PDA

View Full Version : PPRuNe mentioned in the House of Commons


Tappers Dad
20th Apr 2007, 17:05
My Local MP Mr. Liddell-Grainger (ex Army Major) asked questions about the Nimrod and its replacement on the 17th April 2007.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070417/halltext/70417h0007.htm

17 Apr 2007 : Column 48WH
Military Procurement

Here is an extract.
The morale of aircrews on Nimrods is pretty close to rock bottom these days. If he has not already done so, I invite the Minister to take a look at the Professional Pilots Rumour Network at www.pprune.org. I would not normally suggest that a Minister should look at a rumour-mongering site, but that one is interesting, because it involves the airmen themselves. It cannot, of course, be relied on to tell the whole truth, but the airmen are using it as a valve for internal grumbles. I should like to quote from a pilot’s entry of a few weeks back:

"I’ve served 6 months away each year in the Sand, every year for the last 4 years. But that didn’t knock my morale anywhere near as much as crewing in at 0400 but not getting flying until 1700.”

The Nimrod is becoming the RAF’s Skoda. The men want to fly, but I am afraid that the plane is clapped out. I should like to bring another entry to the Chamber’s attention:
“A serving crew member told me of a recent sortie in search of a submarine, the radar was not working on the Nimrod...When he asked how he was supposed to find a submarine without radar he was told to look out of the window and use his eyes!”
Even if only a small proportion of those stories are true, there is a major problem to which I hope the Minister and the Government will own up and say, “We need to cough up.” We must not and should not put aircrews at risk because the kites that they are flying are beyond their sell-by dates. We should never put anything into the air that does not have the proper equipment inside it.

Hot stuff !!!!!!!:D

One of The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram) replies was :

The loss of the Nimrod XV230 in Afghanistan with the loss of life of the 14 military personnel on board was unquestionably a tragic incident. Such incidents serve to remind us of the risks that our servicemen and women take across the world every day. The loss of an airframe inevitably means that it is more difficult to
meet front-line requirements—that is the nature and the hard logic of the matter. However, the Nimrod personnel and aircraft are meeting their operational commitments and continue to do an excellent job. Of a fleet of 15 aircraft, nine are typically available to the front line. The remainder are being modified or in deep servicing. Four are deployed on operations overseas, and five are available in the UK to be used at short notice.

Mmmmm:rolleyes:

Distant Voice
20th Apr 2007, 17:27
"Nine are typically available to the front line" Who supplied the minister with this data?

DV

airborne_artist
20th Apr 2007, 17:54
The Nimrod is becoming the RAF’s Skoda

Which is a fairly stupid analogy, given that Skodas frequently are high up the customer satisfaction charts.

barnstormer1968
20th Apr 2007, 20:28
TAPPER'S DAD

Keep up the good work. Thank you for this update, and well done to your M.P.

Barnstormer1968

soddim
20th Apr 2007, 20:50
We should never put anything into the air that does not have the proper equipment inside it.


Be not too many RAF aircraft airborne then!

ranger703
20th Apr 2007, 20:56
2 in the circuit today.Another taxied out,lined up,almost powered up and then taxied back to dispersal and shut down.

Mr Point
20th Apr 2007, 22:46
nine are typically available to the front line

DV, please note this carefully phrased ministerial comment. Adam Ingram did not say 9 serviceable Nimrods were available to the Front Line, merely 9 Nimrods.:rolleyes:

Nine serviceable Nimrods is quite obviously make-believe, just like Father Christmas and the tooth fairy.:}

Hot Charlie
22nd Apr 2007, 11:09
Which is a fairly stupid analogy, given that Skodas frequently are high up the customer satisfaction charts.

Which shows how out of touch and overpaid MP's are!:rolleyes:

helgar33
22nd Apr 2007, 19:29
The loss of an airframe inevitably means that it is more difficult to
meet front-line requirements..........

What about the loss of the crew!:eek: