Kinloss........Whats Going on? [Archive]

The Swinging Monkey

29th Mar 2007, 07:19

Over the past month or so, I have made a point to phone as many of my old mates up at ISK to try and get a feel from them of what its now like up there since the loss out in Afghanstan. What I have been told by virtually all of them is deeply, deeply worrying to the extreme.
Many of us on PPrune have egos as big as they come, and what most of us post on here is (and should be) taken with quite a biggish pinch of salt, however, the problems at ISK are most real and very serious indeed.
I don't think I have ever spoken to friends who are so sick-to-death with what is happening, not only to the aircraft that they fly, but to the station and the squadrons and the RAF in general. The stories of QFIs quitting on mass are correct. Reports of people refusing to fly in certain airframes are true Morale is 'non existant'
I am proud to say that I spent many years at ISK, and despite what anyone says, it WAS a great place. In the 70s, 80s and 90s the place was buzzing, it was just a great place to be, despite its location. The relations between everyone were outstanding, and there were very, very few problems at all. Now, I am assured that the place is close to meltdown and things are as bad as reports suggest.
Who's to blame? I don't know the individuals. But one thing is certain, it isn't the boys and girls on the station or on the line or on the squadrons, thats for sure. It is without doubt down to the faceless Civil Serpants and spineless Air Ranks, who have allowed a once-proud and great base to be brought to its knees by the constant errosion of the basic needs to keep things going. They should be ashamed.
I suppose its all down to money. The fact that the RAF have none (except for bloody stupid clothing promotions sh1t) but they have no money for the vital and essential needs of an operational front line station. And who is to blame for that? CAS? ACAS?, AOC? well the answer must surely be yes! all of them. These are supposed to be our leaders, and they have blatantly failed to pick up on the things that everyone said would happen. The crash simply speeded up the decline in morale and well being.
There are no quick fixes to this problem. Even a huge injection of cash at this stage will do little other than allow the 'patching up' to go on for a bit longer. I'm afraid that what is needed is a new breed of Very Senior Officer - one who is prepared to voice his opion, in public if necessary, but whilst he is still in uniform. It needs someone to have the balls to say 'enough is enough' and unless you change things, then I am going to quit, and I'm going to tell the world how it is!
Will it happen? ha ha ha ha ha, of course it won't happen. We don't breed senior officers like that anymore. I remember the very famous AOC 18Gp who stood up at ISK during the AEOp downbanding fiasco, and told everyone that 'he would resign if AEOps were downbanded' Well they did get downbanded, but did he resign?? Of course not.
To everyone at ISK, I think that most of us out here see and understand your plight. Those of us that have been part of that know how bad things are and hope that they will soon improve fo you all.
Tigs and Reddeathdrinker, you are both right gentlemen. In many cases the sense of humour has died and in others it hase become distorted. But lets all hope that it soon returns to where it should be, and Kinloss returns to being a great front-line station once again.
TSM

I've_got a traveller

29th Mar 2007, 08:05

TSM,

You hit the nail on the head!! Well said Sir!!

jayteeto

29th Mar 2007, 08:36

It all sounds so easy, if only the top brass would stand up and be counted. You know what this government would do??? OK Air Chief Marshal, quit, no problem, we have someone here who will do as we say. The fall on your sword just doesn't work. The people who the government listen to are the ones you all hate.... Journalists. Get the press going for you and you are cooking on gas :\

J.A.F.O.

29th Mar 2007, 08:46

I am really sorry to hear that ISK has descended to this. I have very fond memories of some great times up there (many of them with Q) and I hope that something happens to turn this all around.

Many things may have changed but I am confident that the professionalism and attitude of lineys and aircrews won't have altered and I hope that this is enough to carry you all through.

You are still doing an excellent job in very demanding circumstances and I am still proud to say that I served there.

The Swinging Monkey

29th Mar 2007, 08:51

jayteeto

I'm afraid that on this occasion I have to disagree with you Sir about calling in the press. There is most definately a time and a place for them I agree, but I fear that things are now at a stage where the press will do little good.
Unless you have ever experienced this sort of thing, then you cannot begin to appreciate what the folks at Kinloss (and probably elsewhere) are going through, and I feel that the public will just look at it as another 'Oh look, the Armed Forces are moaning again' or 'whats with all this morale stuff?'

The fact is that it needs something serious to happen by those 'in the know' ie CAS, ACAS, AOC before people in power will take note. Yes, you are of course right about falling on your sword, but that is why it needs not just one very senior officer, but a few to have the courage to stand up and speak out at the cuts that are not only hitting Kinloss, but many others too. (And its not just the RAF I'm sure)

But it has to be done by someone in uniform. Its no good waiting till you leave and then bleating on. Does anyone even remember now what the 2 retired Army chaps said when they left recently? Can anyone even recall? Thats what I mean. All that happened with them is that they got a bit of publicity for a day or 2 about sounding off. They also took quite a lot of stick for NOT doing it whilst they were in post, and in a position where they could have done something about it.

CAS, ACS, AOC....are any of you reading this? What are you going to do? Do any of you have any concerns over Kinloss and elsewhere in the RAF or are you all too afraid that it may just affect your next promotion board? Dare I suggest you all do the honourable thing or am I being just a little bit silly in thinking any of you are men of honour?

Kind regards
TSM

jayteeto

29th Mar 2007, 10:26

Agreed, complaining after leaving is spineless

Had Enough 77

29th Mar 2007, 10:53

I was back up visiting ISK recently and you can feel the difference on the base, the atmosphere has definately changed. There is going to be a large experience gap in the fleet due to basically all the experienced pilots PVRing along with a significant number of flight engineers( it's all right at least they can train some more, doh! closed that training line down a year ago.) Flying is now at a premium at the base, with many struggling to keep their currencies up and on many days there is no SAR coverage for the UK.

The above is pretty bad but i think the situation on the line has to be seen to be beleived. i dont know the exact numbers but a huge percentage of the SNCO's have left and gone to the offshore industry taking with them their knowledge of a very labour intensive old ac. I think that there is actually no morale at all on the line with all the engineers trying to find a way out of the RAF at the earliest opportunity.

What made me really angry was when i went to lossie for a happy hour to meet my mates we were talking to one of the squadron bosses who was bitching about how hard doing one month in the gulf was and how good he/they were at EO ops as if it was their new thing and no one had been doing it before them, when i told him the current time away the nimrod fleet was doing and the state of affairs he just came out with doesn't affect me so i dont really care:ugh: , what a c:mad: k! I, in my humble opinion, would say this attitude goes up to the top as they will keep up the tempo until either there are no crews left to fly them or until another accident happens.

All in all it is pretty bad with no rosie future on the horizon, and as for MRA4 i think 50:50 is a good estimate. Much respect to the guys up there still doing the job but I am glad I am out.

brakedwell

29th Mar 2007, 10:58

Aeroplanes and the people who fly them have always been a damned nuisance. The RAF would be better off without them - it was ever thus!

Distant Voice

29th Mar 2007, 12:16

TSM
Excellent item. I only hope that your contacts are happy to stand up and be counted when the time is right.

We must have been at Kinloss during the same period.

Billy No-Jets

29th Mar 2007, 15:48

I was back up visiting ISK recently and you can feel the difference on the base, the atmosphere has definately changed. There is going to be a large experience gap in the fleet due to basically all the experienced pilots PVRing along with a significant number of flight engineers( it's all right at least they can train some more, doh! closed that training line down a year ago.) Flying is now at a premium at the base, with many struggling to keep their currencies up and on many days there is no SAR coverage for the UK.

6 Months away each year in the Sand, every year for the last 4 years didn't knock morale anywhere near as much as crewing in at 0400 but not getting flying until 1700 - if you are lucky to fly at all - or every flight being scrapped due to aircraft problems.

Crews are not really current, as said there is seldom a SAR jet available and when a sortie does go the crew make a pretence at holding 'airborne SAR' - only effective if the incident is within about 200 miles of your area and within the first 3 hours of your sortie. God help us with another Piper Alpha!!

The higher echelons at ISK are flagging the problems up but nothing seems to be being done to change things. Short of a few more shifts of lineys, maybe another Sqn or aircrew and a few more jets what can be done??

If the government wants to be part of every skirmish going then we need a decenly equipped and manned military - that costs. For me, I have browsed this forum for many years and only now feel strongly enough to post. Our country/government and senior staff don't appear to care about us but expect unquestionalble loyalty in return. Well, here at ISK, the rats are already fleeing the sinking ship - we are well and truely bu99ered and they still keep on trying to get another baseball bat to fit up our collective arse.

andgo

29th Mar 2007, 16:53

The situation at Kinloss is becoming dangerous. Paper over the cracks as much as you like, but it will crack further, just before before it collapses!
There may well be four Rods somewhere else, but how many are serviceable?
Tony B Liar, your Airships, you should be ashamed.:{

nimblast

29th Mar 2007, 18:49

To coin a well known phrase
ISK is no longer fit for purpose.
Until it stops pretending otherwise nothing will change.

TorqueOfTheDevil

29th Mar 2007, 19:20

on many days there is no SAR coverage for the UK

Indeed, I haven't seen the SAR Nimrod reported as serviceable for over a week. So meanwhile we have a national standby Herc ready to go at Lyneham - like the Herc boys and girls don't have enough going on already, without holding a new SAR standby too!

Crews are not really current, as said there is seldom a SAR jet available

...but this implies that the Nimrod crews have at least had some SAR training in the past, even if they haven't practised it for a while. No offence at all to the SAR Herc crew, but is there any SAR knowledge or experience at all at Lyneham? And how much use is a Herc when it can do barely half the speed of a Nimrod? Why, even a wheezing old Sea King might get there first...

Biggus

29th Mar 2007, 21:23

US Navy coastguard uses C-130s for long range SAR.

What asset has provided long range SAR cover in the Falklands for the past 25 years......?

Yes, the boys at Lyneham aren't as experienced at SAR as the ISK mafia, but rest assured they will do their best, and they can outrun a Sea King - JUST.....

In my day we used to do live ASR drops off the south coast before deploying to the Falklands, I don't know if that is still the case. My understanding is that in the Nimrod fleet most people (Navs?) who have dropped an ASR set have done so by mistake.......

Still, levity aside, sad to hear of the state of affairs at ISK, I'm sure things will improve when the MRA4 arrives (sorry - back to levity again!)...... :ugh:

reddeathdrinker

29th Mar 2007, 23:30

Rumour has it that one shift of the visiting Air Officers toys have more personnel available than the whole of the line combined

I'd love to deny this malicious rumour, but my mum told me it was bad to tell lies.....:ugh:

Mr Billy No-Jets has not just hit the nail on the head. He's smacking it with an industrial pile-driver. Repeatedly. The most commonly written word on the sortie board at the moment is "CANX".

And as for engines_suck, I am aware of his 4 Nimrods, and he's bloody welcome to them - Better littering the pan there, than here!!!:ok:

Flight Detent

30th Mar 2007, 03:05

I understand that the German Navy has just purchased eight Lockheed P3C Orion aircraft, and are happy to have done so!

Sounds like a great move to me, why don't the RAF do the same??

Cheers, FD :D

jayteeto

30th Mar 2007, 06:53

Are you paying?? They are skint!

The Swinging Monkey

30th Mar 2007, 07:02

Flight Deterent,

Now wash your mouth out! How dare you suggest that the British government should purchase an aircraft NOT made by BWOS, I've never heard of such blatant treason!

But what a great idea that would be. More commonality with other NATO members and a tried and proven airframe that works today, instead of dart-arsing around with MR4 (I see it was further delayed yesterday?)

I spent a short exchange (4 weeks) with the US Navy on a P3 squadron, and was impressed by its capability frankly. It is a good, solid, safe and capable aircraft. No, its not as fast as Nimrod, but so what? Does anyone know of any subs that can outrun a P3?

I would go along with that suggestion:

1. Stop flying ALL MR Nimrods, today, now.
2. Send a bunch of qualified Nimrod/Maritime people over to Davis Monthan to pick out 30+ P-3C airframes
3. ONLY send Nimrod people ie NO hangers on and time wasters. No Blunties, scribblies, bean counters et al. Engineers, aircrew and real support people.
4. The boys and girls that are left, send to the USN to get trained up
5. Shut down ISK for a couple of months and get some of the urgent infrastructure problems sorted once and for all. and then we may get a result.

The result will be a huge increase in morale. A feeling of self worth and belief, and a genuine wish by all concerned to get Kinloss back to where it used to be and where it deserves to be.

Oh dear, I must be dreaming. Sorry folks, of course it won't happen. You will have to make do until the mighty MR4 arrives, sometime in 2015, 16, 17?

Great idea though flight deterent.

TSM

brakedwell

30th Mar 2007, 07:26

How about borrowing WR 982 from the Gatwick Aviation Museum to keep the Kipper fleet going until the Orions arrive?

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/sedgwickjames/wr974lo.jpg

pmills575

30th Mar 2007, 07:57

Err, sorry to pedantic but that's actually WR974!

Good idea though, another ancient airframe to deal with !

cornish-stormrider

30th Mar 2007, 08:02

we could borrow the shack gate guard from St Mawgan.......

pmills575

30th Mar 2007, 08:21

If the situation is so bad then surely the Station Master and the senior EngO must ground all aircraft until they can be brought up to an acceptable level. No matter what pressure is bought to bear from above, declaring no serviceable airframes day after day must get someones attention. It is totally unreasonable to expect ground crews to patch up/tape over problems and try to declare it seviceable. The engineers are simply too professional to allow such shoddy work to be allowed to happen. I'm sure that they are vey frustrated and angry at not having the resources to provide good, safe and reliable aircraft for the aircrew to fly. Equally the aircrew deserve and should expect to be given safe airframes capable of carrying out the task.
Stand up you "Managers" another airframe loss is just not worth the pain!
All at Kinloss are suffering the pain that comes with such apalling leadership.

Green Flash

30th Mar 2007, 08:21

Er, so we havn't any working Nimrods, right? (Well, at ISK). Just a thought - but can 51 Sqn drop torpedos?:confused: I mean, if something pops up in the oggin, to the great displeasure of HM, can we go and do anything about it?:eek:

I've_got a traveller

30th Mar 2007, 08:43

TSM,
Excellent suggestion, you should run for PM. It's the best idea I've heard in a long time. I know it is blasphemous to even contemplate the idea of by passing good old Britannias defence industry in favour of Yank hardware. But, haven't we done this before with Phantoms in the 70's, chinnooks and more recently C17's when we have had a gap in a particular area.

The bottom line is, as much as I love the Nimrod, it is well past it's sell by date and to keep cutting back spending on such an airframe is not only dangerous but morale sapping. The notion of an island nation like ourselves surrounded by water without proper Maritime air assests is frankly alarming. I know that the Red October is hardly likely to surface off the coast of Rhyl anytime soon but for those ignoramuses who are unaware, we do a lot, lot more.

Dave Angel

30th Mar 2007, 08:46

Er, so we havn't any working Nimrods, right? (Well, at ISK). Just a thought - but can 51 Sqn drop torpedos? I mean, if something pops up in the oggin, to the great displeasure of HM, can we go and do anything about it?

No:rolleyes:

The Swinging Monkey

30th Mar 2007, 08:48

GF,
Probably not. I know diddly squat about 51 sqns airframes, but I doubt if they can drop anything from their bomb bay.

pmills,
I agree entirely with you, but I doubt if it will happen. It will be a brave SEngO to do that, and I just don't think they have the courage to stand up and be counted.

I remember at Cranwell not so long ago (and it may still be the same) at prayers on a nice, sunny day, the serviceable aircraft count was very low indeed. The next day, when the wx was raining frogs and 60kt winds, they were all serviceable!! How does that work then? And then of course they were all u/s when the sun came back out!

I do so hope that AOC 18gp is reading this, or his minnions are pointing it out to him. Come on Sir, stand up and make a real name for yourself by being the first very senior RAF in many years to have the courage to say 'enough, this has to stop' go on, just for the boys and girls at ISK. That in itself would boost morale 100 fold, knowing that someone at the top knows what is going on, cares about it and is courageous enough to say so.

TSM

nigegilb

30th Mar 2007, 09:04

Is it not AOC 2Gp's train set nowadays?

mary_hinge

30th Mar 2007, 09:06

"I spent a short exchange (4 weeks) with the US Navy on a P3 squadron, and was impressed by its capability frankly. It is a good, solid, safe and capable aircraft. No, its not as fast as Nimrod, but so what? Does anyone know of any subs that can outrun a P3?"

Is this the same / similar P3 Orion that was pitched against Nimrod in the early 1990s for what is now the MRA4 programme?

Tappers Dad

30th Mar 2007, 09:14

At the risk of repeating myself I just want to say.
I and millions of others are grateful that there are guys like you who are "On the Wall" .I too sleep under the Blanket of Freedom which you provide. Unfortunatly that Blanket now looks like a piece of rag full of holes.
All it takes is a "FEW GOOD MEN" to stand up and say NO enough is enough and let the people know who can do something about it, as they have with the Herc crash and the TRUTH will come out about the state of the Nimrod Fleet.

It fills me with sadness to here how the Nimrod fleet my son was so proud to serve in has degenerated.

Gainesy

30th Mar 2007, 09:22

Is this the same / similar P3 Orion that was pitched against Nimrod in the early 1990s for what is now the MRA4 programme?

...and the same 1950s (airframe, anyway) that lost out to the Nimrod as a Shack replacement in 1967.

dodgysootie

30th Mar 2007, 09:40

Heard some rumblings that the MRA4 project has ran out if money for "operational evaluation and testing" and that all the Aircrew that where supposedly posted in to start a couple of years of flight testing have been re-assigned as there is no money available. This would mean that IF the MRA4 did ever arrive at ISK, they would have to train "on the hoof" which I find disgraceful and probably very dangerous...
Has anyone else "heard" anything? A BWOS share holder perhaps?
DS

The Swinging Monkey

30th Mar 2007, 09:50

IGAT
I think thats part of the problem Sir. We all love the Nimrod. It was a great aircraft without any shadow of doubt, but......like you say, it has passed its 'sell by' date and as much as it pains me to say it, I think it should be retired forthwith. You simply cannot keep patching things up here and there and expect them to work as new. It does not happen.

Nigel, If you say its 2 gp, then I bow to your knowledge - sorry.

M_H I think it very well might be the same! The fact is that there are dozens of P3 airframes in fantastic condition, sitting in the desert, and we should get them now. They have next to zero hours, and would at the very least, act as a stop-gap. As IGOT says, it worked for the F4, the Chinook and more recently the C17. The problem is, this government (and others) have this overwhelming obsession to entrust BWOS to come up with the goods, on time and on budget. They invariably fail on all three fronts!

Tappers Dad
Sir, I know how you feel, beleive me. You know that I lost several great friends in the crash, and whilst I don't share the unbelieveable pain that you are suffereing, I still feel the pain like many others. What we must not do is make the folks at Kinloss feel that they are in any way responsible for what has happened and what is happening right now. They are not. It is very clear who is to blame for what is going on:

Lets say it very loudly and very clearly:

THIS PROBLEM LIES FAIRLY AND SQUARELY WITH SOME VERY SENIOR ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICERS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS, AND WHO ARE NOT PREPARED TO VOICE A TRUE OPINION OF WHAT IS WRONG. THAT IS COUPLED WITH SPINELESS AND FACELESS CIVIL SERVANTS AND POLITICIANS, WHO'S SOLE AIM IN LIFE APPEARS TO BE TO STARVE THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS.

To everyone at ISK, I hope you understand the strength of feeling and support for you at this difficult time.

TSM

Had Enough 77

30th Mar 2007, 11:40

TSM said:

THIS PROBLEM LIES FAIRLY AND SQUARELY WITH SOME VERY SENIOR ROYAL AIR FORCE OFFICERS WHO DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE OF THEIR CONVICTIONS, AND WHO ARE NOT PREPARED TO VOICE A TRUE OPINION OF WHAT IS WRONG. THAT IS COUPLED WITH SPINELESS AND FACELESS CIVIL SERVANTS AND POLITICIANS, WHO'S SOLE AIM IN LIFE APPEARS TO BE TO STARVE THE BRITISH ARMED FORCES OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS NEEDED TO SUSTAIN OPERATIONS.

Well said that man, :D
Although i don't think they are officers anymore they are very senior RAF politicians. Pity they dont have the power of a proper politician.

Da4orce

30th Mar 2007, 21:30

The only thing that certain RAF high 'rankers' are guilty of is not being prepared to stand up to their masters at the MOD.

It is the ticians and faceless beancounters at the MOD who have blood on their hands over the loss of XV230.

The situation at Kinloss has had so much press now that god forbid another 'accident' occurs then the lawyers of the bereaved would have a field day with the MOD and it would cost them a damn sight more than putting the situation right before that happens.

The only consolation I take from the current situation is that while the Nimrod is not flyng no other families will lose their dad, brother, husband.

1771 DELETE

30th Mar 2007, 21:57

It saddens me to read of the decline going on at Kinloss but is it as bad as most of the contributors to this thread suggest?
The fleet has gone through previous ups and downs and i would hope that the lineys and aircrew can soldier on until things improve. Dont go relying on the airships to improve things, its down to wg cdrs to hold things together.
As for flying P3, the US Navy is having trouble keeping them airborne and when they are, they are not really in the same league as a MR2 with the exception of their TV/IR capability. 51 sqn cant open the bomb bay and wouldnt know what to do if they did. The MR4 will be very good, if it arrives, hopefully the fleet can hang on in there that long.
I saw the writing on the wall 18 months ago and havent regreted jumping ship after 31 years on the fleet - dont miss it one little bit but was lucky enough to visit ISK last week and say hello to some old friends, its the people who are important, not the establishment.

Distant Voice

31st Mar 2007, 09:09

Come on folks, no senior officer is going to stand up and say that the Nimrod fleet is not fit to fly. Even if he did it would be forgotten in a few days, and the fleet would keep flying. What we need strong evidence (not rumour) to convice the general public (not ourselves) that the aircraft flying around Morayshire are on their last legs.

What are the actual PVR rates at Kinloss?

What is the daily OR figure? How is the OR figure declared for a weekend?

TSM
Who are the QFI's who have quit? Will they stand up and say "I quit because...."

Who are the people refusing to fly certain airframes, and what are the tail numbers of the aircraft?

HE77
How many days have we been without Nimrod SAR cover this year?

On 8th Nov 2006, a gulf Nimrod MR2 had a fuel leak in the bomb bay, following In-flight refuelling. What was the follow-up to this incident. Does anyone know the facts? Had this type of leak happened before 2nd Sept?

When we have evidence, not rumour, to answer these questions then we can go to the public forum -- big time.

andgo

31st Mar 2007, 09:25

kinloss..whats going on?
Rumour is not a lot!!
Seems that in a week only one managed to get airbourne (after a rejected t/o).
Oh yeah, and that one only flew for a few minutes, rtb with engine problem :ugh:

nigegilb

31st Mar 2007, 09:30

Since the September tragedy many fuel leaks have occurred. A simple way of making the aircraft safer to operate would be to provide fuel tank protection. I understand that Nimrod IPT has been making enquiries into providing fuel tank protection but nobody in a senior position is driving this at Kinloss. Surely the MRA4 should get fuel tank protection and the current fleet should also get it ASAP starting with the AAR ac?

I also understand an ac in January flying on ops had a fire indication in the bomb bay that turned out to be false. Is this fleet really safe?

dum_my

31st Mar 2007, 10:27

If any OC Eng Wg is convinced that engineering airworthiness is not up to it, then he already has the authority to ground the fleet at his location. There is a QR (is it QR 640?, I can no longer remember) concerning airworthiness. This QR is the formal authority which OC Eng holds for airworthiness responsibility, and it enables him to delegate powers to sqn SEngOs. If OC Eng decides, he can withdraw his authority for his engineers to operate. Hence the fleet is grounded. He can do this without the say so of either the Sqn bosses or the Stn Cdr (although he would of course advise them first!)

This happened once I recall at a fast jet station. The engineers on one of the flying sqns were 'in difficulty', so he grounded that sqn. The other flying sqns were unaffected, and in fact they gained the aircrew from the grounded sqn. About 10 days later, OC Eng Wg allowed them to start work again.

At Kinloss, his authority is delegated to Nimrod Line Sqn (is it still called that?). So if he withdraws his authority, then all the flying sqns are grounded, not just one of them.

dodgysootie

31st Mar 2007, 10:29

Nigegilb..Fuel tank protection may be a good idea, however, what about the fuel feed, refuel/defuel pipework and seals?
andgo.. Rtb with engine problem was a false engine bay fire indication which was dealt with as you would expect with professionalism.

nigegilb

31st Mar 2007, 10:45

ds, agree with you. The refuel pipework on the Nimrod is single skin contrast with the double skin pipework on the Tri Star. My point being, can this aircraft actually be made safe to operate? I know work has gone on to remove ignition sources but how can anybody be sure of the ignition source that caused the fuel tank explosion? The remit to continue AAR is provided by AOC 2 Gp. I would argue that it is not safe to continue AAR. However, due to the task being considered a higher priority than safety I would also argue that the crews should be afforded as much protection as possible. I would order the fitting of foam or nitrogen inerting systems immediately. There is a false view that it is only hostile action that leads to a fuel tank explosion. That is completely nullified by the plain fact that ultra modern airliners are being fitted with fuel tank protection as a matter of course.

Where does this leave the pipework? Well it is a heath robinson fix that is clearly unsafe. Not a happy state of affairs.

The point about the bomb bay fire indication is that had it been real, the only action, I understand, is a one shot fire extinguishing solution. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is another aspect of the unsafe nature of the Nimrod operation.

dodgysootie

31st Mar 2007, 11:31

nigegilb, unfortunately the bomb bay on the MR2 has no fire suppressent system, so if the fire is real, you are in trouble, I remember an incident at St Mawgan in the 80's when a lit flare had hung up, nothing for it but to try to "blow it out" with airflow. Luckily the aircraft made a successful recovery but was then I believe cleared for one flight only to Woodford.

TheSmiter

31st Mar 2007, 11:51

At least one organisation is delighted with the situation at Kinloss - The Findhorn Foundation (our new age neighbours and proper tree huggers!) are rarely troubled by the sound of Speys these days. Jess the Dog, glad you enjoyed a serene break with them; personally I'd prefer an afternoon outside the Kimberley with a pint of heavy, a large plate of tikka and glorious views over a tranquil bay.

To the lads and lasses of 3(F) and everyone else on CQWI, thanks for keeping ATC employed and maintaining currency. :ok: Its nice to see planes in the air at this wonderful station.

andgo

31st Mar 2007, 13:48

Dodgysootie.
Professionalism of the crews/gcrews is not questioned.
Reliability and safety of an ageing, tired aircraft is.

Jackonicko

31st Mar 2007, 15:13

Am I missing something?

Wasn't giving responsibility for servicing and support to BAE supposed to solve any problems with availability.

BAE's own Online News Room says (in a release dated 18 Jul 2006)

BAE SYSTEMS AWARDED £65M EXTENSION TO NIMROD SUPPORT CONTRACT

Farnborough, United Kingdom. - The UK Ministry of Defence has awarded a £65m extension to the current Nimrod Integrated Support Contract (NISC) to BAE Systems. The contract amendment, known as NISC Phase 2, sees BAE Systems incentivised to ensure availability of the current Nimrod fleet to the front line and extends the term of the original contract from 2008 to the aircraft out of service date of March 2011.

NISC, contracted in October 2002 and currently worth £140m, transferred on-aircraft depth maintenance and spares management to BAE Systems. Nimrod support arrangements have seen aircraft availability increase by 40 per cent and costs reduce by 8 per cent. The success of the arrangement was recognised by a 2003 MoD Smart Procurement Award.

NISC Phase 2 sees BAE Systems expand its involvement in on-aircraft maintenance, take responsibility for fleet management and contract to deliver agreed levels of aircraft availability in line with the customer/supplier agreement between the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) and RAF Strike Command. BAE Systems is tasked to supply the optimum number of Nimrod aircraft each day.

Amanda Paterson, BAE Systems Director of Tanking, Transport and Reconnaissance Operations said: “Under NISC we’ve cut costs, increased availability and overseen a significant transfer of risk from the DLO to industry under its ‘provider’ to ‘decider’ transition. NISC 2 offers aircraft availability, rolls in further aspects of the RAF Kinloss activity and puts in place the forward/depth construct that meets the ‘end-to-end’ recommendation for the Nimrod platform.

“Under NISC, from a fleet of 21 aircraft, 12 were required each day. With NISC 2, from a reduced fleet of 16 Nimrod MR2 aircraft, ten aircraft will be made available each day, a huge proportional increase in efficiency.

“NISC 3 is planned for April 2007 and gets us to full availability of the aircraft and all its systems. This stepped approach has allowed us to streamline processes and prove our capability to deliver before we move to the next stage”.

Group Captain George Baber, leader of the DLO’s Nimrod Integrated Project Team said “The NISC approach is very much in line with the principles of delivering through-life capability management through partnering, as laid down in the Defence Industrial Strategy. The opportunities presented by NISC are win-win to all parties. The real challenge for BAE Systems and the DLO is to ensure that we generate better value and produce greater effectiveness. The MoD gains increased aircraft availability, the British taxpayer gets true value and if industry deliver they make a profit”.

Support of the current UK Nimrod fleet is paving the way for the introduction into service of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, providing a seamless transition between the two platforms. The NISC programme is trialling capability and de-risking the MRA4 entry to service.

Notes to Editors
The Nimrod fleet currently comprises 16 MR2 aircraft stationed at RAF Kinloss in the North East of Scotland and three R Mk 1 aircraft stationed at RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire.

The maintenance tasks at RAF Kinloss are carried out by a strategic subcontractor FR Aviation Services. The two companies operate jointly at RAF Kinloss under the title of Nimrod Support Group (NSG). Underpinning NISC is a new “e-Capability” solution that uses MoD and industry IT systems to provide integrated asset management.

In early 2005, as an interim step to NISC Phase 2, an associated NISC contract was awarded called the Logistics Transformation Contract. This broadened the scope of NISC activities and includes fleet maintenance management, new ranges of parts and maintenance activities. The award of NISC Phase 2 contract amendment subsumes the LTC and consolidates the original NISC.

Ten aircraft should be available each day - and clearly are not. Even assuming that all of the aircraft meant to be available for operations in-theatre (four?) BAE is failing to deliver the availability for which it is being paid.

So are BAE/FR Aviation Services being penalised for this shortfall?

Would things have been better with three squadrons, 21 jets and full shifts of servicemen, rather than civilians?

ORAC

31st Mar 2007, 15:41

The fact is that there are dozens of P3 airframes in fantastic condition, sitting in the desert, and we should get them now. They have next to zero hours The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill. The USN are pressing for the P-8 to replace their P-33Cs ASAP. They reduced their fleet down from 228 to 150, then 130. With China now launching new long range SSBN and SSN, I doubt they have any airframes in good condition to spare....

"Global Security: ....The P-3C and EP-3E aircraft inventory is experiencing significant airframe corrosion and will additionally begin to reach the end of its fatigue life beginning in 2002. The US Navy is conducting a series of programs to sustain the P-3/EP-3E aircraft inventory until a follow-on platform can be fielded... through the Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) program. The MMA program has been directed to provide Initial Operational Capability (IOC) no later than 2015......

In 2003 the US Navy decided to cut by one third its fleet of aging P-3C submarine hunting aircraft after engineering evaluations determined airframes had less life in them than expected. Following structural tests of the P-3C fleet conducted earlier in the year, Adm. Vern Clark, chief of naval operations, directed the Navy in August 2003 to quickly reduce its fleet of 228 land-based surveillance aircraft to 150.....

US Navy: .....The ongoing P-3C airframe sustainment program inspects and repairs center and outer wings while reducing Fleet inventory to the mandated 130 aircraft by 2010. The P-3C fleet has experienced significant fatigue degradation over its operational life as quantified through the Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP). The Navy has instituted special structural inspections programs and replacement kits to refurbish aircraft structures to sustain airframe life......

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 15:53

Oh my god give it a rest all of you...

Badmouthing ISK is becoming a national pastime by the look of this forum, although I note that nobody who actually works here is taking part.

We who are there are still working very hard to maintain our operational commitments and morale, on my Squadron at least, is not a problem. Indeed yesterday, during the loose article, aborted takeoff, and fire-warning events that we endured, everyone was joking e.g "bet this is on pprune already!"
The only major worry during the whole flight was the queue of Typhoons trying to outbid our PAN with their fuel shortages.

Everyone knows there are aircraft and manning shortages here but the fact is it is nowhere near as bad at ISK as you all make out. The doom-mongers amongst you will not only be worrying the workers at kinloss, but also our wives and loved ones who are not averse to trawling these forums as well.

Rant over
:oh:

Jackonicko

31st Mar 2007, 16:06

I'm glad to hear that your morale is sky high, Mr T.

But there are allegations of two types of problem - one about morale, which you have addressed and corrected, and one about aircraft availability and serviceability, where serious allegations have been made, but which remain uncontested.

They are supposed to generate ten aircraft per day. When was the last time that actually happened?

How many aircraft were on the line each day last week?

How many Nimrod sorties were planned last week, and how many were mounted last week, for example?

Is it true that only one Nimrod "managed to get airbourne (after a rejected t/o)" last week, and that it "only flew for a few minutes, rtb with engine problem?"

How many days have we been without Nimrod SAR cover this year?

Someone said that they hadn't "seen the SAR Nimrod reported as serviceable for over a week". Were they mistaken?

Is it not true that QFIs, pilots and engineers have been PVRing in larger than normal numbers? How about the allegation that some aircrew have refused to fly particular airframes?

Len Ganley

31st Mar 2007, 16:14

Mr Trotter sr.

Badmouthing ISK is becoming a national pastime by the look of this forum, although I note that nobody who actually works here is taking part.

Looking back at the posts on this thread I believe you are mistaken on these points.

No-one is badmouthing ISK. In fact, as the Swinging Monkey said as part of his eloquent post
.........folks at Kinloss feel that they are in any way responsible for what has happened and what is happening right now. They are not. It is very clear who is to blame for what is going on:

The locations of some of the posters on the thread would indicate that some of them do indeed originate at ISK.

Suggest you remove your rose tinted glasses and face up to the facts:ugh:

Flying hours are harder and harder to come by.
People are leaving.
Lineys are working their bits off.

Most of our loved ones already know about this so I hardly think reading about it in this or any other forum will come as a surprise.

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 16:20

Len, I am not wearing rose-tinted glasses - I've been working my t*ts off in the Middle East for the last 6 years... I know its hard.

Jacko, how many military fleets have a daily availability of 66%?
that is what we would have to hit to get 10 a day. Currently majors, rectification, and mod programs account for 7/15 of the frames we have-so there aint never gonna be 10!

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 16:23

There has been more than one MR2 airborne at ISK this week!

Oh...and i'm on SAR all this weekend and yes we have got a jet!!!

Distant Voice

31st Mar 2007, 16:40

Jackonicko

So who is carrying out 1st line servicing at Kinloss. Service or Civilian?

andgo

31st Mar 2007, 16:44

Mr Trotter.
My mistake, that would be 2 airbourne last week then.
Now was that the engine surge or the burst tyres, the binding brakes...
Morale high on your Sqn?
Anybody getting enough hours to maintain thier Cat?
Those at Kinloss who post here know that morale is not high.

Biggus

31st Mar 2007, 17:13

Mr Trotter sr

And the answer to the rest of Jackonicko's questions then...

"How many aircraft were on the line (serviceable) each day last week?

How many Nimrod sorties were planned last week, and how many were mounted last week, for example?

How many days have we been without Nimrod SAR cover this year?

Someone said that they hadn't "seen the SAR Nimrod reported as serviceable for over a week". Were they mistaken?

Is it not true that QFIs, pilots and engineers have been PVRing in larger than normal numbers? How about the allegation that some aircrew have refused to fly particular airframes?"

Or are you taking the standard politicians approach, and only answering the questions you have suitable answers to?

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 17:21

ANDGO

I never said morale was high - I just commented that it seemed ok amongst the crew I flew with yesterday

Biggus

I only answered the questions that I knew the answers to, and that I chose to answer in a public forum - OK it was the politicians way...

nigegilb

31st Mar 2007, 17:24

Maybe I could have a go then...

"Ground crew are leaving in droves and a number of aircrew,
pilot engs and back end, are jumping ship. All the QFI's will be working for
NetJets in 12 months, even the ones who took FRI's, they are paying them
back!! Confidence in aircraft and hierarchy is at an all time low."

The Swinging Monkey

31st Mar 2007, 17:55

Mr Trotter,
You're not the Station Commander are you?
'Cos a lot of what your saying is at complete odds with what my very good friends are telling me! I'm not making any of this crap up, its ALL coming out of Kinloss itself.

Now, if morale is high on your squadron, then great, but give us a clue...which one is it? Cos it 'aint any of the three squadrons where my mates are. And they all say almost exactly the same thing, so I'm curious about your comments.

Maybe the rest of ISK have got it wrong eh?

And by the way, could I just assure you that at no time have I ever bad-mouthed ISK. On the contrary. I have made it perfectly clear where the faults lie and who is to blame - and it 'aint you guys at Kinloss.

I notice your lack of commenst to Jackos questions??? I wonder why that is.

TSM

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 18:13

The answer to most of Jacko's questions regarding the availability and serviceability of a military asset is "mind your own business".

And as for reports of low morale filtering out of Kinloss, they're not exactly a new phenomenon. The whole place has festered with unrest for the whole of the 25 years I've been there, mostly stoked up by whining gits who want to live down south, or these days those who try to avoid going to the sandpit!!

Jackonicko

31st Mar 2007, 18:14

I'm not having a go at Mr Trotter, I'll happily believe that his morale is sky high (and that delights me). I'd love to know which of the two squadrons he is referring to, since we'd then know fairly quickly if what he says about morale on his unit is accurate, or merely that he's lucky enough to be in a lovely enthusiastic bubble - perhaps in a good crew with a captain who knows about leadership.

Nor am I badgering him, specifically, to answer what are obvious questions arising.

Depending on what the answers are, we can perhaps report the situation accurately (not hysterically, and not in tabloid fashion, generating yet another face-saving band aid solution), and bring some grown up attention to the problem.

If anyone can PM me any detailed answers to my questions, or accurate information (tail numbers of the aircraft no-one wants to fly, for instance) then please feel free to do so.

I appreciate Mr Trotter's opinion that what I'm asking is a matter of 'mind your own business' - but it's just a bit too easy to use military secrecy as an excuse to cover problems that are politically embarrassing rather than genuinely militarily sensitive, and which the taxpayer and voter actually does have a right to know, and which the serviceman will benefit from having known more widely.

I suspect that the situation is exacerbated by the need to keep two elements of the fleet at 'higher than contracted rates of availability' and that this is soaking up a larger proportion of service manpower - leaving too few to work with industry's people at Kinloss.

I can quite imagine that when the NISC contract was negotiated, no-one anticipated the need to keep so many aircraft operating quite so intensively on deployed operations.

theotherhalf

31st Mar 2007, 18:42

Oh my god give it a rest all of you...

Mr. Trotter, I believe I know where you are coming from and I applaude you for trying to lighten a difficult situation. The minute things start to go wrong everyone feels entitled to become 'militant' if you will excuse the pun.
I have been on the receiving end of peoples actions of moral indignation, and believe me, when things are bad, these attitudes don't help, especially amongst those who insist they can find and solve all the answers. Good luck to them, if they succeed, but I agree, we need to lift not destroy and that is often how I felt after my partner died for his country, especially when people started shouting about things they had never bothered about before his death.
Why does it take a death to make people militant? This is just a rhetorical question - why aren't so called essential issues highlighted before catastrophes, or perhaps they are. Cetainly before my partners death, the issues currently occupying the various 'campaign leaders' were not 'up front'. I know that better than anyone.
I am sure that things at Kinloss are both up and down, but it is essential that every effort is made to keep morale high - walking away is not the answer. As my partner said - 'If I walk away, it dilutes the experienced workforce, increasing the risks for others to take, I can't do it'.

So come on guys, lift, lift as much as you can.

Incidentally, the unit my partner served on had and has a very high morale. How do you think they get through each day!!!!
So thank you, Mr. Trotter for trying to make a point.

OilCan

31st Mar 2007, 19:09

...the bigger the joke becomes, the harder I laugh - in public...

...in private, I nearly cry with despair :(

MightyHunter AGE

31st Mar 2007, 20:44

If you please I actually work on the Mighty Hunter and would like to add my pennies worth, I may get into some hot water but questions have been asked and I will try and give answers, which are my opinion. As a member of the British Forces I am still entitled to an opinion and if you don’t like the answers then maybe you shouldn’t ask the questions.

I am glad that some peoples morale is high at ISK, well done you live in a mollycoddled world where if there are no aircraft ‘S’ you go home, must be nice.

There are several problems on the line which I will try and tell you about, don’t take this as a rant or a moan, these are FACTS. Get comfortable I may be some time.

The problems started just over two years ago when the manpower on NLS was cut by 25% overnight due to airframe drawdown. Fair enough you say but this reduction in manpower was carried out before any loss of airframes. In fact the last aircraft left for conversion over a year after the manpower disappeared.

The aircrew thinking of having 24/7 line rectification coverage HAS NOT changed. We are not manned for weekend work but are still expected to work them. A recent quote from OC one of the Sqn’s sums up what we are up against… OC Sqn “Why don’t NLS get the guys who work the weekends to fix those jets?!” Ground crew “Well Sir NLS doesn’t work weekend” OC Sqn “Since when did this happen?!” Ground crew “ Well Sir over two yeas ago!” Says it all really.

Have you ever wondered why the majority of the time the aircraft not at ISK are in the main ‘S’? I will give you my opinion on this, lack of aircrew involvement in engineering decisions. We are left alone OOA without interference in the engineering decision making process. This certainly is not the case at home base. Eg? Just the other week we had an aircraft almost ready for flight, all it needed were a couple of hours work and tada, a ‘S’ airframe. Phone rings in rects control, stop working that jet and concentrate the limited manpower available to fixing XVblah. That jet needed over two shifts worth of rects to get it anywhere near ‘S’ but it was planned for a sortie the next day. This is not an isolated incident it happens on a daily basis.

We of course know that priorities change, we are not stupid. But constant interference for the ivory tower is really starting to get us down. The planners come down to rects and stand in front of the controller and nod their heads when he briefs on how much work is involved in getting each aircraft ready, then at the end of the brief then go, OK we will put XV blah into that sortie tomorrow. DID YOU EVEN LISTEN TO A WORD I HAVE JUST TOLD YOU is what we want to say but obviously you didn’t. planning to fail on a weekly basis only makes us all look bad. It is not through lack of effort that the aircraft are ‘U/S’. WE ARE THE ENGINEERS NOT YOU, TELL US HOW MANY AIRCRAFT YOU WANT AND THEN LEAVE US TO IT. WE DON’T TELL YOU HOW TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT SO DON’T PRESUME TO TELL US HOW/WHEN TO FIX THEM. This sort of thing really has to stop right now, period.

At the moment we are riding on our can do attitude that has always been amongst us engineers but this is now running out. All we hear is ‘how can we get round this problem’ or the even better one I hear daily ‘just lim that as we don’t need it for our sortie’. The fact remains that it still needs to be fixed, invariably on a Friday afternoon when we have been in all week and then have to work the weekend, which we are not scaled for.

This constant demand and lack of manpower has now put us into the position where those who can afford to have PVR’d and left. Good riddance I hear you say, they shouldn’t have joined up if they couldn’t hack it. Well its not good riddance when the guys that are leaving are some of the most experienced and hard working engineers that we have had. This is now the position we are at where most if not all of the experience has had it right to the back teeth and no longer want to be part of a lame duck outfit any longer. Most have gone off shore where the wages and treatment reflect their true abilities and where they are given the respect, right tools and resources to do the job properly.

Constant robbing of equipment between airframes for just one sortie is a massive drain on manpower, not to mention the fact that critical equipment is easily broken when being moved from aircraft to aircraft every single day. This happens all the time. Again we are aware that the nice piece of Gucci kit is in demand but if its broken then where is the training value in that???

Now we also are aware that the Gulf is part and parcel of what we do. We are proud of the job we ALL do out there. When NLS comes home it is replaced by……..NLS. This is the same as the Herc guys. We are not replace by another Sqn and then get to go home for 12 months for a rest. I know these Sqns have other dets but so do we. The turn round time for most trades in now every 6 months. So 10 weeks at a time for twice a year soon mounts up. Most folk are now Gulf fatigued and are into double figures in Ops. This is another factor that makes people leave. The ten-week RIP is really ripping the heart out of the line. For the change over period we have a massive amount of people unavailable to us due to the handover, pre/post det leave, training etc. The flypro was supposed to be abated to allow for this, I say was in the past tense.

I am sorry this has gone on for so long.

All I can say is this, give us the manpower to give you what you want.
We know that’s not going to happen unless we get another shift posted in and go back to 24/7 rects coverage. So if that’s not going to happen then the thinking at ISK has got to change from out winged brethren. No longer can the line work and work as we are now close to dropping. Let us have the space to do our job to the best of our abilities.

MR TROTTER sr

31st Mar 2007, 21:07

nim AGE

Well said indeed.

Finally some valid comment about Kinloss as opposed to the half-arsed heresay that has gone before on this thread.

WasNaeMe

31st Mar 2007, 22:01

nigegilb (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=135332)
Check PM

nigegilb

31st Mar 2007, 22:13

In 2002, a risk assessment was carried out for the Hercules fleet and it was decided not to fit foam. In the same year a multi-million pound anti-missile system was cancelled for the herc J fleet on grounds of cost. Since then 3 hercs and one crew have been lost, possibly all connected with fuel tank explosions and a nimrod and crew has also been lost to an unconfirmed fuel tank explosion.

I was contacted by nimrod crew a year ago, they were concerned about a lack of fuel tank protection on their aircraft. I have been contacted by nimrod crew since the crash who are concerned about the poor risk management on the fleet. Without doubt the morale at Kinloss is at a low ebb and the leadership provided by the higher ups is being questioned.

You may not like the techniques used by campaigners but since the problems on the herc fleet were publicised every single herc going into operational theatres has been placed on the foam program. Furthermore, I understand that the anti-missile system for the J is not only being reinstated but it is most likely going to be the very best on the market.

If cargo bay protection is added later this year every single item on the shopping list will have been provided and RAF herc crews will be amongst the best protected in the world.

Contrast this with Kinloss, one dreadful tragedy, and the only leadership on offer appears to be the kind that insists on placing crews in danger. It is not good enough. If it takes the media to highlight the lack of spine then so be it. We have seen enough avoidable tragedy in the last couple of years. Not everyone is militant, some people leave, quietly and that is exactly what is happening at Kinloss.

There is no point continuing in denial it will only lead to further tragedy.

Zhivago

31st Mar 2007, 22:13

Well said Mighty Hunter. It's about time someone stood up for the ground crews. I just wish sometimes the aircrew would realise that when they are going home and moaning that they have no aeroplanes they leave a lot of unhappy, demorolised people who whould also like to walk away from the problems but can't. That is why so many people are putting in PVR's.

On_The_Top_Bunk

31st Mar 2007, 22:59

Mighty Hunter is simply echoing the conditions of any of the support units.

It's the same throughout the heli/transport support world.

Oh well at least TypHoon is OK

dodgysootie

31st Mar 2007, 23:11

Well said MH Age, just read your post, and I could'nt agree more. I just hope someone with bo11ocks reads this thread....
Amen.

Da4orce

31st Mar 2007, 23:29

The answer to most of Jacko's questions regarding the availability and serviceability of a military asset is "mind your own business".
:=

On the contrary it's a matter of public interest whether when peoples lives are being put at risk in such a reckless manner.

Charlie Luncher

1st Apr 2007, 01:56

MH AGE

Have you considered an appointment with Harry to raise these concerns, go to the SENGO and ask to have it brought before the man.
Additionally the digs about aircrew walking away and going home, remember that when you walk away from the taxiing aircraft what they are about to experience.:hmm:
Charlie sends

fergineer

1st Apr 2007, 01:59

Just a thought after reading the post by MHAGE, well said sir. I have been in both positions, gound and air enginner and so have a respect for both. Its been a long time since I was at ISK, when I was there we had a very good relationship between the squadrons and the line even though some of the time the lineys wanted to kill me!!!!!! Going to lack of manpower has it ever been thought of that the Squadron Flight Engineers could help out on the line, giving them practical experience on the aircraft, now before you all start jumping up and down I am being serious, there are crews as you say that are not flying, well what are the FE's doing in that spare time. They are authorised to carry out AF,BF and TR's or whatever they are called these days and also minor rectification too. Rather than tying up two trades people take an FE along as the second one on the more routine tasks, it reduces the flak on the lineys and gives practical work for the FE. Sounds simple so it probably wont work.
Keep up the good work that you are doing as I know that you will, as much as they hate admitting it the aircrew do rely on your judgement.

MightyHunter AGE

1st Apr 2007, 03:00

Charlie Launcher WRT "Additionally the digs about aircrew walking away and going home, remember that when you walk away from the taxiing aircraft what they are about to experience."

I wasnt aware I was having a dig at anyone but merely puting my own point of veiw accross.

I am well aware of what you are about to experience and have the utmost respect for the job you do. I too have to fly in the Mighty Hunter and do so without hesitation. I would not and never have sent an aircraft into the blue yonder that I was not 100% certain was safe to do so.

The Sengo is well aware of many of these facts but can you imagine coming into a job like his and trying to change the way of thinking where the aircrew are enbedded into the very fabric of the station and have been used to getting things the way they want for the past 30 years.

Like I said before the thinking needs to change. The whole RAF ethos was/is adaptability but the only people who have actually embraced this at ISK has been the ground crew as it was forced upon us overnight.

Unfortunatly we have reached the point where nothing we can now do will overcome the problems we are now facing.

Chugalug2

1st Apr 2007, 08:00

jayteeto said at #22: It all sounds so easy, if only the top brass would stand up and be counted. You know what this government would do??? OK Air Chief Marshal, quit, no problem, we have someone here who will do as we say. The fall on your sword just doesn't work.

I have read this argument on other threads, whether it be regarding Hercules and Chinook safety, the powers of subordinate commanders, pay and administration, equipment and supply shortcomings or simply the timely replacement of old and obsolete aircraft. These commanders are responsible for the operational effectiveness of the RAF. If that effectiveness is curtailed by lack of resources or reorganisation, such as in the above list, it is their duty to resolve that effect. If they cannot do so, they cannot do their duty and their positions become untenable. That is why they should resign, not as a gesture but because to remain would be to abrogate their responsibilities to their service and their subordinates. Whether the RAF be large or small is for the elected government to decide. That it should maintain its effectiveness throughout is for its commanders to ensure. It seems to me that from the CAS downwards they are singularly failing in that duty. The RAF needs leadership now, as never before. Time to show that, or step aside for someone who can.

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 08:07

MightyHunter AGE:

Well said, this is what I have been saying on other threads that make similar comments about Marham/Waddington/Cottesmore et al. These problems that you have written about so well are exactly what is happening at these other stations, allthough probably the feelings are not as strong as up there, at the moment.
This is why the RAF flight lines and the civvie maintenance guys (we also have to reduce manpower when the programme is changed by the RAF), are having problems throughout the various fleets, we are trying our hardest, we are proud of what we do, we are frustrated by the same problems that MH AGE has so eloquently explained.
Additionally these problems are highlighted to management at all units, but through either lack of moral fibre, lack of interest or ignorance nothing gets done.

TheSmiter

1st Apr 2007, 08:12

MH AGE

Boy, what would I give to be a fly on the wall at prayers tomorrow!

Hope none of the brown stuff sticks when the fan stops spinning.

Please don't drive a wedge between the air and ground crews. You know and I know we're all in this together and MOST of us are 100% behind you. The execs are only doing their job, asking questions.

As I've said before, the seeds of this pathetic situation were sown years ago. I've already given the address of the bloke who's ultimately responsible, but he'll be moving soon. Maybe if someone told him a lot of Nimrod aircrew are drawing flying pay under false pretences, he'd sit up and take notice.

Best of luck MH, see you on a jet soon.

The Swinging Monkey

1st Apr 2007, 08:22

MightyHunter AGE
Mr Trotter
dodgysootie
Zhivago
Gentlemen, I would strongly urge you all to read the posts on here very carefully. You will see quite clearly and without question, that no one is having a go at the groundcrew or aircrew at ISK. Indeed, I cannot find one post on here where anyone at Kinloss has been blamed or is being held responsible for anything.
No one post has apportioned any blame whatsoever to the groundcrew or indeed to any personell on the base, with perhaps the exception of my comments about very senior officers. So PLEASE, read what has been written, and you will see that those of us who have spend many many happy (and safe!) years at Kinloss are genuingly concerned about the way things are going up there at the moment, and are concerned by it.

No one is blaming the groundcrew for there being no jets. Absolutely not. If anything, we are concurring with you that the jets are in such a state that the vast majority cannot be declared 'S' each day. But it is a perfectly fair question to ask why that is, don't you think?

I can find out each day how many jets are declared 'S' at prayers, and I know its not many - if any on some days! That isn't good, and with all that has happened, people have a right to know. And to make comments like 'mind your own business' suggests that you something to hide. But no one is blaming the groundcrew for there being no jets, that is certain.

AGE, no one will ever doubt that you would ever send an aircraft airborne knowing that it wasn't 100% safe, and no one has suggested that on this forum. All of us aircrew put our lives in your personal hands (and other crew chiefs) every time we fly, and I have been quite happy to do that. What is being said is that the problems are not down to poor servicing. They are not down to lack of manpower, or infact anything to do with the groundcrew at all. They are purely down to the fact the the jet is old, its tired and frankly is probably just completely worn out. Simple as that.

But the fact remains that (at least one) aircraft was sent airborne in an UNSAFE condition, and we all know the rest.

Don't take this so personally. You have no need to at all. We are very much 'on your side' and I have reiterated that myself on several occasions. The boys and girls at Kinloss are undoubtedly under immense pressure and are to be commended for doing the job they do, under the most difficult of circumstances, irrespective of where that is. I cannot think of anything more frustrating than NOT being able to do the job because the beancounters have taken your last bean!! Please understand that we are NOT blaming you or even pointing the finger at you.

Kind regards
TSM

andgo

1st Apr 2007, 11:00

Mr Trotter,

Finally some valid comment about Kinloss as opposed to the half-arsed heresay that has gone before on this thread.

I guess you must mean your post about how good morale at ISK is then?:E

nigegilb

1st Apr 2007, 11:48

I have felt for some time that the crisis point when it comes will be engineering led. Kinloss is at that classic point in the manning cycle when the few uniformed engineers left are being asked to do so much they decide to leave as well.

Surely what is needed now is a rejection of the philosophy of civilianisation of RAF engineering, a realisation that RAF assets will be deployed abroad for many years ahead and an immediate recruitment of more RAF engineers. It has always been the unfashionable end of the RAF, if it is not already too late, a rapid reappraisal is required and one that reflects the actuality of the demands of the front line.

When one compares the manning of RAF dets compared to RAAF dets the difference is startling. The RAAF pay their guys tax free and also pay an Iraq bonus on top. I am sure this approach would soften the blow for Herc and Nimrod engineers facing endless dets. A mate of mine PVR'd when he was told he was posted to Kinloss to replace an engineer who had baled out. The knock on effect to the RAF continues. Surely the priority should be to stabilise the situation at Kinloss by using a different approach to what has gone before?

Final point, the Herc foam fitting program is a botch job. The contractor allegedly denying requests from the sub contractor to iron out engineering issues. This would not happen if RAF engineering capability had been civilianised. Funny old thing it was a Herc liney who discovered the fuel leaks after the aircraft had been delivered to the RAF.

What a mess.

Jackonicko

1st Apr 2007, 12:14

Is any civilianised engineering service contract EVER going to meet the needs of a military organisation - where a degree of 'over-manning' is required to cater for the need to release people for guard duties, van driving in the Falklands, or whatever, and where, almost by definition, the required 'output' will seldom be predictable, and is never constant?

The Nimrod may look like a Comet, but its operators and users don't require airliner type operations - operating predictable patterns of sorties from the same fixed base, day in, day out. Engineering and support practises that are suitable for a profit-driven airline (all resource account budgeting, lean spares, etc.) are just another way of f*cking up the delivery of military capability.

If Dickie Branson's chief engineer has squirrelled away a few spare engines, and a few extra weeks' worth of consummables, he should be fired, but if the SENGO at ISK does it, in my view he deserves a medal!

dodgysootie

1st Apr 2007, 15:03

TSM
"But the fact remains that (at least one) aircraft was sent airborne in an UNSAFE condition, and we all know the rest."

I presume you are talking about XV230, well I can assure you that when the jet left the ground it was Not in an UNSAFE condition, I know because I was there. Whatever failed on XV230 failed whilst airborne. I am sure, like myself, you are eagerly awaiting the BOI findings.

Winco

1st Apr 2007, 15:35

dodgy sootie

Like you and a great many others, I am eagerly awaiting the findings of the BoI, but in the meantime it is foolish to make the comment you have just made about the state of XV230 before it got airborne on that fateful day.

You are neither qualified to make such comments nor are you in a position to make them, and I would therefore urge you to keep your opinions as to the serviceability state of XV230 prior to its departure to yourself and the BoI.

The Winco

andgo

1st Apr 2007, 15:39

Gents,
Leave XV230 to the BOI
Back to whats happening at Kinloss now.

Groundcrew critically undermanned.
Aircrew/Groundcrew leaving in droves.
Mighty Nimrod getting very tired.

Q. Whats happening at Kinloss.
A. Not a lot, thin paper, large cracks:{

dodgysootie

1st Apr 2007, 15:54

Winco..
High horse-please dismount.

Tappers Dad

1st Apr 2007, 16:03

I have it on good authority that the BOI findings are already with the MOD legal Team. They are going through it to with a large white-wash brush no doubt. Then its just a 4>5 year wait for the inquest.
Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim - Be patient and tough; some day this pain will be useful to you.

Winco

1st Apr 2007, 17:17

dodgy sootie

As a prop TM you should frankly know better than make comments like that! I'm not on a high horse at all, but I do have some experience of BoIs, and unsubstantiated comments like yours, on a public forum like this, are not only unhelpful but can be dangerous to the findings of the board. As andgo says, leave it to the BoI, there's a good chap.

The Winco

MightyHunter AGE

1st Apr 2007, 18:28

TSM, I have never mentioned anything about anyone blaming the ground crew for the lack of ‘S’ airframes. Read my post again please.

I am well aware of the continued support from our winged brethren and indeed the dismay many of them convey to me on just how undermanned we have become. Many express concern to me on a daily basis away from the upper echelons on how badly this seems to be cutting into the morale on the line, causing the vicious circle of PVR’s, in turn causing erosion of experience and ultimately lack of aircraft.

As for comments like “But the fact remains that (at least one) aircraft was sent airborne in an UNSAFE condition, and we all know the rest” this is unhelpful and frankly I find it both offensive and in severe bad taste.

Winco

1st Apr 2007, 19:13

Mighty Hunter AGE

Your comment: 'The whole RAF ethos was/is adaptability but the only people who have actually embraced this at ISK has been the ground crew' is the one which I feel has upset some of the aircrew. It implies that the Aircrew at Kinloss have NOT changed their thinking, and I doubt that is the case.

As for TSM comments: He too is only speaking the facts, and he is clearly as concerned at what is going on at Kinloss, as the rest of us are.

If you are aware of the spiraling decline in things at Kinloss (your comments about PVR rates and decline in experience) then you must not criticise those who are saying virtually the same, but in a different way to you. Clearly you are at 'the coal face' today; they were there a while ago, but the message is the same from you all, things appear pretty grim.

I hope it gets sorted out soon for you all.
The Winco

The Swinging Monkey

1st Apr 2007, 19:18

MH AGE

Sir, if my comments have offended you or anyone else then I apologise unreservidly. That was certainly never my intention at all, and I am sorry if it has been taken that way.

What I have always tried to emphasise is the dreadful position you, as groundcrew, are in and where we (as aircrew) are now in. But in no way do I blame you or your fellow groundcrew, no way at all.

TSM

MightyHunter AGE

1st Apr 2007, 19:37

TSM this, as we all know, is an emotive subject and one which is close to all our hearts.

I accept your appology and I also appologise if my comments have caused offense to any aircrew.

I, as we all do, long for the days (not too long ago!) where the line was full of 'S' aircraft, where a six ship with TWO spares was not impossible and there was a long list of decent dets to go on as opposed to 2 weeks in Sig being classed as a good one as is now the case!!!

The Swinging Monkey

1st Apr 2007, 19:56

MH AGE

Thanks for your understanding.
Yes, lets all hope its not too long before those days return to Kinloss again, and you and your colleagues are spending your dets at more 'favourable' locations eh?

Kind regards
TSM

mary_hinge

1st Apr 2007, 20:15

Copied from

http://www.aviationjobsearch.com/employer.asp?employerid=2575&vacID=68099

***** are delighted to be offering this fascinating position within a newly formed team developed to manage the implementation and integration of civilian maintenance processes and procedures on military aircraft.

The ATTAC project involves maintenance, upgrade and associated support services of the Tornado aircraft across a number of sites in the UK. This project is unique as it is the first to integrate EASA Part 145 processes and procedures into a military environment with a view to increasing efficiency and decreasing overall cost while maintaining the high standards of aircraft availability and performace that is expected by your Customer, the RAF.

This position is based at Marham, working for BWOS.

Pity that BWOS could not introduce these same standards to to the MRA4 or the current Nimrod fleet. Nige G, perhaps a question should be raised?

dodgysootie

1st Apr 2007, 20:38

Winco,
Good point, Sorry if I've mentioned anything thats not already common knowledge,(at ISK, anyway). I will endeavour to be more careful in my comments in the future. I humbly apologise.........?

Exrigger

1st Apr 2007, 20:57

mary_hinge:

Pity that BWOS could not introduce these same standards to to the MRA4 or the current Nimrod fleet.

EASA Part 145 is an element of MAOS and is the Maintenace Approved Organisation Scheme that applies to the maintenance of in service military aircraft, DEF STAN 05-130 (http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/130/01000100.pdf) refers. So it will only apply to MRA4 when it is in service, and it will be coming to a station near you, Marham is the lead station for this inititiative, but the rest are not far behind in getting ready for its implementation.

microlight AV8R

1st Apr 2007, 21:35

An interesting fact....
When Avro Lancaster PA474 joined the BBMF she was about 28 years old.
Younger than the earliest Nimrod in service today !!

It is time to consider just what kind of airforce we can afford. MRA4 is going to have to be a very adaptable platform,way beyond the original expectations. BWOS should not be able to treat it as a long term cash cow. Indeed, I'd say it would be reasonable to allow mods to be done under operators design authority as if a mature airframe.

Cancel JSF and settle for Typhoon 'FGR' then buy some decent transports and helicopters.

Having managed a fleet I can see that the RAF is too small to have so many types, as was the case in the cold war. rationalise is the only option.

Forget private funding tanker transport nonsense. Private funding doesn't save money... Somebody is making a profit.

Mr Bliar needs to accept that the cuts have bitten too far. If he doesn't want to cough up the shekels, then he cannot expect the present operational tempo to go on ad infinitum.

Sadly , the biggest problem now apparent to all is leadership (lack of). The generations that knew the realities of conflict are no longer running our country and it shows. Perhaps that is also the case with senior bods.

What a bl*ody disgrace ! A once proud maritime nation cannot even achieve the proper SAR coverage that we had come to rely on out into the hostile Atlantic. The Nimrod has been a brilliant aircraft, probably the best in her class, but nothing lasts forever. Same might be said of the VC-10. God forbid that one of those should have a mishap !

Some of us civvies do appreciate your efforts and watch in wonder as you pull the rabbit out of the hat time after time. However, maybe it is time for you to draw the line with safety concerns. If in doubt, there is no doubt.
'Can do' could be the straw breaking the camels back.

Stay safe gents.

mary_hinge

1st Apr 2007, 21:48

Exrigger.

Thanks for the info on that, interesting.

ZH875

1st Apr 2007, 21:51

I like the introduction to Interim Def Stan 05-130 Part 1 Issue 1 where it says:
It is the MOD policy that defence contracts shall be placed only with contractors whose management, technical resources and quality assurance arrangements are demonstrably adequate to provide products and services of the required quality, economically and on time. When was the last time that happened?, come to think of it, when was the first time that happened?

Billy No-Jets

1st Apr 2007, 22:17

Oh my god give it a rest all of you...

Len, I am not wearing rose-tinted glasses - I've been working my t*ts off in the Middle East for the last 6 years... I know its hard.

Oh...and i'm on SAR all this weekend and yes we have got a jet!!!

That’s an old fart on Crew 9 then with red, not rose, coloured specs!!!

And as for reports of low morale filtering out of Kinloss, they're not exactly a new phenomenon. The whole place has festered with unrest for the whole of the 25 years I've been there

Unrest yes – but you must agree the flying situation is dire – we’re barely legal.

Have you ever wondered why the majority of the time the aircraft not at ISK are in the main ‘S’?

Because they only need one bit of kit to work and un a 'working log' not a formal F700???!!!

Just the other week we had an aircraft almost ready for flight, all it needed were a couple of hours work and tada, a ‘S’ ………………………….That jet needed over two shifts worth of rects to get it anywhere near ‘S’ but it was planned for a sortie the next day

God forbid that the task drives the flypro!!! “You can have XV*** with no Radar, no Acoustics and no ESM for your sortie sir!!” Not that we need really any kit on the jet!!

I just wish sometimes the aircrew would realise that when they are going home and moaning that they have no aeroplanes they leave a lot of unhappy, demorolised people who whould also like to walk away from the problems but can't

Not to mention the demoralised aircrew who arrived at 04:00 to be told that the jet was broken – and had been broken since yesterday and that there would be a 3 hour delay, that turn into 6 hours, then 9 hours then a scrub – at which point we quite rightly walk away,

Guys, this thread isn’t a dig at anyone other than the upper management. We’re all working hard. Just need to find that bucket of morale that Mr Trotter seems to be hoarding!!

dodgysootie

1st Apr 2007, 22:55

"You are neither qualified to make such comments nor are you in a position to make them, "
Having just re-read your thread; you have made me angry. Where you there? are you here? and I'll think you will find that I am in a POSITION to make "such comments". The BoI is now near completion, I dont need a crystal ball Winco, I also have experience of BoI's and probably, like yourself didn't enjoy the proceedings.

cooheed

1st Apr 2007, 22:58

MightyHunter AGE

1st Apr 2007, 23:11

Billy No Jet’s

Forgive me, I did not want this to develop into a them and us but if I may take you to task on a few of your statements:

“work and on a 'working log' not a formal F700”

What in the name of all things holy are you talking about?
This may have been the case several years ago but this illegal practice has long since ceased. As an AGE do you not think I would know about this?
Maybe that little book you keep and hand over to each crew is what you are on about? You know the one that you tell each other whats wrong with the jet but conveniently forget to tell the ground crew until the problem develops into something that needs several hours of work instead of just a quick fix??? (and then of course gets handed over to us on a Friday afternoon and is expected to get fixed over the weekend)

“God forbid that the task drives the flypro!!! “You can have XV*** with no Radar, no Acoustics and no ESM for your sortie sir!!” Not that we need really any kit on the jet!!”

Sarcasm is unbecoming of you. We are well aware, as I said in my post, of the kit you need to make the training value of a sortie worthwhile. Of course the task drives the flypro don’t presume just because I am ground crew I am stupid but the situation I was referring to happens all the time. Not many aircraft are lacking the facilities you list in your post. There is obviously no point in sending a jet up without those facilities but when a jet is limed it is either due to lack of spare, lack of manpower or is required for a very important sortie i.e. staying current.

“Not to mention the demoralised aircrew who arrived at 04:00 to be told that the jet was broken – and had been broken since yesterday”

Do you not think that we would rather have you flying than fixing the broken jets all the time??? This sounds like a communication problem, a dirty word at ISK.

Engineer

1st Apr 2007, 23:49

Don't worry boys help (http://www.mpi.ltd.uk/viewVacancies.asp?industry=Aviation&pageNo=2) is on its way. RAF engineering not like it use too be :{

Winco

2nd Apr 2007, 07:31

cooheed,

he may well be more qualified than I am, but his speciality is propulsion isn't it? So why is he now an expert on the rest of the aircraft? And what i said is that it is foolish to make comments like that in PUBLIC! There is enough concern within the public domain about this, and I am sure that the journolists are gathering it all together jusy waiting until the time is right to go to press. Making wild statements is wrong frankly.

dodgie sootie,
I can only assume that you have had a few drinks since your interveining post. You appear to have clearly turned into a somewhat rude, abusive and very silly-looking individual.

The Winco

Distant Voice

2nd Apr 2007, 07:47

dodgysootie

Were you out there to cover the fuel incident on 8th Nov? If you were, what is the story.

DV

Da4orce

2nd Apr 2007, 09:58

How would a Nimrod crew go about searching for a submarine with no Radar and no Acoustics ???

Distant Voice

2nd Apr 2007, 10:10

TSM

If you know how many aircraft are declayed "S" each day at morning prayers, then let us have the figures. Much more convincing than saying "not many".

DV

Distant Voice

2nd Apr 2007, 10:12

Da4orce

What submarine?

Da4orce

2nd Apr 2007, 10:17

Any submarine, unless there is a particular incident that you know of when a Nimrod was looking for a submarine without radar to assist it?

Distant Voice

2nd Apr 2007, 10:44

Da4orce

I suppose the point that I was trying to make is that since the Soviets have packed up all their "toys" and gone home, it is hard to imagine that Nimrod has a real ASW task. And that is were the problems start. It's "airframe" now being used for tasks for which it was never designed, in environments it was never disigned to operate in.

I recall the times when we flew real "ops" sorties against Soviet shipping and subs. When SAR meant something - one a/c on fixed standby (aircrew living in the mess), plus a back-up aicraft.

We had high OR rates, high moral and no NISC.

DV

Mr Point

2nd Apr 2007, 20:50

What submarine?

Well there is the small issue of a Middle Eastern country with nuclear ambitions with 15 RN/RM personnel is their custody. They may only have diesel-electric submarines, but that would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.:}

DaveyBoy

3rd Apr 2007, 02:41

They may only have diesel-electric submarines, but that would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Or, indeed, the "torpedo" amongst the "frigate".

Distant Voice, I refer you to the last post anyone made on the subject of contemporary ASW: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=1934538&postcount=7

I think the point that Mr, er, Point, was making is that just because you don't hear about what Nimrods do nowadays, doesn't mean that it isn't relevant since the Cold War ended and you left the fleet.

In addition, I should like to point out that we don't have "airframes", we have airframes; we don't do "ops" in the Gulf, we do ops; we don't have "moral", we have morale (well, Mr Trotter Sr and I do -- I can't speak for everyone up here); and I'm not even going to respond to suggestion that a Nimrod is incapable of finding a submarine without radar.

What else can I say to your comments? Those who need to know how many aircraft are declared servicable at Morning Prayers are, well, generally present at Morning Prayers, and those who need to know the "story" of 8th Nov already know.

This forum receives very few posts from current Nimrod aircrew, and I just hope that the ramblings of those who are not currently in the loop are taken with the pinch of salt they deserve.

Dave

BEagle

3rd Apr 2007, 05:40

So, £10.96 per hour for 40 hours....

That's £438.40 per week, or, for a (52-4) week year, £21043.20.

I'm sure there'll be qualified applicants falling over themselves to work for such a salary......on a 'temporary' contract :rolleyes:

reddeathdrinker

3rd Apr 2007, 06:36

....ramblings of those who are not currently in the loop....

Not in your loop, obviously, but the sharp, pointy end of the loop where we know considerably more about a/c servicability than you, and not the polished shiny version presented at prayers. I know who's rambling in this thread, and I know who knows what they're talking about...

I went to morning prayers once. It was cancelled....:ugh: what a waste of my time.

Release-Authorised

3rd Apr 2007, 07:02

If I draw together a few recent threads, all becomes clear. Shoot me if I am wrong......

Nimrod no longer has its submarine hunting job 'cos the Sovs have gone home.

AOC 1 Group wants aircraft for one way missions.

Fewer aircraft means less resources needed for servicing.

Air Traffickers down the back of aeroplanes are cheaper than NCA should you lose one.

The plan becomes to come together.....:E

Pull Pin.......Lob Gently and Duck.

FATTER GATOR

3rd Apr 2007, 08:23

Good use of the English language with respect to the fewer vs less rules. It's nice to see that you studied hard in your youth.

Whilst we are discussing your post, I'll just pop the pin back in and hand it back to you!

In all seriousness, please tread carefully on this thread chaps. I know this subject is close to a lot of hearts and there are some very painful wounds that will stay sore for years to come. Frankly I'm beginning to find PPRuNe even more depressing than the lack of flying here at the moment.

Distant Voice

3rd Apr 2007, 10:58

Sorry Dave, I had not realised that the forum was for current aircrew only. I thought the idea was for engineers and aircrew, past and present, to present their views and opinions so that a balanced debate could take place. I am sure that you are far more intellegent than your post indicates. The last thing we want is for you "current" guys to around the loop again, only to find it still doesn't work. It's called experience.

DV

Wader2

3rd Apr 2007, 12:32

DA4Force [quote]
How would a Nimrod crew go about searching for a submarine with no Radar and no Acoustics ??? [quote]

Thereare several other sensors available to the Mighty Hunter but I would have to kill you before I reveal them.

OTOH is you read Alf Price's book, Aircraft v Submarine he will give you a clue about the first aircraft detection AND attack on a submarine without the aid of radar or acoustics and it was submerged at the time.

Zhivago

3rd Apr 2007, 14:16

Release Authorised : Nearer the truth....
Disharmony at Kinloss? Aircrew not flying enough! Not enough aircraft to go around! Engineers working their socks off to meet unrealistic targets!
Suddenly all becomes clear. Too many aircrew vying for too few resources. If all the Kipper fleet aircraft is being ground down for is to keep currencies valid..then they have too many currencies to maintain!
Nimrod aircrew manning levels are still pre Options for change let alone Front line First. Oh but what about the squadron disbandments I hear you say.. well what exactly did that achieve on the aircrew manning levels? Can anyone say exactly how many where made redundant?. ....Not many...and not to the same extent as the rest of the RAF. It was nothing more than a transparent personell move to the other Squadrons.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out. A = number crew OOA, B = number for pre/ post OOA recovery (given they only take what the rest of the RAF are given). C = Number aircrew actually on the program. Balance that against D =the number of aircraft available and E = an allowance for some maintenance to be carried out. To my mind it is apparent that we have a 'lot of aircrew' and 'no resources'.
To the individuals this will cause some great angst, to them I say that this in no way refelcts on their airmanship and commitment, they are a part of self-sustaining sycophantic system which is at fault. No business in the private sector could exist in this state, so why in the present business like ethos of the RAF are we still not addressing this issue?

Hoots

3rd Apr 2007, 18:53

Zhivago,

I' would be very interested in where you got your so called facts about aircrew numbers, so if you dont mind please justify you comments about crews just being shuffled to other Sqn's. Although I do think you may find this difficult.

When I first arrived at ISK, there was 29 crews (3 + 1 Sqns for those in the know) plus some others of the checking variety and training teams (not OCU) which could supplement.

Some items on this thread are peoples points of view, which is fine, but when it comes to factual errors then people who think they are in the know ought to think before pressing the submit button.

As for the groundcrew, they are a great bunch trying to do the best they can. Sadly many airframes are getting old and require more hours work on the ground for that one hour airborne. This isn't just a Nimrod problem, I would put it at the door of our Government who have delivered years of underinvestment because the MOD is not a vote winner. The NHS and Education are bottomless pits with funding, more so than the MOD, but will always be vote winners.

Mr Point

3rd Apr 2007, 19:24

Nimrod aircrew manning levels are still pre Options for change let alone Front line First. Oh but what about the squadron disbandments I hear you say.. well what exactly did that achieve on the aircrew manning levels?

Prior to Options For Change ISK had 28 crews, some of which had 14 or more crew. There are currently fewer than 20 crews, each having 12 rather than the normal 13 crew. This equates to less than 65% manning compared to 1995. The OCU staffing levels have also been cut, reducing the flow of new aircrew onto the front line.

Zhivago - rather than spouting ignorant rubbish, why not leave St. Mawgan for a few days and have a look at the real Air Force, rather than the Monday to Friday office hour world that you appear to live in.:ugh:

cornish-stormrider

4th Apr 2007, 10:56

If he lives in Falmouth I suspect he works at the puddle pilots home at culdrose, I could be wrong though.

difar69

4th Apr 2007, 11:20

Zhivago, you seem to be spouting ill informed drivel of the highest order. A surplus of bodies (air or groundcrew) is certainly not one of ISK's problems. If you're going to comment on what is an extremely emotive subject at present, at least do us the courtesy of being accurate.:mad:

Flight Detent

4th Apr 2007, 11:51

Errr.....where did you say those P3s were parked again ??

"Two's clear...start #2"

"air drop....rotation....rotation indicated....fuel flow....light-off....etc...etc"

they work very well, and work for a long time.....

Cheers FD :D

reddeathdrinker

4th Apr 2007, 21:16

"air drop....rotation....rotation indicated....fuel flow....light-off....etc...etc"

Button in...ignition...ASV light...Flashing Green...Steady Green...Cold Start...Fuel Flow...CSDU light out...Oil LP light out...All lights out at the back...all lights out at the front...HP cock up and locked, catching it on the throttle. Clear cancel APU. That's how we do it in the real world :}

Vage Rot

4th Apr 2007, 21:21

Nimrod aircrew manning levels are still pre Options for change let alone Front line First. Oh but what about the squadron disbandments I hear you say.. well what exactly did that achieve on the aircrew manning levels? Can anyone say exactly how many where made redundant?. ....Not many...and not to the same extent as the rest of the RAF. It was nothing more than a transparent personell move to the other Squadrons.
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to work it out.

3 Sqns, each with 9 crews - now 2 sqns, each with 10. (Well 8 and a half each!) - Unless my maths is wrong then you definately do need the services of a brain surgeon!!

Flight Detent

5th Apr 2007, 02:34

"reddeathdrinker"

....and your point is....

Don't get me started on the complexities of British-made airplanes,
I used to use 'em, but no more !!!
The American-made product is so much easier to operate/understand, and, dare I say it, reliable.

and you have just reinforced that point!!!

Cheers FD :ok:

wait 1

5th Apr 2007, 12:28

It send a strong message when a squadron boss PVRs half way through his tour!!

The Swinging Monkey

5th Apr 2007, 14:05

Wait 1
I wondered when that would get out!!!
Apparantly, he's not the only one is he?????
Oh dear, how sad, never mind!!!

TSM

ps Got any QFI's at all left at ISK??

Distant Voice

5th Apr 2007, 15:37

Mighty Hunter: I refer to your post # 81, dated 31st March.

I can not believe that the line no longer has control over the aircraft it generates to meet the fying programme. How times have change.

In the past, it was a case of the squadrons (or ops cell) specifying the daily requirement, in terms of sorties and fits, but the line then determined which tail numbers filled those slots. (Flying hours being taken into consideration). It's the only way. No wonder you have so many failed sorties.

Also, your comments regarding robberies, have always been true. In the end you usually end up with damaged equipment and two U/S aircraft.

DV

BEagle

6th Apr 2007, 08:27

One hears that the boss of another large aeroplane squadron rather further south than ISK has also PVRd...

Distant Voice

13th Apr 2007, 13:52

Did Kinloss have a "S" Nimrod to respond to the latest North Sea disaster?

DV

TheSmiter

13th Apr 2007, 14:26

The answer is 'yes' DV - almost full Nim cover from start to finish with a wee gap in between. Good effort from all crews (inc helos) and especially NLS - well done lads, we appreciate it.

Obviously our thoughts are with those who didn't make it. RIP.

cornish-stormrider

13th Apr 2007, 14:31

yet again when the bell rings and the midden hath hit the windmill, the RAF manages to be there.

Excellent effort from all involved.

RIP to those lost

jayteeto

14th Apr 2007, 07:06

I have had a message from a journalist who wants to do a story about this 'important' issue. I have no personal knowledge of the happenings up there so would not comment. However, it is important to remind everyone that these pages are read and the rumours are quoted as 'exclusive truths' by the world press. I said on an earlier post, that the only way to get something done with this government is to use the thing they fear the most... The media. Be careful just how much you say...... Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!

ZH875

14th Apr 2007, 11:04

"I have had a message from a journalist who wants to do a story about this 'important' issue"

££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ ££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ £

Best call in the Royal Navy Press Liaison Team.:)

Jackonicko

14th Apr 2007, 14:56

You'd get a very skewed vision of the issue from what's on PPRuNe, though as always it provides some useful insights into how some people feel about the issue.

The issues of serviceability and availability are especially interesting, and are far more complex than they might at first appear.

I'd assumed that BAE Systems were failing to meet their obligations under NISC - since the Press Releases seemed to suggest that the company should be delivering ten aircraft available on the line every day.

But that's not what the contract says.

The only obligation is to provide ten aircraft (as air vehicles, the light blue are still responsible for mission equipment, etc.) out of depth, available to forward.

Now I don't know whether they're achieving that, or not, but they could be, and the availability rate might still be appalling.

It all depends on what is keeping the aircraft out of the air.

PICKS135

14th Apr 2007, 14:59

Best call in the Royal Navy Press Liaison Team.

Max Clifford is on holiday in Spain:) :)

Distant Voice

15th Apr 2007, 08:03

Jackonicko, if BAe are only required to provide 10 aircrtaft as air vehicles, why are civilians being recruited, thru MPI Ltd, for the avionics trade at 1st line? By the way, I note the pay rate has been increased from £10.96 per hour to £13.

DV

NimAGE139

20th Apr 2007, 13:03

"So, £10.96 per hour for 40 hours....

That's £438.40 per week, or, for a (52-4) week year, £21043.20.

I'm sure there'll be qualified applicants falling over themselves to work for such a salary......on a 'temporary' contract :rolleyes:"

It's actually around 24K plus overtime..... and they are being employed as we type! What's wrong with having more airmen? Surely that's cheaper and at least the RAF has an asset to use elsewhere!! :bored:

As for Nimmage's comments, keep them coming mate. Somebody just might develope a spine and do something about the state of the jets, spares, manpower, grumbling aircrew, over-worked G-crew, PVR rate and oh yes, a new carpark behind OPS would be nice! :D

As for the comment about 30 being unsafe to fly on that dreadful day, who or what do you think you are saying that???:mad: You ought to be ashamed!

It's a truely uncomfortable position to be in, sitting back and watching what has happened at Kinloss over a very short period of time, listening to both aircrew and groundcrew bemoaning almost everything that they were once proud to be a part of. The stuffing has well and truely been knocked out of everyone and I for one am glad to be away from it.

Something has to happen to improve things or there will be nobody left in the RAF at Kinloss.......or maybe that's the overall agenda here?

Jackonicko

20th Apr 2007, 13:49

Distant,

As I understand it (and I would urge anyone who knows different to correct me and make me look like even more of a tit) the partial civilianisation of Forward to which you refer is entirely separate from BAE's NISC contract.

Letsgo,

Less than one year ago, the current IPT leader went on the record to explicitely de-link the MRA4 and the R1, which has bags of life remaining, and which does not need to be replaced in anything like the same timeframe.

Distant Voice

20th Apr 2007, 16:46

See my posting #68 under "MRA4, Delayed again"?
9 aircraft for Kinloss looks a strong possibility.

Jackonicko

20th Apr 2007, 17:12

It went from 21 conversions plus three development aircraft to 18 plus the three development aircraft to be brought to the same standard to 12 plus three and now nine plus the three.

The requirement is now for 12 jets, and though conversion of the three development aircraft isn't yet on contract it is expected to be.

The three were never expected to be going to Waddington.

His post No.68:
"Flight developement of Nimrod MRA4 programme continues and the formal production contract was received in July for nine aircraft with the option for the conversion of the three aicraft currently in flight developement to production standard."

barnstormer1968

20th Apr 2007, 20:43

Hi all.
Just read in the "Prune mentioned in the house of commons" thread that the Minister of state, Ministry of Defence. Mr Adam Ingram has stated that there are typically nine aircraft ready for front line use daily!
weh heh, that's plenty of airframes for you at ISK surely.
Can't see what you are all moaning about. After all, Mr Ingram would surely have checked his fact's first, wouldn't he. And there's no way one of our glorious politicians (who love our military so much) would speak any untruth's IS THERE?

Sorry, stupid mode set back to OFF.

Do any of you guy's and girl's remember, that when speaking of the R.A.F. The FEW meant the pilot's, and not the aircraft.

Biggus

21st Apr 2007, 11:13

Jacko

The R1 might have 'bags of life left', I wouldn't know...... but what are the costs of maintaining it going to be once the MR2s have gone? I heard that the cost might be prohibitive, so the option of replacing 'early' with an MRA4 airframe was considered.

'Considering' the option in advance strikes me as being merely prudent, rather than waiting until the R1 replacement requirement is on top of us with insufficient time to come up with a viable solution - leading to the retention of an airframe past it's planned life. That seems to be how we normally do things in MoD!!!

As to what the outcome of those 'considerations' was, well talk of a contract to refurbish the R1s, which I believe I read on another pprune thread, would seem to answer that question!

Green Flash

21st Apr 2007, 21:56

What about replacing the R1 with some ASTOR-type jobby? Type commonality, spares, engineering, uses less fuel?, less crew!, less space etc etc:confused:

thunderbird7

21st Apr 2007, 23:05

But where would all the pies go?

Da4orce

22nd Apr 2007, 06:05

Sunday times article today http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1687498.ece

Mick Smith keeping up the pressure :ok:

Green Flash

22nd Apr 2007, 08:21

T7/letsgo

True; to get the pie eaters into the blue the cost of putting reheat on the bizjet engines would be prohibative:}

Distant Voice

22nd Apr 2007, 12:07

According to Mike Smith in the Sunday Times, our Nimrods are being refurbished. Anyone seen any improvements?

DV

MightyHunter AGE

22nd Apr 2007, 13:15

Well, well.
Just received a briefing to the effect that:
"The planners will now not be getting involved in the week to week running of the flypro and the line in conjunction with engops will have control over what frame does what and how the priorities are accorded manpower and spares wise"
Good on the Staishy is what I say to that.

Along with the re-org of the station structure we might actually get back to the way the station was run (before whoever it was who needed a project to get promoted get their hands on it) and get back to the days of 'S' airframes for the aviators to train with.
Along with the extra manpower the line has been afforded and the mini Maver about to be conducted we may actually get some guys to work on the jets.
Things are looking up gents, it may not be obvious now but hopefully in the near future things are going to change for the better.
Watch this space...................

Distant Voice

22nd Apr 2007, 13:37

Great news "Might Hunter". Perhaps all the comments being made in the press, pprune and House of Commons is finally getting through to someone at the top. As a member of the old school, I will watch your space in the months ahead, just to see if Kinloss turns 180 degs and goes back to the system that use to work.

DV

helgar33

22nd Apr 2007, 19:19

Can't believe the uninformed drivel I just read about aircrew/aircraft ratios!:bored: Good to read the other comments; though nothing seems to have changed since September! :sad: Aircrew away for 6 months every year, SAR and secondary duties results in over stretched underpaid drones!

AC Ovee

22nd Apr 2007, 20:59

Mightyhunter, I'm afraid that you're misunderstanding the nature of the task. It is too simplistic to say that from now on, eng ops and the Line will determine which jets will fly. As you know, we have fleets within fleets and if the crew need to fly in a specific role, there is is no point in preparing a jet that doesn't meet that need. It is for that very reason that the ops planners directed the line to work on specific jets. You guys cannot choose which jets to fix and thus direct which tasks we carry out. The task dictates the direction we all go in.

Distant Voice

22nd Apr 2007, 21:48

OC Ovee: In other words we have degrees of serviceability. I remember the days when "S" meant fully "S" to perform most roles. The line, and eng co-ord (as it was known) decided which aircraft to fly. This was usually determined by flying hours to the next in-depth servicing, and/or the speed of recovery. I beleive that is what "Mighty Hunter" is calling for. Ops decide on the mission, and the engineers should decide which airframe is offered for the task. It's not rocket science it's KISS.

DV

Ventre A Terre

22nd Apr 2007, 21:52

In order to balance the argument a little - it does appear that things have improved hugely over the last couple of weeks. There have been more jets available to fulfil the flypro (and yes they have got airborne!). Thanks must be due to the groundgrew - well done chaps (not said insincerely). I have flown the Hunter 3 times this week and have a renewed confidence in the airframe.

Long may it continue.

VAT

Pontius Navigator

23rd Apr 2007, 07:29

I believe AC Ovee said 'fleets within fleets'. I don't know the specifics here but I believe it refers not to serviceable or partially or unserviceable airframes, but to airframes that have had specific role modifications incorporated.

For various reasons, need, money, airframe availability etc, only some of the aircraft may incoroporate say MOD-X. If Mod X is a mission specific tool that a particular crew needs for training then it follows they must be allocated an aircraft with that capability.

If they are 'fobbed' off with another aircraft they would achieve the usual incremental chinagraph creeping line but not meet their training need.

In the early days Mk 1 Nimrods were all to a fleet standard. As improvements are incorporated so that standard inevitably gets varied.

On a different type it was often that we would have 2 or 3 sorties prepared and have to keep swapping our mission plan to match the airframe - X had no low level hours (pulls out high level navex) - Y needs ECM monitor run (pulls out Scotish navex) - Z has practice bombs (replans mission). Quite normal.

As the numbers reduce to single figures this will become the norm, frustrating but inevitable.

Jackonicko

23rd Apr 2007, 08:41

But as numbers reduce, configuration control should become easier, and it should be easier to avoid 'fleets within fleets'.

Moreover, once NISC enters its third phase (once due this month, now due "later in the year") BAE will become responsible for the delivery of serviceable jets as virtually complete weapons systems (some specific kit will remain the responsibility of the RAF and other OEMs) rather than as air vehicles.

Distant Voice

23rd Apr 2007, 09:25

PN. I fully appreciate the point you are making, and as an engineer I accept that the flying programme has to be driven by the needs of the squadrons - that's why the aircraft are there. What I do not agree with is "As improvements are incorporated the standard inveribly gets varried". This should not be the case for a small fleet, and tends to suggest that due to cost cutting the same improvements can not be afforded to all aircraft. If it could be achieved in the early days with a large fleet, it should be much easier to achieve it today. Variations in mod standards not only causes problems for aircrews, but ground crews as well. It leads to mistakes being made.

I understand the need to move specialist equipment, which could be in short numbers, from a/c to a/c, but to have a/c at different mod standards is foolish. Not to worry, when MRA 4 appears, all 9 (or 12) will be to the same standard.

Safety_Helmut

23rd Apr 2007, 09:43

What I do not agree with is "As improvements are incorporated the standard inveribly gets varried". This should not be the case for a small fleet, and tends to suggest that due to cost cutting the same improvements can not be afforded to all aircraft.
DV, that's a lovely picture you paint where everything is standardised, but it's not going to happen is it. There is, as we all know, only a finite amount of money to spend. Where role equipment is concerned, it's often not as simple as just moving kit from one aircraft to another, there may be different antenna and wiring fitted for example. I don't even agree that in all cases it can be regarded as cost cutting, there are obviously many cases where it is, see the C-130 threads for detail, but if the requirement is limited, why equip all aircraft ?

S_H

MightyHunter AGE

23rd Apr 2007, 10:18

[Quote Ac OVee] It is for that very reason that the ops planners directed the line to work on specific jets. You guys cannot choose which jets to fix and thus direct which tasks we carry out. The task dictates the direction we all go in.

So what you are saying is that the line and engops are incapable of looking at the flypro sheet and gleaning the information of what specific task that flight is going to require and then allocating an appropriate airframe, do me a favour will you?!

What you are saying then is that we are stupid? and unaware that when the flypro says "Blah blah essential" then we will allocate an aircraft that doesn't have "Blah" fitted.

Obviously we should all go back to school then.............

Distant Voice

23rd Apr 2007, 10:36

SH. The picture I paint is the way it was, it is not a figment of the mind. All aircraft (45 at one time) were kept to the same standard. They were all capable of being configured for the various roles. I understand about cables etc, and that you can not simply move equipment round unless the basics are installed. But for such a small fleet there shouid be standardization in order to give the greatest amount flexibility. That's why you have your problems. How many fleets do you have within a fleet of 15?

Wader2

23rd Apr 2007, 11:10

DV, it was untrue that all 46 aircraft were kept to the same standard.

It was the aim to keep them to the same standard but it takes time to schedule modifications. True, some, like the TAC Nav software could be done in a surge over a weekend but the fitting of the TacNav in-flight software facility was not done over night.

Not all aircraft received the Marine band VHF mod at the same time so specific aircraft were allocated to the Tapestry missions.

Similarly the secure comms fit was initially a lashup rig.

I also seem to recall that there was more than one RATT fit on the go for some time.

I would suggest that MOD programme management is quite complex and may be even more of even greater complexity in a smaller fleet.

Distant Voice

23rd Apr 2007, 11:25

I am not suggesting that mods can be carried out overnight. But with regards to the mods that you mentioned there was a programme to introduce them to the fleet. What I believe is being stated in earlier postings is that for some reason only selected a/c are modified.

The Swinging Monkey

23rd Apr 2007, 13:19

DV,
I am sorry old bean, but you are completely wrong in your statement there. The days when we had 45 jets on the line is about the time when I was on the fleet, and they were certainly NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or indeed had the same mod state. There are various degrees of serviceability, and often that does not cause a problem. Clearly if you are going out on a mission that needs a radar search of an area, it would be pointless to take a jet that has a u/s Searchwater wouldn't it? But if you were going out on a pure SAR mission or radar only trip, then I would suggest to you that having a u/s sonobuoy launcher for example isn't a show stopper. However, your comment about some frames having some mods that others don't have is perfectly correct. So an ac may be S for some trips, but not others.

MightyHunter AGE
"So what you are saying is that the line and engops are incapable of looking at the flypro sheet and gleaning the information of what specific task that flight is going to require and then allocating an appropriate airframe, do me a favour will you?!" Yep, thats absolutely right which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever. Now thats not a dig at the guys in eng ops or on the line, it is just common sense really. At the end of the day, the Crew execs are the guys who will decide how best to conduct and execute the mission - NOT the boys and girls in eng ops or on the line. Endex Matey!

Kind regards
TSM

Jobza Guddun

23rd Apr 2007, 13:38

Yep, thats absolutely right which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever. Now thats not a dig at the guys in eng ops or on the line, it is just common sense really. At the end of the day, the Crew execs are the guys who will decide how best to conduct and execute the mission - NOT the boys and girls in eng ops or on the line. Endex Matey!

Essentially, there were good lines of communication then?

Something we used to do quite a lot of in the RAF. Now we just seem to send emails, make assumptions, and have meetings instead of just bimbling over to speak or picking up the ruddy phone.

Not hard is it?

Wader2

23rd Apr 2007, 14:07

I have a purple meeting Wednesday. There will be a dinner. They want to know numbers today.

Only problem is they have not sent the email requesting this information to us. Nor have they said where the dinner is to be. As I am not overly bothered I shall await the fallout.

There is certainly a tendency to fire off an email, possibly atthe last minute, in the blind hope that it will arrive in time. In them olden days, with the pony express, you allowed sufficient time for snail mail and then followed through with a face to face or a phone call. No longer.

The Swinging Monkey

23rd Apr 2007, 14:30

jobza,
well maybe we did have better lines of comms, but essentially due to the nature of the mission, you had to go and see what frame was available or being allocated and check that it was what you needed to achieve the mission. Hence my comment about different frames for different missions.

I just want to assure the guys on the line and in eng ops that I am in no way having a dig at you fellas. But its not your call as to whether a frame is suitable or not (unless its for a trip to bash the circuit maybe) Unless you have the same level of knowledge and expertise as the crew execs and have been privvy to the exact requirements of the mission, then you simply are not in a position to make that call.

Delighted to hear that things look as though they are on the up at ISK, great news and well done to all, especially the groundcrew who appear to hjave been working like trojans! well done to guys and girls.
TSM

MightyHunter AGE

23rd Apr 2007, 14:36

Quote TSM: which is why, certainly during my days on the fleet, the crew execs (Captain, Eng, AEO and both leads) would speak with eng ops to check out which airframe they would 'prefer' the day before or whatever.

TSM I am afraid times have changed from your days on the fleet as the days of you "preferring" an airframe are long gone.
You either get what you are given (to a certain extent) or dont fly at the moment and this is the reason why most guys are running out of currency.

The point I was making in my earlier post was the planners have not let the engineers (who after all know how to do our job and prioritize manpower and resources) do this correctly due to interference and constant changing priorities. Once again I will reiterate, we know things change, but moving manpower from one jet to another half way through a major time consuming job only makes the job last twice as long as it should. in this time of dwindling numbers these things should be getting taken into consideration but are not.

Fingers in holes springs to mind...............trouble is there aren't enough fingers at the moment.

The Swinging Monkey

23rd Apr 2007, 15:22

MightyHunter AGE

Yes, I can see where you are coming from, and obviously the lack of frames to begin with only compounds the problem. I am not trying to teach any of you chaps how to suck eggs - I woudn't dream of it, and I have no idea what the current operations involve these days, but does the 'normal' flypro not come to you a couple of weeks in advance anymore?

I appreciate things will always change, and you guys will always get screwed around, but in my time you at least had an idea of trips a week or so in advance. Obviously as things 'popped up' (literally!!) then the flypro went out the window, but is the problem today just down to a pure lack of frames?

I genuingly sypathise with you all at ISK, and I do hope sincerely that things get better very soon, but like you, I feel that until you all get a large influx in cash, then things won't get better. Even then, if you have no frames to fix, you're up that old creek without any paddles! Good luck

TSM

FATTER GATOR

23rd Apr 2007, 16:57

I heard the MRA4 was due to be up at Kinloss today or tomorrow. Anyone confirm or deny?

The Swinging Monkey

23rd Apr 2007, 19:57

letsgoandfly
It was always fairly chaotic on the squadron, but I agree entirely with all your points.
I guess the inevitable is finally happening.... you simply just cannot keep going on forever without adequate funding for the groundcrew, the aircraft and spares et al. This was predicted a long long time ago, and I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with half a brain cell.

Well done to the groundcrew who have battled on relentlessly. I'm not sure I could have stayed as long as many of them have. They are the unsung heroes here. Well done again to them all.

Where did it all go wrong?? How very sad.
TSM

nav attacking

24th Apr 2007, 08:14

I can confirm that the MRA4 is indeed at Kinloss today. It is sat just outside Ops and mighty pretty it looks too! Just a shame that even the test pilots don't like to fly it because of the stability problems!!

Will this be the last time we ever see it at Kinloss??

Are the MOD under some sort of pressure to hold off on announcing any further delay tothew project? Something to do with the local and MSP elections up here by any chance?

MOA

25th Apr 2007, 17:07

Nav A,
Is that really what the TPs said? I think your info is a little off the mark. Making sweeping statements like that on this site always damages a project (even the poor MRA4) and should be thought through thoroughly before posting.
MOA

MOA

26th Apr 2007, 16:57

Lets go,

Again not true. PA3 (aircraft at Kinloss) is to cease flying soon and start some ground trials. It has nothing to do with the stability problem and the aircraft is certainly not being grounded due to the lack of embodiment of the stability system. Unfortunately it is not envisaged that PA3 will rejoin the flight test programme (no money :rolleyes: ) prior to being converted into a production standard MRA4.

MOA

Tappers Dad

26th Apr 2007, 22:01

From the House of Lords

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he comment on reports that the refurbished fleet of Nimrods in Afghanistan will have the same fuel system as caused the disaster with the loss of 14 personnel last year?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to comment on that because the board of inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod has not reported; of course, I will be able to once that has taken place

I have posted this before but its worth repeating

DaveyBoy

27th Apr 2007, 02:11

Sorry, but that makes a couple of newspapers and now one question in the House of Lords that have referred to a "refurbished fleet of Nimrods". Does anyone know what these people are talking about? MR2s that happen to have recently left major servicing? MRA4s?

Distant Voice

27th Apr 2007, 11:54

TSM. Before we loose the thread completely with regards to mods states, serviceability and "preferred" airframes, I would like to clarify and/or correct some of the earlier postings.

(1) It was never suggested that the whole Nimrod fleet was at the same "S" state at any given time.That would be too ridiculous to imagine. Some were ready to fly, some had just returned from a mission, others were in deep servicing etc.

(2) When mods were introduced, they were for the fleet. Naturally, it took time to introduce any given mod to all 45 aicraft, so at any given time there were a/c at different mod standards. But there was never a deliberate programme to create fleets within the fleet, and that is what we are talking about at present.

(3) The ground engineers (Flight line and Eng Co-ord) determined which a/c would be presented for the following days programme, based on the specified needs of the squadrons. Of course if you needed ESM or Radar or ......, then the ground force would only offer you an a/c (and a back up) that had those items of equipment in a GO condition. Ops (flying) did not specify "preferred" airframes. If a/c xyz met the requirements, no one ever came back and said it should be a/c abc. You should always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme. Little point in having a bunch of a/c awaiting deep servicing simply because the squadrons had "preferred" airframes.

Now you can talk about it until you are blue in the face, but that is the way it was because I was there, and I generated aircraft. Unfortunately, somewhere along the line things got changed, and the way I read MH's, postings he would like to return to the ways they were.

DV

Distant Voice

27th Apr 2007, 12:01

Davey Boy: They are probably referring to the new self defence system and new comms suite for the back end. Nothing to do with improved fuel systems, I suspect.

DV

DaveyBoy

27th Apr 2007, 13:46

I was wondering whether that's what the press have got hold of too.

I can see why that would be a difficult question for the MDP to answer; it almost suffers from not being a very well informed question in the first place. Obviously the MDP couldn't comment on whether anything was the "same fuel system that caused the disaster" because until the BOI report there is no official line on what exactly caused the disaster. It's a shame that he couldn't just say "there isn't a refurbished fleet of nimrods flying around so of course the fuel system hasn't changed", but you could argue that every airframe has been refurbished countless times over its service life, and several pipes have changed over the last few months.

I guess the bottom line is that it's difficult to give a clear answer to that question without either sounding a bit shifty, or going into exhaustive detail.

The Swinging Monkey

27th Apr 2007, 16:33

DV

Can I just remind you of what you wrote:
"I remember the days when "S" meant fully "S" to perform most roles. The line, and eng co-ord (as it was known) decided which aircraft to fly. This was usually determined by flying hours to the next in-depth servicing, and/or the speed of recovery. I beleive that is what "Mighty Hunter" is calling for. Ops decide on the mission, and the engineers should decide which airframe is offered for the task. It's not rocket science it's KISS"

Now, in your latest contribution you say:
para 1 says that you were not suggesting they were all 'S'
para 2 says that it took time to 'mod' all 45 airframes
and Your para 3 says that I should 'always remember that it is not just the flying programme that has to be accommodated, but also the maintenance programme'

So I guess I was right then when I said that all of the jets were NOT all serviceable to the same standard, or were at the same mod state?

As for remembering the maintenance programme, I can't agree with you there either I'm afraid. Why should I be involved in that as a flyer? Isn't that your job? One of the things that you guys always bleated on about when I was on the fleet was that the jets were neverf on the ground long enough for you to fix all the snags. I agree with you on that entirely, so put the jet u/s, end of story or out of hours. Whats the problem?

Please don't blame the squadrons for the flying programme (certainly not in the 70' and 80's anyway) Tasking was almost always decided by group, NOT the squadrons. Yes, we would occasionally ask for a trip if we needed some specific training etc, but you make it out as though we all sat in the crew room and dictated the flypro every day. If you were in ops or on the line then you should remember that, certainly I do.

I was there too Sir, and whilst I am grateful to you for generating aircraft for me and my crew, please don't think that the generation was done at the request of myself or any other aircrew. And as for your comment about 'preffered' airframes, you belittle yourself with comments like that. You and I both know that is just plain silly.

TSM

ps rafmatt, you're a spoof right? You're not for real are you?

bwfg3

27th Apr 2007, 16:58

I dont think that rafmatt is spoofing tbh. The painter trade were made redundant in large numbers then told that they were to be held at her majesty's pleasure until they had completed various ooa, and sod the resettlement that they are deserving. Also the air eng trade has been partly (or completely) knackered by the poor situation at ISK, but what the hell, train some more eh? :rolleyes:

Distant Voice

27th Apr 2007, 17:16

TSM. With all due respect, I really do not know where your ramblings are supposed to be leading. You have lost the thread completely. We were talking about today's fleets within a fleet, and how that can lead to problems when it comes to deciding what to fly. As for "preferred" airframes, you are the one that raised this issue.

DV

bwfg3

27th Apr 2007, 17:18

Yes letsgofly,
I'm totally aware of the fiasco in the Eng trade, but what the hell? The MRA 4 will be in service soon and so will the new Tanker to replace the VC-10. :}

rafmatt

27th Apr 2007, 17:39

no tsm im serious whats the point in spoofing its boring i tell it as it is.
oh by the way 2 nimrods flying at the same time today any one take a picture.

its about time the people who make this decisions are brought to justice about the treatment of there armed forces

im not angry or any thing i am just disapointed with the general mangerment of the armed forces

AC Ovee

27th Apr 2007, 17:57

DV, you said:
(2) When mods were introduced, they were for the fleet. Naturally, it took time to introduce any given mod to all 45 aicraft, so at any given time there were a/c at different mod standards. But there was never a deliberate programme to create fleets within the fleet, and that is what we are talking about at present.

Yes it is exactly what we are talking about. However, it is a solid fact that only a few Defensive Aids Suites (DAS) were bought for specific aircraft. They were the jets that just so happened to be available for Op Granby in the Gulf in 1990/91 and they became known thereafter as the Granby fleet, with their various add-ons. Then came the Adriatic patrols in the mid 90's with a selection of thermal imaging kits put on a few of the granby jets. 2003 saw the emergence of our latest gizmo on a very restricted number of aircraft. The core of the problem is that the jets we need to train on, at Kinloss, are not the standard jets, and they never will be required for relevant training while maritime flying is on the back burner. So the planners look for the special fits and in that fleet we find some real headaches: varying degrees of capability and serviceability and a serious imbalance in flying rates towards scheduled servicing opportunities as a result.

Add to the above facts the growing problem of NLS manpower reductions and we end up with the situation cited above: the only team qualified and available to repair Jet "A" are nearing the end of the job when they are taken off it and told to repair Jet "B", which is higher up the priority list. Jet "B" is higher because it has the capability that Jet "A" doesn't have to meet the task; not because it is "preferred". Years ago, the other jet would have been repaired by another team available and the task would have been met. We don't have that capability any more so the engineers will have to adapt (where have I heard that one before) to the situation. Its not good and it will get worse. The red and green pages are occupying more and more space in the book. Thats a stat worth taking up the chain.

The Swinging Monkey

27th Apr 2007, 19:15

DV
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I was refereing to para 3 of your posting yesterday at 18.16 where you pass comment about 'preferred airframes'

AC Ovee
Your comments are spot on, and they go back even further. During Op Corporate, we had a set of jets unique to that op. I wont divulge what was different, but if you were there, then you would know what I am talking about.

DV, I actually do have sympathy for you engineers. I thinks its crap the way you guys are being treated, lack of manpower, spares, civilianization et al, but you must face the facts. As AC points out, with such a limited fleet and so many differences to equipment fits, mod states together with the general serviceability problems, you are bound to get crews picking a specific airframe. Thats bedcaused they need that frame to achieve the mission.

It's not so different on the E-3 fleet. Indeed, ikn the early days, we were swapping kit for almost every mission. Thats not your fault, and no one is blaming you. It's a fault with the damned system at the moment, and until manpower is restored, until there is money to buy spares and service aircraft, until you have more frames to allow for some flex' and until the hierarchy put some investment into the maritime fleet, it will get no better Sir.

TSM

Exrigger

27th Apr 2007, 20:55

TSM And as for your comment about 'preffered' airframes, you belittle yourself with comments like that. You and I both know that is just plain silly.

203 Sqd, RAF Luqa 1975, fully serviceable aircraft on SAR standby, duty crew requested that the groundcrew changed the aircraft for another one for their tour of SAR standby as they did not like flying in the one on standby. The management agreed, after much pressure applied, and we had to rob U/C parts from a third aircraft to make their 'prefered' aircraft serviceable. This has happened since on Tornado, Chinook and other Nimrod fleets, grant you not often, and this was not because a particular aircraft was deficient important kit for that particular sortie. Although you had to feel sorry for the avionic trades on 'Blue Circle Airlines' at Coningsby having to swap concrete lumps in and out for the different mod standards of radar when they became available for the OCU trainees, as this was neither groundcrew or aircrews fault.
As for spares I remember not having spares to fix Vulcans & Nimrods in the seventies, Jet Provost early 80s, Tornados ever since they started in service. Chinooks, Gulf 91 and Turkey relief operations in particular, we had to acquire from of our American counter parts, but at least we had the manpower to cope.
I really feel for the guys/gals at the front line and at home bases for being put in the position they are in, which is not of their doing, as has been said in many, many threads the Government/MOD should hang their heads in shame for the state of the services these days.

Winco

27th Apr 2007, 21:12

Ex Rigger

Could you explain the spares problem you had with Vulcans during the 70's please? I was on a Vulcan Sqn throughout the whole of the 70's and don't think we hardly lost any sorties due to lack of spares. In fact, I seem to remember the old VOG (Vulcan on ground) saying would get you chaps any spares within 24 hours (or something like that)
What in particular are you refereing too?
Thank you
The Winco

The Swinging Monkey

27th Apr 2007, 21:17

Ex Rigger

I cannot comment on 203 sqn at Luqa as I was always a Kinloss man, but I find that quite hard to believe. Are you really telling me that story is fact?

What was wrong with the stby jet? More importantly, if it was fully serviceable, why did they want to change and why did the SEngO agree to it?

You all seem to think that we aircrew are blaming this problem on you techies, and you couldn't be more wrong.

I have repeatedly explained that I don't believe you are to blame at all, in any way shape or form. I think you are in a dreadful position as far as spares, lack of troops, lack of money, lack of airframes, you name it. It must be crap for you all.

All I'm saying is........it 'aint the aircrews fault either!

TSM

Exrigger

27th Apr 2007, 21:49

Winco: One item that was short supply was the brackets in the LH & RH Main Landing gear doors, aircraft would land quite regulary with a red light because the door hook had bent the bracket and stuck. We used these brackets up regularly on the OCU and the aircraft did not fly untill we changed them. There was others but to be honest I cannot remember, I admit it is not the problem it has become from the early 80s and robbing I don't remember being the panacea of all spares problems that it has also become. I was only making, all be it a minor point, that spare problems are not new and I will say again not anything like they have become.

TSM: Sorry to say fact, the SENGO did not put up much of a fight despite the rigger trade managers efforts. The standby aircraft was fully serviceable but this crew did not like flying it, they said they much preferred flying aircraft B as it was the smoothest ride on the fleet, unfortunately aircraft B was U/S due to lack of spares for the Undercarriage. As we could not take the SAR jet off line untill the other jet was ready we had to rob the bits from a third aircraft. I am sorry if my comments appeared towards blaming aircrew for the problems at Kinloss today or elsewhere yesterday it was not meant to come out that way, I was merely responding to the comment that there has never been a 'preferred' aircraft for aircrew, to the aircraft given, for reasons other than operational requirements. I could think of other instances but I feel it would be un-necessary now and as someone has pointed out the thread is going slightly off topic (Yes I know I have not helped).

Ivan Rogov

27th Apr 2007, 23:46

Malta 1975! However fact based or not the story is, it is not relevant to the issues currently faced at Kinloss. Still wish I'd been serving in those days, how many people/aircraft/bases/postings/dets etc! Most our issues stem from the last 5 years of operating.

Time for a group hug I think:ok: Don't forget we are all on the same side. cliché, cliché etc.

Please lets not discuss fleet fits and just acknowledge they cause problems for everyone, in an ideal world we would have everything we wanted on every jet. It isn’t and we don’t:{

Everyone working their arses off to sustain MR2, remember there are many people who greatly appreciate it's capability at home and away.

Mick Smith

28th Apr 2007, 09:08

Dunno about any other article but when the Sunday Times piece talked about the refurbished Nimrods the RAF is going to get, it was very definitely talking about the MRA4s, and it was definitely talking about the old fuel pipes and AAR system going into the refurbished aircraft.
(You can quibble about the use of the word refurbished and call the MRA4s brand spanking new if you want but the general public will get just a little confused at how they can be brand new when they are using the old fuselage and other retained elements right down to old, leaky, single-skin fuel pipes.)
The piece in the Sunday Times was originally much longer but was subsequently pulled forward to the front of the paper and cut down losing a number of points. These included the description of the new fleet of refurbished aircraft as the MRA4 and the quote from a BAE Systems insider backing up the story (which was confirmed by the MoD). That quote was a shortened version of the following:
"The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences, mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay. The AAR system will not be qualified on delivery. It has to be available ready to use at short notice. The system does carry fuel though, and it is pressurised (& yes we have had the odd leak during ground refuel). The MRA4 design was frozen as of last December. Any changes will only be at the customers request (& funding). Realistically it won't happen given the current situation re funding and bearing in mind there is no requirement to qualify the AAR system at this time."

ShortFatOne

28th Apr 2007, 16:16

MS.

What you rightly say is that there was confusion caused by MRA4 being refered to as a 'refurbished MR2'. This was the original intention but, after further consideration, it was decided the vast majority (circa 98%) of the aircraft would be more economical to manufacture from new. Where you are not correct is in giving the impression that the fuel pipework et al is refurbished. It is of a similar/same design but, apart from the fuselage (and one or two minor items) the rest of the aircraft (and pipework)is new build. Indeed, around the important areas (engine bays etc) the fuel pipework will be double skinned.

Now we can all argue as to why the same/similar design was retained, there are many good reasons as to why it should be (not least qualification issues) but let us not forget that up until fairly recently the design has been proven. Indeed, unless the BOI reports otherwise, that is still the case. Remember that MRA4 is being built to a much more rigid and taxing set of standards than those that were applicable at the time of the MR1. That is not to say that the original MR1, or indeed the MR2/R1) was manufactured any less safely, it is just that a higher level of compliance with stricter regulation is required in these modern times (that's partly why things cost more and take longer!) but that is not a bad thing where safety is concerned.

RAF_Techie101

28th Apr 2007, 17:14

For those of you interested (or not) the AAR system on the MRA4 is not being qualified as presently there is no need for it - the aircraft has shown to be more economical than expected, and is expected to have an endurance of up to 16 hours without refuelling. So presently, the aircraft will out-last it's crews.

Jackonicko

28th Apr 2007, 17:23

Have the leaks we've seen all occurred only during AAR sorties? In other words, if AAR isn't conducted, does the problem go away?

Mick Smith

28th Apr 2007, 18:43

SFO
I'm sorry. I note your location and I appreciate that being a hack I must be really, really stupid. But I can't even begin to marry up what you say with the quote immediately above your post.

RAFT101
No-one is disputing that the MRA4 has a better range. So what? If they are fitting an AAR system they ought surely to qualify it. They clearly want to be able to use it at some point or why fit it at all, and if it is a system on which we know there have been problems before there is an even greater reason to qualify it. It is not as if the powers that be have been really wary about using Nimrod AAR since last September's catastrophe. If it's there they'll use it.

ZH875

28th Apr 2007, 18:49

If they are fitting an AAR system they ought surely to qualify it. They clearly want to be able to use it at some point or why fit it at all
The C-130J has an IFR system fitted. They want to use it so much that they bought a couple of probes for the entire fleet. Role Equipment, just transfer between aircraft in a couple of hours they said, IIRC the techies gave up after a weekend, and still didn't manage to transfer the probe.

The Chinook 3 has IFR, but we didn't buy any probes at all. Still not much call to IFR a chopper that doesn't fly:)

PICKS135

28th Apr 2007, 19:02

The Chinook 3 has IFR, but we didn't buy any probes at all. Still not much call to IFR a chopper that doesn't fly

Allegedley one was at Benson on the 27th. Along with two Mk2's

Biggus

28th Apr 2007, 19:14

Call me 'Mr Thicky', a lot of other people do, but if BAE is 'contracted' to deliver an aircraft (MRA4) that is AAR capable then BAE needs to test/prove/validate that capability PRIOR TO DELIVERY.

To use the modern terminology, if there is a 'user requirement' for AAR capability then the 'test schedule' should 'test' against that 'requirement'!!

As for not needing AAR capability, due to a 16hr+ endurance, certain aircraft types flew 24hr+ sorties during the Falklands war, augmented with a third pilot and 2nd Eng. Who is to say an MRA4 will not be required to provide 24hr surveilance cover on some ISTAR mission in 15 years time, especially if there are only 9 to start with!

My Tom Clancy imagination is as good as the next mans.

difar69

28th Apr 2007, 19:16

Mr Smith,
You can fail to marry up what the Short Fat One says with the quote previous to his post, as much as you like. However unlike most posts on the topic of the MRA4, he has his facts right. Question it by all means, but if you're simply after an "angle" give it up. There is no question of refurbished fuel pipes being lifted from the MR2 and placed on the MRA4. You can also be cynical of the situation regarding AAR capability, but the RAF will not use the AAR system without qualification first, no scope for that in the test prog as it stands, therefore it won't be used (until money is paid for the qual).
SFO, how are the riffs coming along?

Tappers Dad

28th Apr 2007, 19:36

And will they be using Kapton wiring in the MRA4 even though the United States Navy has banned Kapton and the insulation is no longer used by Boeing since 1992, and the British CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) has forbidden the use of Kapton insulation in new aircraft designs ?

Tappers Dad

28th Apr 2007, 22:12

Yowhatcha am I missing something here , this is your first posting and you ask me to "Please stop trying to prove XV230 was anything but a tragic accident for now".

Firstly I have never posted one item on here accusing anyone of anything.

Secondly there is no such thing as a "tragic accident" they all have a cause do they not.

Thirdly If you want them to "Believe " (what ever that means) then go ahead and believe don't let me stop you.

Fourthly .I had a private message yesterday from someone at Kinloss saying his Mom and Dad appreciated what I was doing to try and highlight problems in order to HELP those flying.

Do you not think I don't know any aircrew ? Have things at Kinloss not started to improve recently ?

I just seek the truth because I can handle it . But can you ????

It appears Yowhatcha has deleted his own posting that was above this one how strange.

ShortFatOne

28th Apr 2007, 23:08

I think I need bigger hands, or some talent!

Da4orce

29th Apr 2007, 06:48

So please stop trying to prove XV230 was anything but a tragic accident for now - lets leave the BOI to decide

:= Yowhatcha - I fear you are slightly naive if you think that the BOI will provide a balanced opinion of what happened. Remember that the BOI report (already completed I might add) has to now go to the MOD lawyers and then ministers as well as RAF top brass. Plenty of scope for getting the big old whitewash brush out then! Bearing in mind this governments reputation for tampering with official documents and the disgraceful actions of the MOD in witholding evidence from coroners (or at least denying certain evidence exists), you would have to be fairly naive to think that the BOI will give us all the facts. You oonly have to go back to the Canada airshow crash to see that the MOD will try to wriggle out of any responsibility!

I find it slightly worrying that you do not want us to talk about the situation at Kinloss, if it's really that great why are there not floods of people on here saying how fantastic it all is? We know the important role that the Nimrod, it's ground and air crews perform, we're not saying ground the fleet and let them rust, all we are doing is trying to prompt a debate about there safety and suitability for the role they are performing. We want the Mighty Hunter to be Mighty again but that can only happen with investment from the government and if nobody is prepared to stand up and be counted then that investment will not come. I'm sorry to say Yowhatcha but it's people like you who allow the government to get away with degrading the Nimrod fleet.

RudolphHucker

29th Apr 2007, 11:45

Does anyone remember when, after landing anyone who had a snag would fill out the appropriate paperwork and the first stop for the crew coach would be the line where you would get off and sit round a table discussing the various snags with the appropriate groundcrew? Seem to remember the aircraft were all a lot more serviceable then than now or was it just that there were a lot more of them? A look at the early years of my flying log book show me airborne every other day for eight hours at a time and i well remember the post Taceval 'scramble' where at least 18 a/c were taxying to go and they called endex after three got airborne. They didnt want us to waste fuel by dumping so us lucky three got sent off to do a Tapestry! Those were the days.

Distant Voice

29th Apr 2007, 12:48

RudolphHuckle: Yes I do remember those days. It worked well. God knows what happens now.

DV

Distant Voice

29th Apr 2007, 13:00

Unless things have changed, dramatically, when MRA 4 enters services it should have a "Release to Service" document, which will state the operational condition of all systems. If AAR is installed (as it is) there will be a statement regarding is use, or lack of it. I remember whem MK1 was delivered the ESM had not been performance tested, but if was given a switch on release in the "Release to Service" document.

DV

nigegilb

29th Apr 2007, 13:11

"The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences,
mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay. As a further issue on the Nimrod, the IFR fit had "single wall " piping, the TriStar had duel wall fitted through out. I feel this must be down to the cost / risk* analysis but at the end of the day the cost of a life is the same.
The AAR system will not be qualified on delivery. It has to be
available ready to use at short notice. The system does carry fuel though, and it is pressurised

The MRA4 should be built now to Civil Standard, not hanging onto "fag packet" design to support the Falklands campaign 25 years ago."

Art Field

29th Apr 2007, 15:53

Although not a Nimrod man I was involved in In Flight Refuelling, including early Nimrod trials for 30 odd years and the number of occasions when we or our customers were required to carry out refuelling procedures that" "Will never be required" was legion. At some time in its life the MRA4 will require AAR [as it should be called] I would put my pension on it, not that that is very much!!

reynoldsno1

29th Apr 2007, 20:40

RAF_Techie101

29th Apr 2007, 21:07

Oddly enough they've given us a little room in our Line building for just that reason - the aircrew can come in and discuss any snags they have... Although watching my fairy cpl trying to pell 'porpoising' (?) at 4 in the morning was a little funny...

helgar33

30th Apr 2007, 08:47

I know you read this column regularly so here goes-
I actively support your tireless work to improve the safety of the nimrod now and in the future. I would not want others to go though what we have gone through. Any improvements will help our friends who still have to fly on them. To this end I have signed the petition and recommended others to do so aswell.
I have deleted the rest of this message.

airsound

30th Apr 2007, 17:49

Tapper's Dad - you were brilliant on Points West this evening. I'm only sorry it took the bad news about how long it's going to take to get the inquest done to get you on.

But nonetheless, your appearance was a moving reminder to everyone not to let this whole disgraceful situation disappear by default.

I was going to say - don't give up - but I know you're not going to. You're an inspiration to us all.

airsound

Tappers Dad

3rd May 2007, 17:32

Dear Mr Airsound
No I won't give up as long as I have a hole in my bottom. And perhaps some of those who have posted on this thread will drop a line to Ian Liddell Granger on the Nimrod Information please thread and GET SOMETHING DONE .

martin fletcher

14th May 2007, 14:57

I am a senior journalist with The Times. I am told that the Nimrod fleet is seriously overstretched, and losing a lot of pilots and engineers. Finding anybody willing to discuss this, on- or off-the-record, is extremely difficult. Can you help? My mobile is 07766 508628 and I promise absolute discretion - Martin Fletcher

BEagle

14th May 2007, 17:33

Martin - I think you'll find that ALL the RAF's aged-and-long-overdue-for-replacement large aircraft fleets are overstretched.

Except for the C-17s which the RAF doesn't even own. They're not due for replacement, just overstretched.

All the money which Greedy Grumpy Gordon parsimonously allows the RAF to have in its little budget has been pi$$ed up against the wall on the Airships' favourite little toy - the EuropHoon.

Where is Nimrod 2000?
Where is A330MRTT?
Where are all the self-protection and self defence systems for the C130. VC10, TriStar, Nimrod....

Where is the PR9 replacement?

But there are some very nice oil paintings, plasma TVs and office chairs in the Main Building.........

Froobs

14th May 2007, 17:50

Hear Hear BEagle

Winch-control

14th May 2007, 19:54

As a serving member; soon to leave; after 22yrs, if anyone wishes me to pass on their comments, then I will happilly do so for them. I have nothing to fear or lose. This government has achieved that already. If I can help, then pm me. I will certainly pass on comments from military personell in my name if so required to Martin Fletcher

covec

16th May 2007, 17:18

I think that the main issues have already been covered ie

1. Need for the "deposed" Line Shift to be re-instated ie the assumption being that they were "leaned too far".

2. Lack of experienced Engineers - meaning that relatively "straight forward" faults "stack-up" perhaps?

3. "Detachment fatigue" has set in ie Op Telic et al. Now running at five months away each 12 month period! [Approx. 10 week det. every six months]. [Perhaps 4 to 6 months every 24 months would be better?!]

4. Slow supply-chain re spares for aircraft [because supply-chain personnel - like the rest of the UK Armed Forces - are stretched too].

5. MR2 Force still expected to pick up alot of Peactime committments eg Ops Standbys which absolutely slaughters "quality time" with family once you are home. Major bugbear - how about privatising SAR for example. Highland Airways already do Fisheries Protection aka Tapestries! With alot of ex-mil personnel I am sure that they could do other jobs too....

6. Longer tours on the frontline - because people want away and this facilitates those already "away" getting their "rest shot".

Hope this is still within OSA Rules!!:confused: If not then I will delete!

Regards

toddbabe

17th May 2007, 19:15

Covec how about not going to Telic at all? I for one don't want to be away for six months there would be a pvr winging it's way to the boss sharpish if someone told me I was going away for six months!
Tours on the frontline are already too long I would like a choice earlier not bloody longer, many people won't be around longer than a standard tour length as it is, if people can't see the light at the end of the tunnel you will have big troubles.

cornish-stormrider

18th May 2007, 18:04

Why can't we invest more and get more pilots/crew/engineers/spares/housing/kit/airframes/support/training/what you need to do the tasks you do

Oh, I'll get my coat

Tappers Dad

21st May 2007, 19:24

I was up near ISK last week and the word on the strip says the BOI may not appear for another couple of months now.:ugh:

Da4orce

21st May 2007, 19:33

From the Press & Journal today:
08:50 - 21 May 2007
The RAF's ageing fleet of Nimrods have suffered an average of one fuel leak every week since the disaster in Afghanistan which claimed the lives of 14 servicemen......

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=17375385&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

nigegilb

21st May 2007, 19:53

TD, the BoI for XV 206, the Herc that was taken out by a land mine last May, has still not been published, even though the office used by the Board emptied months ago. Lots of politics and legal stuff still going on. Only hope that there is a good reason for the delay, a new recommendation perhaps? Certainly has been a lot of noise generated.

The investigation currently taking place into XV179 crash is extremely thorough. The BoI is not the end of the line by any stretch.

Fingers crossed that you don't have to wait too much longer.

jkirkup

22nd May 2007, 15:36

Posted here in case it interests. James K.
The Scotsman
Tue 22 May 2007
Nimrods exceeded planned flying hours for 2 years before fatal crash
JAMES KIRKUP
([email protected])
THE RAF's fleet of Nimrod aircraft significantly exceeded their planned flying hours in the two years before the crash last September of a Scottish-based spyplane in which 14 British servicemen were killed, it has been revealed.
Official Ministry of Defence data shows that in 2004-5 and 2005-6, the Nimrods flew more than 3,000 hours longer than RAF guidelines said they should. In all, the planes were in the air for 129 days more than they should have been during the two-year period.
The revelation will heighten fears that the Nimrods - which are an average of 36 years old - are being overworked because of Britain's military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The crash of Flight XV230, whose home base was RAF Kinloss, in Afghanistan last September was the worst single loss of British military lives since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Investigators believe the plane was blown apart by an explosion triggered after a fuel pipe cracked during mid-air refuelling.
In February, all Nimrods were temporarily grounded after a dent was found in the fuel pipe of one of the aircraft.
And last week, the MoD admitted that the ageing fleet is now reporting fuel leaks at a rate of almost one a week, although officials insist the leaks do not pose any threat to safety.
The Nimrod MR2 aircraft that fly from Scotland are due to be replaced with a new model. The process of ordering the replacements began in 1992, and the new plane was initially scheduled to be in service by 2003. But bureaucratic delays have pushed that date back to 2010.
The confirmation last night that the existing surveillance craft have been routinely exceeding their planned flying hours put fresh pressure on the government over the replacement planes.
In 2004-5, planners scheduled the Nimrods to fly 10,514 hours. They actually flew for 12,118. The following year, the plan was for 7,932 hours in the air. The actual total logged was 9,445.
In 2006-7, the Nimrods would once again have exceeded their target times, but the loss of XV230 sharply reduced the total hours flown.
The Nimrods, which are converted airliners, are used as the eyes and ears of British military forces, flying long-distance surveillance flights over the Middle East and Asia, where they use their complex radar systems to sweep huge areas.
The planes also carry out search-and-rescue missions in the seas around Britain.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party MP whose Moray constituency includes RAF Kinloss, said the flight log details were extremely worrying.
"The Nimrod fleet has been worked extremely hard during recent years ... Bearing in mind the age of the aircraft, the recent fuel leaks, and the tragic crash of Flight XV230, there are now serious concerns," he said.
"This all makes the case for the quickest possible introduction of the new Nimrod."
An MoD spokesman last night conceded that the Nimrods are flying more and more, but insisted the workload did not put crew at risk.
He added: "The capabilities of the Nimrod and the requirement to employ it have expanded significantly over the last few years, but we have managed this as we continue to meet our operational commitments."
ends