlake

24th Oct 2006, 15:53

Channel 4 report online

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3701

BEagle

24th Oct 2006, 16:15

Also here on the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6079524.stm

Good coverage later on HTV West and BBC West as well!

flipster

24th Oct 2006, 22:49

Well done all - good to see wide media coverage - that keeps the pressure on the MoD.

However, the MoD are claiming that 2 ac are now fitted with ESF - a slight improvement, perhaps but still lamentably slow. This leads me to the following questions which are as yet unanswered :

1. Are the fuel tanks no longer leaking F34 and if so, are the ac 'operational' and in theatre?
2. If not, why not?
3. Are these 2 ac one J and one K, or 2 Ks?
4. If not a J, why not? I am informed they have been 'fragged' for ESF and, apparently, they are doing a lot of work in theatre - so shouldn't these ac be fitted along the same timeframe as the K?
4. By what date is ESF planned to be fitted to the rest of BOTH long-term fleets?

Any ideas?

flipster

nigegilb

29th Oct 2006, 07:48

It is being reported that we the crew of the nimrod died because of a fuel/air explosion in the fuselage. The explosion may have been caused by a fractured fuel pipe. This is terrible news but it highlights why this camapaign is so important. Over 50% of combat losses in Vietnam were reportedly caused by fuel/air explosions. In this case it looks as though the source of the explosion was the fuselage, so fuel tank protection might not have helped but it highlights the need for every Herc and every military aircraft to have this protection.

Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
Michael Smith

AN RAF Nimrod spy plane that crashed in Afghanistan last month killing all 14 men on board broke up in mid-air after a fractured fuel line set off explosions, an official inquiry has found.
The Nimrod MR2, which was providing intelligence for a Nato operation against Taliban fighters west of Kandahar, had just refuelled at 22,000ft.

Sources have disclosed that an RAF board of inquiry’s preliminary report has found that the fuel line fractured either as the Nimrod MR2 was being refuelled or shortly afterwards.

Fuel and vapour that leaked into the bottom of the fuselage then caught fire, possibly because of an electrical fault. Enemy fire has been ruled out as a cause.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2426971,00.html

chappie

30th Oct 2006, 20:26

i remember my heart stopping on the day of the nimrod crash. i know that the reality of deaths because of ac being flogged beyond their lifespan is all too real and hopefully my message to the government underlines the need for proper protection and equipment..as a basic in order to be adequate, not the best just adequate. i am in contact with nimrod families. i know through them and the media contacts that i have that these families are already speaking out about their concerns that had been voiced and ignored. how many more lives have to be ripped apart and destroyed.

i have had contact from no. 10 stating that i am to expect a letter from a minister from the MoD. now somehow i doubt very much it will be des browne. the man i initially placed the petition to as he continued to ignore me, it went to blair. his government, his to sort. they still fear the and ignore the fact that i have thrown down the gauntlet as it were and stated that i will meet with them.i await without baited breath at the staid, run of the mill response from the ministry. the pain still raw i'll continue to feel, the desperation at this situation part of every day. i have and wil continue to try my best for you alll, i only hope i do not fail /will not fail you.

Chugalug2

10th Nov 2006, 10:52

1. Are the fuel tanks no longer leaking F34 and if so, are the ac 'operational' and in theatre?
2. If not, why not?
3. Are these 2 ac one J and one K, or 2 Ks?
4. If not a J, why not? I am informed they have been 'fragged' for ESF and, apparently, they are doing a lot of work in theatre - so shouldn't these ac be fitted along the same timeframe as the K?
4. By what date is ESF planned to be fitted to the rest of BOTH long-term fleets?

Tomorrow is the 11th day of the eleventh month, and at eleven o'clock our thoughts once again are with those who have given their lives on our behalf. For an increasing number of loved ones every minute of every day is remembrance, and on this particular thread we are minded of the courageous and determined struggle being made by such a group to create the most meaningful and effective memorial to those who died together doing their duty. Not for them a cenotaph, war memorial or arbortorium, but the protection of the entire Hercules fleet with ESF, so that those who follow on stand a better chance. This should be a no brainer, but with awful inevitability this saga drags on. Weeks become months, become years. When we read of the speed and efficiency with which this has been done in the fleets of our US and Australian allies, I for one feel a sense of shame and anger. If anyone can answer Flipsters questions above can they do so? The silence is deafening!

chappie

10th Nov 2006, 11:18

thanks chugalug, i'm in the throws at the moment in trying to organise a weekend of rememberance for myself and my parents, although as you say every minute of every day is a remeberance. so far myself, my mum and my 5 yr old daughter (who's birthday it was when the crash happened ) are coming to london to have a moment of quiet reflection at the cenotaph for those lost and those of you who continue to fight the good fight day after day. on sunday we will go to our local military ceremony as a family and have a small ceremony. there will no doubt be tears a plenty but there will be laughter too, i am determind for that. thankyou all who continue to support and help you will all be in my thoughts and continue to stsy safe.

campaign update. there is none. i'm still waiting to hear from the unnamed face at whitehall upon bliars instruction. still the man cannot write to me despite the correspondence he has recieved and the fact that i've been at his door twice now. i am afraid that this has gone as far as it can go, but i don't want them to feel as though they have won. i recently did a tribute to bob on news 24. i recieved the dvd today and with it a letter. it sasid that the head of the bbc news, huw edwards, and various editors and producers were moved to tears after seeing it. i plan to send a copy of that letter and the dvd to blair to see what if anything he has to say then. i just need help in copying the dvd. is there anyone who can help?
it was suggested the other day that we ought to approach the parents of those who still fly on the hercules to add more power and a stronger voice behind the campaign. i think this is a very good idea, can any of you help? is there anything that you need doing that has not been done yet? please tell me.

inquest update....there is none! well except that we have been contacted by the solicitor to say that the coroner has requested a list of clients as he may do a pre inquest review which indicates that the case is of more significant complexity than is presented. this i think can only be good. it's not as cut and dried as the MoD are deluding themselves into. it never was!

nigegilb

10th Nov 2006, 12:48

Hi guys,

Still here monitoring the situation. The 2nd Herc was due recently, so far 2xK models. The Js should be coming on stream as well. I don't think there is any particular order, as they go into Marshalls they get fixed up. I have been assured that the pace of fitment will pick up over the coming weeks, something like 2/3rds of the entire fleet will be fitted with ESF.

The Swindon Coroner only received the file from the MoD in July he has indicated that he will announce a date for the Inquest just as soon as he can. He has not received any extra money from the Govt unlike the Oxford Coroner. He would not say if the Inquest will be heard before Christmas.

On the whole pretty good news, there is a possibility of a second line to fit ESF don't know if anything else has been done on that front recently. I really think that if AOC 2 Gp and the MoD would be more open with the program people would be much happier. I have been assured that there is a big push behind this program, unfortunately there is very little info being released to the public.

Chappie maybe you could post your CD on You tube??

A final thought for the Nimrod crew. It has been reported that this ac was brought down by a fuel fire/explosion. Nimrod aircrew contacted me earlier in the year with concerns about a lack of fuel tank protection on their ac. If we can help in any way would be glad to do so.

flipster

10th Nov 2006, 16:58

Nige,

Thanks for the update......slow progress would be an understatement!!!

" Beggars cannot be choosers" is, perhaps, an apt quote?

Have they stopped the fuel leaks?

Flip

I am sure many other fleets are similarly under-protected. One hopes their IPTs (Integrated Project Teams) are thinking very carefully.

Chugalug2

10th Nov 2006, 17:35

Nige, many thanks for the update from me as well. If it wasn't for your special knowledge of this issue and the developments that occur (albeit painfully slowly), we'd all be in the dark! Let us hope that the rate does indeed pick up. Keep up the good work, and when this programme is complete your role as principle catalyst should be acclaimed by all!

Chappie, all our thoughts will be with you, your family, and all the other families, on this special weekend! It will be painful and raw, I am sure. But as you say, time also for a smile, even a laugh, as you all bear witness to the very humanity of those you have lost. Be strong, as always. You are an inspiration to everyone!

herkman

11th Nov 2006, 20:27

A member of the RAF, has posted on the C130 Hercules Headquarters web site.

On his airplane at least, which is operating you know where, they carry a spare wheel, which is a sound idea, but the RAF has run out of jacks, which would enable him to change this.

This means that the airplane and its crew, is faced with great risk of being damaged or worst, whilst they borrow the gear to change a wheel.

He is threatening to use his government credit card, to overcome the problem.

For crying out, do the situations get out of control.

Col

PS cost of jack is $6000, cost of airplane and or crew, well who can really figure the true costing.

November4

12th Nov 2006, 03:40

Chippenham war memorial has been refurbished and was rededicated on the 11 Nov. 5 extra names have been added to the lis. One of the additons is

http://www.ukmams.co.uk/ChipWarMem.jpg

StopStart

12th Nov 2006, 15:08

Herkman. All the hercs on ops have the full wheel change kit including a jack.

The poster on the HercHQ is on exercise in the States.

:rolleyes:

BEagle

12th Nov 2006, 15:36

Clearly nowhere nice - or they would have needed to change a wheel by now.....

Reminds me of a Vulcan which went tits up in Hickalulu with a hydraulic snag. Crew was told to wait for some more of Auntie Betty's finest reserve special Cold War hydraulic fluid to be sent out on a DAC flight from the UK.....

They didn't query the signal, just waited.....and waited....

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

13th Nov 2006, 07:37

Hello all, hello Herkman, that's me on the C130 Hercules website.

Stop Start thanks for clarifying that matter.....

and fondest regards from me on a States trip, (Capped Actuals)

Haven't used the credit card yet, trying to work out how to fiddle a receipt for a ride on lawnmower. :}

nigegilb

15th Nov 2006, 09:17

Don't know if I am raising false hope here, but just received this intriguing answer from Ingram.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to use Hercules aircraft which have not been fitted with (a) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [57160]

Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence policy is to offer our aircraft, crews and passengers a level of protection commensurate with the risk of the operational tasking. For aircraft, this involves a mix of threat mitigation measures, which can include defensive aids. It is, nevertheless, an inescapable fact that operational flying can never be a risk free activity.

With respect to Hercules aircraft, or indeed any other aircraft, I am not prepared to disclose specific details of defensive aid fitment as this might prejudice the operational security of our armed forces.

I announced on 18 April this year that we will be fitting some of our Hercules aircraft with explosion suppressant foam. I can now say that two aircraft have been fitted with explosion suppressant foam, and the programme continues as planned to fit the remaining aircraft.

It is the usual guff, but the very last sentence refers to fitting foam to the remaining aircraft. Not sure if he means the remaining aircraft on the program or the whole fleet. There have been no announcements to suggest that the whole fleet will get foam but an awful lot of pressure has been applied. Not from James Gray it has to be said...

I will make some enquiries and try and clarify the situation.

Chugalug2

16th Nov 2006, 17:56

Hercules Aircraft

It is the usual guff, but the very last sentence refers to fitting foam to the remaining aircraft. Not sure if he means the remaining aircraft on the program or the whole fleet. There have been no announcements to suggest that the whole fleet will get foam but an awful lot of pressure has been applied. Not from James Gray it has to be said...

I will make some enquiries and try and clarify the situation.

It is indeed the usual guff, Nige. If hot air alone could provide explosion protection, there would be sufficient to fill every fuel tank in every aircraft in every fleet in the world, and from Mr Ingram alone! He surely means the remaining aircraft in the programme as planned, ie max 2/3 of the fleet. That may seem like munificence beyond the wildest of dreams to him and his cohorts, but falls far short of what is required, the fitting of ESF to ALL Hercules other than those to be imminently retired from the RAF. That is what the families demand and what is already provided in the fleets of the USAF and RAAF. And that is just for starters. The other transport, helicopter and MAR fleets must have similar protection and soon! The well rehearsed techniques of talking a lot and doing very little may have served Mr Ingram, et al, well in their climb up the slippery pole of politics, but is totally inappropriate and unacceptable when the lives of our brave service men and women are at stake. As has already been poignantly stated by a bereaved NOK, she could accept his loss as a result of enemy action alone, but not if it was due to a technical defect that could have been avoided. Until ESF is fitted, the loss of any aircraft without it will mean the bereaved have to contemplate that dreadful possibility. Hence the urgent need to fit this basic protection now!

nigegilb

16th Nov 2006, 18:34

Chug, I have heard enough guff from this man to last a lifetime, but I am checking it out all the same time. I won't be bothering with my local MP James Gray, I have asked another MP to make an enquiry on my behalf. I am sure the MoD would be very embarrassed if they had to explain why all the fleet now needed foam. Remember the original plan was for 5 ac.

Further good news RE. A400M. I understand that funding has now been approved for the DAS and positive pressure gas inerting system for the whole fleet. That is what I think is happening anyway.

I absolutely agree with your comments about fuel tank protection for all military aircraft. We have lost 4 aircraft in recent months. All to explosions of one form or another, who knows how many might have been saved by fuel tank protection, American research suggests 50% of combat losses are caused by fuel tank explosions.

Thanks again for the support of everyone.

228 OCU

16th Nov 2006, 19:54

I wish you every sucess in your quest, but having had 14 years in blue I can't help thinking that the "Tombstone Imperative" is going to play a very large part.

mbga9pgf

16th Nov 2006, 20:10

Chug, I have heard enough guff from this man to last a lifetime, but I am checking it out all the same time. I won't be bothering with my local MP James Gray, I have asked another MP to make an enquiry on my behalf.
.

I wouldnt worry too much about James Gray. Looking at the news before, it looks as if his political career is potentially coming to somewhat of an abrupt end... coverage before on points west.

nigegilb

16th Nov 2006, 20:14

Ah yes the deselection vote. If anyone would like to send a comment to the constituency chairman I have his email....somewhere. If and when the vote is announced I am sure someone will post it here......fingers crossed.

228 OCU I am not sure what the Tombstone Imperative is, care to expand?

Sounds like film noir.

228 OCU

16th Nov 2006, 20:23

Put simply.
Changes are only implemented when the £/$ cost of compensation and/or bad publicity exceeds the cost of modification.

nigegilb

16th Nov 2006, 20:35

Can't say I disagree with that. We have already achieved a great deal. The final battle is probably gaining acceptance that all military aircraft going harms way should have fuel tank protection. It is tricky for the MoD because it will be costly to fit retrospectively. However by nature of the fact that MoD appears to have agreed a fleet wide fit of fuel tank protection and DAS to the A400M, (another change of mind). I am increasingly confident that we will not see future aircraft procured without some form of fuel tank protection. We are approx 40 years behind the Americans on this.
Keep an eye out for the BoI report on XV206, should be an interesting read. The foam pays for itself very quickly. The fact that Ministers have been placed on legal notice could make it a very expensive court case. Shame you have to involve lawyers, but very effective.

flipster

23rd Nov 2006, 21:30

Damning report on the Beeb tonight. Still reporting only 2 Hercs fitted with ESF so far. Not enough and only one of many AT fleets.

The report also mentions the nightmare scenario of a troop-laden AT ac going down with all hands. That is something that some of us having warning against for years, yet there are rumours that 'they' keep sending ac in broad daylight to hot areas; some ac without any decent protection.

My thoughts are with the crews and, to a certain extent, the local commanders who have to authorise such sorties when they know there is little they can do, other than to possibly fall on their swords in the certain knowledge that someone will step over their dead bodies and tell the crews to 'do as they are told' anyway.

It needn't have been like this however.

Chugalug2

24th Nov 2006, 12:02

FF, you will have noted the immediate reaction this fantastic news has triggered from people who are fervent about getting ESF fitted to the Herc fleet. Zilch! Now why ever should that be? Bliar and his cohorts have been left in no doubt about the woeful state of our armed forces, and the clapped out and inappropriate equipment with which they have to accomplish ever more difficult tasks, mostly at the direct behest of said Bliar and cohorts! So having been brought to task by serving and exmembers of the Armed Forces, other politicians, members of the House of Lords, broadcasters and newspapers, and most important of all the families of those who have been lost, all of whom share the same determination that the fitting of Explosion Suppressant Foam to the fuel tanks of the Herc Fleet (and every other unprotected British Military Aircraft) is as much a no brainer as putting insulation in your loft, he disingenuously asks for suggestions?
I think that Bliar is moving up in his fantasy world from UK President to that of King Emperor, with subjects from the far flung reaches of his domain coming as supplicants for his largesse. But if that is the price of getting on with this at some speed other than Dead Slow, go for it and anything else that will get things moving!

flipster

24th Nov 2006, 14:56

"Ground crews are working flat-out trying to keep the aircraft operational but often they are grounded because of serious faults, BBC correspondent Paul Wood reported."

I wonder why the engineers are working flat out?

Something to do with being too 'lean' and there being not enough bods on the hangar floor to stand still let alone catch up?

My thoughts are with all you engineering-type folk.

To any sensible senior officer out there...... is it any wonder the engineers are squealing - if not actually PVR-ing? For Goodness sake, wake up and smell the coffee....please!

The troops on the ground (and hence the crews) need properly defended ac - all of them and damn quick!

kam

24th Nov 2006, 23:24

I find this all depressing. I've heard the 'opertional flying is never risk free' and 'unlucky' scenario before. These conclusions will always result in narrow minded, uninspiring changes and solutions.
After a few drinks with a friend, we decided that sexed up flying without the foreplay is eventually unsatisfactory. This is not a criticism of crews but perhaps the admirable 'can do' phenonema has been exploited by the senior ranks and the MOD. Something is very wrong at this interface, unrealistic expectations has devastating outcomes.
Going to take my platypus's to the pool now and cool down.

chappie

25th Nov 2006, 10:41

there is no way that we'll ever know the truth, but there is hope with the confusion about how many that will be fitted. i have heard from a source that all planes will be fitted. this is great news but nonetheless to be treated with some caution as some people think that having all the J class hercs done qualifies such a statement.

i am so sorry that i have been away from the page but thanks to the troublesome pregnancy i have spent my time in hospital. bump is well, mum is not. i'm still thinking of you all. i am to date waiting for the letter from the faceless minister from the MoD. methiks i have got to let the world know about the ignorant stance the government have taken to the nearly three thousand signatures supporting the call for foam.

take care. stay safe.

Chugalug2

25th Nov 2006, 12:54

Chappie, as ever a pleasure to hear from you again. So sorry that you are not well, please take very good care of yourself and 'bump', you are going to have so much to tell him/her in years to come! Coincidentally I watched your BBC interview where you paid tribute to your brother. Very emotional of course, but beneath that a steely determination to ensure that your campaign to see ESF is fitted to ALL aircraft in the Hercules fleet (as well as the others!) really comes through. Well done, it was the first time that I had seen it, and your passion and emotion, not only for your brother and his comrades, but for all the other boys and girls, who as you say deserve a better chance than they had, really says far far more than all the technical and financial appraisals ever could. This isn't complicated, we need to protect our aircraft in the same way that others have done for over forty years, and as quickly as possible. In the meantime could those who task our AT missions ensure that the various VIP photo opportunity tours are flown in the tasked unprotected airframes and that said VIPs know it!

chappie

5th Dec 2006, 20:49

hello one and all, just to let you know that i have checked my earlier info about all the hercs being fitted. i can tell you a well placed source has confirmed what i had been told about all the hercs being done. THEY ARE!!!!! WHO EVER THINKS THAT THEY ARE TOO SMALL TO TAKE ON THE WORLD AND MAKE CHANGES NEEDS TO HAVE FAITH!

i still have not had a letter from the MoD or blair, so i need to chase that up. i have been distracted with the baby. i found out the sex today but there is a problem so i've got to get checked next week. therefore i have alot of emotions and anxieties i can use to fuel my response to the government. i predicted the government would ignore the petition and though i have not had correspondence i found the news out about all being done after the petition had been handed in! who knows maybe i have managed to bring about change.

flipster

6th Dec 2006, 10:22

Well done Chappie

Hope all goes well with bump - this is not an easy time for prospective Mums and Dads and we are all thinking of you. Keep smiling.:) :) :)

Re ESF - the rumours are good but the reality of fitment is still too slow in my books. The politicians should not need reminding that they are on notice for corporate manslaughter if the unthinkable happens again.

If I were you, I would not expect to get any official communiques from the weasly politicos (nor from the official top brass) that imply that your actions and/or petitions have, in any way, influenced the decision to fit ESF. However, we all know differently!

As they say

"Doing this job is like wetting yourself in a dark suit; you get a warm feeling but no-one notices"

It is such a pity that greiving families and retired servicemen/women have had to raise the issue at all. If the MoD
bean-c(o)unters had any morals or sense of duty, then we wouldn't have needed to start the crusade in the first place!

While I won't be celebrating with champange until all of our ac are fitted, I think that those guys and girls still serving on the AT fleet owe you a huge debt of gratitude and I hope I am not alone in offering my own vote of thanks to yourself and, of course, to Nige. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D : :ok: :ok:

Keeping the Faith

Flip

nigegilb

6th Dec 2006, 10:28

Chappie, well well well, looks like we did it. You obviously have friends in high places because I have not been able to confirm the news. I have heard it whispered that a fleet fit of foam has become a necessity, but the weasles at the MoD have made no such statement. Way back at the beginning of all this it was implied that foam would not necessarily have made a difference, then, after concerted pressure from us, John Reid admitted that foam could have saved the boys. I have believed all along that they would have been with us today but for the lack of foam protection and now it looks as though this has been acknowledged by the actions of the MoD and RAF. I still want to be absolutely certain though. I will try my own sources again. If is is true, it may well have a bearing on the Inquest. The only thing that remains is for the families to have a full and frank opportunity to look into what happened at the Inquest. I hope that will happen soon. ( I understand February is the earliest date).

I understand that the BoI for XV 206 is complete and is with MoD lawyers, they appear to be hanging on to the report. I hope that the MoD and RAF now come to their collective senses and agree to fit fuel tank protection to all military aircraft.

Well done to one and all, a truly fabulous effort.

Cheers Flip, having seen your rather remarkable evidence sent to the Defence Committe, I think a pat on the back is well in order. If my eyes were watering after reading that letter Lord only knows what CAS must have made of it. :ok:

flipster

6th Dec 2006, 22:36

Nice of you to say so but I am just a small cog in the machine. Without the dedication and foresight of you two, the machine would have remained in pieces on the garage floor.

Chugalug2

6th Dec 2006, 23:05

Chappie, Nige, Flipster, you are all star players in this campaign! But as Nige says no one in the corridors of power is going to go on record and say "we were wrong, and you were right all along". Only when the entire Herc Fleet has been fitted with ESF will that essentially be the case.
I'm afraid that in the meantime words are cheap, and butter no parsnips! So keep up the pressure, never relent, especially when you are assured that everything that you have demanded will happen! The name of this game is protected airframes back in service, and as far as I know that is now two, though correct me if I am wrong. That is just not good enough, and this programme needs more priority, and more through-put. As has been said before, if UK plc can't manage it, then give it to someone who can!

flipster

7th Dec 2006, 09:20

Chug

Absolutely spot on!!!!

Flip

"Butter no parsnips"????? I've not heard that one before!

flipster

7th Dec 2006, 09:52

Nige,

BOI has been finished for quite a while but, as you say, it is floating about at high levels at the moment. I can only imagine that the senior bods are trying to do anything to ensure that the BOI should not mention ESF.

That would be a mistake. If the BOI says nowt about ESF we will all know that the BOI has been tampered with.

To my knowledge, the shrapnel from the initial bang on XV 206 caused no further wing-fuel explosions (as in XV179), so ESF might not have stopped the destruction of the XV206 but ESF might have slowed down the spread of the fire a little?

However, the crew of 206 were exceptionally lucky that they escaped with their lives. Had the initial explosion happened at a more inopportune time, say at a high speed in the T/O roll, at night or had there been further wing fuel explosions (which ESF would have prevented) then the outcome might have been very different.

The only reasons why the BOI might say that 'ESF wouldn't have helped' are because there were no secondary bangs or becasue the first mine/explosion was too big for ESF to be effective. If so, this would raise some even more serious questions about force protection/strip protection/inspection ie how did something so big go un-noticed on/near the strip? Perhaps the lawyers need to think about that?

It is arguable either way but I could almost guarantee you that the original findings of the BOI will be massaged. To anyone with half a brain, that will be a bit of a cop out. ESF MIGHT not have helped 206 but in slightly different circumstances, ESF would definitely be a help not a hindrance and should definitely be fitted to all tactical AT (and SH) ac operating close to the enemy - ie everywhere!

Of course, I may be wrong and the BOI will recommend fitting of ESF asap (along with a whole host of other recommendations). We will have to wait and see!

nigegilb

7th Dec 2006, 10:50

Flip it is very dificult to comment from a few phots. Unfortunately the locals removed a fair amount of evidence. There is a crater in the strip behind the aircraft, which suggests it was a mine. I understand it is not possible to land short on that strip so the crater could not have gone unnoticed if it was there before the Hercules landed. The last I heard, there was some debate about what sort of ground attack was made on the ac. There was also talk about refuelling lines being involved. It certainly looks like a fuel explosion on the photos. Remember the foam prevents an explosion but not necessarily a fire. There was little in the way of fire protection on the strip, which makes it even more important to have the fuel tanks protected. I am with you, I reckon foam would have bought time and may even have prevented the destruction of the ac. The lawyers have had it for ages. I hope the findings will be announced before the Inquest starts. Then of course, we await the BoI into the Nimrod crash, which also involved fuel. This is a no brainer, Chug is right to point out that the tardiness in all this, how many more people need to die?

nigegilb

7th Dec 2006, 11:33

I am afraid I have just received this information;

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the time scale is for the programme to fit explosion suppressant foam to Hercules aircraft; how many aircraft will be fitted with the foam; and if he will make a statement. [103107]

Mr. Ingram: The majority of the RAF’s C-130 Hercules fleet will be fitted with explosion suppressant foam (ESF). On current plans the programme will be completed by the end of next year.

I am withholding the precise number of C-130 Hercules aircraft that will be fitted with ESF as disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the security of the UK’s armed forces.

I understand around 2/3 rds of the fleet will be fitted out, as opposed to the original plan of 5. This answer came in today, so over to you Chappie. Interesting time frame though. There must be a significant acceleration in the program. I would also agree with Ingram that the security of the minority of Hercules ac not fitted with foam will be prejudiced.

Chugalug2

7th Dec 2006, 13:00

Well that little reprieve didn't last long did it boys and girls? Mr Ingram and chums are masters at misinformation, and make Sir Humphrey seem a paragon of truth and openness. The important thing is to keep banging on and on to get the entire fleet protected and quickly. Let them play their games of good cop bad cop, we have to see this through until the fat lady sings, and they haven't even announced her yet!

BEagle

7th Dec 2006, 13:12

The 'majority' of the fleet could technically mean 1 more than 50%...

Disgraceful. What percentage of US and RAAF C130s are fitted with ESF and what makes the UK so different?

Another morale boosting idea from the mad MoD box!

tucumseh

7th Dec 2006, 14:08

I’m sure this has been said before, but introducing a mixed fleet (some with, some without ESF) is a false economy for any number of reasons – none of which are remotely understood by the beancounting lamebrains who make these decisions. This is not a palletised mod that can be removed and fitted on another tail number in five minutes. It effectively creates in-theatre and out-of-theatre fleets. Seen this before on RW – the fleet management issues were horrendous. Who’d like to be the guy making the decision to send a non-ESF a/c into theatre? Finally, and this may be arguable, but I know at least one aircraft DA who would think the differences in build standard, safety and use that will arise from this decision so fundamental that they’d want the ESF a/c to be a different Mark/Designation.

From Def Stan 05-123...

Mark number changes are made as a result of major equipment installation changes which alter the performance or operational use of the aircraft or otherwise result in its segregation in Service.

nigegilb

7th Dec 2006, 14:49

100% US fleet not sure where the Aussies are on the program, but I think they are aiming for 100%, maybe our Aus contributors could confirm?

Tuc, I absolutely agree and we all know that when push comes to shove poorly equipped ac are sent into theatre, period. A mixed fleet is not smart because it reduces flexibility in an already over-stretched AT fleet, (witness the problems on the Tri Star). MoD could make a pledge not to send these ac in, but who would believe them? I understand that the day after the BoI was announced in Parliament the RAF requested that the entire fleet be given foam protection. I may now have to verify that statement, if it is true, then someone somewhere along the line has said no.

nigegilb

7th Dec 2006, 15:55

Apologies PM box open again

flipster

7th Dec 2006, 23:25

I understand that the day after the BoI was announced in Parliament the RAF requested that the entire fleet be given foam protection. I may now have to verify that statement, if it is true, then someone somewhere along the line has said no.

Didn't the PM himself say that

"Whatever the Services need, they will get. All they have to do is ask"????

Well, Tony...............................?

mary_hinge

8th Dec 2006, 07:19

Parker to inert Airbus fuel tanks, includes the A400M

Airbus has selected Parker Aerospace to provide fuel tank inerting systems on a large percentage of its product line, starting in 2009.

The contract, which could exceed $500 million over the life of the program, comes in anticipation of impending European Aviation Safety Agency and US FAA rules next March that will require manufacturers or airlines to incorporate flammability reduction or ignition mitigation measures to prevent fuel tanks from exploding under certain conditions.

The proposed rule, issued by the FAA last November, was spawned by several high profile center fuel tank explosions, most notably TWA 800, a Boeing 747 that disintegrated in midair in 1996.

The Parker system uses air separation modules to inject nitrogen-rich air into the aircraft’s center fuel tank, reducing the flammability of fuel vapor in the tank. Airbus is planning to use the system on factory built A320 family aircraft, A330, A340 and A400M military transports.

If the FAA rule is implemented as written, the existing fleet will also have to be modified in total by 2014. That work is not included in the current contract.

Parker has a separate contract with Airbus for inerting systems for the A380 freighter, though no customers have ordered an aircraft with center tank option, says a Parker spokeswoman.

Boeing is planning to implement similar safeguards. Honeywell, in partnership with Parker, has FAA certification for a nitrogen inerting system that Boeing plans to install in its factory-built 737, 747 and 777 aircraft line starting next year. Boeing is incorporating a nitrogen generator built by Hamilton Sundstrand in its 787.

nigegilb

8th Dec 2006, 07:44

Simple stunning facts. The commercial aviation world cracks on a pace ahead of any legislation. I assume the military will ask for a waiver for the next 20 years whilst it gets its ducks in a row. Remember, before we started our little campaign, UK MoD was the only European outfit NOT to have ordered fuel tank protection on A400M. It still has not officially done so yet, but you heard it here first.

flipster

8th Dec 2006, 21:27

Another good reason to be flying civilian ac rather than military ones????

N Joe

8th Dec 2006, 22:32

Gents

I realise that the comments regarding the BOI for XV206 are little more than an aside to the main discussion on this thread but I still take issue with them on two fronts:

Firstly, many of the so-called facts that you have “heard” about the loss of XV206 and the subsequent BOI are pure speculation (at best). PPRUNERS are rightly quick to condemn media speculation as to the causes of accidents. Surely then, we too should refrain from similar speculation in open forum (no matter how well-informed we may believe that we are).

Secondly, Flipster makes numerous comments doubting the integrity of the BOI, culminating in “I could almost guarantee you that the original findings of the BOI will be massaged. To anyone with half a brain, that will be a bit of a cop out”. These comments are not only an insult to the integrity of those involved in the BOI, but also imply a total lack of appreciation of how a BOI is actually conducted. The Board’s responsibility is to determine the cause and any other relevant factors and then make recommendations. They report in full to the AOC and to other agencies as required; those that need to see the reports to better carry out their duties will see it. Just because the full findings are not necessarily released for the chattering classes to discuss on PPRUNE does not mean that the findings have been “tampered with” or are a “cop out”. That said, the Board can do little about whether their recommendations are subsequently actioned. If it is subsequently decided not to action any particular recommendation, I would suggest that you direct your contempt at whoever makes that decision rather than at those involved in the original BOI.

N Joe

nigegilb

8th Dec 2006, 23:04

N Joe,
Thanks for the reminder. I have never criticised the Board of Inquiry for XV179, in fact they did a fantastic job in pressing circumstances. What is unusual about XV206 is the vivid series of photos taken as the ac landed on the strip. You can hardly expect people not to comment on the likely cause. The regular contributors to this thread are firm believers in fuel tank protection so I hope you understand where we are coming from. Unusually I know some of the people on this BoI, I hasten to add I have not spoken to them about the incident, I do though, have absolute faith that they have carried out their duty diligently. I would like to add that I do not like to post hearsay and that if I have posted something here it is for good reason. You must forgive some of us who are somewhat cynical about other aspects about the CoC. I am sure Flip will answer your other points directly.

Nige

flipster

9th Dec 2006, 08:15

N Joe

Feeling a little sensitive; got something to hide?

Joking aside, you are right; of course I don't know the full facts.......but those photos are fairly powerful images and everyone can make their own conclusions.

While this is a rumour-site, I apologise if I sound like I am pre-judging the BOI. Certainly, I am not and I, also, try to discount hearsay.

Nige is correct, however; the integrity of the BOI members is not in question. Although we know most of the people very well, not one word has been spoken about the BOI (neither have we asked). The BOI members are beyond reproach and have done an exceptional job in exceptional circumstances, as did the XV179 BOI.

We all know how the BOI process is meant to work, but unfortunately, it is often the case that the higher echelons stick in their grubby little noses for face-saving, political, legal or even personal reasons; it is not unheard of for AOCs to pre-brief BOI Presidents to come to a particular conclusion or even to get BOIs 'rewritten'. I do not doubt that this has happened in past and it has been part of the higher-level political process which, of course, all higher level staff officers deny. However, I am not saying that this happened to XV179 BOI nor yet in XV206, . (This is especially so with the current AOC, who seems to be quite level-headed - but his seniors may not be so sensible?) I was postulating that, should the AOC-approved BOI 'findings' not mention ESF, then we will suspect that the original BOI findings will have been grossly censored for purely political reasons (their airships/lawyers could hide behind 'security implications' but the amount of detail released in the public 179 BOI sets a precedent).

Ultimately, this is all conjecture and I suggest we wait for the findings to be made public; I will not comment further on the outcome of the BOI.

Flipster

kam

9th Dec 2006, 10:22

To answer your question Nige, there is about 18 (maybe more) out of the 24 RAAF Hercs, that have ESF.
When it comes to safety and sporting standards...what can I say?

nigegilb

9th Dec 2006, 10:32

Thanks Kam, I know that the RAAF made a pledge a couple of years ago not to send Aus Hercs sausage side without the protection of ESF. This is certainly an option for our MoD, as a compromise. Well it would be an option but for the fact that hardly any RAF Hercs have been fitted out yet. I have to say I am sceptical about the time period announced by Ingram. Any engineers care to comment? Ingram is the king of Guff.

By the way Kam, when Monty is selected we will whip your ass you know!!??

Cutting along.......

kam

9th Dec 2006, 10:52

Do you mean the 'Monty' who failed to take a wicket against the WA Warriors (a state\county team) today! Or 'Monty' as in Python ...not even that could make the English side more of a joke than they already are!!!

kam

9th Dec 2006, 11:16

and for my last comments about the cricket...who cares how he runs? He has claimed the best figures in World Cup history with an amazing 7-15! Now get on with stirring people in politics and uniforms!!!

John Blakeley

9th Dec 2006, 18:44

N Joe,

If you want to see a massaged BoI read that for ZD 576 (Mull of Kintyre) and see if you can miss the join - especially in the Stn Cdrs' comments.

In 1972 I was the engineering member of a BoI into a Buccaneer Crash en-route to the Paris Air Show. Without going into details the AOC did not like the original findings so we started again with a new Wg Cdr President and Sqn Ldr pilot - I was left on it and had two trips to Paris so no complaint there. With the AOC's help we got it right the next time. Not massaging perhaps but definitely a case of trying again until the appreciation had been situated.

Later as President of Unit Inquiry I was told by the Gp Capt Staff Officer who briefed me what the findings were to be before I had even been appointed! I refused to accept the Inquiry on this basis and he backed down - I did not find what he wanted, but he still managed to get the Sqn Ldr he was after to resign.

No the system is/was definitely clean!!!

JB

tucumseh

10th Dec 2006, 11:40

I’m not sure what’s worse, John’s experience or withholding relevant information from the BOI, conveniently “losing” files or trying to pin the blame on someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The majority of MoD contracts simply list the responsible post, but when it comes to airworthiness/type approval the postholder is named. I learned two valuable lessons very early. Given the number of people in MoD who consider maintaining airworthiness and safety a waste of money, you ALWAYS keep detailed personal records of your meetings and decisions – don’t rely on the minutes being placed/retained in files. And when someone tries to shaft you, or lies to you, record ALL subsequent conversations. These lessons served me well when they tried to pin a fatal GW2 accident on me. They got the shock of their lives when I produced minutes that didn’t exist. Still don’t know if BOI ever got to see them. I wonder how many reports are based on incomplete evidence. John mentioned one – Mull of Kintyre.

N Joe

10th Dec 2006, 12:57

N Joe
Feeling a little sensitive; got something to hide?
Flipster

NO!!!!

Seriously, thanks for the responses. Horrified to hear JB's stories. Glad that the inquiries that I've been involved in have not suffered the from the same meddling.

N Joe

flipster

10th Dec 2006, 13:38

N Joe

You are one of the lucky ones but as you are now aware, some guys haven't been so fortunate. Fingers crossed, recent BOIs may be more like the ones with which you have been involved.

Regrettably, high-level politics do happen and that makes me really mad! :yuk: :yuk: Sad senior bods pulling rank, ignoring the hard graft of relatively junior officers on the BOI and/or playing with our lives or those of our comrades ........grrrrrrrrrrrrrr:mad: :mad:

Keep the faith

Flip

flipster

10th Dec 2006, 17:44

Just T O

Of course I know who is on the BOI and if you look closely I haven't for one minute criticised, him or any of my other friends. I don't have a right to citicise nor would I want to; quite the reverse, actually!

All I am saying is that 'star'-level officers have, in the past, stuck in their noses and have tied the hands of some BOIs (and their presidents). Sadly, as has been long-suspected, BOIs are sometimes only pawns in the higher political agme. While JBs and Tucs are not the only BOIs to have been interfered with, I am sure that the 179 BOI was free from undue outside interest. I am sure we all hope that the 206 BOI is similiarly unimpeded.

Meddlers and politicians keep away!

flip

ps I'm not one for xmas cards anyway

Happy Chrimbo - hope you spend it at home with your family and not in the desert!

chappie

11th Dec 2006, 23:41

hi, one and all! the bump returns! bigger and a girl! found out last week, so much for my so called instinct that it is a boy.

i have had two letters, both long awaited...from des browne and re the inquest!

it is looking like there is going to be the pre inquest review held in trowbridge in february 07. the pre inquest review is due to the fact that it is felt that the case is of signifcant complexity than first thought. take that and make of it what you will. i'll be sure to keep you posted!

des browne...has sent me the long awaited reponse tot he petition and my hassling of him! interesting that blairs office stated that a minister from the MoD would be writing to me...i was expecting some minion not the secretary state of defence, as pleased as i am that he has finally put pen to paper. i wonder if he knows that blair describes him in such a non descript way!

more importantly, the content of the letter.
blah, blah, hot air etc!three ac have been fitted and we have a demanding schedule in place to fit the rest over the coming months! as outlined by CAS we are fitting ESF to all those ac that operate in the highest threat environment and which most conseqently most at risk from the formed attack that caused XV179 to crash. these ac are fitted with a range of defensive measures, as well as other systems to provide a level of protection in proportion to the threat faced. not all of our hercules ac, however, operate within this threat environment and indeed some are not deployed to operations at all.
we are not aware of the past requests for ESF outlined in your letter to the PM, but we would of course be happy to recieve copies of any documents that you have in order to understand, and llearn letters from the circumstances of any such request and the decisions taken at the time.
in march this year we contracted marshalls aerospace to undertake work to fit the majority of our hercules ac with ESF.

the info from the letter is in no particular order, nonetheless, that is the official line. what can you class as a majority of the fleet, i would think that the number can be interpreted differently. we all know that the ac have huge demands placed on them and in some cases are at the on their last legs and are prone to breakdown. so a protected plane in operation breaks down and we need a new ac. the demands on the fleet is high and so that the only plane available is an unprotected one. what's going to happen, a crew are going to be left stranded as there is only ac minus foam and it can't possibly go to the high threat area, or you are going to send in the said ac and it will be shot at, then come down and BoI / repeated history here we come. i keep hearing from those in high places how bob was thought of extremely highly at all levels as were no doubt all those souls on board that day. well, i say this, if they were so well thought of, why the hell can you not, in their memory, or name not get it through your skulls that the tatics/strategy only go so far for the herc crews as the planes are so slow moving that you will protect the fine and brave herc community. there are no words that can be said that will reassure me the fleet and it's crews are safe unless 100% are with foam.

i am sure that the officail line would not confirm all the hercs will be done, as that is tantamount to admitting that we were right and our pressure has worked,as it will highlight their failings and how wrong they are/were. i have no reason to disbelieve my well placed sources. i do however have every reason have reason to disbelieve the penny pinching politicians!

the aforementioned previous requests for previous requests for esf were the ones/incidences set out that you sent me nige dating from 78,82 etc. it's sad that they think that denying any knowledge of those requests does not mean that is true. those incidences couldn't have gone passed unnoticed. it's interseting that they deny it, and yet fish for the documents!

well done everyone.

Chugalug2

12th Dec 2006, 18:52

hello one and all, just to let you know that i have checked my earlier info about all the hercs being fitted. i can tell you a well placed source has confirmed what i had been told about all the hercs being done. THEY ARE!!!!!......
"we are fitting ESF to all those ac that operate in the highest threat environment and which most conseqently most at risk from the formed attack that caused XV179 to crash".

Perhaps your well placed source was very well placed and telling you, and the rest of us, porky pies! The further up the Chain of Command one goes, the more dubious the morality becomes. We are dealing with people who, if they ever did, no longer know the difference between truth and lies, right or wrong. We may expect many more false dawns as they try to meddle with our feelings and emotions. It will simply say everything about them, and little about us. As WC famously said, you may do your worst and we will do our best. In the meantime no confusion at this end, the entire Herc fleet, even those used to do the weekly shop at Tescos, must be fitted with ESF, and quickly!
So it's to be a girl Chappie! A word to the wise, don't waste any time in deciding on her name(s), these things are best not left until the taxi to the hospital! Perhaps this Forum could assist you in suggesting appropriate ones? If so may I get the ball rolling? Have you thought about Prunella? A lovely name of a lovely actress, with a voice to die for, though you would have to wait a while for that perhaps. But how appropriate I hear you say! Very kind of you, but really it's nothing, nothing! :)

chappie

14th Dec 2006, 21:24

any name suggestions would be great, i especially need to know ones that mean survivor, precious gift, blessing etc. reason why? i found out yesterday at best she'll need major surgery at worst disabled. just when you think that life can't kick you anymore. losing bob came at the end of two horrific years, now this. i've tried/waited over five years for her and now i don't even know if i'll even get to take her home. i must be such a horrible person because if there is anything in the truth of karma i am paying,big time. i've another scan on monday, in the mean time i'm going to try and get my head around how i'm going to cope with this.

Chugalug2

14th Dec 2006, 22:05

Chappie, I'm so very sorry, please forgive my flippant post. It will take a lot of character and courage to see you through this challenge, and everyone who has got to know you on this forum knows that you have both in abundance. I'm certain that I speak for us all when I say that our thoughts and prayers are for your daughter, yourself and your family. Stay strong Chappie, and you will come through this. You are a very special person, your tenacity and resolve to see your brother's comrades properly protected as they do their duty on our behalf has been an inspiration to all. That is going to happen thanks a great deal to your tremendous energy. That energy must now be diverted, that is clear. But the fight will go on, fear not. Meanwhile your daughter will have the most remarkable mum in the world, and with such a champion fighting for her she has a lot going for her. Good luck on Monday. God bless you Chappie.
Chug

Spurlash2

14th Dec 2006, 22:24

Chappie,

Don't know you, but thinking of you.

S2

XX

Permanent Sand

14th Dec 2006, 23:59

It's not often I post here, but this thread is mainly where I do have a word to say.

Chappie, I'm sure everyone who has followed this thread is with you all the way. I speak for everyone when I say, we are 100% behind you and hope for the best outcome for you and the little one.

If you are really after ideas of a name for her.... how about 'Faith'? I know it's not the most fasionable of names but you know what I always say! (for those who don't know....Keep The Faith) You will know what I mean Chappie.

PS.

flipster

15th Dec 2006, 16:04

Chappie

Words fail me but, thankfully, PS and Chug have already said what needs to be said.

Praying for you and 'Faith'

Flip

kam

15th Dec 2006, 21:17

Dear Chappie, Wendy, George and I are sending you all our love. You are in our thoughts and prayers. I hope to meet you soon.
Kellie xox
when you have a chance check your pm

airsound

18th Dec 2006, 14:47

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/18/uarmour118.xml

This brave finding by Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker in the Inquest into the death of Sgt Steve Roberts must surely have great relevance to the XV179 Inquest. Mr Walker is quoted as saying "To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgivable and inexcusable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in Government.

"This Enhanced Combat Body Armour was a basic piece of protective equipment. I have heard justification and excuse and I put these to one side as I remind myself that Sgt Roberts lost his life because he did not have that basic piece of equipment.

"Sgt Roberts's death was as a result of delay and serious failures in the acquisition and support chain that resulted in a significant shortage within his fighting unit of Enhanced Combat Body Armour, none being available for him......"

When the XV179 Inquest finally gets under way, we can surely hope for a similar finding, but with the words “Explosive Suppressant Foam”replacing “Enhanced Combat Body Armour”.

airsound

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

18th Dec 2006, 15:32

And The Sun has published an 'exclusive' on XV206 from somewhere

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006580448,00.html

I don't know what has prompted this article, but there must be a reason.

...and its 90% bollocks

(and the XV206 thread has been locked)

I'm not looking for comments on this article, it is The Sun, after all. Just wondering what has prompted this exclusive.

By TOM NEWTON DUNN
December 18, 2006

THIRTY Brits and a VIP escaped when their RAF Hercules struck a landmine.

The device was planted on a runway in an Afghan desert airfield in Helmand.
The MoD originally blamed the disaster on a burst tyre, but The Sun can today reveal the real reason. The plane was later blown up to prevent parts being scavenged by Taliban fighters.
British envoy Stephen Evans, 56, escaped unhurt but two bodyguards were seriously wounded. Passengers dashed off the plane down its lowered tail gate.
The aircraft did not carry foam — now standard for C130s in war zones.

nigegilb

18th Dec 2006, 16:12

I am as surprised about the Sun article as anyone else. MODs can we unlock the XV206 thread please? There are a series of photos linked in that thread. The BoI should be announced any day now, and within days of the crashof XV206 most informed people were suggesting the ac had hit a landmine. As for foam being standard, well, I think the officially agreed figure is 3 aircraft. Almost 2 years have gone by since the original crash of XV179. Ingram is saying that all ac will be completed by the end of next year so I can safely say the Sun are a long way off the mark. Still some conjecture until the BoI is announced and looking at the final photo it must have been a job to piece together the evidence. The big giveaway is the crater on the strip behind the ac. As for exclusive the pictures were carried on C4 News several weeks ago, but if it highlights the Hercules and frontline issues hey, I'll take a bit of publicity any day.

herkman

24th Dec 2006, 06:33

To all of you who have worked so hard, for the right thing to be done, thanks.

Let us give thanks this Xmas, for all those who serve, have served, and especially to those who have given all, so that we can sit down with those who we love, and enjoy this Christmas.

In the madness that we see in this world, let us remember that truth not evilness will prevail in the long run.

In our home, we set an extra place, and sometimes it is filled by someone, who otherwise would have had to be alone.

All the best and have a safe one.

Regards

Col

chappie

30th Dec 2006, 16:48

please remember that in february it is a pre inquest review that is being held. this is not the inquest that we are waiting for. i hope that will follow but there are no guarantees. the review is being held as the case appears to be of more significant complexity than first thought, whichcan only be a good thing...? can't it? surely that will mean it will go more in our favour, not that of the MoD? i know they will deny it as when i mentioned the incidences with hercs, such as 78 gatow and the falklands etc and that the MoD would have had paperwork etc i was told by the inert mr browne that there was no such paperwork or awareness in the ministry and he would be pleased to recieve them and discuss them. he must think that i'm a right muppet! i have my moments but he's got another thing coming. any advice as to my next move would be gratefully recieved.

i know my head has been else where recently but i have not left this campaign entirely. let us remember those who are not with their families this christmas/new year, nor will they be for a short time, or forever. it's the second christmas without bob and we go into a new year without him again, and i miss him more and more. enjoy your time with your family and friends and never forget who we are doing this for, friends who are still here and those who have sadly been lost. stay safe, take care and most importantly keep the faith !!!we will prevail. this is going to be an exciting year where we will acheive so much again. it is a priviledge to have met you all. happy new year love chappie and her troublesome bump!:ok:

BEagle

30th Dec 2006, 21:52

Happy New Year to you too, chappie! And may 2007 bring you the just result which you so richly deserve!

Chugalug2

30th Dec 2006, 23:02

Chappie, thank you for your inspiring post. How right to remind all of us in this campaign of the human cost of penny pinching with military equipment, and the pain and desolation that it leaves in its wake. That is why we shall prevail, even as Browne and Co twist and turn with their patronising lies. I wish I could find comfort in the legal complications of reviews into inquests, but I fear it is all part of the smoke and mirrors of their deceitful act. What they can't abide, what really throws them, is when a member of the public stands up and ridicules their posturing in public. Remember the WVS, the wife who berated Bliar outside a hospital, and of course yourself simply and sincerely pointing out the outrageous lack of care that they are guilty of. Their lawyers, their spin machine, their toadying backbenchers are all defenceless against such decency. What we urgently need is for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to get off their fat backsides and do their constitutional duty. How about it Dave? But you are right Chappie, this will indeed be our year, which means it will be your year. So may I wish you, and yours (especially 'bump'!) a Happy New Year! We are all rooting for you Chappie, and sincerely hope that all goes well for you. Take really good care of yourself, best wishes
Chug

flipster

31st Dec 2006, 10:08

Chug,

I'll second that!

Here's to a great '07 for all

Flip

country calls

5th Jan 2007, 21:54

Nige,

Your inbox is full!

CC

nigegilb

8th Feb 2007, 12:10

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock:To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules aircraft accepted from the contractor after being fitted with foam protection to their fuel tanks (a) were ready for active service and (b) required repairs due to fuel leaks. [117932]

Mr. Ingram:I am withholding the number of Explosion Suppression Foam (ESF) equipped Hercules C-130 aircraft that are available for operations, as this information could prejudice the security of our armed forces.
Fuel leaks were reported on two Hercules C-130 aircraft fitted with ESF. Both aircraft were returned to the contractor for repair and subsequently returned to the Front Line Command.

Further to Ingram's answer. I understand that 3 Hercules aircraft delivered from Marshall's have suffered from fuel leaks. Ingram stated earlier that all of the Hercules ac scheduled for foam will be fitted out by the end of the year. Well, the acceleration of the foam fitting program, promised to me in person does not appear to be happening. 5 x US helos shot down in 3 weeks in Iraq, I ask again, what the hell is happening to this program? Pre-inquest review will take place this month. This issue is not going away and if anything is becoming more urgent.

flipster

9th Feb 2007, 09:57

ONLY 3??!!! I agree, Nige, this is too slow.
At this rate, the J willl have been retired before the fleet is fitted! Grrrr.

flipster

Chugalug2

9th Feb 2007, 11:36

As I feared! The words up and brewery come to mind. What affects the security of our Armed Forces, Mr Ingram, is the likes of you and the incompetent gang of wallys that work your wicked ways! So from less than one aircraft RTS per month, they will push them out at one a week? I don't think so. Enough of this nonsense. It would seem that UK plc is unable to fit a a straight forward mod and get it right. AFAIK there are others in the USA and Australia who can. Set the contracts up now! The days of "Good enough for Government work" must come to an end, especially when, as here, it is putting servicemen's lives at risk. Stop making excuses for those who can't cut it, they have to go. We are at war, and that includes Cambridge and Whitehall. If the forces were as pathetic as these people, the Taliban would be holding a victory parade at Horseguards by now!

nigegilb

9th Feb 2007, 11:50

The work schedule to fit foam that I was quoted was 4 weeks for a "K" and 2 weeks for a "J".

We are 64 weeks down the line from the announcement of the BoI and the initial UOR for ESF and 105 weeks down the line from the crash. We have a pledge from Ingram that states that all ac will be fitted with foam by the end of the year. Ingram declines to say how many for security reasons. I know how many ac are getting fitted with foam. My security concern is the competence of the MoD and people like Ingram. At this rate it ain't gonna happen. US are concerned about the possibility of advanced RPGs and missiles being supplied into the Iraqi theatre in recent weeks. Is anyone listening at MoD Main Building?

Grrrr indeed.

flipster

10th Feb 2007, 07:40

Nige,

Is ESF UOR-funded or EP-funded? (UOR= Urgent Operational Requirement, EP=Equipment Programme)

UORs are supposed to be quicker but not long term. On the otherhand, EPs are meant to provide long-term funding! I fear that if ESF is UOR funded, it may lead to lack of long-term funds. Though, I suppose it could be argued that the Ks are not a long-term fleet - but what about the J?!

Nonetheless, this 'quicker' UOR funding is not exactly speedy and the ESF programme looks positively pedestrian.

Lord forbid!Advanced anti-armour rounds/SAMs?!
FFS - anything bigger than a 12 bore buck-shot could be effective against unprotected ac at close enough range!!!!

Keep kicking @rse!!!

country calls

13th Feb 2007, 13:40

Nigegilb, clear some space in your inbox fella!

CC

herkman

13th Feb 2007, 20:19

I note with great concern, that C130J ZH876, had to be destroyed after some sort of incident.

This apparently was done by friendly forces, to stop the sensitive equipment on board being taken by others.

Apparently two crew members were slightly injured in the accident.

Thank god it had a happy ending, though now the RAF is down another airframe.

Regards

Col

nigegilb

14th Feb 2007, 08:13

It is my understanding that Herc that perished on a strip in Iraq on Monday evening did so as a result of enemy action. I am trying to ascertain if that Herc had foam on board.

Very well done to the crew for getting everyone off safely.

Fast but Safe

19th Feb 2007, 13:21

Anyone know what the latest is on XV206's BOI? Is it me or has it just been sitting around waiting for someone to sign it off?

FbS

nigegilb

19th Feb 2007, 18:43

I was extremely critical about the way the BoI was released to the public (including the internet) without any of the recommendaions having been carried out. I would hope, that rather than produce a document again, that shows how to shoot/bring a Hercules down they are being more circumspect this time.

In fact, I would be very surprised if it sees the light of day. That said, it has now been confirmed that the "J" Herc that perished on a strip in Iraq last week, was destroyed after enemy action had disabled the aircraft. This ac did not have foam, confirmed. I am now more confident that the Herc foam program will be complete this year. However, I understand that the "J" may have suffered the kind damage expected of a foamless aircraft.

Now we have lost a "J" due to enemy action, I hope the MoD staffers who initially blocked foam for the "J" are having a long conversation with themselves. Once again , tremendously well done to the crew for getting everyone out on a night ac evacuation.

theotherhalf

19th Feb 2007, 23:56

I was given to understand that the damage to the J would have happened despite foam. We must be careful that we do not look for excuses to blame one thing. It would appear that there are other factors involved here and while speculation is understandable, the families and crews that have to live with the fear every day need to know the facts and not assumptions. As with all tragedies, there is always more than one issue involved. Safety must cross all levels, priorities carefully balanced and the most suitable decision made to fit the requirements. To be able to do this - all the facts must considered.

nigegilb

20th Feb 2007, 00:27

I was trying to make the point that such is the relative way in which the MoD thinks and I include RAF Officers in this, initially foam was only considered necessary for SF aircraft. last year several "J" crew contacted me and explained the risks they were taking. We have now lost a "J" and thankfully nobody was killed and the foam program has been started after an awful lot of pressure. The idea that all Herc crews are not taking big risks is simply ill-informed. There is a wide range of defensive capability across the 2 fleets. This is morally wrong and as has been proven here, stupid. Every Herc crew operating in Afg or Iraq should enjoy the same protection. We will never know if XV 179 would have suvived the attack or if XV206 would not have exploded on the strip, or if the Nimrod would not have blown up mid-air. None of these ac had fuel protection, neither did the "J", that was taken out last week.

US have now lost 8 helos in 4 weeks. Self-defence protection has to be improved along with force protection. The enemy is becoming more sophisticated.

theotherhalf

20th Feb 2007, 09:19

'There is a wide range of defensive capability across the 2 fleets. This is morally wrong and as has been proven here, stupid'.

I presume from that you mean the fleets have little protection and not that I am stupid.
The fleets certainly need more protection - that is not in question - and I agree that the reasons for the previous disasters may never be known. Having said that I am aware and I am sure you are too, that there may be other factors involved. However, do we look at prevention or cure. The crews certainly are more interested in prevention. 'Better to stop a hit than deal with the result' was one bald comment I got. I do not mean that foam is not the answer, but should be part of the whole and there are many areas where issues should be taken up over the safety of our fleets - all of them.
I do worry that whilst one campaign gathers momentum it is at the exclusion of all other protection and equally essential consideration for these guys and their ac. It seems to me that we have to look at the overall picture as to what happened, from take off to crash and see if better measures can be put in place to try and ensure the safety ,of the ac.

flipster

20th Feb 2007, 09:52

Ive not heard much about the recent J loss, so am reluctant to comment.

However, ESF should be a mandatory no-go item for all Hercs in theatre. The fact that it is not, is bordering on criminally insane. One appreciates that while we have troops on the ground that need resupplying, some risks are necessary but one wonders who suggested that regular Herc resupply was the best option?

Tactically, are we one step ahead of the ALQ/Taliban and are we unpredicatable enough? Whatever the answer to that, FFS fit more ESF to all aircraft........ quickly!!

Well done to all who got out - hope the EPA worked well!!?

Truckkie

20th Feb 2007, 10:07

However, ESF should be a mandatory no-go item for all Hercs in theatre. The fact that it is not, is bordering on criminally insane. One appreciates that while we have troops on the ground that need resupplying, some risks are necessary but one wonders who suggested that regular Herc resupply was the best option?

Never mind just ESF - how about HFIs, DIRCM/LAIRCM,Kevlar matting,RWR etc for all C130's

And a tasking chain that understands C130 tactics and doesn't treat us as an airborne 4 - tonner.

3 aircraft in 2 years - FFS wake up to our needs or we'll lose more in the future.

nigegilb

20th Feb 2007, 13:39

Trukkie is exactly where I am now. Every Herc going sausage should have what he has stated. Expensive, yes, and will not necessarily prevent another Afg type loss. Don't forget force protection. An issue brushed aside by TC Ingram last year. If you are not getting the kit you want then request it. It has now been reported in the open press that Iran may have smuggled in modern missiles to shoot down the Lynx a few months ago. Are we one step ahead of the Talib/Alq? Good question. Are we ready for the next theatre of war? Lack of strategic thinking will once again bite us where it hurts if we don't start demanding improvements to ac self-defence. And yes, that includes kevlar matting.

I hate to say it, but the bad old days of trusting to luck appear to be with us again.
PS for anyone who thinks this thread is just a one trick pony, you are wrong. We have said all along that the "J" must be included in the latest defensive equipment.

theotherhalf

20th Feb 2007, 14:01

And a tasking chain that understands C130 tactics and doesn't treat us as an airborne 4 - tonner.

Cetainly one of the problems is exactly that. C130s' role can be complex and deserves the same amount of preparation for flight safety in all areas. Whether it be SF or resupply, preparation and protection should be treated with the same importance and urgency. One of the dangers for those who are only in receipt of some of the facts is that only part of a picture is viewed and this can end up with a distorted view of particular aims. Equally, those with full knowledge can distort the facts to suit their own aims. All dangers common to mankind - however it should be remembered that we all have a view, usually formed from other peoples comments. With this in mind, crews and their families need to know the facts and not the assumptions, something we should all be aware of when we pontificate on various aspects. This brings us back to safety, it should be there for all but sadly, limitations will always prevail therefore it is essential to look at the whole picture of safety and not just one single piece in the jigsaw.

Chugalug2

21st Feb 2007, 20:22

One of the dangers for those who are only in receipt of some of the facts is that only part of a picture is viewed and this can end up with a distorted view of particular aims. Equally, those with full knowledge can distort the facts to suit their own aims...... With this in mind, crews and their families need to know the facts and not the assumptions, something we should all be aware of when we pontificate on various aspects. This brings us back to safety, it should be there for all but sadly, limitations will always prevail therefore it is essential to look at the whole picture of safety and not just one single piece in the jigsaw

THF: As someone "only in receipt of some of the facts", one which I tend to pontificate on is that the USAF and the RAAF have fitted ESF as a standard fit to their Hercules for some time now, the former for longer than we have operated them. Those who were in "full knowledge" denied that to the RAF, whatever their own aims. For such a vulnerable target as a transport aircraft, logic would suggest that you use all available means to safeguard it and, more importantly its occupants. Logic would also suggest that you enhance the survivability of the aircraft from all incendiary hazards by fitting foam, and then augment that basic protection with all the other defensive measures mentioned earlier. The old canard that you rob Peter to pay Paul in this hides the fundamental fact that going to war is a political decision, and paying for that war is the same. To be prepared to pay a human cost, while baulking at the financial one is contemptuous, and all those who connive in it are contemptible. If one is caught up in such a dilemma and "asks what can I do?", my answer is, if their is nothing else you can do, resign Sir/ Ma'am, resign!

theotherhalf

21st Feb 2007, 21:43

C2. I understand your vehemence over such issues, probably more than you realise, and as I said earlier safety for all ac is imperative but I have to repeat that where these disasters are concerned we do not yet know the full facts, and may never do. There are other issues of safety here and I still maintain that to make assumptions is dangerous for families struggling to come to terms with what has and what is happening. Foam is essential, but on dangerous ground is he who treads without knowledge. The point I am trying to make is, very often people are fed alternative information by those who wish to throw a blanket over real issues that should be addressed. Unless care is taken, people get hurt without good reason. Those that have been hurt don't need more. Foam - absolutely - but I have been given to understand that one air force is taking it out because it is not everything it is cracked up to be. I make no comment upon this, just bring it to your attention. As a matter of interest, are there any statistics that show how foam in USAF ac has prevented possible disasters?
As for asking people to resign, rather a waste of time don't you think - they will only be replaced by equally ill advised and indeterminate characters who will still be faced with the same 'dilemma' and have to make the same hopeless decisions. This country will never provide a defence budget large enough to provide what is needed, neither will it bring to heel the ridiculous spending program within its military regime. If it did, the money required would probably be found to have been available after all.

nigegilb

21st Feb 2007, 22:32

THF, forgive me if you are new to the thread and it has become a very long one at that but right at the beginning there is an account of a USAF SF Herc encountering a serious and sustained ground attack at the beginning of GW2. The crew of Harley 37 took 19 hits in all including AAA up to 57mm. Fuel tanks were hit causing massive fuel leaks. Every single person survived. This aircraft had foam. Lord knows how many other incidents there are out there. I understand that for certain RAF missions in Afg foam has become a required item a no go item. So I would suggest that the RAF is not the air force that is about to give up on foam. Would you kindly tell us which air force has decided foam is not what it is cracked up to be? I do not follow your arguments at all. However, the pre-Inquest review takes place next week. The actual Inquest will take place in a few months time. I assume you are local to the Inquest. If you want to know the facts might I suggest you go along? Believe me, the RAF would not be fitting foam now if they did not think it was necessary. The Board of Inquiry concluded that the RAF must look urgently at fitting foam and now every single Herc going sausage is going to get it. I did not make any of these facts up, I assure you!

When USAF had the "J" built they looked at different types of fuel tank protection. They concluded that foam was still the best protection even for the modern Hercules. However in recent times I understand that the type of protection on "J" Herc may be changing. One of the reasons stated for the "J" not initially contracted for foam last year, was the effect on range caused by the decreased tank capacity. Unlike the "K" the "J" does not have external tanks. Well that one is easily solved by more money or more night stops. USAF have stuck with foam for over 30 years. I know who I would side with in this argument.

Chugalug2

22nd Feb 2007, 13:50

Foam is essential, but on dangerous ground is he who treads without knowledge. The point I am trying to make is, very often people are fed alternative information by those who wish to throw a blanket over real issues that should be addressed. Unless care is taken, people get hurt without good reason. Those that have been hurt don't need more. Foam - absolutely -
As for asking people to resign, rather a waste of time don't you think - they will only be replaced by equally ill advised and indeterminate characters who will still be faced with the same 'dilemma' and have to make the same hopeless decisions. This country will never provide a defence budget large enough to provide what is needed, neither will it bring to heel the ridiculous spending program within its military regime. If it did, the money required would probably be found to have been available after all.
TOH, I apologise for initializing you down to a well known group of hoteliers and in-flight caterers! A case of sloppy scanning on my part.
I am glad that we are agreed on the primacy of foam. Of course there are many other considerations for the coroner, the RAF, the MOD, the families, and even we benighted tax payers, as a result of these tragic losses. If this thread has a purpose, it is to support the stalwart campaign to reduce future such losses by the implementation of this essential modification to our transport fleet. I can only suggest that if you are in possession of information pertinent to this inquest then take Nige's advice and raise it there. As we have seen in the current one concerning the death of CploH Hull, the Oxford coroners have a unique ability to challenge what has been hidden beneath "blankets", and are prepared to do so in discharging their Public Duty to determine the true facts concerning the deaths of our servicemen and women falling under their jurisdiction. They can only do so if evidence is brought to their attention, not necessarily in the manner of the infamous HUD video.
As to resigning, it seems to be a very rare flower indeed these days, but all the more significant when it does occur. The ability or otherwise of later incumbents should not be a consideration. If one cannot in all conscience properly carry out the responsibilities of office, especially those concerned with airworthiness and safety, because of undue influence and pressure, then resign. No-one is irreplaceable, and others will take note of your protest, and either strive more to carry out their duties better, or to back off of preventing others doing theirs. As for military expenditure programmes becoming ridiculous, I could not agree more. I date back to when Mountbatten presided over the formation of the MOD, which was to bring in enormous savings by scale. We all know that the effects of scale since then have often been to produce waste on an ever larger basis. Just as the shrinking forces have been forced into fewer and tighter straight jackets, and obliged to embrace the PC of jointery, perhaps it is now time for the MOD empire itself to be reformed and reduced to serving the armed forces rather than the reverse effect of them being used as a sink for the shoddy underperforming overexpensive products of our armaments industry? If other nations can get it half right, why shouldn't we?
Finally, having read your previous posts on another thread, I understand that you too have lost a loved one in the service of their country. May I simply offer my belated and sincere condolences in your loss?
Regards Chug

An Teallach

25th Feb 2007, 12:32

Scotland on Sunday (http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=298742007) 25 Feb 07

Brian Brady, Westminster Editor

DEFENCE chiefs seriously bungled an attempt to improve the safety of RAF transport aircraft flying in the Iraq war zone, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

Following the deaths of 10 servicemen whose Hercules plane was shot down north of Baghdad two years ago, the Ministry of Defence eventually agreed to fit explosive-retardant foam (ERF) to the fuel tanks of the aircraft.

Incredibly, both of the aircraft so far "upgraded" had to be withdrawn for repairs shortly afterwards because they were found to be leaking fuel.

In another astonishing twist, one of the Hercules has since been sent to the United States for "essential crew training" rather than ferrying troops through Iraq's dangerous skies.

Opposition politicians last night described the revelations as "astonishing", particularly when coalition leaders were concerned about insurgents targeting slow-moving aircraft.

The news came just hours after Britain was forced to ground its fleet of Nimrod spy planes after finding a dent on the fuel pipe of one of the aircraft.

Nine airmen and a soldier died when their RAF Hercules crashed as it flew from a US airbase in Baghdad to Balad in Iraq, on January 30, 2005. The plane, from RAF Lyneham in Wiltshire, came down north of Baghdad after being hit by ground-to-air fire.

An inquiry into the tragedy found that the lack of a "fuel tank inerting system" had contributed to the scale of the incident, as an explosive fuel/air mixture had developed once the plane had been hit. Military experts and relatives of the dead men handed in a petition with 2,982 signatures to Downing Street last year demanding that the ERF system be fitted - as has been standard on all Australian Hercules for decades.

But although the MoD has since insisted that the majority of the RAF's 49 Hercules would be fitted with ERF, the work is not expected to be finished for at least two more years.

The British operation in Iraq leans heavily on logistical support from 24 newer Hercules C-130J models, which can carry eight loaded pallets, 128 equipped combat troops or 92 paratroopers.

An MoD spokesman explained: "It's a very complicated process. We could stop flying Hercules tomorrow to get fitted, but then we wouldn't have any Hercules.

"They have got to go into deep maintenance. It takes a huge amount of time. The work's under way. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't."

Last November, ministers revealed just two of the planes had been refitted. But armed forces minister Adam Ingram has now confirmed that those upgrades ran into trouble. He said: "Fuel leaks were reported on two Hercules C-130 aircraft fitted with ERF. Both aircraft were returned to the contractor for repair and subsequently returned to the Front Line Command."

In a written parliamentary answer to Liberal Democrat MP Mike Hancock, Ingram also conceded that one of the protected Hercules aircraft was "temporarily deployed to the USA for essential crew training to ensure operational effectiveness of the aircrews".

Amid escalating fears over the continuing threat to UK forces, defence minister Lord Drayson has now confirmed the defence community's worst fears with the revelation that the Hercules destroyed after an incident while landing in Maysan in Iraq on February 12 was probably hit by a bomb. Two personnel were slightly injured in the incident, but all 38 people on board the Hercules were able to escape to safety.

A replacement for the destroyed Hercules, with a current market value of £45m, is on its way to the region, but the MoD will not be able to claim the cost of the aircraft back from the Treasury until it has held an inquiry into the disaster.

Tory defence spokesman Gerald Howarth said: "The increased incidence of attacks on US helicopters makes it absolutely imperative that all our Hercules have this protective foam system fitted.

"It was astonishing to learn that the MoD was not planning to fit out all the fleet, and that it would take so long to complete work on those lucky enough to be allocated the protection. I am appalled that, even after all that, it appears they still couldn't get the work done properly."

nigegilb

25th Feb 2007, 12:40

Just to add some fat to the story.

The third Hercules was on Red Flag, it could not go into theatre because the fuel leaks needed fixing. 3 Ks have been fitted out so far, all 3 K ac were delivered with fuel leaks from Marshall's.

3 Js have also been fitted out with foam. It takes about 4 weeks to fit foam to a K model and only 2 weeks to fit foam to the J. There was talk of setting up a 2nd line to fit foam to the Herc by a specialist fuel tank contractor I am not sure if anything came of that. I understand that by the end of the year all Hercules fragged to get foam will get it. I also understand that the latest Herc to perish on a strip was destroyed by hi-tec IEDs. It may well have suffered a fuel tank explosion. The MoD spokesman is being disingenuous, we have now lost 3 Hercs in two years and the contractor does not seem to be able to deliver a servicable K ac. Chances are we could lose more ac because of a fleet that is too overstretched to have essential safety equipment fitted.

PQs

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules aircraft have been fitted with foam protection to their fuel tanks; what the timetable is for the fitting of explosive suppressant foam to the rest of the fleet; and if he will make a statement. [117914]

Mr. Ingram: The programme to fit explosive suppressant foam (ESF) to the majority of the RAF Hercules fleet is ongoing. On current plans it is expected that this work will be completed around the end of the year.

Following earlier enquiries the Department has given information on the number of Hercules aircraft fitted with ESF. I do not intend, however, to give continuous updates on progress with this programme as to do so would ultimately reveal the total number equipped with this capability, and this information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the security of the UK armed forces.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose a UK foam protected Hercules aircraft is stationed in the United States; and if he will make a statement. [117933]

Mr. Ingram: A Hercules aircraft is temporarily deployed to the USA for essential crew training to ensure operational effectiveness of the aircrews. I am withholding further details as their release would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of our armed forces.

Chugalug2

25th Feb 2007, 20:31

What a shocking and shameful tale of utter ineptness! Has there ever been a time when the government of this country has been in the hands of such incompetents? The threads on this forum are full of mystical and indecipherable initials, but they all spell one thing in common, total and complete uselessness! A lame duck premier, a self embroiled chancellor and a succession of defence secretaries united in their base disregard of their nation's defence. The people of this country have the government that they voted for twice and deserve, HM armed forces do not and it behoves their Chiefs of Staff to stand up and be counted. Two have done so, to varying degrees, the third has not. The silence from you is deafening Sir Glen! It's all coming unravelled on your watch, so you might just as well go down fighting for your guys and gals and earn their respect instead of their contempt. As for the CDS, presumably one rises above such mundane matters as kit at such an august level, Sir Jock?. Chickens are coming home to roost gents and the state of the RAF, its kit and the safety of its men and women are a cause celebre. So don't just sit there, do something, if only to say goodbye!

nigegilb

26th Feb 2007, 20:56

Heads up BBC News tomorrow, probably 10 o'clock News. More foam developments. Possibly more to come with reference to pre-inquest review being held this Wednesday. Apologies about the state of my inbox, will advise here in the clear when I am open for business again.

Please bear with,

Regards,

Nige

airsound

27th Feb 2007, 14:05

Further to Nige's "Heads up BBC News tomorrow, probably 10 o'clock News. More foam developments. Possibly more to come with reference to pre-inquest review being held this Wednesday." - AL 1 has now been issued.

Delete 10 o'clock Tuesday, insert 10 o'clock (2200) Wednesday. Expect to see Nige himself, + perhaps Chappie and AOC2.

All of this comes with the usual media caveat, which is that it may not happen, or it may happen at a different time or in a different format......

airsound

airsound

28th Feb 2007, 17:37

Further to the above, tonight (Wed) 2200 on Beeb 1 is still looking good, and it should be pretty hard-hitting. And we may even have more to come later this week.

Watch this space.

And if anyone feels like responding to the beeb either by email or blog, I'm sure that would go down well......

airsound

propulike

28th Feb 2007, 18:29

Not as big as the beeb, but at least it's still in the news locally as well.

Wiltshire report (http://www.thisiswiltshire.co.uk/news/headlines/display.var.1225297.0.lyneham_inquest_will_focus_on_safety_f oam_question.php)

Well done Nige!

nigegilb

28th Feb 2007, 20:36

Just spoken with the Beeb, going out tonight on 10 o'clock news.
I hope that the MoD, incl Ministers and Senior Officers think again before sending their men and women into harms way without adequate equipment.
Thanks again for everyone's unstinting support.
Safe flying for those on ops.

Archimedes

28th Feb 2007, 21:03

Lead item on the BBC News website at the moment - click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6406203.stm)

The Gorilla

28th Feb 2007, 21:18

I can't believe it, seven out of forty eight in two years! I shall bring it back to the attention of my local MP just to let her know I haven't forgotten. What exactly did the MOD mean when it said that 22 of the 48 aren't fit for military service?

Well done Chappie and Nige keep it up!!

An Teallach

28th Feb 2007, 21:25

So only 7 have been released from Bliar's bid to get UK Servicepeople to 'earn' his legacy for him while they have been made fit for service.

Meanwhile he volunteers the UK for more of the task. :mad:

And ... relaaaaaax ...

Well done Nigegilb and Chappie. More power to you.

NURSE

28th Feb 2007, 23:39

would there be any mileage in taking the fitting of the foam as a health and safety issue through the chain or the courts?

airsound

1st Mar 2007, 06:14

For anyone who missed the Beeb 1 news last night, Paul Wood's report (BBC Defence Correspondent) is still on the Beeb news site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6406203.stm
and click on the video and audio news 'watch' button on the right.

airsound

Chugalug2

1st Mar 2007, 17:14

Congratulations to the Beeb for a hard hitting and fact packed lead item in last night's ten o'clock news. Well done (yet again) to our stalwart spoke-persons Chappie and Nige! The figures unfortunately speak for themselves, but the added comments on the urgent need to push the programme to a fast and effective completion were well made. The words horses and water are applicable of course, but any Sir Humphreys standing in the way of this should risk being "outed", at least. The risks to our service men and women are of a much greater order of course, and alleviating these must be paramount. To that end, surely it is now time to say enough is enough and put the bulk of the remaining work out to overseas firms? Hopefully their previous experiences of successfully installing ESF in their own air forces' Hercules should mean a faster and better job done.
When the dust has settled on this saga the RAF should have a long hard look at how this has been so badly dealt with (or rather not dealt with) over the decades. The CAS (whoever that might then be) should then call publicly for the necessary reforms in how the provision of its equipment and munitions is implemented. I say the RAF (and by extension the Royal Navy and the British Army) rather than the MOD, because to my mind the MOD is the problem. It wastes colossal amounts of tax payers' money, and supplies tat to the Armed Forces in return. The Emperor is naked and his clothing bill is money down the drain, he is past his sell by date and will have to go.

tucumseh

1st Mar 2007, 17:51

I agree with Chug’s comments, but I’m afraid a layman would be left thinking that the solution (ESF) was only discovered AFTER the accident in 2005. The MoD’s spokesman’s words did nothing to allay this (although he did have the good grace to look like a rabbit in headlights and clearly knew he was being disingenuous). The BBC correspondent, probably inadvertently, also gave this impression.

In turn, this allowed the ongoing commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan red herring to sound plausible, without noting that on more than one occasion during the life of the a/c the lack of appropriate self protection has been acknowledged by MoD - in that they have let contracts to assess what would be needed to upgrade them, and done nothing. I know the detail of the 1994 assessment, but I’m sure others here know more.

I also thought the statement that high risk ops would use ESF a/c disingenuous. It’s been said before – the MoD’s own rules require this level of fleet management (a/c used for specific roles) to be complemented by ESF a/c (in this case) having their own designation. Either that, or full fleet fit. Of course, adherence to these basic airworthiness and configuration control procedures (and hence Duty of Care) has been declared optional by 2* and above - this too is “criminally insane”. The effect of this insanity can be seen in other threads – Mull of Kintyre and Blue on Blue among them.

airsound

1st Mar 2007, 17:54

Well, if you thought that was hard hitting, Chug, I very much hope that there will be something even harder hitting on Today (Radio 4, 0600-0900) tomorrow morning. It'll probably be in the last hour, but it could be earlier.

Then I think News 24 are going to pick the story up later in the morning.

Same old caveat - it might not happen - but I'm keeping my fingers crossed, again......

airsound

nigegilb

1st Mar 2007, 18:04

I have already spent some time talking with the Coroner carrying out the Hercules Inquest. In particular I have been looking at previous requests for Foam. The MoD deny finding any formal requests for foam and many of the files have been destroyed. If anyone has any information which might be useful to the Coroner I can forward details or" help out" as required.

With ref to the above comments by Chug and Tuc, I understand that foam was looked at as recently as 2002 and rejected. I have big concerns about the job Marshall's are doing on this. So far every single "K" has been returned for rectification work. Last night the MoD were trying to say that C130s involved in dangerous missions were protected by foam. If this were not so serious it would be laughable. I believe the MoD spokesman may have been referring to the requirement for certain missions to have foam equipped aircraft. It overlooks the fact that neither of the 2 recent C130 losses involved SF crews. We have consistently said that all Herc operators in either Iraq or Afghanistan should have the same level of equipment. The MoD are still displaying their naivity of thought.

Edited to add a big thanks to Airsound who has been a formidable ally.

RETDPI

1st Mar 2007, 18:51

Could anybody remember what fire suppressant/containment system was used on the R.A.F. AW 651 Argosy C Mk 1 fuel tanks?
I do remember a member of the Argosy world comparing the Herc to this ,unfavourably, in about 1970 but cannot remember the details.

(Pedantic bit so that some wag doesn't quote the old A.W. 66 Argosy Tri Motor)

theotherhalf

1st Mar 2007, 22:11

airsound

2nd Mar 2007, 06:18

Well! Today (Radio 4) is doing us proud. Angus Stickler's early piece at 0650 with Chris S was very hard-hitting, and I'm looking forward to the full version at 0750. Chappie is expected to be on 0815 to 0830. more on News 24 later, I expect,

Extremely well done to Chris on his first outing, and, as ever, to Chappie.

Where is the MoD, I wonder. Not even a statement in response.

airsound

airsound

2nd Mar 2007, 06:42

Just heard (0735) that Chappie will not now be on, because the tornado (wx, not tonka) story is getting bigger and they've had to find more room in the prog. Still expecting her to be on News 24 later - but that cd change too.

There goes that media caveat again.

airsound

Wycombe

2nd Mar 2007, 07:19

The Angus Stickler piece was on 5 Live at just after 7 also :)

pmills575

2nd Mar 2007, 08:36

Current item on BBC web site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6410247.stm

chappie

2nd Mar 2007, 11:54

there was alot more worthwhile stuff that i had to say that as usual got edited....i'm gettting used to it.

i'm sorry i have been away so long but i thought i would try and respect the "professionals" doing the fitting of foam, let them do their job and hope that instead of hindering i will help the process. clearly, sadly that has not been achieved and so the pressure mounts again and will sustain until the fleet and you are all protected. soon to pop so i'm a hormone bomb in waiting...therefore lethal. not on net at mo..will check in soon.

nigegilb

2nd Mar 2007, 14:37

I have given the Coroner evidence that I have accumulated in the course of the year. It is the duty of the Coroner to seek the truth and in doing so, the Coroner will accept evidence from any member of the public. It is in the public interest and certainly in the interests of the British servicemen that all of the relevant facts and documents are presented to the Coroner's office. Anyone who has information from whatever source should do the same. Understandably, serving personnel might feel particularly exposed in such a high profile case. Anyone who heard Sqn Ldr Seal explain how doing the right thing harmed his career will surely understand that. I am willing to act as a conduit for anyone who feels exposed in a similar way.

As for the efficacy of foam, well the new AOC 2Gp made it clear in the BBC interview how essential foam is for the protection of Hercules ac. I am still intrigued as to which air force is discontinuing with the protection of foam in Hercules ac. It is clear now that all 3 RAF Hercules ac have been destroyed by enemy action and that none of them had fuel tank protection. Who knows if foam would have saved them for sure, the RAF didn't see fit to have it on board at the time. One thing is for certain, USAF have proved that foam works. I could provide you with a list of names.

flipster

2nd Mar 2007, 15:11

Sqn Ldr Seal's career was over when he was promoted!!!!

threeputt

2nd Mar 2007, 15:36

Who is the new AOC now that Ian M*****l* has moved onwards and upwards?

3P

mystic_meg

2nd Mar 2007, 16:08

I have just listened to the Today interview with ex-Sqn Ldr Chris Seal...... amazing! Well done Chris (from your 'Rodeo' LM...)

Was it just me, or did AOC 2 Gp seem to be saying all the right 'political' words in his TV interview, but his body language/mannerisms/whatever appeared to be saying a completely different thing?

Chugalug2

2nd Mar 2007, 19:25

Sqn Ldr Seal's career was over when he was promoted!!!!

In the RAF perhaps, Flip, but that tells us more about the RAF than Chris Seal. Hopefully his present employers have already discovered their good fortune in having such a principled and straight talking man on the books. If he is self employed the same good fortune attaches to his clients. Meanwhile the service is the poorer for losing him and all the others who are "not one of us"! Good man, that man!

nigegilb

2nd Mar 2007, 20:09

Reported here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/02/nfoam102.xml

Well said Chug and well said Flip, you did a great thing today. For those who do not have real player;
Hercules concerns 'ignored'
02 March 2007

A former RAF squadron leader has claimed that his superiors ignored his warning about the safety of Hercules aircraft.

Chris Seal is now calling for explosive suppressant foam (ESF) - which is put in fuel tanks to stop them exploding - to be fitted to all Hercules aircraft as a matter of urgency.

In 2005 ten servicemen died when a Hercules 179 was brought down in Iraq. An inquiry has now suggested their lives may have been saved if ESF had been fitted.

Mr Seal says he first raised concerns about the aircraft back in 2002 when he was detachment commander in Oman.

His claims come after it was revealed that 41 of the RAF's 48 Hercules fleet were still without the foam at the time of the 2005 disaster, despite it being common practice to fit US planes with the substance for decades.
Mr Seal told the Today programme that "our aeroplanes weren't really fit for purpose" during his time in the RAF.

"The threats were high," he said.

"We had no flight deck armour, we had no defensive aid suite and at the time we didn't have secure communications or night vision. We were very lucky that we didn't lose a number of aeroplanes during those early months of 2002."

But he said he got little response to his emails outlining his concerns.
"From the lower levels… I got a 'well we've been around this boy before' and 'there's no funds, there's no point asking'," he said.
"At high levels I got no response at all. So I knew it was the wrong thing to do in terms of procedure. I emailed the commander-in-chief of Strike Command. I got myself in a fair amount of trouble."
Mr Seal left the RAF in 2005 and he admitted: "I knew when I let that email go, I knew that was the end of my career. However, I felt that morally I had no other option."

He confirmed that his initial warnings about problems with the aircraft did not include ESF, because he was only alerted to this later by two American exchange officers.

"They were concerned that we actually had foam in our wings, because the Americans have fitted foam as standard since 1967," he said.
And he said he then sent a further email in 2002 expressing concerns about the lack of ESF to the station commander at RAF Lyneham.
This was three years prior to the 2005 crash.
"I wasn't so much amazed because I know how difficult it is to get things out of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget," he added.
"I was incredibly saddened and I was very angry, but I was also unsure as to what had happened to my request."
Following a Board of Inquiry conclusion that lives could have been saved had ESF been fitted, the MoD confirmed that the programme to fit the "majority of the RAF Hercules fleet is ongoing".
news.viewlondon.co.uk/...76997.html

flipster

2nd Mar 2007, 20:23

mystic

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well? Hope you've got a new dress since Mc Chord!?

Flip

airsound

2nd Mar 2007, 20:29

Was it just me, or did AOC 2 Gp seem to be saying all the right 'political' words in his TV interview, but his body language/mannerisms/whatever appeared to be saying a completely different thing?

Mystic - you hit the nail on the thumb. AOC 2 looked like there were a couple of thousand places he’d rather have been than in front of that camera. Good to see the old staff training comes through though - the words were right on message. One of the rare occasions when tv trumps radio - if we’d heard him without seeing him, we might have thought he meant it.

Whereas we know that Sqn Ldr Seal meant it - he was prepared to put his career on the line for it.

airsound

nigegilb

3rd Mar 2007, 08:31

Recent exchange in Parliament.
"I know that that has been completed in two or three planes, but will he recommit the Government to fit suppressant as soon as possible in all those planes that are in any area of risk?"

The Defence Minister responded by saying: "That is another matter that we are looking at with great urgency.

"It is not only a question of suppressant foam but also an improved defensive aid suite fit across the fleet where that is practicable and required.

"Clearly, that process takes time: aircraft have to come out of the rota, and they then have to be worked up.

"I do not think that it is appropriate to talk about absolute numbers, but all the aircraft will have the necessary fit to meet the operational requirements."

Is this the same Minister who cancelled the modern DAS for the Herc "J" model on grounds of cost? In the same week in which we have been told cost is not a factor? I do believe TCI might be feeling the heat. Ingram explained away the cancellation of the DIRCMprogram as being a "result of competing priorities."

That explanation fits in neatly with his line that missions are not able to be carried out "risk free," a rather understated way to describe sending Herc crews to war in flying bombs.

chappie

6th Mar 2007, 11:54

hello one and all i'm finally back on track and back on internet for good. i understand from a relative who lives in hong kong that the interview on news 24 was seen on bbc worldservice so at least we know there was the fullest coverage given, despite being incomplete and not just confined to these shores.

airsound, i wonder if you could be so kind as to let me know if the paperwork i sent you was seen by/given to who it was intended for. it would be interesting to have your thoughts also. i'm probably wide of the mark thinking that it had any important info, but i didn't want to take any risks. thanks for all the help you gave over what was a very hard week.

not that it matters what ithink but i have to agree that it was hard not to see the frightened rabbit look on the face of avm pulford the other night on the news. maybe the thumbscrews were on but just out of shot....or even he couldn't believe the words coming out of his mouth!!

airsound

6th Mar 2007, 13:37

Welcome back Chappie. It was a great pleasure for me to have been able to help - as I’m sure it would have been for anyone else in your large fan club here on PPRuNe.

I don’t agree with you when you say “not that it matters what i think”. There are people up and down the land, from Ministers and Senior Officers to us plebs, who have found that what you think is pretty important. So please don’t underestimate the effect you have when you set your mind to it.

I’m not quite sure how sensitive your paperwork might be, so rather than discuss it here I’ll contact you privately.

airsound

nigegilb

12th Mar 2007, 09:56

Following the recent loss of a "J" on a strip in Iraq, I have mounting concerns for the safety of pasengers on board Hercules aircraft. I have written to the Chairman of the Defence Committee asking him to bring his influence to bare on the possibility of urgently fitting Kevlar Matting to the cargo bay of Hercules aircraft.

More later

flipster

12th Mar 2007, 23:49

Nige

Freight Bay Armour?.... do you mean that stuff that is used (allegedly) by our allies?

Don't be silly, Nige....what could we possibly learn from them????????? Seriously, though, how heavy is it - if too heavy, this could be stopper?

What also worries me is our apparent lack of 'force protection' ie 'airfield defence'. Wasn't that the raison d'etre of the RAF Regt? Where are the RE to make good the strip and clear the mines?

Are our rock-apes and engineers so overstretched that they cannot secure LZ/DZs? If so, then perhaps our AT and SH shouldn't be operating there? Especially, as the enemy seems to know where to attack and when?! Or perhaps the ALQ/TB just sit there and wait to fire off RPGs/mortars or IEDs when one of ac comes along? This, in itself, would underline our inability to protect the strips and make life difficult for the enemy.

Whatever the underlying reasons, I suspect that the current attrition rate of Hercs is not sustainable!

Flip

flipster

13th Mar 2007, 11:57

PAF
Ah.....much as I thought!
Roughly how much does the stuff weigh and are there any partial-fit (lighter) options? PM if you like.
Flip

Truckkie

13th Mar 2007, 20:08

Kevlar matting - no way, far too heavy. The old girl really is piling on the pounds!!!

As for FP - the boys are doing a stirling job.

I'd rather settle for 15 more AT airframes!!!!!!!

N Joe

13th Mar 2007, 20:12

Fully protecting the entire freight bay with armour similar to that on the flight deck would surely be far too heavy. Anything less (and I think it would have to be a lot less to be viable), would only provide an arbitary level of protection to arbitary portions of the fuselage. Also, getting consensus on the best compromise would be near impossible.

I would see a decent DAS and the best FP that circumstances allow as far preferable to fighting the other pax for the seat behind the kevelar patch.

N Joe

flipster

13th Mar 2007, 23:43

All,

It is rumoured that there is some modern stuff that is not too heavy and works well for other nations - and also there are partial-fit options!

Yes, this stuff is not featherweight and would reduce the op capability a tad. In many circumstances, however, it could be seriously considered as a no-go item - if only for the ALM/GE.

I suggest that your Sqns start asking questions of 'them that (should) know the details' ie Gp, MoD, AWC and IPT - I suspect that there will be some work already done and your execs may already have some idea. Nonetheless, the Sqns are entitled to an explanation - either way. Be careful not to overload the system, mind you, as there may not be enough people to do the work and answer queries. Good luck.

Until the day we design a 'cloaking device', we owe it to the whole crew and any pax to have better protection from SA.

Flip

N Joe - why is it not possible to have good DAS, better FP AND upgraded armour? If it is purely a money-issue, then how come other nations find the dosh?? Perhaps it is because our political leaders want to fight a war on shoestring budget? Surely, our Services deserve better than that?

nigegilb

14th Mar 2007, 13:52

Steps to better protect aircraft
By Andrew Stackpool

FURTHER upgrades to AP-3Cs and C-130s are being investigated as a result of experiences in the Middle East.

Studies are being completed into the potential acquisition of MIC 934 explosive suppressant foam, ballistic matting and an electronic warfare self-protection package for the Orion fleet.

Electronic warfare self-protection is already in place for the C-130 H and J models (the latter is currently operating in the MEAO).
Air Force Director of Combat Capability Management Group Captain Mike Bennett said the Air Force was funding aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin to undertake preliminary work into the viability of fitting the explosive suppressant foam and funds had been allocated to conduct a study on the feasibility of ballistic matting.

“We are anticipating Government approval for the project later this year and to fit the first aircraft early in 2005,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
The MIC 934 foam is a new capability for the RAAF, although it is in service with Hercs and Orions in some other air forces. The foam is put in the wing cavities and fuel tanks of the aircraft and acts to suppress the explosion and subsequent fire from a missile hit.

“We would be putting foam in both Hercules types but the immediacy is for the C-130J,” GPCAPT Bennett said.

“[Lockheed Martin] will provide the necessary clearance for our C-130 types. We didn’t buy the aircraft with the system and we need to ensure it doesn’t interfere with other components and also that we know how to operate it competently.

“It will alter the way we do maintenance on the aircraft and systems (fuel gauges etcetera) will need to be maintained differently.

“Both air and ground crews must understand what the aircraft is telling them, so we shall need changes in that respect.

“We shall need training for both air and ground crews. This training will probably be done in Australia but these are aspects that Lockheed Martin will investigate to ensure optimum value.”

The ballistic matting is intended as a protection against small arms rounds that might penetrate the aircraft, as occurred in an incident earlier this year when a US civilian died in a Hercules hit by small arms fire. The matting acts as a form of armour, similar to the underfloor and seat armour fitted to helicopters in Vietnam.

GPCAPT Bennett said the upgrades were largely a result of lessons in the MEAO. “Iraq has taught us a lot about operations in a combat environment,” he said.

The speed with which the Aussies moved was impressive. See below;

Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30

C-130J-30 releasing flares
Delivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.

As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.

Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.

AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.

The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.

Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.

I understand that they beat their in service date for foam, I have found reports that the first foam equipped aircraft rolled out in Dec 04. It can be done!

Chugalug2

14th Mar 2007, 18:04

why is it not possible to have good DAS, better FP AND upgraded armour? If it is purely a money-issue, then how come other nations find the dosh?? Perhaps it is because our political leaders want to fight a war on shoestring budget? Surely, our Services deserve better than that

Says you flip, but be very very clear that others in government or their backbenchers, do not. In this forum we jokingly refer to Bliars Wars, but in essence that is what they are, and additional expenditure to fund them diverted from the numerous sacred cows that only start with Hospitals and Schools will just not be countenanced. That is the contradiction that is New Labour, and our Armed Forces pay the price, infamously starting with body armour and now comprising an ever increasing list of deficiencies of which your very justified items are merely part. In such a scandalous breach of care as this, it is for the leaders of the Armed Forces to protest, and to do so loudly and publicly, so that everyone is in no doubt about the seriousness of the situation. Then said leader will no doubt be obliged to jump before being pushed. So be it, duty will have been done, and public pressure will either force a change of policy or not. Whatever the outcome this is a democracy, we have the government we deserve and the armed forces, bluntly, have to put up with that. Of course in theory the opposition is supposed to bring the government to account, but I understand that "call me Dave" is still formulating policy for the foreseeable future, so don't hold your breath. As Nige says, proper protection for Hercules aircraft can, and has been, provided elsewhere by a responsible and effective government. Spot the catch in that sentence! And still we wait Sir Glenn.....

sprucemoose

16th Mar 2007, 16:19

Chugalug; Flight International ran an article this week with the latest comments from CAS on this matter:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/13/212543/raf-chief-defends-pace-of-hercules-upgrade.html

nigegilb

16th Mar 2007, 16:30

The foam is being installed by a company called "tank tigers" http://www.aoginc.com/ I understand they have a good name but were chosen by Marshall on cost grounds. If the install work is being done against a UOR then the work is on a time and material basis. Given the slow install rate, the RAF could consider "tendering" say 10 airframes to an alternative supplier. I understand the "Twin Peaks" hangar at St Athen is empty, the "Super Hangar" also has capacity and man-power available!

Sir Glenn Torpy seems happy with the rate that the aircraft are being contested. He was also happy to send Hercules to Afghanistan without foam. It is possible to open up a second line, it is just a question of priority. I dispute the comments made by RAF officials in the article above. My own information suggests that all three incidents could be fuel tank explosions. As for XV179 not surviving with foam, it is doubtful any expert could say that with 100% certainty. I do know, USAF Hercules hace survived much worse attacks, but hey, they had fuel tank protection.

tucumseh

16th Mar 2007, 16:36

From the link provided:

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy said: "There's a balance to be struck. It is being done as swiftly as industry can do it, given that we need a certain number of C-130s to continue our operations."

Dissembling.

1. Why are we limited to using “industry” to embody a straight forward, simple, modification? Not something to do with ditching the likes of St Athan and ridding the Services of the skills and capacity to do it in-house?

2. Yes, we need the C130s. But if you are relying on the “Engineering Pool” aircraft – typically around 15% of the fleet assumed to be in maintenance at any one time – to meet front line commitments, then by definition you are in overstretch.

Here’s my balanced view ACM. If you’ve gone into print and lambasted the Government and MoD for inflicting these issues on you, then I’ll retract. Otherwise – do your job.

nigegilb

16th Mar 2007, 17:47

PQs

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the effect on (a) serviceability and (b) availability of C130s has been of the introduction of the Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract provided by Marshall Aerospace. [125000]

Mr. Ingram: The Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) contract's primary output is to provide Fit For Purpose (FFP) aircraft available to the Front Line Command. To qualify as FFP an aircraft must be reliable, safe and capable of performing the task on a given day.

HIOS is still in its transitional phase, and is due to complete on 30 November 2007. Nevertheless, between 1 September 2006 and 31 January 2007 (the most recent period for which data is available), there was a modest increase in FFP aircraft of 3 per cent. (whilst
13 Mar 2007 : Column 205W also reducing costs) when compared with a similar time frame under the previous aircraft support arrangements. This performance is expected to improve progressively as the full benefits of HIOS take effect.

Anyone care to explain Fit For Purpose. Would that include the aircraft parked up at Cambridge?

Chugalug2

16th Mar 2007, 17:51

Tucemseh wrote:
Here’s my balanced view ACM. If you’ve gone into print and lambasted the Government and MoD for inflicting these issues on you, then I’ll retract. Otherwise – do your job
Here here Tuc! Such complacent and "on message" comments as attributed to Sir Glenn above may secure his future (or so he thinks), but it is bad news for our aircrews and troops obliged to soldier on waiting on the capacity of "Industry". The words tails and wagging come to mind. The Royal Air Force has very serious deficits in AT and SH quality and quantity. At any time this would require urgently addressing, but in war it has to be done immediately and effectively. The track record to date shows neither, and is a scandalous disgrace. The person with direct responsibility is the CAS and it is time for him to go. I do not expect him to resign, no one ever does these days, so time for some imaginative script writing. His replacement must be some one up to the job, ie ensuring the operational effectiveness of the RAF. As for Sir Glenn, perhaps BAE have a slot for a flying salesman to flog Typhoons. Oh, they have? Excellent news!

Pontius Navigator

16th Mar 2007, 19:09

between 1 September 2006 and 31 January 2007 (the most recent period for which data is available), there was a modest increase in FFP aircraft of 3 per cent

I guess that means ONE?

tucumseh

16th Mar 2007, 19:55

Mr. Ingram: The Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) contract's primary output is to provide Fit For Purpose (FFP) aircraft available to the Front Line Command. To qualify as FFP an aircraft must be reliable, safe and capable of performing the task on a given day.

I know Ingram doesn’t write this stuff, but he sure puts his name to some bloody rubbish doesn’t he?

To an engineer, “Fitness for Purpose” is the definition of quality. In part, this entails ensuring the aircraft meets the whole a/c specification, which includes safety and airworthiness of not just the airframe, but its equipment as well. To meet that criteria it would have to have, inter alia, DAS and ESF when overflying a war zone, would it not? Safety extends beyond the aircraft, to the crew, passengers, ground crew, and the public over which it flies. I cannot reconcile the MoD’s explicit admission that safety is lacking (as they have approved funding for ESF) with this statement. If it’s considered “fit for purpose”, then I suggest the HIOS contract needs updating.

nigegilb

22nd Mar 2007, 18:40

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the adequacy of work carried out by the contractors fitting suppressant foam to Hercules aircraft. [128356]

Mr. Ingram: We are satisfied that the contractor is applying quality assurance processes robustly and that the fitting of explosive suppressant foam to Hercules aircraft will be completed within the agreed timeframe.

Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the value of the Hercules aircraft ZH876 and its contents that was written off and destroyed following the landing accident north of Basra. [128945]

Mr. Ingram: The current market value of a C-130J aircraft is in the region of £45 million.

This is an alternative answer to the one provided by Ingram.

Some Herc pilots believe that the RAF has purchased cheap foam, this is not the case, I understand that the foam quality is not a problem, it is the methods behind the fitting. Tank Tigers (TT) are stripping out all the old sealant then applying new. TT then request that the aircraft is flown to flex the wing and cure any subsequent leaks. I have been told that Marshall Aerospace won't allow this and go in and install the foam. After test flight to cure the leaks the foam has to be removed.

Storage of new foam is not a problem. Foam that has been in fuel is. It is this storage and removal / refit process that is causing the FOD problem.

tucumseh

22nd Mar 2007, 20:32

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the adequacy of work carried out by the contractors fitting suppressant foam to Hercules aircraft. [128356]
Mr. Ingram: We are satisfied that the contractor is applying quality assurance processes robustly and that the fitting of explosive suppressant foam to Hercules aircraft will be completed within the agreed timeframe.

As usual, Ingram doesn’t answer the question. “Quality Assurance” is planned actions. “Quality Control” is operational techniques and activities.
Given Nigel’s note about the difference if opinion between contractor and sub-contractor regarding techniques and activities, perhaps it would be more pertinent to ask if the MoD’s Quality Assurance Representative has exercised his right of access to both, and sought to reconcile this rather important issue; and, if so, what was the outcome. Clearly, if there are leaks, then there is a trend which demands investigation. Given the embodiment rate, one leaky aircraft is maybe forgivable (maybe) but to permit a second is incompetence, especially if it was predicted in the first place.

nigegilb

22nd Mar 2007, 20:41

Not just two Tuc, four out of four Ks delivered with leaks, last time I checked. I have been told that leaks were discovered on the after flight inspection by engineers at Lyneham after the Hercs were delivered from Marshall's. Now the fiters are getting clogged up. I am concerned that the crews might lose confidence in the program.

tucumseh

22nd Mar 2007, 21:31

I guess a small apology is due to Mr Ingram for my last post. It must be very difficult for him, not to mention “off message”, to openly overrule or criticise the decisions of his immediate predecessors, who upheld a ruling that making provision for Quality Assurance and Control, or actually delivering a product that is safe, airworthy or otherwise fit for purpose, is optional.

Chugalug2

23rd Mar 2007, 08:00

Ingram would say that the voyage of the Titanic was executed in a completely professional and competent manner! There is only one right way to fit this foam and Marshalls would appear to prefer a different way. Take the work away from them to people who have done it before and have a proven track record of doing it right first time, on time, on budget. There is a war (or two) on you know!

nigegilb

23rd Mar 2007, 12:34

I understood that the RAF placed a UOR to fit foam to all Hercules aircraft. Not just a select few which is what we have ended up with. I received this answer from Igram the other day.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the RAF has placed an urgent operational requirement for all Hercules aircraft to be fitted with explosive suppressant foam. [117912]

Mr. Ingram: RAF Strike Command raised urgent statements of user requirement for the fitting of explosion suppressant foam to that number of Hercules aircraft required to support current operations. These were all approved as urgent operational requirements.

This answer is not the one I was provided with a few months ago.. If anyone can confirm my original understanding please PM.

tucumseh

23rd Mar 2007, 15:39

"urgent statements of user requirement for the fitting of explosion suppressant foam to that number of Hercules aircraft required to support current operations".

That is NOT the same as an Urgent Operational Requirement!! Nor is a request for Full Fleet Fit. It is a statement of USER requirement which must then be staffed as a UOR by the SPONSOR.

More dissembling.

In the first instance, Ingram should be asked to answer the question.

nigegilb

23rd Mar 2007, 18:47

I think this might be one for the Herc Inquest. I re-read the BoI carefully the other day, it does appear that foam was requested to be considered fleet-wide but this appears to have been watered down. I have a day set aside to talk with the investigating officer. If anyone can provide any info between now and the 30th it would be greatly appreciated.

I was also told the other day that the Nimrod was brought down by a fuel tank explosion. I consider the lack of fuel tank protection in RAF aircraft to be a scandal. I will continue to pressurise the likes of Glenn Torpy, who is happy to send crews to war without fuel tank protection until he stops talking about his favourite toys and actually does something about it.

More PQs I love the title of this one, Peace Keepin Operations. I was told a couple of months ago that this BoI was complete and was with the MOD Lawyers. Could be wrong but Mr Ingram is spinning for Britain at the moment.

Afghanistan: Peace Keeping Operations

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for the (a) reporting and (b) publication of the Board of Inquiry report into the destruction of the Hercules Aircraft on a landing strip in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [124205]

Mr. Ingram: The Board of Inquiry continues to work to determine the cause of this event. The findings of the Board will be released as soon as possible after conclusion of the inquiry; a redacted copy of the report will be made available on the MOD website.

flipster

24th Mar 2007, 09:09

It is alleged that the room in which the BOI for XV206 was working is now occupied by the team working the BOI for ZH876and the BOI for 206 shut up shop weeks, if not months, ago. Ingram is telling porkies again!

What i suspect is happening is that their airships and the legal branch are desparately trying to rearrange the commentss of the AOC and AOCinC to suit the spin doctors. Good eh?

Un fortunately, any delays seem to reinforce the idea that the findings are being fudged by the 'top kneddies'.

While everyone waits for publication dates, any findings of the BOI are being suppressed and this is not helping anyone, least of all the crews. Get a move on, Sirs - otherwise you risk any BOI findings being considered;

a. Out of Date
b. Massaged or heavily censored, thereby undermining the hard work done by the BOI itself.

Flipster

nigegilb

24th Mar 2007, 09:41

Chugalug2

24th Mar 2007, 10:39

Last time you dared to criticise the BoI process Flip, you upset a few people. I wonder if those same people would like to come forward now and explain the delay. I have huge misgivings about the way BoIs are convened. I do not believe that contemporaries and immediate superiors should serve on the board. They are too close. I also believe that the BoI lacks clout. The reason this thread started was simply because the process to fit foam stalled just a few weeks after the BoI was published. The real power has been in the Inquests.

And look at the way Mr Walker and his Inquests have upset people on this Forum Nige! Why? Because he is independent, which is exactly what BoI's should be. It would be unacceptable if BA were to be the ones appointed to investigate their own accidents, but it seems to be quite acceptable for the RAF to do the same. It needs a military version of the AIB to do this. Employment opportunities for BOFs and Walts maybe, but it might avoid travesties such as Mull etc to be perpetrated. LCploH Hull's Inquest raised the old canard of Opsec, when the preoccupation was really A#sec! We are too fond in this country of "self regulation", left to the likes of "gentlemen". In these matters there are few "gentlemen", rather there are "bums and gangsters" to quote Sir Freddie Laker.

nigegilb

24th Mar 2007, 11:28

Totally agree Chug. The BoI for XV179 failed to explain why it was 38 years after USAF first started ffitting foam to Hercules ac our own RAF hadn't even recommended it. In the case of Matty Hull the MoD lied about the presence of the HUD video and almost got away with it. There were failures in the BoI for Sgt Roberts. I have a great deal of difficulty accounting for the lack of independence and I have no faith in the MoD providing comprehensive documentation.

A sad state of affairs.

flipster

24th Mar 2007, 12:25

Nige,
I agree that an investigation into an 'independent' BOI process is long overdue and that the current system uses people who are far too close to the issue - that, in itself, is a result of a shrinking RAF. But there are a few probs that are often cited when talking about an 'independent' or distanced BOI structure.

a. Such a BOI may not have enough knowledge about an ac type's modus operandi. eg Fast jet jockeys deliberating on truckie or SH SOPs/tactics - (or even vice versa) might raise a few eyebrows. Of course, some might say that this would be a blessing......!

b. Not only this but the BOI may not have 'recency' of such tactics used on operations. Take for example our own HQ 2 Gp - who failed to appreciate what 'bog standard' sqn crews were having to do in theatre. While this could have been remedied by having a proper 'operational' chain of command for the AT fleet, an independent BOI may not always remain conversant with up to date ops.

c. There may be security clearance problems - although, this is certainly not insurmountable.

d. Senior Officers will always want the final word, even if they are part of the problem. An Independent system, wholly without the MoD, would at least hold them accountable and they would be unable to sweep things under the carpet or even prejudge BOIs - both of which HAVE happened in the past.

Despite these (and other) problems, IMHO, they could ALL be overcome with a little application, forethought and the considered appointment of long-term staff. Certainly, an overhaul of the present system is worthy of consideration.

Flip

ps Nige,

While I am a critical of the current system, I should just point out that if some people took exception to any previous comments, it was probably because they perceived I was having a go at the people involved in the recent BOIs at Lyneham. Far from it, I only have admiration and respect for all involved in all 3 BOIs. (Three? Crumbs! That says something in itself!!)

The present system, however, must have/does put people in an inenviable position, with all kinds of hidden pressures - which should not happen in an ideal world. The fact that everyone has come out with their sanity intact (mostly!) speaks volumes for their resilience and dedication..... hats off etc.

Chugalug2

24th Mar 2007, 13:40

The present system, however, must have/does put people in an inenviable position, with all kinds of hidden pressures - which should not happen in an ideal world. The fact that everyone has come out with their sanity intact (mostly!) speaks volumes for their resilience and dedication..... hats off etc.
Absolutely, and here here Flip! Those with the necessary technical, operational and other appropriate knowledge and experience would be available to the "MAIB" both as witnesses and even as attached board members. The point would be that the "MAIB" and hence the Inquiry would lie outside the MOD (nested with AAIB?), and hence have its own reputation of independence and objectivity to maintain. As you say the problem, in the main, has not been the BoIs per se, but the subsequent massaging or total rewrite on "review". Messrs Wratten and Day must mark the nadir of RAF Flight Safety policy, and to continue down their road would lead to the utter ruination of the RAF. The independent authorities that officiate over civilian enterprise should act as models for similar ones to investigate military accidents and deaths, and would perhaps be more appropriate than leaving it to the overworked coroners (effective though they might be) to do the job others should have done but failed.

nigegilb

1st Apr 2007, 16:17

I followed up a couple of the recent answers. It appears a team is evaluating the fact that the ac is not test flown after the first sealant coat. Don't know if this was as a result of pressure from our added scrutiny. It needs addressing though, there are several more Ks to go through the foam program. Tuc made the point about FFP including foam, so I went back to Ingram. Funny old thing he will not tell us on grounds of security. Torpy said he would never send a Hercules up against a threat it could not counter. How hollow those words sound now. Thanks again for all the hard facts that come my way, I feed them in direct to the Defence Committee. I know it is a pain in the ass for the guys and girls that have to provide the answers but things like the botch job on the Ks will hopefully get sorted quicker as a result.

When the BBC carried concerns about Herc safety as lead story a few weeks ago they were going to state that onlt 4 aircraft had been fitted. The MoD quickly shoved out a statement that 7 aircraft had actually been fitted. This was just a few days after Ingram had answered a PQ with a flat statement that he was not going to give a commentary on the number of frames fitted with foam. Thankfully the BBC still ran the story.

A word to the crews. The foam is provided by Crest and it is high quality. The FOD problems are being caused by the handling of gasoline soaked foam when it has to be taken out of the tanks.

Thanks again to everyone who continues to contribute.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the reasons for the fuel leaks on the Hercules aircraft after they have been fitted with suppressant foam; and if he will make a statement. [129352]
Mr. Ingram: We are currently collating and evaluating data in connection with the fuel leaks that have occurred on some Hercules aircraft fitted with explosion suppressant foam. This work is being undertaken by a joint MOD/industry team.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2007, Official Report, column 205W, on Hercules aircraft, whether the Fit For Purpose Hercules aircraft available to the Front Line Command provided by The Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract includes (a) explosive suppressant foam and (b) defensive aids suite; and if he will make a statement. [129706]

Mr. Ingram: All of the RAF’s Hercules aircraft are maintained under the Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract. I am withholding the number of aircraft that are equipped with explosion suppressant foam and defensive aid systems as its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.

Chugalug2

1st Apr 2007, 16:58

The FOD problems are being caused by the handling of gasoline soaked foam when it has to be taken out of the tanks.

Nige, thanks for the info as ever. It seems the old Flight Safety adage that "Everyone should know what everyone knows" is not a sentiment shared with Mr Ingram. "**** retention" might describe his philosophy better. The crux of this fiasco is of course in your quote above. What on earth the aviation professionals of our allies think of this circus one can only guess. We might just as well have put the contract out for work experience or job creation purposes. It surely could not have been done more incompetently! Someone should be named and shamed, publicly humiliated, and unceremoniously fired. But of course they won't. The losers are our crews and their pax. I still maintain that the bulk of this work should be put abroad, to either or both Australia and the USA. Providing employment in this country or saving foreign exchange costs shouldn't be the paramount consideration, rather it must be the rapid and effective protection of our AT fleet for war.

nigegilb

18th Apr 2007, 09:59

Way back when we started all this in Feb last year, I wrote to the Defence Committee about the need to upgrade the "J" anti-missile system.. The MoD had cancelled the original program on grounds of cost in 2002. Well I now understand that the "J" is getting an upgrade, which is great news for the crews. Pity the senior officers at the time could not have fought their own corner, but hey, after what has been happening over the last few weeks I doubt if we will ever see them fight hard and upset their political masters.
So, everything we asked for is happening except for cargo bay protection. The latest incident involving a Herc in Iraq highlighted the need for this protection. I do understand the weight penalties particularly affecting the "K" fleet but I wrote once more to the Defence Committee about the matter. Received this reply today. 16 Apr 2007 : Column 154W

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the fitting of kevlar matting to the cargo bays of Hercules aircraft. [127600]

Mr. Ingram: In order to protect our personnel on operations, it is the Ministry of Defence policy not to comment in detail about current or planned levels of air platform protection. We constantly monitor a range of factors including the threat, technology available and industrial capacity to ensure that our aircraft on operations are equipped with appropriate protection systems.

It is my understanding that nobody is looking at cargo bay protection at the moment so I intend to apply some pressure in this direction in the coming weeks.

flipster

18th Apr 2007, 17:07

Nige,
Would it interest you to know that some of our allies do indeed fit cargo bay protection for some missions? If this is so, why don't we??

Flip

ps

Mrs Flip asked me the other day

"How many other ac types are flying around without fuel tank protection?"

I replied that some Hercs, some SH and some FJ have foam/inerting systems but I said I didn't know exactly which ones.

Would anyone care to PM me with a definitive (if short) list of RAF ac with fuel tank protection?

Truckkie

18th Apr 2007, 17:45

Kevlar Matting would be ideal for certain sorties only - but we are still dealing with issues like trying to get para-door armour for our GE's!!! (statement of request 2004)

With the bad news that the MOD now can't afford to re-wing the proposed number of C130Ks it seems that the writing is on the wall for the whole fleet anyway.

:{

flipster

18th Apr 2007, 22:17

Trukkie

What a crock! The more things change, the more they stay the same!

(Am very glad the new HQ MoD chairs are comfy though!)

Flip

chappie

18th Apr 2007, 22:25

hi one and all, sorry for lack of contact and of being any use. you are al in my thoughts, not that helps apply pressure or get the hercules fleet protected!

it would seem to me from day one that any question that mr ingram is asked he will not answer or ever have any intention to answer any question asked. i may be niave but will the security of the fleet really be compromised with the questions that we seek an answer for. i mean unless i am wrong the ac that are protected will have a massive neon sign on it saying whoo hoo to the terrorists guess what i've got! i really don't mean to be flippant but he is a waste of space.

just to say i will be out of the loop again...not that it will really matter or make a dent in all this as tomorrow i will be giving birth to my baby girl! finally! when the dust has settled and we are well again i will be back in contact.

take care
stay safe
thanks for all you do. this really does continue to hurt that over two years on from losing bob i cannot rest happy in the knowledge that the risk of another family going through the pain and loss i and others go through knowing that the ac and pax are still not protected. i am still very much comitted to this campaign and now i'll little one in the outside world if need be will strap her onto back and continue to fight the good fight.:)

tucumseh

18th Apr 2007, 23:35

There’s much talk here of much-needed kit/capability; and supposed unaffordability.

In bygone days, if one identified a nugatory “requirement” or proposed spend in ANY stage of the procurement cycle (concept to disposal), this was (loosely) called a “saving”, in that waste was avoided. This was because money had been “set aside” for the “requirement”, needed an act of God for anyone else to use it. Offering it up as a saving meant other programmes could benefit, or the subject programme could perhaps buy a previously unfunded aspiration. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve done this.

Recently, the MoD definition of a “saving” has quietly changed. Now, the money has to have been committed, not just set aside.

You may not think this a big deal, but..….

The problem has always been, if a saving is identified, it means someone has usually made an error. (Usually of omission, caused by not following mandated rules). They are usually minor, but mushroom if not corrected. Rather than praise the person who identifies the saving, the MoD will do all they can to hide the error. This includes knowingly wasting the money and taking disciplinary action against the “saver”. (Actions, by the way, upheld many times, in writing, by successive senior staffs and ministers). By cutting down on the number of “savings” in this way, they (a) further protect the guilty/incompetent, (b) remove any perceived incentive to report wastage and (c) waste even more money because people cannot learn from their mistakes. (And please don’t cite GEMS to me – anything more than a 4 or 5 zeros at the end is “political dynamite” and swept under the nearest carpet).

While the precise details are not for this forum, hundreds of millions are quite common. On one current programme, which I have never worked on, I could write the case in five minutes identifying real savings of over £100M, while leaving time and performance intact – in fact improving performance. That would buy a lot of Kevlar flooring! It may even fund C-130s inclusion in proposed DAS programmes. Is someone listening out there? If you are, you get my vote.

flipster

20th Apr 2007, 07:14

Tuc

You scare me with posts like that! Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??

If so, this is a national scandal.

Flip

Chugalug2

20th Apr 2007, 08:39

Flip, Tuc is a man who knows what he is talking about. The connecting factor behind this thread, the Chinook, the Nimrod, the Sea Knight, the blue on blue ones, and others, is the covering of backsides, whether they be clad in uniforms or suits. When bureaucracies go self serving like this it is down to their leadership to identify and resolve. Therein lies the tragic reality of this situation, for just when we get an administration for whom running a whelk stall would be a challenge, the RAF is bereft of the quality of leadership that it needs to meet the challenge. I do not know how this can be resolved. We can only hope that someone does, and is addressing it urgently, for lives are at risk here, let alone your wasted squillions!

airsound

20th Apr 2007, 12:50

Hope this isn't too far off thread - but I'm sure everyone will be glad to know that Chappie has produced a little Chappette. She's Katie Grace, weighed in at 7lbs 12oz on 19 April, and in good health. Chappie herself is still in some pain, but otherwise in good form.

If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.

Congrats to Chappie and Mr Chappie.

:D :D :D :D :D

airsound

BEagle

20th Apr 2007, 13:28

Agreed - congrats to Mr & Mrs chappie - and welcome to the world to chappiette! Another person ready to keep Ingram and Brownie awake at night!!

Hope that all the chappies are fit and well - and congrats again!

tucumseh

20th Apr 2007, 18:36

flipster

"Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??"

YES.

If so, this is a national scandal.

AGREED.

Like I said, in writing. Over the years, I made a point of having this renewed at every regime change / reorganisation (i.e. MoD(PE), AMSO, AML, DPA, DLO) so they couldn't argue "Ah, but that was in the past". Not that I really needed to, as the facts (and numerous auditors reports) speak for themselves. I wonder if DE&S will follow suite? It's in hand.

Chappie - Congratulations.

Chugalug2

22nd Apr 2007, 21:51

Chappie has produced a little Chappette. She's Katie Grace, weighed in at 7lbs 12oz on 19 April, and in good health. Chappie herself is still in some pain, but otherwise in good form.

If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.

Thank you Airsound, it's wonderful news! Well done Chappie, and congratulations to you and Mr C !
Welcome into the world little Katie, you have the most remarkable mum. Listen and learn from her and you won't go wrong, but it will be an exciting ride along the way!
I hope you are soon fighting fit Chappie.
Regards Chug

flipster

23rd Apr 2007, 15:28

Chappie

Fantastic news, well done to all. Hope you are back on your feet soonest. Katie Grace is a lucky girl having you for her Mum!

Flip

flipster

26th Apr 2007, 06:48

Tuc

Check PMs please

Flip

ps How can we identify these savings for better uses?

saudianet

1st May 2007, 05:32

Flip

Can't send you email lost the address again please send me your email address via here. I have tried sending you emails to this address but you need to clean out your inbox it says you aren't allowed anymore !!! I apologise for using this thread !

Thanks

Net

flipster

3rd May 2007, 14:52

S- Net

Will pm soonest - thanks for tip on PM inbox.

Flip

chappie

20th May 2007, 00:10

hello one and all.
thank you sooo much for the support and kind words over what has been a very difficult but worthwhile time. i still feel terrible about how all consuming things became and how it ultimately cost me my ability to continue to carry on helping with the campaign and the quest for better safety for all of you who are still left to risk your lives thanks to the penny pinching and very short sighted gutless ways of our poor excuse of a government and MoD. I still want to and plan to continue to fught for the truth and what is right and well over due. it may take me some time to get up to speed to where i was and what i can do. there are days where i am unable to figure out what the actual day is, what my name is all thanks to brain fog! the fighting spirit is still there. i only hope i can contributee in a worthwhile way. i was particularly fired up after i read a message from an individual who had been on the herc that blew up last may in helamnd and just how bloody close it was that they did not lose their life that day.
katie and i endured 3 weeks in hospital and have only been home for a week so i still struggling and not totally recovered but that will not deter me. when i look at my new born daughter i see a litle girl who will not get to share the experience of having a loving uncle love her and protect her because he along with nine other fine men were robbed of their lives due to a lack of a standard feature, an unspoken right to have their safety/lives protected as they continued to help others around the world have the right to live their lives as safely as they can.
watch out browne, watch out ingram the bitch is back ad this time i'm armed with hormones.:ok:

Chugalug2

20th May 2007, 10:53

Hi Chappie. It's good to hear from you again, and to know that you and little Katie are back home. As you will have noticed things have become a little quiet around here, so a rallying call from time to time, such as yours, is needed to get us back at the top. How about a progress report Nige? With the interregnum period we are in now I suspect everything is on hold, and when the coronation is past I cannot see Gordo dishing out the largess to the likes of us. So the battle is still on and we will be looking to you and your army of hormones big time Chappie, so keep up the training regime and come out fighting fit again!

Fast but Safe

20th May 2007, 14:40

Hi all,

Has 206's BOI been released yet?

FbS

nigegilb

21st May 2007, 08:12

Chappie may I pass on my heartfelt congratulations on the birth of you baby daughter. The good news, is that you can sit back and enjoy your time together without having to worry too much about the Herc fleet. The foam program is scheduled to be complete by November. Sadly, there does not appear to be a way of accelerating this process without affecting operations. Which, clearly shows that operations always have the greatest pull over safety, but I think we all knew that.

I have been fairly quiet of late. The on going investigation concerning the Inquest continues at a pace. I am absolutely convinced by its thoroughness and that we will get a true picture of events running back through the years as to why XV179 did not have foam in the tanks on that day. Unfortunately, the investigation will take several months. The chief investigator has interviewed many current and ex Herc aircrew and groundcrew, including myself. If anyone has info for him, please PM me and I will forward his contact details. I wrote an article for the local paper here a few weeks ago. Lord King used part of the article in an opening speech in a House of Lords debate. Interestingly, the BoI for XV206 is still not out, even though it was supposed to have been completed after 6 months. The cynic in me suggests that it will not be released until all the operational Hercs have foam on board. I remain convinced that it was a fuel tank explosion.

This is the personal account that Chappie referred to of a pax escaping that attack.

"There but for the grace of God go I. I was a passenger on the C130 that crashed/blew up in Helmand, Afghanistan, last May. I shudder to think of how it would have affected my family if I had perished.

We got out by the skin of our teeth, I got out the crew door in front of the wing that was in flames. It was so hot, I couldn't even look directly at the wing as I jumped down.

I owe my life to the crew and the speed with which they got us off the plane. I hope their actions are properly credited in the BOI when it is published (any day now?). I don't know what it will say about ESF in our case. I know that John Reid said something about it not having been relevent. But I suspect the foam would have delayed the fire, giving us more time to get off, and perhaps the opportunity to save some kit as well. But more seriously what if the crew's reactions had been just a little slower, or anyone had needed carrying off????"

The crew played an extraordinary role in that incident.

Video of the "J" being hit on a strip in Iraq is doing the rounds. I haven't seen the attack, but I do know how close the people on board came to losing their lives. I have passed on my concerns to the Defence Committee, such is the sensitivity of that attack, I haven't been able to use a more public angle. I do hope though, that at the very least, the Loadmaster will get added protection in the para door.

Finally I received this PQ the other day. It appears that the IPT is responsible for the mess that is the "K" program. I wonder how they feel about that.

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who in his Department was responsible for (a) writing the specification for the fitting of explosive suppressant foam to UK Hercules aircraft and (b) liaising between the contractors to ensure the most efficient working practices; and if he will make a statement. [135072]

Mr. Ingram: The Hercules integrated project team (IPT): part of defence equipment and support, in conjunction with Air Command and the equipment capability customer, was responsible for writing the specification for fitting explosion suppressant foam to the RAF's Hercules aircraft. The Hercules IPT is responsible for ensuring that the contract specifications are completed within the agreed timeframe.

nigegilb

21st May 2007, 08:19

Just as I say things have been quiet, I receive more PQs. These answers are rather funny, in an incompetent sort of way. The reason the ac are not flown after the first sealant process is completed is due to the urgency of the program. I assume the Minister knows that every single "K" has had to be returned to Marshall's, I do wonder if he has a brain sometimes. Any engineers out there with a bit of knowledge, care to comment?

Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, if he will take steps to ensure that Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam are flown to flex the wings after the sealant is applied but before the foam is put in place. [136695]
Mr. Ingram: The replacement of the fuel tank sealant is only undertaken on the Hercules C-130K aircraft. Flying the aircraft between fuel tank sealant replacement and fitting Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) would introduce unacceptable delays to this urgent programme. Therefore, quality assurance processes are used to ensure that it is not necessary to fly the Hercules C-130K aircraft after the fuel tank sealant has been replaced but before ESF is fitted.

17 May 2007 : Column 845W

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, how long it has taken for each Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam to return to active service; and if he will make a statement. [136696]

Mr. Ingram: The Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification takes approximately 44 days per aircraft to complete. The less complex Hercules C-130J modification takes approximately 16 days. The difference in time scale between the two marks of aircraft is due to the need to replace the fuel tank sealant on the older C-130K. In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the front line command, the ESF modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible.

Chugalug2

21st May 2007, 19:22

I'm no engineer, but it would seem to me that MOD had the same choice that every car owner has to make. You can get it serviced to the manufacturer's specification at a properly accredited garage using propriety parts, or insist they do it in a different and quicker manner which will save on labour and get it back by tea time, or you can go to a bloke on the industrial estate who will do it cheaper still, using "generic" parts and get paid in cash. Which of these three options for the K ESF fit was chosen is a moot point, but I have a high incidence of suspicion that it was not the first!

tucumseh

23rd May 2007, 18:43

At #1306, discussing deliberate waste of money, I said,

"Over the years, I made a point of having this renewed at every regime change / reorganisation (i.e. MoD(PE), AMSO, AML, DPA, DLO) so they couldn't argue "Ah, but that was in the past". Not that I really needed to, as the facts (and numerous auditors reports) speak for themselves. I wonder if DE&S will follow suite? It's in hand".

DE&S replied. (A notable event in itself). Confirmed that all I said still stands.

Chugalug2

23rd May 2007, 22:51

Tuc, the more you reveal of how my taxes are knowingly misspent in the corridors of power, the more I am convinced that they would be better spent by the armed forces directly dealing with industry, though subject of course to stringent audit. I feel that the numbers we buy in, in these days of shrunken forces with shrunken budgets, mean that any savings due to programme management by specialist staffs is more than consumed by the costs of those staffs, let alone the costs of their repeated blunders. Do you have a solution, or are you content with the growing civilianisation in our defence budget? This may be going off thread, but what is the point of Nige getting their Airships to finally drink the water on offer, only to have it pixxed out again with little effect (literally with the K's!), and at great cost (if you catch my tortured and mixed metaphor!). It is scandalous that this urgent and life saving programme is being carried out in such an indolent fashion, and underlines my firm belief that public enterprise under this government is uniformly dysfunctional, with the honourable exception of the Armed Forces themselves. Very disheartening indeed!