Kinloss........Whats Going on?

[Tappers Dad]

OK difar69 The Nimrod was built from new from plans based on the Comet design However on 2nd October 1969. XV 230 was delivered to the Operational Conversion Unit at St Mawgan, and became the first Nimrod to enter operational service with the RAF. SO IT WAS STILL A 38 year old aircraft designed in the early 60s. With some 38 year old parts on board.

[Exrigger]

The age of the airframe is almost irrelevant, there are a lot older aircraft flying around safely, what makes the difference to wether it is safe or unsafe is the modifications (i.e. AAR) and Engineering Instructions that are added to it, the manner/standard/speed these are embodied, with what materials, additionally it depends on how much the airframe is used outside its original design parameters. Other factors are the depth/standard/frequency of maintenance added to spares problems.

Take the F3 Tornado it was designed as a CAP aircraft to defend the airspace over britain, when a squadron had a go at low level mud moving tactics there was a lot of stress cracking in the wing root area, the answer was a trial with an F3 sqd being equipped with outboard pylons to reduce the wing flutter and hence the stress cracking, if the aircraft had remained in its designed comfort zone this would not have been an expensive un-necessary exercise.

I suppose that some will say that the MRA4 when it comes into service will already be unsafe as it will be almost a 60 years old design

[buoy15]

Tappers Dad
I console with your concerns, and those of the other families - their sadness and anxieties, regarding the loss of the crew of XV 230
However, we must not lose sight of what the BOI is struggling to achieve in very difficult circumstances
To point problems by stating the MR2 is a converted Comet is a bit naughty
It was a new metal build based on that frame design and extensively modified
The Chief Design Engineer for project 801 ( project no for Nimrod) based at Woodford, formerly AVRO, then Hawker Siddley, now BWOS knew his onions.
He interpreted the MOD Specification - based on UK maritime and Cold War conditions - and met the order by producing a pure jet airliner size ac that
could fly by day and night in all weather at low level, to either attack a submarine or provide SAR.
With this in mind he "overmilled" as they say in the industry
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.
Where the Spec was 10ml he made it 12. and where it was 15 he made 17, and so on. Unlike Boeing - if it's 10ml then it's 10ml - saves costs - not lives
I was later involved with a group that witnessed the first 3 fuselages being NDT'd ( Non Destructive Testing) (X Ray) at Poole and was assured by the project manager that if the MRA4 never came about, the existing fleet was "oversafe" because they had been over designed, well maintained (NMSU) and well cared for (Nimrod Line) and aircrew. His final words were - " They are actually a brick-****house"
Regarding hours - the meedjia are quoting fleet not airframe
Aircraft are designed to acieve at least 48000+ flying hrs, regardless of how long they have spent on the ground
I flew on Nimrods for 32 years and achieved barely 10.000 hours in the air
I have seen every F700 in the Mk2 Fleet and the oldest at 2004 was about 19000 and the youngest about 16000
They still have a long way to go
Regarding fuel leaks
They have to be classified
Moist
Damp
Drip ( so many per min - per hr)
Persistant
Leak
Gushing
Some Ppruners might identify ex-wives here - please don't

[Tappers Dad]

difar69 -
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/patrol/BAe/Nimrod.htm
Like many other successful maritime patrol aircraft, it was based on a civil airliner which had reached the end of its market life - in this case, the Comet 4. The first two RAF aircraft were unfinished Comet 4 airliners.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/aboutus/nimroddesign.cfm
Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe which included many of the original systems, there still remained much in the way of design and development.
A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.
http://avia.russian.ee/air/england/hawker_nimrod.php
It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. It was originally designed by Hawker-Siddeley, but is today a product of BAE Systems. The Nimrod serves the RAF in two variants: the R1 variant in a reconnaissance and electronic intelligence gathering capacity (ELINT), and the MR2 variant in the Maritime Reconnaissance role.

Exrigger Did I mention safety NO

buoy15
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_headline=extreme-heat-in-afghanistan-doomed-raf-jet--says-former-nimrod-engineer&method=full&objectid=18142620&siteid=50082-name_page.html

Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.

So you flew on Nimrods for 32 years good for you. My son flew them for three years before one killed him and 13 others. And nearly 9 months later still no answers from the BOI.

[Pontius Navigator]

The first two prototype RAF aircraft were unfinished Comet 4 airliners.

They were Comets, they were never in service as Nimrods.

You might have said the Concordes engines had been fitted to the Vulcan.

A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.

This nose was never subsequently built in to a Nimrod.

It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner.

It was not a conversion in the accepted sense, nor was it a modification. It was a design based on

Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.

Who am I to disagree with a flight trials engineer, OTOH maybe both our memories are fading with time. In 1970 an early production Nimrod, without avionics as they were not ready, was flown out to Singapore for high temperature trials as the aircraft was intended from the outset to operate a detachment from Singapore. This early aircraft was fitted with electric heaters to simulate equipment heat loads.

All I am trying to do is to steer the thread along a narrow path and ensure that inaccuracies are minimized and claims founded on fact.

[Tappers Dad]

Pontius Navigator
I have just given information from references .
YOU ON THE OTHER HAND APPEAR TO BE JUST DISAGREEING WITHOUT REFERING TO ANYTHING.

Although I did notice you did not disagree with.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/abo...mroddesign.cfm

Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe (Comet?)which included many of the original systems (Comet?), there still remained much in the way of design and development.

As you have not disagreed does this mean you agree with RAF Kinloss that they used an existing airframe and included many of the original systems ?

[Distant Voice]

Sorry PN, but avionics were ready in 1968. How do you think Nimrod got clearence to enter service in 1969?

DV

[Distant Voice]

Buoy 15. I do not know where you got the +48,000 from, my understanding is that 20,000 is about the mark. XV227 was a front runner, and was withdrawn in 2004.

DV

[Pontius Navigator]

DV, I was in Cyprus from Nov 70. The Nimrod ws parked immediately outside the sqn and the AEO, the one with a 'wooden' leg told us.

Now he may have been telling porkies as he didn't want to offer an aircraft tour or maybe that airframe itself was unfinished.

[Pontius Navigator]

TD, as a primary source I do not have to cite references.

I note that one of your sources was a Russian website.

Also I did not disagree with that source as I had no grounds upon which to disagree.

[Not Long Here]

To my recollection, and as described at:

http://www.dehavilland.ukf.net/_Nimrod%20prodn%20list.txt

PN is absolutely correct in his assertations. XV147 and 148 were both "owned" by the Mod as trials platforms and were the only 2 aircraft modified from the Comet and neither saw any operational service. Every other airframe was a new build as a Nimrod.

[Pontius Navigator]

NLH, thanks for that link and confirmation that there were actually 46 MPA Nimrods built. Th eoriginal order was 38 and a follow on order, the XZs were I think ordered by Ted Heath for the Malta Sqn (?).

PS, to add to that, the first XZ airframes began life, and saw service, as MR1s before being pulled for the AEW programme. Only the last XZs became straight AEW and even then they might have had MR tails first.

BAe accounting and contract meant they got a stage payment for the airframe when they were delivered to the RAF. Their accounting year ended 31 Dec. One year we had several undercoated jets lob into ISK about Christmas, only to be flown out the following days to be re-fitted. Wierd.

[Exrigger]

PN: Malta Sqd was 203 and disbanded in 1977, our aircraft were originally earmarked to go to St Mawgan, I am not sure if some had anything to do with conversion for 51 sqd.

[Safety_Helmut]

Ex

No, they didn't.

S_H

[Exrigger]

S_H: Thanks, wasn't sure.

Ex

[Safety_Helmut]

XW664, XW665 & XW666 all new build for 51, in the same sense as the MR as discussed to death above. All were delivered long before 77. Conversion of maritime to R1 not easy as BAES found out when converting XV249 when '66 was lost in the Moray Firth.

S_H

[Exrigger]

Thanks again S_H, I was on 51 late 70's at Wyton but did not know the history of those three aircraft. Come to think of it when I was on the NMSU in 72-74 I remember now the rumours of a new version, that was a long way back no wonder my memory is a bit off.

[Distant Voice]

PN: It is reported that;

"The first detection of a submerged Soviet nuclear submarine by the RAF occured on August 30th 1970, when a Nimrod flying out of St Mawgan located a "November" -class hunter-killer. The sonar operator who located it was Al Thomas, who retired from the RAF in 2003 with the rank of Squadron Leader."

Now, I know nothing about AEOs with "wooden" legs, but Al Thomas did an excellent job with a Nimrod without avionics.

DV

[pmills575]

As one of the first groundcrew assigned to the Nimrod at St Mawgan and someone who "saw in" XV230 on it arrival, I can state with total confidence that the aircraft delivered to the OCU at St. Mawgan were fully fitted out avionics wise. It's true that there were crew positions without any assigned equipment, but all of the mission avionics was present on the OCU aircraft.
In addition these were definitely new build airframes.

[Distant Voice]

pmills 575

Many thanks for that confirmation.

DV

[buoy15]

DV
Would that be the same "moaner" Thomas that did a tour at ISK and moaned every day that he should not be there as his wife was struggling to run the guest house in St Mawgan:hmm:
The MR1 Nimrod was fully avionic in the 70's with basic Jezebel, Mk1C Sonics and Autolycus (sniffer - ha! ha!) remember Raymond Baxter? - former Spitfire pilot and Defence Correspondent for the Torygraph who thought a Jaguar was an F111 at a Biggin Hill airshow
The prosthetic AEO was on CXX
During an "O-4-F*cksake'' SAR callout, the crew were delayed whilst the AEO bolted his leg on. The Sqn Boss then ordered him to sleep with his leg on when on SAR
All the Malta ac were destined for the scrap-heap when they were nominated for the Mk3 programme and re-assigned XZ
Considered a white elephant, I would have called it the ' Platypuss' - any better offers?

[Not Long Here]

Buoy 15,

"All the Malta ac were destined for the scrap-heap when they were nominated for the Mk3 programme and re-assigned XZ"

Not true, those aircraft were never anything but XZ, and they came back from Malta and did time as MR1's. I flew in 80-85 whilst on 42 at St Mawgan in the seventies, 82 and 84 at least, were converted to MR2 and 84 was still around until comparatively recently.

As PN said they were a second batch of airframes ordered subsequently from the first 38. Hence the different serial numbers.

[Tappers Dad]

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=819162007
THE Ministry of Defence yesterday launched a multi-million-pound project to ensure its operations at RAF Kinloss do not harm an environmentally-sensitive nature site.

I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I AM READING. :ugh::ugh:

[TheSmiter]

Welcome to the parallel universe called MoD TD.

I'm all for saving the fragile eco system of Findhorn Bay
I'm even more interested in saving lives.

It shouldn't be too difficult to get your priorities right, should it?

TD, perhaps a wee FOI request to find out the funding for this project?

[Nimman]

Today's Press and Journal said that it was a £14 million pound project

[enginesuck]

Its already finished, or so I believe unless they were digging up the ring road for fun all last year.

[Foxthreekill]

TD if your MOD is the same as our DOD, then they have no choice in the matter. If they fail in their Heath and safety/ecological obligations then they are fined vast amounts of cash. Its the law and the MOD/DOD do not stand above it.

[Pontius Navigator]

Foxthree,

It is not the same here. True there is no longer crown immunity but as the MOD is part of Government it would just be a question of swilling cash around the pot.

Where we would lose is if we, as individuals, were prosecuted.

We are involved in a trustle with one of our Environmental organisations, I am not sure where they fit in pecking order. Essentially we will win. However we do try and avoid bad publicity and also gain good publicity. The Kinloss works do both these and the fact it is in Scotland makes it even better.

[AQAfive]

There seems to be some confusion over what was fitted where and when to the Nimrod MR1's. When the aircraft were first delivered the following equipment had designated positions in the ac, but were never fitted in operational ac (I do not know about any trials ac):

Autocyclus Although the simulators were fitted.
Infra-red linescan
DEER - Directional Explosive Echo Ranging (julie)

I think this may have been the equipment refered to as not being fitted for early trials. All equipment fitted in the operational ac was off the shelf from other ac or platforms.

The extra 11 MR1's were ordered under the auspice of operation Tapestry. These were XZ registration, only one was converted to MR2 (XZ284 ?), the remaining ac became AEW 3 before being ultimately scrapped.

It is true the airframe was of comet design but new build with appropriate modifications, as I said, everything was off the shelf.

As for operating in hot conditions, the ac was always planned to do so, in fact it operated out of Singapore up until 1975 for several months at a time. They weren't perfect thats for sure, but that was maybe because they were new.

I am full of similar info should you wish any more.

[enginesuck]

Cheers for that AQAfive, im sick of people scare mongering over this a/c it is a work horse and will continue to be one for years yet to come. Ill fly on any of them any day.

[Pontius Navigator]

AQA5, and of course Martel. The On-Top drift sight was fitted to one aircraft some time towards the end of the 70s but only for a couple of trips, The AS12 only made a fleeting appearance too.

Behind the pilots seat was a wooden frame to take a radiation monitor of some sort. I believe it was to measure radiation levels inside the cabin in the event of nuclear weapons being used.

One 'simple' bit of kit I seem to recall was the Beam Observer's Pointer. Tell me I am not dreaming? Visual bearing fired on to the Tac Screen?

[nav attacking]

Pontius,
It is absolutely true. The kit was for sending visual bearings through to the tac screen and it is still fitted in one of the sims. Never saw it in action though as I never went on a Mk1. I did see one of the jets with all the switchery for an Autolycus though. Believe they got rid of them when a lot of merchant vessels went over to big diesels, tended to get a lot of false calls. Just like now really...
Another simple bit of kit was the sidewinder and 1000lb aiming perspex sights which I believe were bolted onto windscreens for the Falklands Campaign.
We have been bolting on simple work around kit ever since!

[Yeller_Gait]

I can remember hearing about the beam pointer but never saw it in use as far as I can remember. so no, not dreaming.

Not sure why it was taken away because in my time at Kinloss it would have proved useful for visual bearings and fixes.


Y_G

[Phoney Tony]

The beam pointers fitted into the 'socket' beneath the beam window. Once aligned with the object of interest the black button, which was part of the 'socket' was pressed and a line of bearing appeared on the Tac Display. However, there was a software feature which often crashed the tactical computer. This was never fixed. I suspect the cost benefit analysis indicated it was not worth the effort.

Another feature which proved to be useful was that if you pointed both beam pointers at each other in the MCT, it crashed, taking 60 mins plus to reboot. Thus providing an early bath or a least a break for tea.

[Distant Voice]

AQAfive: Operating in hot conditions, and tested for hot conditions is not the same thing, and that is why "they did not work perfectly all the time". Singapore (MARDET) was not a hot weather trial it was a reaction to an unplanned political situation, same as Afghanistan and Iraq.

DV

[Pontius Navigator]

DV, I beg to differ about Singapore. Singapore was most definitely not unplanned. It had been an integral part of our defence diplomacy and was part of the reason for our encouragement for the formation of Malaysia and also severe worries when Singapore, which was predominantly Chinese, opted out.

There had been a permanent Shackleton deployment to RAF Changi and RAF Tengah has two purpose built V-bomber sqn facilities - far better than in UK.

The Mardet was simply a cheaper expedient than basing a sqn in Singapore.

It would have been part of the acquisition plan to deploy Nimrod to Singapore.

[thunderbird7]

So 'Autocyclus' was the name of the diesel sniffer? I remember a small oblong patch on the skin on the left hand side behind the flt deck, covering where it used to be. Amazing how much c**p I can remember from GSU visits! ( 22 holes in the airbrakes? 117sq ft - vertical area of tail...? )

[Pontius Navigator]

The voltage limit of the fire axe?

[Safety_Helmut]

50,000, and most of them were made in the 40's

[Pontius Navigator]

Ah SH, that will just add fuel . . .

The pillar lamps at the Nav Stn were the same vintage as fitted to all Avro aircraft probably from the Mancester onward.

But they were clearly not out of the de Haviland bin.

[Safety_Helmut]

I always wondered about their ability to provide protection against 50,000 volts given their age and the state of the insulation (rubber ?) on the handles.

S_H

[thunderbird7]

In fact, wasn't that thingy called 'Ortolocus'? Yep. 50,000. And I once got b*******d for flying in cold weather trousers BUT with my jacket hanging up, thus not wearing a complete flying coverall.

[Pontius Navigator]

Thunderbird,

I was once the ferry Nav to bring the jet back from St Mawgan after the GSU flew it home.

The senior Nav Standards, one M*** S**** was extremely blunt that day. He was in No 2s, woolly pully, with life jacket on top, and practically comatose in the RNav seat. Although I was not planned to work my passage I was quickly pulled from the galley and pressed to work.

Only time I ever saw an airman not wearing a flying suit. I suspect his flying suit may have been in an even worse state that he was.:}

[Distant Voice]

Ok, let's just document what avionics Nimrod had cleared and fitted when it entered service:

(1) 920 Computer (1st digital system, but only 8K)
(2) E3 IN platform
(3) Doppler radar
(4) Tacan
(5) IFF
(6) PTR 175
(7) UHF Standby
(8) Inter com (and that was no simple task)
(9) Jez/Sonics
(10) ASV 21
(11) Nav/Tac interface
(12) ESM (ARAR/ARAX) switch-on release only
(13) Loran
(14) Loran C
(15) MAD
(16) AD470 (HF)
(17) AD 118 (LF)
(18) ILS/VOR
(19) SARBE Homer
(20) Radio Altimeter

I Think that's a good avionics fit for 1969.

DV

[Pontius Navigator]

(1) 920 Computer (1st digital system, but only 8K)
(2) E3 IN platform
(3) Doppler radar
(4) Tacan
(5) IFF
(6) PTR 175
(7) UHF Standby
(8) Inter com (and that was no simple task)
MAR
Ampex
(9) Jez/Sonics
(10) ASV 21 D
(11) Nav/Tac interface
(12) ESM (ARAR/ARAX) switch-on release only
(13) Loran A
(14) Loran C
(15) MAD
(16) AD470 (HF)
(17) AD 118 (LF) Rx
(18) ILS/VOR (twin)
(19) SARBE Homer
(20) Radio Altimeter
Retro
Rotary Launchers
Pressurised Launchers
Kolsman Sextant
RDD
Searchlight
AS12

[extpwron]

Surely there must have been something electronic to heat the pies.

[AQAfive]

DV

I quite agree, testing merely defines the limitations of hot weather operations, not that you intend to solve any problems discovered. Only the DoD has the funds for that. What I would add is that in Singapore, unserviceabilities were wide ranging and some trivial, like i/c switches and HF Tranceivers (only one then) but they were enough to ground the ac.

From a subjective assessment (mine) the location and temperature of any deployment had little impact on the availability of the jets. The more they flew the better they tended to be.

P NAv

On a trivial note, the AMPEX was not original equipment, it was added to the DEER position in the mid 70's. It had a test facility that allowed the i/c to be replayed through the Jez audio channel. English (or Scottish, Welsh, Geordie etc. etc.) played in reverse sounds remarkably like Russian to the untrained ear. Many an AEO caught with that little trick on those long transits inbound.

extpwron

The infra red oven could well have been classified as "electronic", it had a switch and a temperature guage and worked very well. However, much more impressive was the infra red grill. Designed for steaks the design of which would be familier to Mr George Foreman. Its only drawback was the venting system; into an underfloor bay where smoke detectors were situated. Tested them many a time. Removed due to health and safety - something about burnt on food not being cleaned properly. Pah, nothing a new piece of lean steak couln't clean off.

Yeller Gait

I'm not sure why the Vista Track was removed except it was replaced by the NIMTAN sight for a short while - but that is another story.

I'll stop now as I feel these posts are getting away from the original thread and from my many contacts at ISK, the issue is worth airing not only for the flying Sqns, but for the hard pressed and 'lean' NLS. (Or whatever they are now called under the new purple naming convention)

More than willing to 'pull up a sandbag' on a new thread.

[Pontius Navigator]

AQAFive, one final problem for the MarDet. At least one aircraft had a retro misfire with a round ignited in the barrel. Possible causes were the humity expansion of the wooden round and the other through failure of one of the charges thus giving insufficient ommpah to get the round out.

Back towards the thread, and your mention of the grill vent.

IIRC most of the time we were flying and the AEOps had nothing to do Ops wise we seemed to be running emergency drills - retro misfire, underfloor heating, smoke alarm etc. Was this good practice or something essential given the COTS nature of the beast?

[AQAfive]

PN

I have to say we as a crew never suffered from retro problems as you described although they were mentioned. I was always told that the tube was designed to contain the heat for the designated 6 mins. How true that was, I have no idea The device created its own aura of fear and some Aeops did their utmost to aviod the unit. It was, of course, a trappers dream and more than one cat was lost as a result.

As to the many drills, well there were stats to complete. Because the beast was so reliable and there were only a handful of drills we could undertake down the back, we had to undertake them - trappers again!

It was also my opinion the more often we did them the less well prepared for the real event we were. There is a tendancy race through the drill rather than stop and consider the problem, once the inital actions were complete.

[AQAfive]

PN

Sorry, I have re-read your post and see the nature of your question. We did hear about the swelling of the round but it never seemed to happen often enough to be the cause. The value of the groundspeed selected could have been though. The original Atlantique installation used a much shorter unpressurised barrel and no doubt we used their figures rather than develop our own. Selecting a low airspeed with the longer barrel might have caused the problem, but I am not an armourer! What I do know is for a large part of its Service, the max speed setting was used regardless.

[Pontius Navigator]

AQAFive, PM plse

[buoy15]

Da4force
Quote " How can you find a submarine without radar and acoustics"
Simple - Intelligent thinking, tactics and skill
Allen Bone (CXX) in the 80's lost both sensors during a Fincastle and carried out a MAD/Visual search and eventually pissed off a Cloggy submarine and won the Trophy

[buoy15]

Thunderbird7
13 knots?
Good 'B' Cat question
What's the answer?

[justray1]

The speed a sub must go at to travel 13 miles in an hour ...

[Pontius Navigator]

To escape a MAD Trap.

[Party Animal]

The number of knots on the escape ropes before you reach the end?

[buoy15]

Party Animal - well done
Nearly correct - only the ropes at the rear doors though

[Biggus]

Which just goes to highlight how morally bankrupt the Cat system had/has become........

Along with the "you can't have a B Cat yet, no matter how good you are ..... you've only been on the fleet 5 years" approach.

[Nimman]

Seem to recall that an armourer NCO B*** C***** got a BEM for saving an aircraft with an on board retro launcher incident fire on MARDET early 70's.

[Pontius Navigator]

Nimman, I can't comment on that. All I can say is that the immediate reaction was to order the use of max - 257 kts - which in turn caused other problems.

I trawlled through all the signals at ISK but we could find nothing to support the possibility that such failure was likely to be a regular occurence. There was, as far as I know, no engineering input for or against. We made a decision solely on the facts and reverted to normal usage.

We did hit another problem which may well have been related to the Singapore incident. The failure rate (it would not burn) began to creep up. As it didn't work crews tended to use it less. As crews used it less so the failure rate continued to creep up.

As I recall the crew allocation was something like 36 rounds per month or about 900 per month and 10000 per year. We started to look at why we had such a high rate so we quizzed the Dutch, German and French crews. First, they had not had a problem with failure to leave the barrel and all used the full range of firing speeds. The Germans and French also did not suffer high failure rates either. OTOH the Dutch had a similar experience to us.

You will recall that the shell is made of wood and we suspected it had got damp thus increasing the failure rate.

We checked the batch numbers of the other nations and found that the German and French batches were current year whereas the Dutch, like us, were using stock 3-4 years old.

We ended up red carded at least 6000 rounds at ISK and no doubt many others in storage. Once we started to use new stock the serviceablity increased and crews started to use more again.

We had similar problems with the 5in flare as well with failure rates exceeding 50% - not good on night SAR - more than 50% failure in a stick of 4 meant sometimes only one or no flare burn at all.

[Tappers Dad]

Kinloss whats going on?

Well today the families have been invited to lunch with the XXXXXX XXXXXXXX . To allow the families to ask questions as to why we are still waiting for the BOI findings and how we will be told about them when they are released.