Nimrod Information [Archive] - Page 2

Tappers Dad

4th Jun 2007, 06:42

The BBC Pamorama website now has more information on about tonights programme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6716645.stm

On a Wing and a Prayer
An RAF whistleblower has told BBC Panorama about deep concerns among servicemen about the state of the UK's fleet of Nimrod spyplanes.

The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience, revealed a number of technical problems and fuel leaks, including an incident during a UK flight in November 2004 that he believed could have brought down the plane.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals.

Panorama also uncovers details of two major fuel leaks, the first of which, according to former Nimrod engineer Jimmy Jones, could have caused the loss of another crew.
In November last year, just eight weeks after the Kandahar crash, a fuel pipe coupling was found to be leaking after air-to-air refuelling.
The crew thought it so serious that an air incident report was filed and mid-air refuelling procedures were changed.
Asked how serious he thought the incident was, Jones warned that it could have been a "replication" of the situation in September.
In December, sources told Panorama, a crew on another plane filed an incident report after leaks caused "pools of fuel" to form in the bomb bay and fuel covered flares.
Retired Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson told the programme that operations in the Middle East were having a huge impact on the Nimrods.

He said: "They are doing a full pint job with a half pint of resources. That can't go on, it has to change."

John Blakeley

4th Jun 2007, 07:52

I thought CAS was interesting yesterday when he commented that he was satisfied that Nimrod air to air refuelling was "as safe as necessary" - what does that mean? The underlying design weaknesses for what was, I understand, meant to be a temporary fit are still there so how are they getting round this or does as safe as necessary mean that they have calculated what they see as an acceptable chance of an accident - if so then surely the crews should be told what it is.

A few years ago both Nimrod and VC10 major servicings were consuming more manhours than it took to build the aircraft in the first place - is this still the case? Given that no inspection based servicing, even a major, can provide 100% cover then surely this is also a measure of the underlying airworthiness problems of these old aircraft that should have been parked in the Mojave Desert a long time ago!

It has always sruck me as odd, given that there are acceptable modern alternatives available, that we expect our aircrew to fight in airframes that would probably be difficult to get on the register of even a Third World nation's Regulatory Authority - but then neither the Treasury nor the MOD planners (anyway totally emasculated by the Treasury) can be expected to think like Mr O'Reilly! Perhaps that is also because nobody has yet pushed the "Duty of Care" arguments to the Courts as they would if a Ryanair jet was flown in an underlying unairworthy condition! Just a thought!

JB

Mr Point

4th Jun 2007, 09:04

as safe as necessary
I thought exactly the same myself. Did he mean that they was as safe as necessary to provide the lowest possible risk, or as safe as necessary to provide an acceptable level of risk?:bored:

tucumseh

4th Jun 2007, 09:23

The contractual way for dealing with this (based on my experience with far newer aircraft) is to caveat every contract with something like “The (MoD) acknowledges the aircraft were built to standards of the day, which are not necessarily applicable or suitable today…….” . The aircraft is deemed safe at its induction build standard and as long as the contractor (normally the Aircraft Design Authority) flags up any deviation from current standards while the aircraft is held on his charge, then liability rests with MoD. This is necessary for two main reasons. 1. Lack of investment to maintain the build standard (which includes safety). 2. Service Engineered Mods.

As for the MoD staff responsibilities, I note again the ruling by successive regimes (PE, DPA, DLO, DE&S etc) that, even if a contract requires the output (aircraft or equipment) to be safe and airworthy, the PM is permitted to sign-off and make full payment if he, or the contractor, decides not to deliver safety or airworthiness. (Thus dropping the poor sod who has to sign the Release to Service in the clag).

Safe as necessary, but for whose purpose?

Distant Voice

4th Jun 2007, 09:39

Nimman, many thanks for that information.

Blame is put on the pilot, but I note that the report says "Some deficiencies in the regulations pertaining to Nimrod display and inadequate advice on stall warning speeds in the aircraft documentaion" (probably Release to Service). I have heard that the stall speed in the "documentaion" was set at 120 knts, the aircraft was at 122 knts, and shortly after the accident the stall speed was increased to 150 knts. The report says that aircraft was being operated below the recommended speed of 150 knts. Bit hard on the pilot if the 150 limit did not come into being until after the accident.

Perhaps that is why the BOI were sent back to adjust their report.

DV

SpannerSpinner

4th Jun 2007, 12:50

"The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience, revealed a number of technical problems and fuel leaks, including an incident during a UK flight in November 2004 that he believed could have brought down the plane.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals"

I have first hand experience of said incident as I was on shift at the time. As a result of the pipe rupturing, (it was never ascertained during which stage of flight the failure occurred) that particular system was isolated and not reinstated for a good few months until inspections and/or replacement pipes were fitted. It eventually led to that particular ac being withdrawn from service (after sitting in a shed for a good few months whilst the lords and masters decided what to do with it) and sent to be chopped up at Woodford.

Snow Dog

4th Jun 2007, 14:14

"I have heard that the stall speed in the "documentaion" was set at 120 knts, the aircraft was at 122 knts, and shortly after the accident the stall speed was increased to 150 knts. The report says that aircraft was being operated below the recommended speed of 150 knts."

DV,

Documented stall speeds don't change without extensive re-testing incurred by airframe changes. The report states a 'minimum speed for the manoeuvre' incorporating margin above the (predicted turning) stall speed - that didn't change.

No story here.

Pontius Navigator

4th Jun 2007, 14:34

<<Retired Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson >>

Would that be Robby Robinson? I only ask because Robby Robinson seems to crop up in a number of books and articles with 'authority' attached to rank.

Generally, while a senior officer may well have very authritative views they are frequently less experienced in aircraft operations than spec aircrew or NCA.

In the quotes I have seen by RR I could pick holes in some of them. His views are not as I recall them.

Distant Voice

4th Jun 2007, 14:55

Snow Dog, I am not looking for a story, I just hear conflicting stories about the accident.

You tell, if you can, what was the "documented" stall speed prior to the accident and what is it now?

Having spent several years at Boscombe Down I am familar with the Release to Service document and what is required to cahange it.

DV

MightyHunter AGE

4th Jun 2007, 14:56

The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience

Who is this guy anyone? I've only been an AGE at Kinloss for 6 years (smallie for Kinloss) but I have never clapped eyes on this guy, so much for insider 'recent' knowledge (more like "a guy I met in the Abbey said" journalism to me).

The timing of this prog is very sad. I have personally been approached by several jurnos on this subject but have kept my opinion to myself and refered them to the press office and the need to wait until the BOI has been released.

This is pretty gaulling when we are slogging our guts out to keep these jets flying in a safe condition, progs like this come out and they could still put the blame on the ground crew. None of these people have thought about that.

RIP CXX/3

Dave Angel

4th Jun 2007, 16:13

The Whistle Blower
The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience

I too have never heard of him and I've been at ISK nearly 16 years :confused:

Mick Smith

4th Jun 2007, 17:17

Dave Angel and MH Age. Just a clarification. Having seen the script ahead of writing an article on it for the Sunday Times, you seem to be mixing two different interviewees up. The whistleblower is not identified in any way for obvious reasons so you could not have heard of him because there is no name given, other than a "John" which may or may not be his first name, while his words are spoken by an actor.

Dave Angel

4th Jun 2007, 17:24

Apologies, I was refering to the former engineer quoted by the BBC.

AC Ovee

4th Jun 2007, 18:06

DV,
Prior to the accident the straight and level stall speed was the only stall speed immediately available on a vital data card to the pilot. This is what was meant by "documented". The stall speed in a manoeuvre, where G force is higher, will be higher. There was another discussion on pprune about this a few weeks ago. After the accident it was decided that the worst case manoeuvre stalling speed be put on the card, thus hopefully preventing another excursion outside the flight envelope.

Hope this helps.

By the way, folks, Mr Jimmy Jones, the man on tonights Panorama, is an ex flight engineer, who was involved with the flight testing of the Nimrod prior to its release to service. He will tell us (again) that the Nimrod was never designed for the Middle East. It is a fact that it was never tested in the Middle East, but that doesn't mean that the aircraft cannot operate there. It was tested for its intended use in the Cold War over the N Atlantic. This bloke obviously feels that he is some kind of Nimrod guru/forefather. The limited time and experience he gained on the Nimrod doesn't come anywhere near to the experience of some of today's Nimrod aircrew. I would take his words with a pinch of salt.

zedder

4th Jun 2007, 19:05

Full pot of salt at the ready!

Distant Voice

4th Jun 2007, 19:28

Thank you AC Ovee. So the pilot flew to the card speed. Then after the accident it was increased. That's why the pilot concerneed had 120 knts stall in HIS book. And there isn't a story?

DV

londonmet

4th Jun 2007, 19:55

£2bn pounds over budget. 10 years late. Disgusting.

I feel sorry for all the people still left who are trying there best with a sheer lack of resources.

Disgusting behaviour.

EmeraldToilet

4th Jun 2007, 19:59

Interesting, is about all I can say, apart from, was Glen Torpy wearing make up ?

londonmet

4th Jun 2007, 20:00

EToilet,

Not sure but he did look very uncomfortable in that interview.

buoy15

4th Jun 2007, 20:03

Well that was a typical bucket of Panorama ****e
Total waste of license payers money:hmm:

EmeraldToilet

4th Jun 2007, 20:03

I would say, "and so he should", although I am willing to concede that there wouldn't have been a little favourable editing going on in the beebs favour.

airborne_artist

4th Jun 2007, 20:04

He looked very uncomfortable in the face of a few fairly straightforward questions.

londonmet

4th Jun 2007, 20:06

Buoy15

Well that was a typical bucket of Panorama ****e
Total waste of license payers money:hmm:

Yeah just like the £3m per year per aircraft is yeah? Get rid of them!

FJ2ME

4th Jun 2007, 20:11

i disagree-i think the beeb did a good job; they put the case in a manner which will appeal to their audience. And ACM Torpy looked very uncomfortable IMHO. Pretty much everything that was said about Nimrods (old kit, temporary patches remaining permanent, cannibalisation to keep frames flying) can also be applied to C130K, Tristar and the VC-10....Disgusting state of affairs...Its like a flying museum.

Couldn't have put it better than Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson, full pint job with half-pint resources. How much longer can this go on? New nimrod over budget over time, A400m still not here, FSTA never likley to be here, Tristar having glass cockpit retrofitted, C130J ragged to death through over-use...Absolute fu@king disgrace.

Snow Dog

4th Jun 2007, 20:17

So the pilot flew to the card speed. Then after the accident it was increased. That's why the pilot concerneed had 120 knts stall in HIS book.

Pilots never fly to a stall speed as it is only a guide. The aircraft stalls only when too much angle of attack is 'pulled'. For convenience, this is approximated to a speed in each configuration. Speed margins are then added to this for manoeuvres such as take off, landing, tactical manoeuvring etc.

On the very rare occasions outside flying training that one gets close to the stall speed, one relies on the aircraft stall warning characteristics to avoid the stall.

I can't see where your question is going.

SpannerSpinner

4th Jun 2007, 20:20

And what exactly did Jimmy Jones bring to that programme other than extremely dated information. I'm sorry but having proudly served on the 'Rod just recently his arguments are way off the mark.

Does he think that the AAR kit was bolted on in 82 by a bunch of kwik-fit fitters (no offence intended) and never looked at Since??? Great respect to the guy for what he has done and his vast experience, but how relevant is it to what the fleet is doing now?

The 'Rod, like the vast majority of the UKs Forces is paying the price of a generation (maybe more) of under-investment and inadequate support. The forces people that fly and support her, by their very nature, just get on with it and kick up little fuss.

I just wish that I could flick a switch and awaken this bloody country into realising that her once Great British Forces needs their support and quick.

Man I'm angry! :mad:

SpSp

Exrigger

4th Jun 2007, 20:40

Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson presided over the Tornado era when it started its robbing and spares shortages phase from early 80 to 91, but he made out this is a new thing he had only heard of last year on Nimrods. I know that people will say that it is irrelevant as there are more Tornadoes and they do not carry as many crew and you would be correct, my point is he implies that was he still in he would not accept what was happening, well he did when he was in and probably still would, so nothing would have changed.

I know the Nimrod is an old airframe, but if there are fuel leaks in the AAR system pipework, then as this was introduced at a much later date what is the link to the age of the airframe structure?

Distant Voice

4th Jun 2007, 20:43

Snow Dog, forget it you must be a politician. Can not answer the simple question that has been put to you.

Let us try one more time. I am advised that the "card" stall speed for the turn was 120 knts. The BOI states that the a/c was doing 122 Knts and becomes a sub. Within hours a singal is sent which advises that the revised stall speed is 150 Knts. Do lights not flash for you?

DV

Contacttower

4th Jun 2007, 20:44

I don't think we should be dismissing TV programmes about the dire state of the armed forces (no mattter how rubbish) as ****e. It may not have got the detail right but the underlying truth was exposed and we should be grateful (considering that there are obviously a few people who still believe in solely using the 'proper channels') that the Nimrod issue got an airing. Lets not forget that a lot of the British public is unaware of the true depth of the problems facing some parts of the armed forces and the BBC (along with MPs and others) does have a role to play in demonstrating the problems and hopefully adding to the pressure that will hopefully see them resolved.

engoal

4th Jun 2007, 20:56

I found it quite uncomfortable viewing, notwithstanding some of the errors in detail that were broadcast unchecked. Torps did look uneasy, but then it's not easy to defend the indefensible. SWMBO asked if it was accurate, and I was about to go of on one about 'what people don't understand is that...' and then I stopped and thought about the bare facts. 14 dedicated and professional blokes died and it is reasonable to assume that the parlous state of airworthiness of this old and overworked aircraft probably contributed to this tragic loss. Worse still, we all know that these issues apply well beyond Nimrod and, when I do finally pull the plug on my time in blue, I will be torn, on the one hand, between an unwillingness to stay in a Service that is coming apart and, on the other, some feeling of loyalty/conscience that I ought to stay and try to help make it work.:hmm:

themightyimp

4th Jun 2007, 21:03

kermit looked far better pretending that he didn't have a hand up his ar*e than Torps did. Still, media for you.....................

UAVs bring em on. Live int??? Nah, me thought not. :mad::mad:

Top Right

4th Jun 2007, 21:10

Engoal,

Your last sentence certainly strikes a chord, the good old pre-spin "can-do" attitude. Provided it's not to cut corners nor compromise safety.

RCOV 2 ENG

4th Jun 2007, 21:36

After watching Panorama, as i'm sure most of us did, it is publicity like this which is needed to highlight what a farcical Air Force we have become!
I know we have a "can do" attitude, and everyone does their damdest to get the job done. But in this day and age it's pretty p15h that we are putting our lives on the line (again) with sub standard equipment!
So what will happen at Kinloss? Nothing................................!:ugh:
All that will happen is the big wigs will sweep it under the carpet and hope it goes away! But will it ever go away? It's a sorry state of affairs over the whole RAF, and a lot of guys I know are thinking about leaving, or at most will only serve their remaining time until IPP!! That includes me by the way!
It's time that all those big wigs woke up and smelt the fuc£$$g coffee, as it is them who are pushing the Air Force literally "down the tubes!!!"
Anyway i've had my rant, i'm off to type up my CV!!
:uhoh::uhoh::ugh::ugh:

RileyDove

4th Jun 2007, 21:53

I think that the programme was quite well balanced and to the general public
gives a reasonable insight into the Nimrod fleet. What I do find worrying is the RAF's terrible ability to portray itself in a good light . The programme at Selly Oak with it's shocking PR woman did enough damage - the interview with the AOC whilst defensive didn't actually give any reasons for optomism.
Going back twelve years I was told by a Nimrod rigger that the Nimrod 2000/MRA.4 would be a 'jobs for the boys' exercise and would end up with something cobbled together. Whilst I don't dispute the ability of the guys at Warton to produce her - has the wait and cost been worth it?

ExRAFRadar

4th Jun 2007, 22:47

I believe most of those watching would have been bored ****less.

The Nimrod has ' major fuel leaks'. So what ? - how many civilians fly on the Hunter ?

If this had been a programme on a 737 or 57 gushing Fuel every time it took off or landed it would have made noise.

A Thompson 757 takes a bird in an engine and it makes the news.A Nimrod fleet of 15 aircraft chopped to 5 has no interest to a public struggling to pay the council tax.

Such a serious subject such as overstretch, procurement bungling and out and out corruption in the defense industry/civil service is deemed worthy of a 30 minute 'documentary' is what is really beyond the pale. Not to mention the fact that we as a county and a people were dragged into a War without any legitimate reason.

The men on that Nimrod died. Fact. Did they die of gross incompetence and/or blatant corruption is the question. Some bimbo journo asking inane questions to the 'Head of Air Force' is just bloody embarrassing.

It is time for all those that would presume to lead to stand up, stand fast and say "No More". I for one, even as a civilian, would stand behind you.

Tombstone

4th Jun 2007, 23:02

Spot on ExRAFradar,

civvies, in the majority, could not give a flying f*&k and tonights panorama will not change that mindset at all, especially with Vine's cynical approach to journalism.

Until the Chiefs stand up and say 'enough is enough', the RAF is buggered. Torpy and his cronnies will never stand up the ministers because none of this directly effects them, short term posts, long term pensions.

I'm out soon & cannot wait to leave a service that simply does not care (I base this on my own experiences along with those of fellow servicemen) about the lives of its personnel.

Disgraceful, unloyal behaviour from those with their air officer pensions in the bag.

covec

4th Jun 2007, 23:11

I think that if there are any more incidents worthy of an IR, and involving fuel/hot air piping, with or without AAR then it may be time to consider one's position or attitude re "personal risk management"!

You have to trust the system I guess - and the Lineys in particular.

In Tor Wot

4th Jun 2007, 23:46

One of the points brought out in the programme was that the Predator could do 80% of the job of the Nimrod - I disagree. As the Nimrod has no SAR capability, nor the large number of analysts required to support a Predator mission it's the other way around.

However, when the Dear Leader stated that we'd bought 3 Predators he forgot to mention two important facts:

1. We haven't bought any of the analytical equipment for the imagery that it collects :ugh:

2. We can't bring it to the UK to train (CAA issues notwithstanding) as we can't afford to pay the VAT on them :eek:

Nov71

5th Jun 2007, 01:21

As a civilian viewer, I thought the bereaved family focus was gratuitous, whistleblower comments (spoken by an actor) revealing and the prog quickly focused on the refueling pipework as the likely suspect
IFR was never in the original airframe design; the 1982 'Falklands mod' was a Woodford achievement in the time available, IMO comparable to Apollo 13
Didn't HMG consider buying US AWACs before deciding on new Nimrod airframes & upgraded electronics?
Temp changes (stress) in current theatre of operations may be significant on fuel line seals (Challenger O rings spring to mind)

At what transfer pressure is IFR conducted?

I suggest that this topic was more appropriate to Air Crash Investigations than Panorama

As for Predator, the RAF may want to commandeer the ASBO drones from Merseyside Police as a cost-saving measure

Bubbled

5th Jun 2007, 03:12

IFR can peak at twice the ground re-fuel pressure.

speeddial

5th Jun 2007, 05:29

If nothing else I hope last night's programme helped give a few senior officers, should they be trying to do nothing but cover their asses, difficulty in sleeping for a few nights.

Pontius Navigator

5th Jun 2007, 05:52

Nov71 <<Didn't HMG consider buying US AWACs before deciding on new Nimrod airframes & upgraded electronics?>>

Are confusing airframes and missions?

HMG certainly considered buying AWACs but Maggie got p:mad:d off at the delays in NATO decision making and decided on a DIY solution with the Nimrod 3, the AEW conversion of the Nimrod 1 and some new airframes. That programme failed and we bought the Boeing product for airborne early warning.

The alternative to the Nimrod, at the time, was the Lockheed product, the P3 or the Dassault Atlantic Mk 1. Their airships insisted on 4 engines to that ruled out the Atlantic.

Uncle Ginsters

5th Jun 2007, 06:05

Just managed to watch the programme via the wonders of the internet.
Overall, i thought it came across well - i'm not a Nimrod specialist but i'm told that programme, if anything, was optimistic on its serviceability. Let's face it, they could have taken any of our current procurements and ripped the whole thing to shreds on many levels but they chose not to get too political.

CAS looked uneasy, maybe, but wouldn't it just have been reassuring to hear some honest words about what he's trying to achieve and the hurdles he faces with the Treasury and Bliar's outer office? :ugh:

I still can't understand how any of this can be bad for the forces (as some here seem to think)...it may make our equipment look bad, but that's just how it is - and anything that highlights the obstacles all of the Forces face is a good thing in my book.:D

Uncle G

The Swinging Monkey

5th Jun 2007, 06:33

What ever we thought of the Panorama programme last night (and I didn't think it was too bad for the BBC) the fact remains that until we have leaders who have the balls to stand up and say 'NO MORE' to the PM or Def Sec, then it will all have been a complete waste of time and effort.

If ever anyone looked 5hit-scared last night, it was Glenn Torpy. Some call it 'uncomfortable' but I know the CAS from years gone by, and he was embarrassed, scared and worried, believe me!

Glenn, those of us that know you, admire you as a leader and a great aviator, but the time has come Sir when you must stand up and be judged as a man. When the results of the BoI are announced, have the courage to stand up and say, in public, NO MORE. Please do that for the families and friends of CXX Crew3, and for the guys on the jet as well, please.

You will not only have the 100% support of the British Public, and every serviceman and woman in the UK Armed Forces, but you will be remembered for ever as a true leader of this sad, sorry and pathetic Air Force, and the man who said 'No More'

TD. I doubt if you or the other families took much comfort from last night, but if nothing else it brought it back into the public spotlight, where it deserves to be and stay, until you get the answers you seek. I hope your wait is over soon Sir.

TSM

cornish-stormrider

5th Jun 2007, 07:34

Whole heartedly agree Mr TSM. TD, watching the clip of the memorial service bought a lump to my throat. I cannot even begin to imagine how you and all the other families must feel, Every Damn Day. As always, thoughts and prayers. If there is anything more you want us to do then PM me. To anyone reading this, are you aware of a cycle ride from J o' G to LE?? Its in memorial for the crew and in aid of RAF widows. PM's to TD for the link.

Mr Point

5th Jun 2007, 09:10

I think the BBC did a reasonably good job of emphasising the problems entrenched within the Nimrod MR2 fleet. Yes there were inaccuracies, and yes there was selective editing, but the message was very accurate.

Robbing and poor serviceability has been a part of life on many fleets for years, but it is the extent that this applies to the Nimrod force at the moment that is raising alarm. An inadequately funded, understaffed, over-tasked RAF, with increasingly low morale, cannot continue in its present condition, hence the obvious nervousness seen by CAS. Add into the equation an old, heavily-used aircraft that is well past its sell-by date and you are asking for trouble.

The elastic band is about to snap, if it hasn't already.

Distant Voice

5th Jun 2007, 09:23

In last night's program, the CAS agreed that there have been 25 fuel leaks in the last six months, and each one is being looked at. But in reality there has probably been many more. Let's look at the data we have received fron Sec of State recently, and posted on pprune:

(1) Annual number of fuel leaks over past 10 years; approx 4 per 50 flying hours.

(2) Number of hours being flown by fleet; approx 10,000 per year (5,000 per 6 month period).

Now it is not rocket science to do a little maths and work out 5,000/50 x 4, and you get 400. NOT 25.

So perhaps the CAS was talking only about fuel leaks that were serious enough for incident reports to have been raised. Come on guys lets have the true story.

DV

Green Hat/Yellow Hat

5th Jun 2007, 09:31

CAS looked very uncomfortable in the face of a few fairly straightforward questions.

Looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights to me!!

It's not his fault, and I feel extremely sorry for all those in senior positions who have to "live with the results of a previous administration", but it must surely be time to say "Enough is Enough". If someone did, it would be a huge boost to morale, knowing that someone does care about something other than their pension!

airborne_artist

5th Jun 2007, 09:40

It's not his fault

It's his fault he looked uncomfortable - he took the job on with full knowledge of the state of the fleets and their workloads - no-one forced him to take the job, AFAIK.

While he can't fix the 10 year delay for the replacement, or even magic up an inventory of spares, he could have turned the job down.

TheSmiter

5th Jun 2007, 10:51

I took my daughter to see Pirates of the Caribbean at the weekend.
Half way through she says 'They're making it up as they go along'
After 3 hours, she said 'Is that it? Is that how it ends?'

I watched Panorama last night and said exactly the same to Mrs Smiter, only it was just 30 mins!

The programme told us:

1. The aircraft's old and has major problems
2. People are generally unhappy and some are leaving
3. The answer is Predator x 3 ( oh okay, if you say so)

On the plus side, the wives and girlfriend came across very well - articulate and genuine.

Who were the others?

Apart from AVM Robinson Retd, full pint job with half-pint resources - Thats the whole point!

Not once did I hear the words Gordon Brown. As Chancellor he has systematically starved the Armed Forces of the money and resources to fulfil all the commitments his Boss has demanded.

Thats why the Nimrod force and pretty much every element of our Armed Forces are in the state they are.

If ever there was a modern day buccaneer, look no further than your next Prime Minister - wake up Britain!

And thats why I didn't rate Panorama last night. But I forgot, its the BBC, it's dumbed down. Thats what it does.

The Swinging Monkey

5th Jun 2007, 10:52

Green Hat/Yellow Hat
You are right, it's not his fault, and I too feel a little sorry for Glenn, he is a top chap. However, its never too late to stand up and be counted!
His pension is assured, his place in RAF History is assured, perhaps its time that his position in British History as a whole becomes assured, and he does the honourable thing and resign over the whole sad state of our Air Force.
TSM

10enggone

5th Jun 2007, 10:53

Lasts nights programme a lot of truth in what was said. Don't think BOI will differ much

£2 Billion over budget + intended outlay, would have paid for some gucci boeings fitted as required but no government would be applauded by the public for that.

ROV's US public more willing to allow big budgets to their military, always have and always will.

Fuel leaks - exist on all aircraft modern or RAF (physical properties of materials)

Some embellishment/journalistic licence but what do you expect she's trying to get noticed.

Shouldn't have happened, but with all the fleets the downturn in manning and lack of spares married with the desired tasking sadly something gave.

Nothings changing is the saddest thing of all

Tim McLelland

5th Jun 2007, 10:59

I was pleased to see that the RAF emerged unscathed from the Panorama programme. At least the BBC managed to avoid any implication that the guys in the RAF are doing anything other than simply trying to do the best they can with very limited resources and too many committments.
Just another classic example of the state that the RAF's in I fear. Having been (until recently) commissioned to produce their 90th Anniversary book for next year, I know from first-hand experience that their public relations set-up is a complete joke, which staggers from one disaster to another and simply pours money away. The air and ground crews have a thankless task. Politicians that expect them to handle every crusade that Blair embarks upon, no money with which to do the job, and a PR machine that is more interested in clothing ranges...

Wader2

5th Jun 2007, 11:18

I have a nice base-ball cap.

Offers?

wz662

5th Jun 2007, 11:23

I'd like to know who it was in the RAF that made the policy (no doubt on the grounds of cost) to NOT issue the crews of large aircraft with parachutes.
It is possible that there would have been survivors from both the Nimrod and the Hercules if they had access to the appropriate equipment.

nigegilb

5th Jun 2007, 11:29

Glenn Torpy was happy to send Hercs to Afg without foam and we lost one weeks after he made reassuring noises about Herc safety to the Defence Committee.

Nimrod is allowed to AAR under SD which gives authority from AOC 2Gp to tank when operationally necessary.

Seriously, what is the point in trying to hide the mess that is the RAF? What is he hoping to achieve? Stop hiding behind lousy risk management speak, it impresses nobody.

One of the SDs says that if operationally essential and if no other alternatives exist then the aircraft can tank, albeit with AOC 2 Gp permission. So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable.

I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management.

The words of a very experienced Nimrod pilot.

Wader2

5th Jun 2007, 11:43

wz662, the Nimrod and the Shackleton before it did not carry parachutes. As Maritime patrol aircraft it would have been assumed that any emergency would have been over the sea. Crews in a sea survival situation would probably survive better in a multi-seat life raft rather than any number of dinghies scattered far and wide.

Then the operational life was probably largely expected to be at 1000 feet or less with an emergency probably being related to a bird strike. The Nimrod was capable of flight on a single engine and could climb, at weights below 142 000 lbs, at 100 feet per minute. If it could fly and indeed climb then the need to abandon would have been low.

However the Nimrod was also assumed to have a lousy ditching capability. Sliding its tail along the surface it was expected that the nose would then hammer onto the surface at about 25g, kill the flight deck crew, break off, and flood the fuselage. Ergo there would be no need for immersion suits either, besides which they would be uncomfortable and restricting on a 9 hour flight.

After the ditching of the Dutch Atlantic and the saving of the crew, who all had once-only immersion suits, there was a successful reappraisal and once-only suits were provided. The orginal logic about parachutes persisted. I suspect the door positions in relation to the horizonal flying surfaces also suggested that bailout was not an option.

On the E3 of course it does not operate at low level, spends sometime over the sea and some over the land and also has a proper parachute exit (a la KC135). Given its role - combat support, the reliablity of its engines, and the proven airframe, it is obvious that parachutes are not needed in the E3 either. In the Elmsdorf crash parachutes would not have assisted crew survival. In the Nimrod bird strike crash in the 70s they would not have helped either.

In the MR1 at St Mawgan or the R1 at Kinloss parachutes would have given a very useful insurance and reassurance to the crews, provided they had a proper bailout exit.

The forgoing is not gospel, simply supposition on my part.

TheSmiter

5th Jun 2007, 12:49

Somebody mention parachutes? Is there a course?

Sorry sir, I can't afford to go this month! :)

Wader I think you're pretty much spot on with your suppositions. The position of the doors, wings, tail assembly and er, jet efflux would seem to prevent a successful egress from the Mighty Hunter - doesn't stop a few pax asking though! And not just spacies.

covec

5th Jun 2007, 15:44

For those who decry the fitting of parachutes - why not let those of us flying the old girl make our minds up - I personally would vote for one. I would rather have at least a shot.........

Or is the real reason cost.........

Padraig Murphy

5th Jun 2007, 18:37

The programme did not get to the root causes by looking at all of the effects and contributors - got the impression that they were afraid to dig too deep in case they would stir up a "hornets nest".

As an ex-Nimrod groundie I was left extremely disappointed and disheartened by the programme; there was no mention of the £1.1Bn NISC and doesn't it have an impact? What are we paying for under NISC?

Robbing has always been necessary to meet operational requirements it will still be done on MRA4 and Predator, unless we have a complete spares set for every aircraft, not cost-effective, and certainly not affordable.

The same AAR system is expected to be fitted to MRA4 after last night's programme another change will be raised with more cost and delay to that project.

More delays equals more PVR's means more unease with the Nimrod safety therefore disband the fleet, buy more Predators or could this be an indirect way by the gov to reduce MRA4 fleet numbers i.e. 12 to 9 less aircrew (possibly 1 Sqn), and no need for lots of groundcrew as most will have already left? Or could it be a way out for the gov to scrap the MRA4 completely like Mk3 as not cost effective? To spend the next ten years on tax-payers money for another solution or not?

I know this will be contentious its not meant to be, but scrap CVF, MARS, FRES and put the money to better use, to maintain existing equipment, personnel and get the projects that are really needed, delivered. Lets get the money to the people that need it before we lose our services altogether.

The programme also appeared to be an advert for MRA4 & Predator, if Predator is so good and can do all that Nimrod can do then why is it that the US is developing P-8A? Panorama needs to research its programmes better with credible input.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/p8a/index.html

RIP CXX/3

buoy15

5th Jun 2007, 20:01

I wore the Mk10 Immersion Suit on every flight from it's introduction.
In 1984 I was ordered by the Sqn boss to stop wearing and return it to Flying Clothing.
I insisted that (according to Air Clues and the RAF Combat Survival Org) I was entitled to dress for the worst survival conditions I would encounter - ie, January, at night, over the north sea.
He said recent policy over-rode those requirements; the Nimrod was now classified a Category AA aircraft because of it's in-built redundantcy - 4 engines, multi hydraulics and high survivabilty rate - I argued but was told to wind my neck in !
All current aircrew at ISK at that time (circa 566) had a Mk10 hanging up in the locker room - but only about 20 faithfulls wore them - OC Eng did a survey and went to Cmnd about the wearing/servicing schedules for these garments and proved his flying clothing staff could not provide 100% checks for 100% of the stock in the required time scales, when only about 13% were actually being worn
So they were replaced by "Quick-Dons" and this was the real reason for my being denied my "body armour" - not enough staff - too difficult!
The parachute thing is similar - cat AA - no need - good chance of survival - as demonstrated by the lovely Art Stacey AFC in the Moray Firth

JessTheDog

5th Jun 2007, 20:08

A good programme overall, too much to cram into 30 minutes though, and only a fraction of the story of the Nimrod debacle has been told - whata about the "Nimwacs" which wasted some airframes, and the idiocy behind trying to re-engineer the Nimrod (1960s airframe, individually built rather than machine-built with the accompanying idiosyncracied) rather than buy off-the-shelf.

The most sobering part was the number of kids the poor guys have left behind fatherless. There have now been 2 mass losses of aircrew that perhaps could have been prevented. How many more?

blogger

5th Jun 2007, 20:49

Well that 30 minute summed it up perfect, old AC no spares 15 AC only 6 'S' at the best of times...

Replacement 10 years late 2 Billion over spend LOL LOL LOL we only put money into this kite hoping to sell it to the USA as a replacement for their P3 what a joke............

One question I have flown crew on US Air Force over water we all had our stations etc plus a parachute located over head does the Mighty Hunter carry chutes or not? If not why not. It could have been an option after all ....to jump out...... Or did this kite instantly explode?

reynoldsno1

5th Jun 2007, 21:00

Never had chutes on the Mk1 - the general assessment was that you would end up wrapped round the tailplane. Can't say it really bothered me...

I do remember ferrying one airframe from Luqa to ISK for a major, and subsequently learning they were seriously considering scrapping it due to the in-wing corrosion :uhoh: must have been about '75, I'll have to dig me logbook out and see if that one's still around...

AQAfive

5th Jun 2007, 22:40

I was disappointed with the program. Full of errors and misleading statements.

I started to write my views but it became a rant.

I lost 4 friends on 230, it hurt. There for the grace of God….. RIP

Lima Juliet

6th Jun 2007, 00:44

Wader2

On the E3 of course it does not operate at low level, spends sometime over the sea and some over the land and also has a proper parachute exit (a la KC135). Given its role - combat support, the reliablity of its engines, and the proven airframe, it is obvious that parachutes are not needed in the E3 either.

Having flown on an E-3D I was delighted when I was shown the exit-chute only to be told that some bright spark had taken away the parachutes and blocked it with a large lump of equipment on all of the aircraft - d'oh! :ugh:

It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft! :confused:

gonesurfin

6th Jun 2007, 02:17

Flew on Auroras with the CF for 3 years on exchange....they have parachutes. If we are operating in a different environment, ie not 200 ft over the ocean, then if only 1 crew member gets out, the fitting of parachutes is worth any expense.

PPRuNeUser0139

6th Jun 2007, 06:40

There's a common theme here, namely, the MoD choosing politically acceptable but ultimately flawed solutions because they're 'cheap' and involve modding existing UK airframes (thus safeguarding UK jobs etc).
The Nimwacs debacle - been done to death here but that was "an austere £450m programme" ([I]at the start![I]). The airframe imposed limitations on the kit (space, weight, growth potential plus zero export sales potential). Result? £1bn down the tubes.
Then Nimrod 2000 - same approach again except this time the airframes were rebuilt too). Who'd buy a car that way? And here we are now - with a £2bn+ cost and rising and still a few years from entering service.
To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"
There must have been much nudging under the Boeing side of the table at that.
As far as MoD(PE) was concerned, they were buying a Shack replacement (which had 3 radar positions)..
Expediency always seems to be the watchword. What price SMART procurement?

Pontius Navigator

6th Jun 2007, 06:48

Wader2
Having flown on an E-3D I was delighted when I was shown the exit-chute only to be told that some bright spark had taken away the parachutes and blocked it with a large lump of equipment on all of the aircraft - d'oh! :ugh:
It almost harps back to the days of WWI when the top-brass didn't want their aviators abandoning their aircraft! :confused:

Oddly enough I was at a RAFA meeting last night and we were talking about parachutes. I mentioned the E3 and the para exit and he made exactly the same point.

Now here's a thought.

Use the E3 with special technicians on board. When they have finished their part of their mission they can RTU without any hassle from movers or plods :}

Widger

6th Jun 2007, 07:48

[quote]I know this will be contentious its not meant to be, but scrap CVF, MARS, FRES and put the money to better use, to maintain existing equipment, personnel and get the projects that are really needed, delivered. Lets get the money to the people that need it before we lose our services altogether[quote]

Padraig, you are damn right it is contentious. Whilst I completely empathise with the situation the Nimbat fleet finds itself in, turning your ferocity on the other two services is not going to help. It is the RAF that has decided how to spend it's money, Nimwacs, IUKADGE, Typhoon, maintenance of a variety of bases etc. You have chosen how to spend your budget. That is why you are short of SH, AAR, transport and PR aircraft.

The projects you mention and important elements of the modernisation of the other two services. Don't allow yourself to get involved in 1970s style inter-service argument because, everyone will be worse off. Scrapping the projects you mention will NOT get your MRA4 or your AAR or SH or transport aircraft.

Before you vent your spleen elsewhere, have a look at your own navel first.
On balance I thought the programme was pretty good in highlighting the issue to "non experts". Programmes like this and others all build up to support a picture that the forces AS A WHOLE are at breaking point. Do not think it is just the light blue feeling the pinch. We will be stronger by sticking together.

tucumseh

6th Jun 2007, 08:45

Sidevalve

“To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"”

I agree with what you say, but I’d prefer the above to acknowledge the difference between “procurement” and “acquisition”. The latter is inclusive of all involved, the former are those who must actually buy and deliver, to a Customer/Sponsor endorsed requirement which is usually underfunded. “I want at least 20, @ £1M VAT Ex each – here’s £5M VAT Inc and I’ll let you know the final total sometime in the future. Spend it quick as the budget’s getting cut next week”. (Real example).

I do not doubt the example you speak of, as I know many involved, but I think the questions entirely valid. The Customer presumably wanted 9 consoles. Any experienced procurer (and they were handpicked in 1986 for AWACS after the AEW debacle – a good policy I believe, but seldom used) knows that the beancounters, who wouldn’t know an aircraft if it landed on them, ask daft questions like this when the “Procurement Strategy” is up for approval. They want to see options, which always includes (a) do nothing and (b) buy/spend less. So, the procurer pre-empts them by asking for options, and the Contractor knows very well that the answer must never be less. In this case, I’d be surprised if 6 or 3 consoles were cheaper, due to re-development costs and loss of read across to the US programme. You’d also miss the ISD. It’s part of the game you have to play.

Bean counters are peripheral in procurement, but play God in acquisition. They have inordinate authority and rank/grade, but no commensurate responsibility (as it is the PM who manages his budget, not the BCs). They are invariably hostile to what the PM, Sponsors and Users are trying to achieve.

nigegilb

6th Jun 2007, 08:46

Torpy has got himself and the RAF in a terrible muddle. By agreeing to fight a war on 2 fronts he has hastened the demise of an already over-stretched organisation I think we understand the reasoning behind the original need for Typhoon. Without doubt it is a leap in capability that will come into its own in the future. However, in order to pay for it, Torpy, due to a lack of resources at hand, is publically ignoring the parlous state of the Royal Air Force. The RAF appears to be reaching some kind of breaking point and the situation at Kinloss is symptomatic of an organisation that is barely functioning due to the extreme demands being placed on its resources. It is no longer acceptable for the Chief of Staff to pretend that everything is OK. If he does nothing other than mouth platitudes and refuses to square up to the Prime Minister and demand more resources, he will be remembered as the man who did nothing as Rome burned.

Pontius Navigator

6th Jun 2007, 08:54

A dark blue example.

You must ask the right questions. How many times at work has someone asked you a question, even here on pprune, and you feel that they really want the answer to something else or they have asked the wrong question? You probe and prompt.

A contractor OTOH will quote for exactly what you ask for else he might not be competitive with another contractor. Now the story.

Years ago the Navy had a temporary range control room at Raasay. In the control room was an ICL PDP 11/40 state of the art computer operating in a clean room environment.

Funding was eventually found for a new building (another story of waste) and they decided that they should have two computers to ensure capability was maintained. They specified a new PDP 11/40 and the transfer of the old PDP to the new build. The work duly went ahead and on time and to budget.

When all was done and dusted, well pleased with the saving they had made, they congratulated ICL on a job well done.

"You know you could have had two new, more modern and more powerful computers for less than the cost of the special build PDP 11/40."

Pontius Navigator

6th Jun 2007, 08:59

Torpy has got himself and the RAF in a terrible muddle. By agreeing to fight a war on 2 fronts he has hastened the demise of an already over-stretched organisation.

I think you do Torpy a grave injustice. It was not his call to get the RAF involved.

It was our political masters, and Doctor John in particular, who got us involved in Afghanistan. It is not for Torpy to say to CGS, sorry old boy but I don't agree with a 2-war policy, you are on your own and will have to use organic air, count us out.

Simply not his call.

He could have resigned you say, but then so could everyone else, but that is not realistic.

nigegilb

6th Jun 2007, 09:15

PN, the Chiefs of Staff all signed up to the plan and agreed it was within the capability and resource of UK Armed Forces to do it, when it so clearly was not. Torpy could have said no, we can't do it. He went with the politicos. I have read his statements to the Defence Committee with regard to the Afghanistan deployment. At no stage did he express any misgivings. Now we are in a situation where British troops are only acting as targets in the South of Iraq because they are so thinly stretched and all out war is happening in Afg with no development in sight. CGS is screaming for his troops to be withdrawn from Iraq because he can see the long term damage being done. But the PM wants Brit troops to remain in Basra on hand indefinitely. Doing a deal with this Govt is like signing a pact with the devil. These Ops will be paid for by future projects being cancelled. Torpy and his colleagues should have said no, not without extra resources.

I stand by my comments. It is not a question of resigning. The Dutch were quite specific with what they could bring to the party and for how long. Torpy and his colleagues signed an open ended committment when they could have been a hell of a lot smarter.

Tim McLelland

6th Jun 2007, 10:54

To be fair, the Panorama programme was pretty-much as one would have expected - there was no "story" just a re-hash of everything we already knew. I don't think there was ever much hope of a proper appraisal of the reasons why the RAF is in such a mess because it would require journalistic effort and analysis, and a fair amount of political debate. Clearly, the BBC hasn't got the inclination to do anything which requires much more than a throw-away "sound bite" from a twit holding a microphone. It seems to be BBC policy to spend huge sums of license money on this new breed of reporter so that no matter where a story unfolds, a BBC reporter can be stood there (with appropriate background) to repeat the same information that has already been read-out by the newscaster in London. It's lazy journalism but it looks impressive for the average viewer that isn't bright enough to determine that he/she hasn't actually been told anything of any value.
In fairness to Sir Glenn, he couldn't say much because he wasn't actually asked anything of significance. There's not much that one can say to a reporter that asks "do you think this is good enough" other than "yes" or "no" which he did, albeit with a rather uncomfortable look on his face.
If the RAF were determined to do a proper "PR job" on the programme, they ought to have refused a pointless face-to-face interview and simply issued a statement which clearly stated that the RAF accepts that there are many servicability issues with the Nimrod and just about every other aircraft in the RAF's inventory. Whether each issue is connected is another matter (as Sir Glenn mentioned) but I think it would have been better to simply state that every issue is addressed and investigated, and that the RAF's personnel do the very best that they can with the limited resources at their disposal. It wouldn't have been too unreasonable to have also added that the RAF could have a near-100 percent servicability and safety rate if resources, supplies, technical support and training was effectively provided on an unlimited basis as required, rather than having to be pulled from whatever funds that can be spared.
The bizarre aspect of the saga is that the RAF is ultimately blameless; it's not as if the RAF is happy with the notion of any personnel's lives being at risk in any situation, and the programme was a golden opportunity to have simply stated that the RAF is forced to do the best that it can under the impossible circumstances imposed on them by the government. It's just another case of bad "PR" which was wasted. Surely, when you have an opportunity to say "this wasn't our fault" you would take it, instead of giving the impression that you're somehow "on the defensive" - which is how Sir Glenn's appearance came-across to the viewer.
As has already been said on this thread and elsewhere, you'd think that by now we would have reached a stage where the RAF would stop trying to "muddle-through" and start saying that if Blair and his cronies want to embark upon crusades across the world, then they have to find the cash with which to do it. It's not as if the RAF can't do the job. Heaven-knows we've got the best Air Force there is, but you can't do an expensive job on the cheap, and I really don't know why the RAF's chiefs and PR people are so reluctant to point-out this rather obvious fact.

Da4orce

6th Jun 2007, 11:14

As someone directly affected by the loss of XV230 I thought the BBC did a pretty good job, that said there wasn't a great deal that I didn't already know and I'm not so naive to think that the general public care a great deal about a handful of fly-boys and an ancient jet. However I think the general public do care whether we as a country have armed forces that are equipped to protect us. If the programme did nothing but add to the growing evidence that our military is going down the pan then it has added to a very relevant debate.

I personally agree with those that say the questioning could have been stronger, but I think there will be a time for that after the BOI has reported.

What appears to be clear is that it was an accident waiting to happen and it would appear that with strong leadership from those in the RAF to put pressure on the MOD it could have been avoided.

The RAF bigwigs need to grow some balls and stand up for their service. Look at the Navy, whatever you think of them at least the First Sea Lord has the balls to say that this government is shafting his service.

TheSmiter

6th Jun 2007, 11:20

Hear hear Tim :D

A few months ago I was reading my unit's escapades in WW2 in the vast scrapbooks that we have in our history room. Amongst all the stories of derring do in the U-boat war were pictures of happy crews laughing, joking , drinking. Next month it was reported that Crew X failed to return from a mission - the Sqn drank to their memories and carried on with the war. I marvelled at the resilience of those crews.

The whole focus of the faces that jumped out of those historical pages was to win the war.

Not once did I read that Mission Y was cancelled due to tech reasons, or that the Sqn had run out of flying hours that month, or that there was only one serviceable Sunderland on the slipway.

And not once did I read that money was an issue. It was, of course, but that was a problem for another day.

These people had a war to win.

We've got two now - can someone tell me where we've gone wrong?

The Swinging Monkey

6th Jun 2007, 12:02

Smiter,
I guess, if you've been reading about Sunderlands, then I was on the same sqn as you, many years ago now. We have gone wrong for a very simple reason, and one which is quite easy to remedy, and its this;
We no longer have any leaders from about Sqn Ldr level upwards, who have the balls to say 'NO'

I remember when I was on 201 Sqn, during a hard winter, OC Eng came into the crewroom and saw a handful of knockers and others sat around doing not a lot. He decided therefore that he would 'order' us all to go out on the pans and start clearing the snow by hand. Understandably, there was quite a lot of moaning and whinging, but after some harsh words from OC Eng, we all wandered out to the pan, only to be met by a certain Wg Cdr PP (OC 201) who aksed where we were all going?? After we told him, he ordered us all back into the Sqn and collared OC Eng on the way back, and proceeded to give him a full scale bollocking, infront of us all, terminating with 'I command 201 Sqn, NOT you, so F%£& off and leave my guys alone' Do you think for a nano-second that would happen today? Not on your life it wouldn't.

The fact is that all senoir officers are now solely concerned with their own ar$es, and take the view that 'if I don't make a decision, then I can't make the wrong one' Sad and pathetic I know, but thats the way it is.

TSM

nigegilb

6th Jun 2007, 12:10

The Smiter, it all went wrong with Iraq, but I guess we all know that now.
Apologies for going off thread but failure to say no is at the heart of all this. And one option open to the likes of Torpy is to cut back on training. It is already happening and a lack of training has just been given as one of the main reasons for the puma crash. The best of a bad situation is probably to pull out of Iraq, but it will leave a hell of a mess behind.

I greatly admire General Rose, he was against the Iraq war all along, this is what he said the other day.

"General Rose has stated that there is no way the war in Iraq can be won and has called for the troops to be withdrawn.

The ex- SAS Officer said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't,'' he said.

Though the coalition could not simply "cut and run,'' Gen Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.

"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.

Gen Rose was speaking at the annual Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts in Hay-on-Wye, on the Welsh border with England.

The retired general who has written a book on the American War of Independence, made comparisons with the 1775-1783 conflict between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.

He said: "How was it a small and extremely determined body of insurgents, thieves and deserters could inflict such a strategic and potentially disastrous defeat on the most powerful nation in the world?

"The answer will be familiar to anybody who is looking at what is happening in Iraq today.

"Those who don't read history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.''

He said the allies in Iraq should have deployed more troops and not used a conventional war strategy.

"You don't win wars by regime change but by changing attitudes,'' he said.

He said that Iraq should have been low on the priority list compared to Afghanistan, conflicts in Africa and the battle against international terrorists."

Wader2

6th Jun 2007, 12:22

Gen Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.

"Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,'' he said.

Far be it for me to question the General, but I will.

When we announced our withdrawal from Aden the 'peaceful ransfer of power' was assisted by thepresence of 5 aircraft carriers off shore.

When the US forces made their peaceful withdrawal from Vietnam they were given a rapturous send off as I recall.

When Bristows left Iran they forgot to say goodbye to their friendly hosts.

When the Ruskies departed Afghanistan I do not believe the Mujahadeen fired their Kalashnikovs into the air for joy.

The Japanese and Germans OTOH did 'stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power.'

Put it another way, we are :mad:d it we do and :mad: if we don't. In fact we are simply :mad:.

Had Enough 77

6th Jun 2007, 12:28

I have only seen a few clips fronm the progaram but i am sure that if they said that the ex station cmdr pvr'd and now the boss of 201 Sqn has PVR'd along with most/all the senior pilots on the station it has to start ringing alarm bells somewhere?

Does these people at the top have an ostrich disorder, prone to sticking their head in the sand and ignoring what is happening. :ugh:

Do you think that they themselves have now become resigned to the fact that they,apparently, do not have the power to do c**k all, They realise that they are just puppets for their "highly qualified?" political masters. There seems to be no loyalty coming back down the chain from the top bods.

I suppose it says it all when alll the airships had one jubilee medal on at the memorial service while all the SAC,Chiefs etc and Aircrew had 3 or 4 each.

I just do not see how it is going to get any better for the guys still there. I would say that after talking to friends at ISK there is a mood of complete and utter demoralisation. Even saying that it is not a case of if an accident happens again but when.

Still, my respect goes out to the guys still there putting up with the daily grind of bulls**t.:D

Tim McLelland

6th Jun 2007, 12:33

If we're talking about the wider issues of where and how our forces should become embroiled in conflicts, then I have to ask what seems to be a rather obvious question:-

Given that our armed forces are ultimately tasked with the defence and security of the United Kingdom, on what basis does our government see fit to send them to places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

I don't think anyone buys the government-spin argument that Afghanistan is somehow darkly fostering terrorism any more than any other dodgy state, in the same way that nobody now accepts the ridiculous notion that Iraq is (or ever was) a threat to the United Kingdom. It's all very well showing TV pictures of smiling happy people in Afghan villages after they've supposedly been "liberated" (or whatever else it is that we've supposed to have done for them) but when is so much as one journalist going to step-back and ask what any of this has got to do with the United Kingdom?

As somebody said some time ago, the future of these countries and the people in them might be a subject of international concern, but ultimately they're certainly not worth the life of so much as one British serviceman - it's that simple.

Why is it that it's British forces that are stuck in the most dangerous area of Afghanistan? How come every other country heroically manages to avoid putting their forces in there, and yet we're evidently expected to believe that there's a terrorist risk specific to our country, but presumably no similar risk to any other country, otherwise you'd assume they'd all be struggling to get their forces in there to help us out?

It's complete nonsense. Okay, the armed forces are obliged to do as their potitical masters tell them, but what on earth has happened to independant journalism? Where are the people to say it's time we got ourselves out of all this rubbish and stopped collectively wringing our hands in despair at the fate of nations for which we have no responsibility. Lord knows we've already done more than enough, so I really don't see why the government can't finally accept that we just don't have the resources to fight other people's battles. Fundamentally, the government is failing in its responsibility to defend our own country - we're busy defending other people's countries (under the false impression that this somehow defends us by proxy) meanwhile Putin is busy threatening to cut-off fuel supplies here, there and everywhere, and re-direct nuclear ICBM's at us...

It's a complete joke which would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for all the people who have already lost their lives for absolutely nothing.

9.81m/s/s

6th Jun 2007, 15:54

I have just caught up with this entire thread - I know lot of good people are doing what they can to find out the truth about what happened - and they have my full support. I have just read level 28's comment on May 2nd and all i can say is you are an A***hole of the highest order. Should we all just sit and do nothing if we think we are not being taken seriously, listened to or lied to ? We have a democratically elected parliament for a very good reason - so grow up and stop being a pompous little company man who is prepared to say ' yes ' at all costs.

Sorry I am a bit behind the drag curve on this but those comments just made my blood boil !!!!

Pontius Navigator

6th Jun 2007, 16:35

Gee, you will see that Level 28 is in fact an ex-TS Loadie.

nigegilb

6th Jun 2007, 18:08

18 May 07;

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative) | Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to refit the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft's wing fuel tanks with foam to prevent explosions.

Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) | Hansard source

We keep under review the requirement for defensive aids, including explosion suppressant foam, in all our aircraft deployed on operations including the Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft.

In other words, no, then.

Think we might need to ask that one again when the BoI gets published.

Distant Voice

6th Jun 2007, 19:33

I note, from one of the photographs shown on Panorama of the November 2004 incident (XV227, I believe) the super heated air from the ruptured pipe fitting was direct at the fuel tank in the wing. I think those guys were lucky to get back.

buoy15

6th Jun 2007, 20:31

Tim
Well said, youv'e saved me a mega amount of typing
Well, well, well, well. well done!! Super!!

nigegilb

6th Jun 2007, 20:33

DV, you are quite right. I have been told that super-heated air is considered to be the most likely cause of ignition. The fact that this incident in 2004 occurred and was not acted on, is reminiscent of XV196 being holed in a fuel tank by a small calibre round months before XV179 was brought down by a round penetrating the No 4 fuel tank. In the case of XV196, engineers worked out why it had not gone bang. Armed with that knowledge fuel tank protection and a change in tactics, should have been considered before the tragedy of XV179. In the case of XV230, a great deal of work has been done on the venting system, and changes to AAR procedures have been brought in. Once again, after the event. And amazingly, nobody in the CoC is shouting for fuel tank protection.

RileyDove

6th Jun 2007, 22:10

Tim - I have to disagree with your asessment of the BBC journalism. The programme has a slot of 30 minutes - it needs to get to it's point fairly quickly and I think most would agree that it did. Whilst it would be great to have an hour of Nimrod and disect the crash and indeed the current situation regards the fleet would that achieve any more. The general public probably has an understanding of the role of the Nimrod but not a great deal more.
Is it better to give them a barrage of information which might loose the audience to a large degree or keep it simple and succient?
Undoubtedly military and ex military types can pick holes in the programme but I feel that it hit it's target quite well whilst at the same time showed due respect to the fourteen servicemen lost last year.

RudolphHucker

7th Jun 2007, 08:45

Re Procurement, I used to travel regularly to a defence contractor in the West Country for meetings. They had a poster on their wall which read:-

How are we supposed to deal with the Armed Forces when they all speak a different language? For Example:-

If you asked the Royal Navy to secure a building, the last man out would switch off the light and lock the door behind him.

If you asked the Army to secure a building, they would throw up two layers of barbed wire fencing with a guard tower at each corner and dogs patroling 24/7.

If you asked the Marines to secure a building, they would storm it with every weapon in their arsenal and not give in untill they had it secured.

If you ask the Royal Air Force to secure a building, ...... They would take out a fifty year lease with an option to buy !

Says it all really :ugh:

shack

7th Jun 2007, 09:20

I'm sorry chaps but nothing changes, back in the early 60's because of the post that I was in I became aware of the futility of asking a large proportion of "senior officers" for decisions. You did not have to be a mind reader to see the sequence of thought going through their heads a) what effect will this have on my career? b) If bad, how can I ignore it or c) can I pretend this never happened.
I decided that I could not live with that for another 20+ years and left. Never regretted it. (I missed my mates though!!)

Wader2

7th Jun 2007, 12:17

Shack,

Very observant.

We had a new boss fresh from the ministry on promotion. He said if we had any burning issues to raise them and, given his great insight into the MOD he would fix.

"Can we have some more flying kit?" Flying back to back sorties with a couple of sims thrown in we run out of clean kit - gloves are often wet from one day to the next.

"Next question chaps?"

All bluster and bullsh1t.

TheSmiter

7th Jun 2007, 13:34

buoy15 I wore the Mk10 Immersion Suit on every flight from it's introduction.
In 1984 I was ordered by the Sqn boss to stop wearing and return it to Flying Clothing.
I insisted that (according to Air Clues and the RAF Combat Survival Org) I was entitled to dress for the worst survival conditions I would encounter - ie, January, at night, over the north sea.
He said recent policy over-rode those requirements; the Nimrod was now classified a Category AA aircraft because of it's in-built redundantcy - 4 engines, multi hydraulics and high survivabilty rate - I argued but was told to wind my neck in

I remember the Mk10 well, acted as my security blanket in 82 and then into the proper cold winters of that era! However not very practical when conducting turning and burning ASW at low level, esp in ordnance :{ There was talk at the time of a lightweight IS but nothing ever came of it, surprise surprise.

As for the Q-Dons, there seems to be general feeling that it would be something you would grab on the way out as you stepped gaily off the wing into your ocean going rubber sea chariot - anyone who's watched a Nimrod crew attempting to don the Quick-Don under timed conditions in the tube will recognise the inherent comedy value and misnaming of the eqpt.:O I don't recall the crew of 666 wearing anything other than standard flying suits when they got winched, and that was 6 mins from explosion to feet wet.

Therefore, in the absence of any other quick fixes to the aircraft to make it safer for its remaining service, is the time now right to consider the introduction of a suitable lightweight IS so that crews could at least have some hope of environmental survival in the event of a successful ditching?

Earlier chat spoke of parachutes - they've never been fitted to production a/c for the reasons I said previously, but am I right in thinking that MRA4 flight development crews either wear them or have them available? In which case is there a special method of egress avoiding all the hard and hot bits? Just wondered.:hmm:

Wader2

7th Jun 2007, 13:49

The Smiter, I believe such a LW IS exists and dates back to the 80s. The bunny suit was replaced with a one-piece wooly pully and the whole worn under a flight suit.

This had the advantage of not having to load and unload the flight suit pockets for goon suit/non-goon suit sorties.

The suit was not as tough as the Mk 10 and I don't believe the thermal properties of the knitted suit were as good as the pile. It would also have been interesting try to have a c:mad:p in one, but then again it was nigh impossible having one, or anything else when wearing a Mk 10.

I remember one trip to Kef, I was 'just' wearing long johns and vest, cause bunny suit was too itchy. The bunny suit, a flying suit, and the Mk 10. And a life jacket.

Serving tea was difficult as I had to clamour over all the sprawlling ground crew, use one hand to lift a leg over the spars whilst balancing the tray of tea in the other.

TheSmiter

7th Jun 2007, 14:08

The bunny suit was replaced with a one-piece wooly pully and the whole worn under a flight suit.

Wader old chap, whats the difference? I currently possess a Beaufort Inner Coverall Aircrew Mk3 Section ref: 22c/1388543 One piece with inner pile. Very snug on the pan at ISK Nov - Mar, but a real b@stard in the air depending on whether the Eng (Gawd bless em, Dicky) has learnt the subtle art of temperature control. And when loading booeys, you sweat like the proverbial Alabama rapist.

Still, I have a wry smile when I see the young blades with their LJ's nervously hoping we don't have to go swimming. :E

Wader2

7th Jun 2007, 14:19

TheSmiter, if you are talking of the fairly heavy green suit with a sort of hard rough outer surface that is probably the bunny suit I am talking of.

The newer one was a one-piece knitted garment of ribbed wool thesame as the aircrew pullover. It was more flexible, thinner, and gave far less thermal protection. On the apron at ISK, with only a Mk 14 or 16 coverall you would get practically no benefit.

To go with this you had to wear the immersion suit too. It was thinner than a Mk 10 and had no pockets. You had to wear a flying suit over it.

Is that clearer or have I missed your point?

TheSmiter

7th Jun 2007, 14:30

Cheers Wader, that clears it up - I've got the original one! And the squippers ain't getting it back, just yet. Apparently the new guys can't get the later one for love nor money.

Small Spinner

7th Jun 2007, 14:38

The Smiter
Although there will be several other PPruners who may have actually flown in PA1 (MRA4), I had the pleasure of actually seeing the method of egress devised for it.
It consists of a upwardly sliding, heavily sprung door which together with a barrier forced out into the airflow, is activated by a handle. This applies to the forward and rear starboard doors, and the barrier is supposed to give the opportunity to get some downward direction before being wisked past the rather large engine intakes or horizontal tail planes.
I think I would prefer to dive out and downwards, if I had ever been in the unenviable position of having to get out using a parachute, as the possibility of decapitating myself seemed all to real from where I was looking.
Someone will probably be along shortly, who has flown in PA1 to either confirm or deny my impressions.

Wader2

7th Jun 2007, 14:44

TheSmiter, I have still got my original bunny suit, highly prized. I was once offered $50 for it, a lot of money 40 years ago, but it was too bloody cold in Goose.

It is a two-piece. The top a soft white polo neck and the bottom long johns with a shaped and padded bum. Does my bum look big in this? Yes.

Its only snag is the weight was the eleasticated waist is not strong enough to hold it up.

It is so warm I have only ever worn it in Canada or when in bed suffering from pneumonia.

Dimmer Switch

7th Jun 2007, 14:55

am I right in thinking that MRA4 flight development crews either wear them or have them available? In which case is there a special method of egress avoiding all the hard and hot bits? Just wondered.

Smitey, Small Spinner's description of the "mechanism" fitted to the lead MRA4 test aircraft is plenty good enough for these purposes. Crew wear parachutes and bones domes for all high risk tests. Parachute's principal deployment would be by static line.

I touch wood every time I think about it !:eek:

TheSmiter

7th Jun 2007, 15:56

Dimmer, Spinner & Wader thanks all for your inputs :)

Spins, I thought I'd heard of the system you describe, but like Dimmer, am losing brain cells rapidly.

Wader, the bunny suit is indeed one of God's finer creations with all sorts of utility, like the early morning January sprint across Dava Moor- wonder how much I'd get on ebay?

Dimmer, long time no see, regards to Mrs Switch; is she keeping you under control? Take care buddy and keeping touching the wood.:eek:

PS Silly question really: don't suppose they've even considered incorporating the 'escape system' into production aircraft?

As I said, silly question!

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

7th Jun 2007, 16:15

nigegilb wrote
I have been told that super-heated air is considered to be the most likely cause of ignition

Nige, I may be wrong, but I think the chap who told you that was speculating.

I don't see hot air (super heated?) as an ignition source.

I would have to dig my physics books out of the attic to be any more confident. But hot air doesn't give an ignition source even if the fuel is well over its flashpoint.

A hot air leak may well damage insulation on a loom and cause a short circuit...but there I go.

I'll wait for the BOI but expect little more info than we have already. All this talk of fuel leaks, and no-one talking of ignition sources.

On the original thread I commented that it would be a very brave Engineering Officer that allowed Nimrods to go flying again, and I was thinking of a subject known as 'Wiring Husbandry'

Google for it.

SPHLC

buoy15

7th Jun 2007, 17:53

The point in my last post was that one man, OC Eng, went bleating to the Staish about servicing schedules and shortage of staff regarding Mk10 suits and the Staish supported him, dis-regarding my survival needs, and without consultation of his stn aircrew.
Later, we inherited another 'wonderful' OC Eng who, in a short 2 year tour, convinced 18 Gp we had to have a North and South line. Yep, £2m squids later we had a new North line and a "portable hangar", confusion, ground crew division, plus a pissed off MT, Catering. Refuelling, Armouring and aircrew fraternity who were saying "what the f*cks going on"
He left on promotion and we went back to 1 Line
As a Captain , I witnessed an OC Eng or his deputies, who went in to Eng Coo-ord and put all the U/S tabs in their pocket prior to morning prayers and put them back on the board afterwards
It gets better - Remember AR5? - £750,000 shed for storage - never used - another story
Even More Better - "The progression of lies"
A tale of Nimrod Serviceability since 1972 - I have the details
Love Many, Trust a Few, Always paddle your own canoe

nigegilb

7th Jun 2007, 17:58

Sir Peter, I have said before that I doubt if we will ever know for sure, all the more reason for getting fuel tank protection on the Nimrod. Hot Air? Have to say I scratched my head when I was told as well.

"I didn't believe it but the boffins have proved it possible. All
hot air in the area now isolated. It could have been vented fuel due to our
tank filling sequence but again that has been negated now."

Like I say, lots of work has been going on. There was a question about a possible over-pressure during the AAR sequence. It is possible that if the tanks are full and the tanker remains in contact it could have led to the tanks and the vent system being exposed to pressures the system was not designed for. A change to AAR procedures has reduced such a possibility.

The thing I haven't been able to sort out is the warranty period of Nimrod fuel seals. I have been told that the company has changed the wording on the warranty and servicing contract. No idea if this is true, so I make the last statement with the usual caveats.

Tappers Dad

7th Jun 2007, 18:15

I was travelling up to Inverness on Tuesday and have only returned today, so this is my first posting since the show was aired.

Firstly I see by the postings that in the main it was thought to have been thought provoking and well balanced. I agree it was.
Some said it didn't go far enough , this is because the BOI has not yet reported and this programme was not trying to guess what its findings will be as some posting on here appear to have thought they would seek to do.
There were many other things that could have been included in the programme but the BBC wee keen to ensure it was factual.
I know of certain facts but I am not able to supply proof because of the Official Secrets Act preventing people from saying what they know. Fortunatly as you would have seen there are a Few Good Men who stepped forward with information and documentary evidence . I commend their bravery in coming forward.

I am working closely with others to build up a clear picture of what may have lead up to the crash and would be hapy to recieve any information .
Some have already given me information which may prove to be crucial in the future and I wish to thank them for this.

To blogger
No the Nimrod crews do not carry chutes, I offered to buy Ben one and his answer was very short. "If something goes wrong I will go down with the a/c".
They did not send out a Mayday they sent out a Pan, they thought they were going to make it and it suddenly exploded...
Had fire suppresent foam been fitted in the wings they might still be here as it was the wing that exploded first followed within a couple of seconds by the rest of the a/c.

Tappers Dad

8th Jun 2007, 13:18

I have just been reading the transcript of the Panorama prog.

JOFRE: Twenty-five fuel leaks in five months. Is that a lot?

TORPY: It's a lot. I would always like to see the figure reduced to the absolutely lowest minimum.

So what he done over the last 10 years to reduce the leaks NOTHING they are leaking at the same rate.!!!
What is his absolutely lowest minimum 24-23 leaks ??

TORPY: If you look over the last ten years, the level of fuel leaks that we've had has remained pretty constant over those ten years.

So thats good is it that the a/c are leaking just as much now as 10 years ago !!!!!!

JOFRE: But let's look at the five months up to March, there were 25 fuel leaks, some of them really quite serious. Are you concerned about that?

TORPY: I am very concerned about it, and that's why we have made sure that we analysed every single incidence. There are no underlying themes.

Try fuel leaks as an underlying theme Mr Torpy !!!!!

Sir GLENN TORPY, RAF Air Chief Marshal: In terms of air craft availability, today we have six aircraft up at Kinloss available for a crew to fly, which is the best we've had for the last nine months, and I think that is actually indicative of the effort that we've put in to the whole of the fleet up at Kinloss.

JOFRE: But with two thirds of the fleet grounded on average last year, I mean... are you happy with that?

TORPY: No, I'm not happy with it.

Why has it taken an effort to get 6 Nimrods servicable .Why are that not servicable anyway !!!!!

nigegilb

8th Jun 2007, 13:27

Torpy should be hung out to dry. During his tenure we have lost 3 multi-engine aircraft. All, probably lost to fuel tank explosions, all requiring a simple solution. We have lost a couple of helos down to crews not having the experience/training required to do the "A level" flying and we hear today that his latest wheeze is to cut training still further to pay for ops. There was a time when only the most experienced flew SF sorties, not any more. Now we are going back to the days of the 2nd World War.

It is not quite the "20 minuters" yet but who knows where this will end; most probably with more unnecessary loss of life.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1658059.ece

http://www.thisisoxfordshire.co.uk/display.var.1440122.0.dead_iraq_pilot_insufficient_training. php

Cutting back on training, at a time of war, when SF sorties are being flown by inexperienced crews is madness. How CAS can sign his name to such a plan is beyond me.

The Swinging Monkey

8th Jun 2007, 14:40

TD
I think its a sign of the problem with the fleet and the service as a whole that there has been very little in the way of argumant or disagreement from those who have questioned the showing of the programme.

There was very little, if anything, in the way of sensationalism as some predicted, and several on here are even saying that the programme didn't go far enough, and I would agree with that. I would have prefered to have seen a little bit more 'force' used by the BBC.

As for the CAS, well he has clearly been left in an extremely difficult position, and his standing in the public and probably within the rank and file of the service looks extremely dodgy. You cannot come out with some of the things that he did, and sit back and do nothing about it. He should make a public statement now about what he intends to do regarding over-tasking, under-manning, under-funding blah!!

I also think that the lack of official comment from either the MOD or the government suggests they appreciate (at last!) that there are very serious problems, not only within the Nimrod fleet, but elsewhere in the RAF, and the other services also.

Clearly this cannot continue. It has to, and will end sooner or later. I only hope that no other families have to go through the same living hell as you and the others have. Keep up the fight TD, I do believe you might just be winning dear chap!

Best wishes to all
TSM

covec

8th Jun 2007, 16:08

It is not unusual for a crew to be on "Ops" Standby eg SAR:eek: but not to have a jet "readily" available until "later" !!!!!!!:confused:

Roland Pulfrew

8th Jun 2007, 16:49

nigegilb: Cutting back on training, at a time of war, when SF sorties are being flown by inexperienced crews is madness. How CAS can sign his name to such a plan is beyond me.

It's blatently bl))dy obvious why! Why are the RAF looking at closing even more airfields and shoehorning more and more units onto already overcrowded bases? Why are the RAF looking at mothballing another 1, 2, 3 (should I go on) sqns? Why is T & S being cut? Why are the RN mooring up more ships? Why is UK training being cut to the bone?

It's all down to a complete lack of sufficient finance!!:ugh::ugh: It is time that Defence was given some priority over the black holes that are the NHS, Education and Social Security.

Procurement project overruns, whether they are the fault of DPA, MOD or industry, have to be paid for. That means there is less and less money to run current kit, buy spares, buy fuel, etc etc. If this was the NHS we would overspend and then look to the government to bail us out. Or we would close wards. Or do less operations. But what have we got left to cut? The blood has all been squeezed from the stone. A LONG time ago. The only thing left is to cut back on "peacetime" flying and exercises. It is time that VCDS and 2nd PUS were told to p:mad:s off next time they ask for "savings". There are none left to be had!!

Distant Voice

8th Jun 2007, 16:51

TD. Are we sure that there were 6 serviceable Nimrods at Kinloss, and not the usual 2-3.

Also on the qusetion of fuel leaks. The official figures from MoD support the CAS claim that things have been steady over the past 10 years (approx 4 leaks per 50 flying hours). With 8000 hours being clocked up last year by the fleet that should work out at around around 640 fuel leaks during the year, or 320 in a 6 month period. So how was the 25 figure arrived at? I know it is a figure put out by the Sec of State for Defense, perhaps he means of the 320 there were 25 serious fuel leaks involving Air Incident reports.

I believe that the claim that fuel leaks have been steady over the past 10 years will feature in the BOI report, and will be MoD's justification for believing everything was ok (no nasty trends). I said at the time the data was given out in answer to a PQ, the information was at hand within 5 working days.

DV

buoy15

8th Jun 2007, 18:00

Tappers Dad
I'm intrigued with your response to Blogger
Please explain how you know the wing exploded before the rest of the aircraft?

nigegilb

8th Jun 2007, 18:08

B15, in absence of TD maybe I can help. XV230 and the chaperone Harrier were sighted by Kandahar Twr before the explosion. Eye witnesses reported the wing exploding first. Furthermore, my own contacts have confirmed to me that the aircraft suffered a fuel tank explosion.

(Earlier this year) The fleet has only been properly grounded once, last week, the others have only restricted what we can do ie. AAR and even then op cmdrs have been able to waive that. There was a fire onboard and a subsequent explosion but the ignition source is unknown. It is supposition that a fuel pipe/vent system leak was ignited by hot air/spar. I don't think we will ever establish the cause of the fire however the explosion has to have been a fuel tank......

Mr Point

8th Jun 2007, 23:31

It is not unusual for a crew to be on "Ops" Standby eg SAR but not to have a jet "readily" available until "later" !!!!!!!

Are you saying that the UK's National long-range SAR standby cover is not being maintained due to unserviceability within the Nimrod MR2 fleet?:eek:

buoy15

9th Jun 2007, 01:26

NigeB
Thank you!
However, I doubt a fuel tank explosion per se
Aviation fuel has to be in a critical state for it to ignite - ie - atomised - with the correct amount of fuel, air, temperature and pressure
If I threw a lighted match into a dustbin of Avtur at ground level, the match would extinguish
Most likely culprit - the galleries between 7a tank and the wing tanks and close to the source of the fire - all of which would have been primed

nigegilb

9th Jun 2007, 06:47

B15, it is not the fuel that goes bang it is the ullage, the fuel/air vapours in the fuel tank. A chain reaction causes a huge overpressure in the fuel tank which is explosive. Quickest and cheapest method of protecting the fuel tank is to fit OBIGGS. This purges the ullage of oxygen and replaces it with nitrogen, inerting the space. Beags has some photos of an airliner that was hit with a SAM and suffered a fuel tank explosion.

covec

9th Jun 2007, 08:27

MR POINT

SAR is being maintained.

There will be two crews designated to cover SAR.

There will be a jet available.

Sometimes that SAR jet, however goes flying to meet other tasks - but that jet and its crew will then hold "airborne" SAR for the duration of the sortie.

When the jet is down then the original SAR designated crews have "their" jet(s) back.

It's a case of using a serviceable airframe for many tasks!

Safety_Helmut

9th Jun 2007, 08:36

When the jet is down then the original SAR designated crews have "their" jet(s) back.

what, instantly ?
or a couple of hours later, after the AF/BF and the refuel etc ?
S_H

Tappers Dad

9th Jun 2007, 08:54

Covec

Sometimes that SAR jet, however goes flying to meet other tasks - but that jet and its crew will then hold "airborne" SAR for the duration of the sortie.

Billy No-Jets ; wrote this on the Kinloss whats going on thread back in March

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!!

Have things changed since then ???

Pontius Navigator

9th Jun 2007, 09:01

[QUOTE=Tappers Dad;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!![/QUOTE]

Nothing new here TD. Thirty years ago it was quite normal to hold airborne SAR. As for within 200 miles that is an over simplification.

A SAR ac is to launch within 60 minutes, typically 30. If the airborne SAR is within 200 miles east of Kinloss it can be in the same position as the ground aircraft after 30 minutes for an incident over land or to the west.

As for the '3 hrs', assuming a one hour transit and a recovery to the most suitable airfield one hour from the search area (400 miles) is could still provide 4 hours on task at the 3 hr point. Only at the 5-6 hr point would we be in an area of marginal support but it would still give an additional 3 hrs to get another jet airborne and at least on its way.

That was the logic 30 years ago.

Tappers Dad

9th Jun 2007, 09:22

PN
I was quoting Billy No-Jets posting in March

As far as A SAR ac is to launch within 60 minutes, typically 30.
When my son was on SAR duty he lived in Inveness and the rule is that you must get to the base within 45 minutes. So I don't think 30 mins is a typical response time.
Quite a number of air crew now live in Inverness as well.

Pontius Navigator

9th Jun 2007, 09:28

TD, as far as modern response times go, and perhaps also my memory, you will be better placed to say what the modern times are. 30 years ago we lived in the mess at, IIRC, 60 minutes.

If the response time has relaxed to 2 hours it follows that airborne SAR actually provides a better response time albeit a shorter on task time. IF there is a serviceable ground SAR then they can do a considered planned launch rather than a scramble.

This used to happen from time to time.

As for Inverness to airborne in one hour, that would probably be quite possible.

I lived in Nairn and we used to hold QRA at Lossiemouth at 2 hours and sometimes 90 minutes. From Nairn to Lossie was 30 miles and I expected to be airborne on a scramble within 50-55 minutes.

XferSymbol

9th Jun 2007, 09:32

Just to clarify the errors in response times for Nimrod crews on SAR....

The RAF website quotes the correct 2 hour response time for Ops 1 crews.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/aboutus/nimrodmr2.cfm

Mr Point

9th Jun 2007, 09:51

SAR is being maintained.
There will be two crews designated to cover SAR.
There will be a jet available.

Covec, I suggest you look at the stats - if a Nimrod SAR aircraft was always available, why would the National Standby Hercules be called in to help?

The SAR/Ops Nimrod MR2 was on operation standby at 60 minutes notice, with crews living in the mess, until about 2 years ago. When this changed to 120 minutes notice, crew members were then allowed to remain on-call from home. As has already been stated, some aircrew live as far away as Inverness.

The change was brought about to ease the burden on crews, post 2003, and was fought by the SAR Force. I'd like to bet that there have been times when a Nimrod has been requested to prove topcover for a helicopter but refused because of timing issues since the change to 2 hours notice.:confused:

Pontius Navigator

9th Jun 2007, 10:07

When we held 2 hour QRA from home, for a normal hours scramble, it was not unknown for the odd stray to be roped in to shorten the scramble time.

I once intercepted a late arrival in the car park and pushed him straight onto the aircraft, goonsuit and head set following :)

Back on SAROPS, the SOP was for additional crew members to fly, for instance a pilot and a couple of extra AEOp, as extra eyes on the flight deck and in the beams as visual lookouts were supposed to be changed after 30 min (?). Notwithstanding planned launches, 24 crews etc, I was unaware of that ever happening.

Pontius Navigator

9th Jun 2007, 10:10

Mr Point, I believe the SAR Herc was an option years ago too but the 60 minute Nimrod was usually best placed, especially when 42 held SAR. I think from time to time, even then, the Herc was used for southern callouts.

Now though, where the fleet is so small, the Herc wold be the best bet on many occaisions.

Mr Point

9th Jun 2007, 11:11

Apart from the significant difference in capability, experience and transit speed. From what I can gather, the Hercules is being used on occasion to provide SAR cover for the whole of the UK Search & Rescue Region, not just the southern areas.

The Nimrod has up to 5 shots at dropping liferafts (2 x ASR and 3 x Double dinghy pairs), 12 sets of eyes, lots of radios and prior experience in the coordination of large scale over-water SAROps.

The Hercules has limited experience in the South Atlantic providing topcover for 78 Sqn. As has previously been stated, another Piper Alpha with no Nimrod available would be very difficult to coordinate.

TOPBUNKER

9th Jun 2007, 11:12

Pontious, SAR Herc?

Is it this (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.1035) of which you speak?

6 hours notice officially (if crew sober!?).

toddbabe

9th Jun 2007, 12:39

pontious airborne in one hour from inverness:D no chance! physically possible Just I suppose, but realistically not a chance, even in the middle of the night with no traffic and just staying withing the speed limits it would take you about half an hour just to get to the camp.
Don't think I have ever seen it done in that time even when everyone is at hand let alone in Inverness.

MightyHunter AGE

9th Jun 2007, 12:40

The days of a dedicated SAR jet sitting on the deck at Kinloss on constant stby have long gone I'm afraid.

Nowadays the aircraft hold airbourne SAR on a 4 hour CT/OpsCT regularly with nowhere near enough fuel onboard to be able to provide an effective top cover if a SAR shout came in.

Even if the jet then landed to get fuel on board the 'constant charge' (CC) servicing that was implemented in recent times has been scrapped due to fuel checks being carried out after every refuel.

I wonder if Joe public would be happy to know of this situation? (mind you thats if they even care)

Strato Q

9th Jun 2007, 12:47

The change was brought about to ease the burden on crews, post 2003, and was fought by the SAR Force. I'd like to bet that there have been times when a Nimrod has been requested to prove topcover for a helicopter but refused because of timing issues since the change to 2 hours notice.

How many times has topcover actually been needed, not just provided? Never as far as I can remember. Although a nice comfort blanket for the SAR Force it is an inefficient use of resources.

A 2 hour standby does not require a serviceable a/c to sit on the line, it means an a/c needs to be available for a crew to launch within 2 hours. This allows more flexibilty to the fleet managers.

XferSymbol

9th Jun 2007, 15:03

The use of a Nimrod to act as Top Cover (or Aircraft Coordination) in Large Scale Disaster situations is recognised as 'needed' not just 'desirable'. This allows the SAR helo crews to do their job with the Nimrod crew providing procedural coordination (not control).

The Piper Alpha incident was an example of this, where further risk to the rescue services involved was minimised by coordinating action from the On-scene Commander, a Nimrod.

The relatively short PLE of helos can also be used to greatest efficiency by employing Nimrod in the initial location of those in distress.

I'm pretty convinced that a closer look at previous SAR incidents will confirm this efficient use of resources. I'm sure the ARCC will put you right Strato Q.

toddbabe

9th Jun 2007, 16:28

strato q do you remember the incident recently where a rig anchoring vessel in the North Atlantic was pulled under and sunk killing most on board including a father and son? that was a nimrod job giving top cover to helo's as well as comms relay and control.

snowball1

9th Jun 2007, 16:42

Its been used in the past on mountain rescue call outs

Mr Point

9th Jun 2007, 17:56

How many times has topcover actually been needed, not just provided? Never as far as I can remember. Although a nice comfort blanket for the SAR Force it is an inefficient use of resources.

If the Sea King loses an engine in the hover with the fuel tanks half full, unless there is a strong wind the crew will be ditching. A little bit more than a safety blanket if you ask me.

Sea King engines DO fail, but we've been lucky in recent years that it hasn't been at long range. Would you be happy in an aircraft with just one engine and no ejection seat whilst 240 miles offshore?:ugh:

Tappers Dad

9th Jun 2007, 21:38

DV
On the 12th of May you said you thought "Kapton wiring has been used for additional equipment fits such as Yellowgate".

I have been told on good authority that Kapton cabling was used in the creation of Yellowgate wiring looms. And Kapton has been used in loom repairs.

Hope this helps DV

Lima Juliet

9th Jun 2007, 21:42

I'm pretty sure that Kapton wiring is used in the aircraft that might be taking people on holiday this Summer as well??? It isn't exactly uncommon in aircraft is it? :eek:

LJ

Distant Voice

10th Jun 2007, 07:51

TD: Many thanks for that information. I have arranged for a PQ to be tabled, so we will see what the Sec of State for Defense has to say.

LJ: Yes I take your point. Just as well Joe Public does not know that Kapton wiring is highly dangerous.

DV

Pontius Navigator

10th Jun 2007, 08:03

If you all trawl back through the posts you will see where Kapton and Yellowgate was discussed and the same things were said before. You will also see bits on civil aviation and kapton together with the appropriate links.

Tappers Dad

10th Jun 2007, 08:26

LJ
Perhaps if you were to read .
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991213/debtext/91213-03.htm

And

http://www.fourfax.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=96

And

http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Concourse/7349/270fire.html

You may then understand some peoples concern re Kapton wiring.

Can anyone tell me how long it would have taken the Nimrod to have descended from 23,00ft to 3,000 ft given they were in an emergency situation. In other words what is that maximum rate of descent in ft per min ?

Biggus

10th Jun 2007, 19:03

TD

You obviously know far more about the incident than I ever will, but here is a thought.

Why would they necessarily be descending at the maximum rate? From what I have read here people say they only put out a Pan call, not a Mayday. Suppose the incident happened 70 miles from the airfield (I don't know the specifics as I have said). Would you want to descent at a maximum rate down to say 3,000 ft, and fly 30 miles to the airfield at lowish level, in a country where people are potentially trying to shoot things at you.....or would you balance your rate of descent to get down to a specific height at a specific distance from the airfield? You would want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, and you can travel faster at a greater height. Just a couple of thoughts.....

As I hope you can see there are probably a lot of variables involved.

Tappers Dad

11th Jun 2007, 09:16

Biggus
I am trying to get some idea of the time scale from the fire breaking out at 23,000 ft to when it exploded. I know the BOI will have this in their report but I was keen to find out.

Also can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction what fire fighting epuipment is there onboard a Nimrod. Hand held/Automatic/Mechanical.

Can anyone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Nimrod Safety Case with reference to Def Stan 00-56 issue 3??

Safety_Helmut

11th Jun 2007, 15:41

TD

The IPT should certainly have a Safety case for the aircraft. All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was. The quality of these safety cases differed between IPTs, some very good, normally when developed using outside help, some very poor, both developed internally and some of those using outside help. It would be interesting to see if the Nimrod Safety Case has been independently assessed, and by whom ?

I am not sure whether the case will be classified, I think that varies between IPTs.

Issue 3 of 00-56 is relatively new, and the Nimrod Safety Case will not be developed against that standard.

The IPT Safety Case should demonstrate the safety of the aircraft in all operational scenarios, not just peacetime. It wouldn't really be much good would it, if restricted to peacetime.

It should also be more than just a set of glib claims amounting to an argument that 'the aircraft has proved to be safe so far, so will be alright in the future', an attitude that exists in many IPTs, and not just the aviation ones.

Remember the old safety adage:
absence of evidence (of failure) is not the same as evidence of absence
I think you could read this across to several other safety threads on here.

Hope this helps.

S_H

tucumseh

11th Jun 2007, 16:07

S-H

“All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was”.

I do not doubt this for one minute, but it merely demonstrates the complete disconnect between elements of MoD. At precisely the same time, CDP and Ministers were still upholding numerous previous rulings that safety (in general, including airworthiness) and adherence to Defence Standards (for example, 05-123) was optional, both for MoD employees and industry – the latter regardless of what their contracts said. And have continued to. These written rulings were made in the context of project managers appealing against criticism in annual reports for (allegedly) wasting time and money by striving for airworthiness and safety in various helicopters and their equipment, in accordance with said Def Stans.

It is also important to note that, while a Safety Case may exist, it has to be relevant to the aircraft build standard at any given time. It is one thing to deliver safety in the first place, but maintaining safety through life is grossly underfunded and considered a “waste of money” by many IPTs, presumably in sympathy with these CDP/Ministerial rulings.

S-H – I think I prefer your way!

Tappers Dad

11th Jun 2007, 18:32

Thanks SH and tucumseh

I have emailed BAE Systems asking for a copy of the Safety Case.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B5810BE6-FE7C-47C7-8B7E-659FF3C1D77F/0/dlonews38_oct05.pdf
Page 9 October 2005

Nimrod safety case scoops innovation award

The Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems and the Nimrod Integrated Project Team (IPT), recently won a bronze award under the pan-BAE Systems chairman's award for innovation scheme.

All IPTs must have a robust safety case and hazard log that can be fully
audited. The joint team, led by the Nimrod IPT, took the pragmatic
approach that past history and a range of traditional methods
(certification and continued integrity testing) gave an intrinsic high level of confidence in the level of safety of the aircraft. A top down approach,
identifying potential hazards, was then taken. This was followed by a
review of previous accidents and incidents to prove that the aircraft
was within acceptable safety bands (What ever that means).The approach taken to prove the safety of the Nimrod fleet is now being adopted by BAE Systems across other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights.

Thats Ok then then so after they reviewed all the accidents and incidents it was within accepable safety bands. :=:=

tucumseh

11th Jun 2007, 18:58

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but this seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

“Top down”? I hope they reached the aircraft equipment and ensured it was safe.

“other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights”. They don’t “hold the Design Authority rights” – they are appointed Design Authority or Custodian by MoD. And that appointment can be withdrawn.

The phrase “other legacy equipment” seems a little dismissive to me. By definition, everything in our inventory is legacy, to varying degrees. Hope they’re not too interested in big bucks for future kit to worry about maintaining the build standard of “legacy” kit.

Strato Q

11th Jun 2007, 21:35

toddbabe & XferSymbol

Without getting in to a pi55ing contest with you, "topcover" has nothing to do with On Scene Commander or Aircaft Co-ordination duties, where of course a Nimrod provides a valuable contribution - Piper Alpha being an excellent example. Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore.

Mr Point - no I would not be happy on one engine 240 nm from the shore, that is why I tend to have 4.

AC Ovee

11th Jun 2007, 21:50

Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed.

I seem to remember a Sea King ditching in the N Sea when it went out to rescue a ditched Jaguar (?) pilot. The accidents were not far from shore, but it proved the need for caution when flying with only one engine over the sea.

AQAfive

11th Jun 2007, 22:29

Strato Q

The term Top Cover actually covers more than one task. With a Sea King at the limit of range, the last things it need is to go searching for a vessel that requires its assistance. Therefore the main purpose is for the Nimrod to locate said vessel and home the helo to its position, at the same time acting as a comms relay to the vessel to speed the operation. In addition passing weather reports also helps the helos.(because it always occurs during bad weather and 90 kt headwinds!) It is also a better comms platform to maintain contact with the RCC, removing one other job for the Helo. As a bonus the Nimrod is there should anything go amis.

As far as the Nimrod crew is concerned, it is routine job and seldom taxing. To the Sea King crew it makes a very difficult job that little bit easier; I have never known a crew to be anything other than greatful for the company.

buoy15

11th Jun 2007, 22:30

StratoQ
Don't know what you do, but I do know, YOU, know sod all about Nimrod SAR
I have at least 50 Top Cover entries in my log book for SeaKing, Dauphin, SR61, plus umpty SAR Trails etc,etc
The advantage of Nimrod on Top Cover is it can locate and mark the casualty day and night in all weather enabling the helo to go in and lift at extreme range when on tight fuel and lift time criteria - plus being a real time comms link to ARCC
It also gives the helo crew a nice warm feeling when at extreme range over hostile conditions that someone is watching and there to help if they get into trouble
I previously posted details of the La Parrane incident in Feb 2002 where a SeaKing lifted 22 fishermen in 17 mins at extreme range (240nm) in the north atlantic, but for some reason my post was removed
That was a classic example of Top Cover - talk to the guys at Lossie

Charlie Luncher

11th Jun 2007, 23:44

StratoQ me thinks Buoy15 must have been crewed with you:eek:, you have even earned a lecture from a really old wetty and not for the first time:=.
Gentlemen start your bladders
Charlie sends

ShortFatOne

12th Jun 2007, 00:38

Whilst I do not doubt your assertion over your observations of said DefStan implementation policy, I do know that any DefStan non-compliance has to be covered by a concession, detailing any relevant impact (risk management - safety case gurus) on all manner of things (including airworthiness) before it can be signed off.
Of course, this does assume that any relevant DefSTan's were refered to in the original Spec/Contract/MOU with the supplier!

SFO

eal401

12th Jun 2007, 05:58

The Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems and the Nimrod Integrated Project Team (IPT), recently won a bronze award under the pan-BAE Systems chairman's award for innovation scheme.

Guys, don't get too excited about that. The Chairman's Award is little more than a lightweight "tick-in-the-box-ooh-aren't-we-good-with-our-people" exercise. The fact that this case won an award is no reflection at all of how good it is.

Different departments get targets for the numbers of awards that must be submitted, the result is that towards the closing date, any old rubbish is submitted just to look good. Some people just do it in order to get a freebie p*ss-up at the award "ceremony." The current Nimrod programme's target was reduced from 2006 and I still don't believe hit the target. (If we did, it'll just prove what a farce the CA is)

tucumseh

12th Jun 2007, 06:31

SFO

“Whilst I do not doubt your assertion over your observations of said DefStan implementation policy, I do know that any DefStan non-compliance has to be covered by a concession, detailing any relevant impact (risk management - safety case gurus) on all manner of things (including airworthiness) before it can be signed off.
Of course, this does assume that any relevant DefSTan's were refered to in the original Spec/Contract/MOU with the supplier!”

Thank you. This is why I referred to a “disconnect” in MoD. Clearly, the Def Stans exist for a reason. Many were written by people with intimate knowledge and long experience of delivering to time, cost and performance – long before this became the SMART procurement mantra. What you describe is what I was taught from Day 1. And any competent contractor would INSIST on them being in the contract if MoD omitted them for any reason. So, over a hundred projects later, it came as a shock when a few non-entities (but with the patronage of their seniors) denounced me openly for striving to deliver airworthiness and safety iaw these Def Stans. And, as they had that patronage, the seniors, all the way up to junior ministerial level (the latter, I concede, merely signed what was put in front of them – but nevertheless I have the papers in question under FOI), continued to dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves through their bizarre decisions to uphold the actions taken against me. However, you’ll be glad to know I completely ignored them and, despite their efforts, the aircraft in question are safe.

XferSymbol

12th Jun 2007, 06:53

"Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore."

You may want to have a word with the OCU and standards team.

No pissing contest at all, its a discussion forum and we all have the right to add our ten pence worth.

:}

Da4orce

12th Jun 2007, 08:35

Changing the direction of the subject slightly, I found this thread on The Telegraph website, seems the lack of Nimrod spares is by far from a new problem...

RAF: Nimrod spares problems (http://my.telegraph.co.uk/claves/june_2007/raf_nimrod_spares_problems.htm)

Posted by Claves at 09:46 on 04 Jun 2007

Whilst recognising the terrible tragedy that befell one of our Nimrods over Afghanistan, the present media fuss about lack of spares is about nearly 40 years behind the times.
I remember when the Nimrods replaced the Shackleton M3 Phase 3s (4 turning 2 burning) at RAF Kinloss in 1969 . A briefing session was held for the all the erks. A engineer from Command HQ declared that on this aircraft, unlike the Shackletons, 'robbing' would not be necessary. It took some time for the laughter to die down.
In the early 70s a fine example of lack of spares occurred when a light alloy casting that had not been provisioned, broke. Eventually a spare was obtained: from a scrapped Aerolineas Argentinas Comet IV at Buenos Aires airport. God only knows what the RAF had to pay for it.
A really serious situation occured in the mid-70s when some stores wallah,detailed to dispose of the scrapped Comet IVs enthusiastically also sold off all Section 26DL parts in the RAF Stores catalogue. These were of course also all the Nimrod MR1 spares. Did they get them back, I wonder? Maybe not.

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/claves/june_2007/raf_nimrod_spares_problems.htm

Tappers Dad

12th Jun 2007, 14:45

One Question

If a Nimrod has a fire in the Bomb bay is there any way to extinguish it.

No speculation please just facts

Wader2

12th Jun 2007, 15:24

TD, yes.

There was a bottle on the forward face of the galley bulkhead port side. Its use was practised regularly.

MightyHunter AGE

12th Jun 2007, 15:43

I always thought that the fire bottle in the pt side of the galley was there for the Hyd, Aileron and Elevator bays and not the bomb bay, hence the three positions the hose can locate into marked 'H', 'A' and 'E'.
Cant remember one marked 'BB', had a look today, no.

TD in answer to your question to my knowldge there are no fire bottles fitted to a Nimrod in the bomb bay.

nigegilb

12th Jun 2007, 16:31

"Regarding the bomb bay fire extinguisher issue. The Nimrod has a 'trooping role' and in order to be used in that manner 6 extended range fuel tanks would be fixed in the bomb bay. With this fit 10 fire extinguishers would also be fitted. However, in the normal fit we do not have either the extended range tanks or the fire extinguishers fitted. That means that day to day there is no fire protection in the bomb bay. However, the bomb bay fire drill calls for all stores to be jettisoned, and to my knowledge there has only been one actual bomb bay fire in the life of the ac. This was caused by an electrical fault causing a flare to ignite when power was supplied to the weapons carrier."

Mick Smith

12th Jun 2007, 18:19

For those interested in the Kapton wiring debate. From Monday's written answers.

Nimrod Aircraft
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Kapton wiring is used in the Yellow Gate system in place in Nimrod aircraft; when this system was fitted in Nimrods; what wiring is used on other Nimrod electrical systems; and if he will make a statement. [140911]

Mr. Ingram: Kapton wiring is not used in the Yellow Gate system on the Nimrod aircraft but KTCL, a hybrid Kapton wiring, was introduced on the Nimrod MR2 as a part of the Yellow Gate modification programme during the period 1980 to 1985. The wiring used in the electrical systems of the Nimrod MR2 and Rl consists of: Nyvin, Minyvin, Efglas, KTCL, Febsil, ACT260, Raychem 44A and Raychem 55A.

Pontius Navigator

12th Jun 2007, 18:25

Mick,

That looks like a typical politician's answer, explicit and precise and at the same time avoiding the issue.

Safeware

12th Jun 2007, 19:45

TD, getting the BAES safety case may not provide the answers you are after. JSP 553 has 3 level of safety case:

1) that produced by the designer (essentially covering what they have sold you)

2) that produced by the IPT - The IPTL's safety case consists of the Designer’s safety case for the as-built standard of aircraft plus the safety justifications used by the IPTL to underpin his certification of the initial draft RTS or, for legacy platforms, the issue of the MA Release.

3) that produced by the Release to Service Authority (RTSA)- The RTSA’s safety case will initially comprise the IPTL’s safety case plus the safety justifications used by the RTSA to underpin the issue of the RTS and is applicable to the configuration of the aircraft ‘as-flown’ by the Service.

tuc, there is nothing wrong with the concept of the top down approach as long as it goes far enough in getting the evidence required. I understand that some well known people in the field were brought in by the IPT to provide a top down argument in Goal Structuring Notation. However, I know nothing of the content of that argument.

sw

nigegilb

12th Jun 2007, 19:57

Wader2 are you referring to firing an extinguishant down a tube? If so, I recall that it is one shot in nature. Can you explain a little more?

tucumseh

12th Jun 2007, 20:02

Safeware

I agree -re top down. I just expressed the hope they reached the equipment level. Routinely maintaining the build standard of equipment (which includes safety) was ditched as a policy in around 1991. I worry there is insufficient funding and experience to resurrect these build standards - in which case the 3 levels you describe are immediately compromised, as there is no seamless audit trail.

This is entirely relevant to, for example, Mull.

Strato Q

12th Jun 2007, 20:12

XferSymbol - don't need to ask the OCU or Standards - I taught most of them.

Buoy 15 - I may not have 50 topcovers in my log book, but from my seat I have a better grasp of Nimrod SAR than a wetty, even a really old one. I agree that a Nimrod is useful at extreme range, but I have no recollection of a topcover SAR where the rescue WOULD not have happened if the Nimrod was not there. Although nice for the SAR crews to have a Nimrod there, when the fleet is struggling it is an inefficient use of the a/c, which is the reason that over the last year there has been a reduction in the number of topcover sorties flown, not because fihermen are being more careful.

The topic has diverged from the original thread so my rant is over.

Tourist

12th Jun 2007, 20:28

As ex SAR, I have to say that when you are 200 miles out, a Nimrod is very reassuring.

Never been exactly sure why, because we would still be in the water, but nice to know someone would be calling for help etc

Safeware

12th Jun 2007, 22:01

tuc,
Defining the assessed standard is one of the key things about the advice from Boscombe (and any VALID safety case). However, how an IPT maintains their audit trail, or how the precession of evidence through the 3 safety cases is justified may be another matter. Reminds me of the story about the crock of sh!t that becomes policy.
sw

Mr Point

12th Jun 2007, 22:16

Strato Q: Mr Point - no I would not be happy on one engine 240 nm from the shore, that is why I tend to have 4.

Strato Q: You may be alright Jack with 4 engines, but the Sea King won’t be after a single engine failure in the hover. Unlike the pilots, the rearcrew don't have their single-seat dinghy attached to then via a lanyard and are almost certain to end up in the water in just an immersion suit.

Having a Nimrod available to give you an accurate position on the way out to an incident means that you don't have to waste precious fuel searching for the vessel in distress. This gives you the largest possible margin for error when it comes to on-scene endurance during a long-range incident.

There hasn't been a long-range ditching of a Sea King because of good fortune, not because of planning: the Wessex force wasn’t quite so lucky.

As a crew member on an aircraft with 4 hydraulic systems that can serve the flying controls, and also 4 engines, do you really think that providing topcover once every 6 weeks is really burdening the Nimrod fleet?

XferSymbol

13th Jun 2007, 06:38

Mr Point, I reckon you're wasting your breath.

Some people are way above being told anything - read the arrogance showing through in some of the replies.

There will be a reply - I can't see me being allowed anything like the last word!

:hmm:

Snow Dog

13th Jun 2007, 07:26

Gents, gents, gents

Topcover is a very good idea - I have many in my log book from SAR trails to shepherding a 100Kts Sea King home from 200+ miles off shore (Not easy at 200Kts-lots of dog legs). Even went out to meet a helo trogging down from Kef and followed her back.

However, that was a while ago. I seem to fell that, once we went to a 2hr call out time, the number of helo top covers reduced dramatically. Shame, nothing worse than waiting to go flying, and not. (Not wishing ill on mariners etc. Bit like being an Ambulance Paramedic - a job is good for you, but bad for the poor injured person!)

And as for spares - I recommend you read Vulcan 607. I was astounded, it was my life only 25 years ago.

Can do, will do, have to do - that's all there is. No maliciousness, no weak leadership (a little misunderstanding perhaps), but years of reduced funding and not being able to justify to the Politicians maintenance of a capability that doesn't appear to be required.

Tappers Dad. I do sympathise with you tremendously. I lost friends and wish there had been a way of avoiding it - of course, for the grace of God, it could have been me for I would have flown equally willingly. I'm afraid I can't see any one root cause. We had hoped, (and the precautions we took to reduce the risk of fire worked), hoped that one of last year's fuel leaks would provide the answer to XV230. It didn't. The aeroplane is just old. I hope you get the answer you need. You may not be ultimately satisfied, because I don't believe there is an answer. But PLEASE, don't get involved in all the other speculation on this site - it appears to degrade your core search.

We will remember them. Rest well.

Snow Dog

nigegilb

13th Jun 2007, 08:03

TD, the MoD could put an end to all the speculation by publishing the BoI now, in full. Unlike XV179, Nimrod was not brought down by enemy action.
I disagree with Snowdog. What is to say this will not happen again? The majority of the AA refuel system is retained on MRA4. ie.. we keep the MR2 bits. There have been serious fuel leaks since the tragedy, and yet the RAF orders the continuation of AAR days after the event without knowing the full facts. No announcement to protect the fuel tanks of MR2 or MRA4. We all know, the RAF has no money, and safety is no longer the highest priority for Commanders.

Someone has to ask the difficult questions, TD might upset a few people, but if it leads to a safer future for Nimrod crews he will have achieved a great thing.

Kolibear

13th Jun 2007, 08:12

re post 431,

From what I can remember, Raychem 44a & 55A burnt very nicely, which is why the comany I used to work for never used it in their avionics. We specified PTFE insulation.

Wader2

13th Jun 2007, 08:15

Wader2 are you referring to firing an extinguishant down a tube? If so, I recall that it is one shot in nature. Can you explain a little more?

No, I defer to MightyHunter AGE. My experience was on theMk 1, a long time ago, and it was not my job. You need an AEOp, AEO or AE to comment.

Vim_Fuego

13th Jun 2007, 08:48

The bottle to which some of you are referring is indeed fixed to the forward bulkhead of the galley...Under normal circumstances it would be operated by the AEO...After the bay has been checked and fire confirmed by one of the back enders via a shufty scope (small black item that you shove into a small access hole in the bay) the AEO will ensure the extinguishers hose is fitted correctly into the appropriate bay's 'hole' on the bulkhead next to it...The holes are labelled H, A or E for the three bays...Then he'll give the trigger a ten second press and ask for a report from the bay...if it's still on fire another ten second press followed by a further report...if it's still on fire then another press but this time unless they've changed it recently the AEO will go till empty as the thing only holds enough for about 3 times 10 seconds presses anyway...

Hope this helps.

Mr Point

13th Jun 2007, 09:06

Tapper's Dad:One Question - If a Nimrod has a fire in the Bomb bay is there any way to extinguish it. No speculation please just facts

There have been lots of replies to this question, but very few knowledgeable answers. The Nimrod MR2 does NOT have a fire suppression system for the bomb bay.

The bomb doors can be opened in an attempt to blow out any flames (although this may exacerbate the problem) but there are no fire extinguishers that can reach the bomb bay.

The fire bottle in the galley can only be used for under-floor fires in the hydraulic, aileron and elevator bays, all of which are above the bomb bay.

Tappers Dad

13th Jun 2007, 09:17

Thank you Mr Point

I have had many PM's about this and they appear to agree with you.

So once the fire started in the bomb bay basically the a/c and the 14 souls onboard were doomed unless it could land.

Wader2

13th Jun 2007, 10:38

Mick Smith posted

<<Mr. Ingram: Kapton wiring is not used in the Yellow Gate system on the Nimrod aircraft but KTCL, a hybrid Kapton wiring, was introduced on the Nimrod MR2 as a part of the Yellow Gate modification programme during the period 1980 to 1985. The wiring used in the electrical systems of the Nimrod MR2 and Rl consists of: Nyvin, Minyvin, Efglas, KTCL, Febsil, ACT260, Raychem 44A and Raychem 55A.>>

This appears to open up other questions. Searching for each of these wiring types throws up some interesting links.

A link to the technical specification shows that Nyvin dates from 1961 and Minyvin from 1980.
http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?product_id=1109036

The link shows Nyvin and its replacement Raychem 55 now being fitted to the Vulcan to the Skies.

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/forum/cgi-bin/ikonboard.pl?act=Print;f=35;t=7

The most interesting link is http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/AIL0140.PDF which refers to Minyvin and the possibilty of arc tracking, sheath damage and fluid contamination.

The CAA link refers to EFGLAS and how it should be used to replace Minyvin. It also lists Nyvin, Minyvin, and KTCL as obsolete. It lists both Raychem 44 and 55.

A quick search did not turn up Febsil or ATC 260.

I think the Nyvin/Minyvin information is interesting.

Swamp Thing

13th Jun 2007, 15:07

I'm coming in rather late on this one as things take a long time to reach the Swamp, so have only just watched Panorama. Was pretty disappointed, though I guess it's spread the word to a wider audience.

Spent the first few minutes getting a bit emotional with the shots of the homecoming, Q and Steve + revisiting the Memorial; then spent a few minutes scratching my head as to who the heck Jimmy Jones was (thanks for the info on that earlier in the thread - glad to see they're digging out current people); and then sat staring incredulously at the screen, pausing and rewinding the Sky+ box as I watched an 'MRA4 on a test flight' - except it was an MR2 - in fact unless my eyes were wrong it was 2 x MR2s - XV248 taking off and XV246 going round the corner with the bomb doors open. Oh, and of course there was the aircraft taking a swim in the Moray Firth - first loss of an MR2 in 25 years apparently - except that it was an R1. And if another journalist refers to an MR2 as a 'spy plane' again, I think I'll scream.

Like most people on this thread, I lost good friends last year. I know that the general public won't be bothered by the errors above (and plenty more that were in there), and that the programme achieved a bit of publicity for the state of the armed forces, but I just wish that these programme makers would get the simple things right so that those in the know could believe in them a little more.

Live from the Swamp :}

FE Hoppy

13th Jun 2007, 15:32

Chaps, I'm a civvy now but was on the Kipper fleet from 90 to 94 ish. I knew some of the guys who were lost and have the utmost sympathy for their loved ones who bare the burden of their loss.

But when did it become acceptable to discuss technical and procedural topics in an open forum? I don't buy the "its already in the public domain" argument. Many of you are bound by the Official Secrets Act, just as I still am.

As for the panorama program it added nothing to the debate and was factually incorrect on many counts.

Whilst I fully understand the desire to get to the bottom of this. There are people doing just that and I think we would all do well to wait to hear what they have to say.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone as that was not the purpose but I had to pipe in when i saw procedures being discussed.

Distant Voice

13th Jun 2007, 16:59

Swamp Thing:

..exept it was a Mk2

Perhaps they had problems getting a shot of a MRA 4 in flight.

.. glad to see they are digging up current people

How current do you have to be on a 38 year old a/c with 38 year old fuel and hot air systems?

.. but I wish these programme makers would get the simple things right so that those in the know could believe in them a little more.

What is important, Tapper's Dad, families of the lost crew and millions of the general public believe in what they saw. This thread has had just 61,000 hits with a few hundred comments; it is just "noise in the system" compared to the impact that Panorama had.

DV

Mick Smith

13th Jun 2007, 17:04

if another journalist refers to an MR2 as a 'spy plane' again, I think I'll scream.

You'd better keep screaming Swamp. Given its role in Iraq/Afghanistan that is what it is.

SirPeterHardingsLovechild

13th Jun 2007, 22:46

Is that Mick Smith, former Nimrod Crew Chief and former lead guitarist with Nimrod Line Sqn's band....'Sir Peter Hardings Lovechildren'

If it is...(hello from the bass player & vocals)

buoy15

14th Jun 2007, 06:25

Tappers Dad
The crew have no control over a Bomb Bay fire
It's external of the pressure hull and there are no systems on board to sort the problem - there is a Bomb Bay periscope to monitor what's going on, and that must have been very frightening
Decisions about keeping the Bomb Doors closed which might 'stifle' the problem through lack of oxygen have to be balanced against opening which might blow out, but also feed the fire
I know most of all that crew, and I'm convinced that Al Squires, Adey and the guys down the back would have been trying every trick in the book to get down safely - but in my heart - and had I been on board - I would have known we were in serious trouble and in a situation which we could nothing about - I would have been praying to reach Kandahar as I'm sure they all were

nigegilb

14th Jun 2007, 07:53

B15, there is no fire extinguishant in the bomb bay, but is that where the extra equipment is carried for the role the aircraft is tasked with?

Cpt_Pugwash

14th Jun 2007, 08:31

Wader,
re post#448, try a search for FEPSIL. See Table 1 on page 4 of
this (http://www.agingaircraftconference.org/all_files/29/29c/269_doc.pdf)document.

PW

Tappers Dad

14th Jun 2007, 08:57

So despite the fact there had been a bomb bay fire in the Nimrod XV257 St Mawgan incident.Where the Bomb Bay Fire led to a number of consequent failures as a result of the damage sustained and had to be scrapped.

As Distant Voice said back in April "It is obvious to everyone that bomb bay fuel leaks did not start on 2nd Sept 2006, the accident simply brought an ongoing issue to a head".

So why Oh why after "A top down approach,identifying potential hazards, was then taken" in the Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems 2005.
Did they not think, given the facts that a Fire Extinguisher perhaps using Inert Gas should be fitted in the Bomb Bay.

I am no engineer but common sense tells me that it is pretty clear that any Crew in a Nimrod with a Bomb Bay fire in the future has very little chance of survival .

LETS HOPE AND PRAY THEN BECAUSE THATS ALL WE APPEAR TO BE ABLE TO DO.

A WING AND A PRAYER SEEMS TO BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY

Tappers Dad

14th Jun 2007, 14:46

Swamp Thing:

'MRA4 on a test flight' - except it was an MR2 - in fact unless my eyes were wrong it was 2 x MR2s - XV248 taking off and XV246 going round the corner with the bomb doors open.

I have it on good authority that the BBC asked the MOD for footage of the MRA4 and were supplied with the pictures you rightly point out of MR2's .
Is this the fault of the BBC or is it just a MOD discrediting exercise .I leave you to make up your mnds.

DFM

14th Jun 2007, 22:24

Sorry to say this , but if you really believe that last statement, you are starting to lose the plot on this one. :confused:

Mad_Mark

15th Jun 2007, 08:08

I'm also sorry but I must say that I agree with DFM :(

I am sure the BBC must have stock footage of an MRA4 in flight, even if that taken on its first flight. Even so, there is no excusing the, once again, slack journalism of not checking what is transmitted (a bit like the BBC Scotland news, when referring to Panorama and the loss of XV230, saying 'the Nimrod from RAF Lossiemouth' - FFS :mad::mad:). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to check facts - a Google search takes only a few seconds!

MadMark!!! :mad:

nigegilb

15th Jun 2007, 08:30

I have worked on a few items with telly journalists in the past. They kindly allowed me to take a peek at the script to check for obvious factual errors. It is not possible to do that with the filmed clips. It is a shame that obvious errors were made but people in my village have spoken to me about the program and all made the same point. They were concerned about the state of the RAF. Panorama made a very big point, the detail is less important. If tha lack of funding of the RAF and Armed Forces gets into the psyche of the British people they will be less likely to oppose an increase in Defence Budget at expense of other big ticket public spending options.

No point in giving TD a hard time about something he had no hand in.

Tappers Dad

15th Jun 2007, 09:19

Nigegilb
Clear your messages I am trying to send you a PM.Re MRA4 film

betty swallox

15th Jun 2007, 10:07

I'll try again.
Can we please, please, please wait till the BOI reports, rather than all this speculation. Please give the guys a chance to do their work. I feel we should all respect their efforts. And give them a chance. And, these things DO take time for a thorough job to be done.
Nigegilb. I'm not sure your MRA4 source. I do not wish to get involved in a long drawn out "discussion" about it, but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong. See a few pages ago, the response from 'the short fat one'. He describes it rather nicely.
Finally, to suggest that the MoD misled the public by providing MR2 footage when asked for MRA4 holds little water. My understanding is that the MoD were consulted very little in the making of this programme. I rather point the finger at the BBCs lack of attention to detail...remember, after the awful events of Sep 06, they, for a while, reported the crash as a MERLIN...

The Swinging Monkey

15th Jun 2007, 10:24

Betty,
For Christ's sake stop whinging on about waiting for the BoI to 'do its job'
The BoI will almost certainly have already 'done its job' and the report will now be doing the rounds between CAS, ACAS, ministers and everyone else before its released (maybe) to the public in a hugely sanitised version.

If Nigels comments about the MR4 Fuel system are so 'fundamentally wrong' then do us all a favour, and tell us what the real story is please. Clearly you know more than most, so lets have the facts instead of you telling everyone to stop speculating.

The MOD were consulted enough to allow Glenn Torpy to be interviewed and look like a fish out of water, I hardly think they wouldn't have asked for some footage of an MR4 do you? Maybe, (just maybe) it was BWOS who were not happy about handing over the footage? I didn't see much involvement from them, did you?

Either way, it's time you stopped telling people on this forum, especially the likes of Tappers Dad, what to do. Let him speculate and question as much and as often as he wants. He has every right to ask searching questions and seek out the truth, and the waiting is hurting him. I would do the same if I had lost my son. Infact, I don't think I would have been anywhere near as calm and reasoned as TD if it had been my boy - I would have been camped outside the MOD or parliament giving all the faceless and spineless ^&$$£" some serious grief!
So please do us a favour Betty, and shut up yourself! thanks

TSM

nigegilb

15th Jun 2007, 10:54

Betty, I stand by the following statement about MRA4 AAR. It has been the subject of a Parliamentary question and what I am claiming has not been denied by the MoD. There are some unpalatable truths about this tragedy and not everyone is comfortable dealing with them. I understand your concerns, but there is a very real chance that this could happen again. I have been told that the MRA4 design was frozen at the back end of last year, there is no OBIGGS or Foam on order and the AAR system is not double skinned, unlike the Tri Star. It is not being built to a Civil Standard, and the "fag packet" Falklands design is being adhered to.

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 there have been leaks during ground refuel).
There is a requirement to 'design out' of MRA4 any known MR2 issues. To that end engineers are on the distribution for all Incident signals, Mods, STI, SI, RTI & UTI. Every one is looked at to see if it's applicable to MRA4. Where the MRA4 has the same parts ('retained') the issues are to be designed out.
There is no design for foam in tanks (neither Flight Deck Armour funnily enough). It will only go on MRA4 at the request of the customer.

Da4orce

15th Jun 2007, 11:02

The MOD had ample opportunity to be involved in the programme, however there stance all along was that they did not wish to pre-empt the BOI and that in their view the programme should not be shown.

I think it's worth noting that the MOD have provided families with no information about the BOI or it's progress, there has been a complete wall of silence from the MOD. This stance has in my view directly fuelled further speculation and questioning which would likely have been reduced had the MOD had the courtesy to communicate with the families. All that the silence has done is add weight to those who argue that the MOD has something to hide.

And to those who seem to be living in a bubble and believe that there is no political influence over the BOI can you explain why it is that despite apparently being ready for publication the MOD has chosen to delay publication until after the summer recess of parliament. Something stinks here and I've spoken to many non-RAF, non-family members who have the same opinion.

betty swallox

15th Jun 2007, 11:32

TSM. I feel you have taken me a tad out of context. Rather than jumping in feet first, and posting your shouty reply, I would have rather that you understood that I merely stated I felt it appropriate to wait for the findings. I am not whingeing, not "telling" anyone what to do, as you kindly put it, and I think you are as bit out of line telling folks on this forum to "shut up". We all have our opinions; I was close to a fair few of the guys killed.

WasNaeMe

15th Jun 2007, 11:38

Betty, are you seriously trying to tell the world that the MRA4 AAR refuel system is not MR2 retained (or be it partially)?

betty swallox

15th Jun 2007, 12:25

WNM

I'm not vying for more thread creep than is necessary. May I refer you to post219, from ShortFatOne on the "Kinloss, what's going on?" thread. ta

nigegilb

15th Jun 2007, 12:32

Betty with the greatest respect you do not appear to have any knowledge on this subject. Referring us to another poster proves nothing. Can you please state why you think I am wrong or otherwise stand aside.

betty swallox

15th Jun 2007, 12:38

Hi Nige
My knowledge is just fine, thanks. I simply can't see the need to go over all that has been covered a few weeks ago on a similar thread. With the greatest respect.

The Swinging Monkey

15th Jun 2007, 13:51

Betty,
I'm sorry you feel a little hard done by, but I am sick to death of people like you telling others (such as Tappers Dad et al) to just keep waiting for the BoI results and stop speculating. I would defy you and anyone else to say that you wouldn't do exactly the same as them, if you were in their position. I doubt if Tappers Dad will get to see the full report, or indeed any of it, but his search for the truth should not be stifled or belittled by you or anyone else.

As for the MR4 fuel system, I note your lack of responce to my comments and Nigels, so I will make the assumption that you simply don't know what you are talking about. The shortfatone is at ISK, NOT at BWOS where the MR4 is being (re)built!

And finally like you, I also lost a lot of friends on XV230 and was extremely close to many of them. If you feel that you have the right to tell people to stop speculating then thats fine, but I feel I have an equal right to tell you to stop talking rubbish!

WasNaeMe

15th Jun 2007, 14:04

Betty,
The ‘short fat one’ is correct in what he says, as is Nigegilb.

Might I ask what qualifies you to make the statement “…but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong….” (post #463 above)?

JFZ90

15th Jun 2007, 14:13

As an example - nige says MRA4 AAR is not double skinned, shortfatone says it is in certain places.

From the info I've seen, I'm inclined to side with shortfatones tone/angle on the MRA4 AAR issue (i.e. there isn't really an issue, its been engineered properly despite its heritage), rather than that I pick up from nige (i.e. I detect he implies it is MR2 based & therefore no good, and believes somehow that inerting systems are the answer to all safety issues (which of course they aren't and bring their own problems)).

Steve Austin

15th Jun 2007, 14:17

Gents,
This is in danger of degenerating in to a slagging contest wrt who knows more about the MRA4 fuel system, and is becoming personal (which will serve no real purpose). I have spent the last 2 years flying the MRA4 as one of the ATEC test pilots, but have now left the project so will refrain from commenting on the aircraft systems as, already, my knowledge may well be out of date. There are many people commenting on this thread who are unknown to me and may, or may not, have accurate knowledge of the MRA4. However, what I can say with absolute authority is that both the Short Fat One (who is not a ISK by the way) and Betty Swallox are both involved in the MRA4 programme, have a working knowledge of the MRA4 systems, have flown the aircraft, are current to fly the aircraft, and, therefore, know more about the aircraft, its systems and the safety case than most people on this thread.

The Swinging Monkey

15th Jun 2007, 14:47

Steve,
Thats a bit of a worry then isn't it? They are both on the project you say and yet one is telling the other one that he is 'fundamentally wrong' I wonder who's right then??

I was having a few drinks with some old friends last night and remembering that exactly 25 years ago, we were all on the same Nimrod crew at Wideawake and I remember the initial AAR fit very well! It was a basta$d to get from the flt deck back to the galley, big rubber pipes everywhere!!

Sadly, it is a long time since I flew Nimrod, and I have to admit that many of the old grey cells have long been flushed away. Nevertheless, it concerns me that the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking!!

JFZ90

15th Jun 2007, 14:50

TSM - short fat one and betty are not disagreeing - infact betty is using short fat ones previous post to challenge the unsubstantiated rumours about the MRA4 AAR system. I had a feeling shortfatone knew what he was on about - bionic mans post & shorfatones preston (i.e. near warton) location seem to confirm this.

Steve Austin

15th Jun 2007, 15:02

TSM
To clarify; in post 463 above, Betty was referring to nigegilb's knowledge of the system as being 'fundamentally wrong' and, therefore, suggesting that readers refer to The Short Fat Ones previous description. i.e. Betty and The Short Fat One are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Whilst this project has had its problems, please don't generalise that:

'the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking'

based on your misinterpretation of post 463 combined with my previous post.

No offence intended, just clarification.

TVM, Steve

Strato Q

15th Jun 2007, 15:25

Steve, thanks for the clarification - I thought there could only be one Short Fat One.

WasNaeMe

15th Jun 2007, 15:38

Gents,
The majority of the AAR system of MRA4 is retained structure. If anyone is in doubt… check the drawings.
Interpretation of ‘retained’ would seem to be the issue here. Take for example, the refuel Probe –

The first MRA4 delivered will have a Probe fitted. It is ‘retained’ Structure.
It may be the probe removed from a Vulcan all those many years ago and hastily fitted to an MR2. It will have been re-furbished. It is retained structure.
It may or may not be a newly manufactured probe (to MR2 drawings). It is retained structure. The same goes for all the other ‘retained’ structure. It may be an original part re-furbished or it may be a ‘new’ part manufactured to MR2 drawings. It is retained structure.

No-one is suggesting that the design is in anyway deficient.

Read the shortfatone’s post again and this time read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Quote:
“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.”

Nigegilb does not say anything about the ‘fuel pipework et al’ but:
Quote:
“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.”

“It is not being built to a Civil Standard, and the "fag packet" Falklands design is being adhered to.” This is also correct.

It is also correct to state that in the aftermath of XV230 the MRA4 fuel system has been the subject of some scrutiny, believe me..

Nigegilb is not 'fundamentally wrong' Betty.

Distant Voice

15th Jun 2007, 16:07

Ok, so now I think I understand it;

(1) The MRA 4 will use the same AAR design as that used on MR 2, but with new parts. So where the existing design is flawed, the MRA 4 will carry the flaws

(2) Some fuel pipes will be double skinned. No doubt we can not afford to double skin all the pipes that need it.

(3) The AAR system will not be qualified (cleared?) on delivery, but it has to be ready for use at short notice. So qualification will be done at short notice.

Can anyone tell me when and how the existing AAR was qualified? And please do not say "On the awy out to the Falklands"

DV

nigegilb

15th Jun 2007, 16:12

WNM, thank you for clearing that up. The broader point here is that some people think we should all stay silent until the BoI is published, other people think differently. Here is a link to the Lynx that was shot down in Iraq.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry/

Check out the main recommendations. Huge chunks redacted. I happen to know a little bit about this tragedy, specifically about what happened on the ground. It has all been removed. This stuff is not secret, it is not useful to the enemy, it has simply been deleted.

I only hope that when the BoI for the Nimrod crash is published, it is published in full. If the MoD would make that promise now, I would happily stay silent.

BTW 50% of US combat losses in the Vietnam war were as a result of fuel tank explosions. Every operational aircraft and helo in the US inventory has fuel tank protection fitted as standard. My own sources have told me that Nimrod XV230 was brought down by a fuel tank explosion. Even if they are wrong, it does not excuse the MOD from sending crews to war without fuel tank protection. So no, Foam and Inert Gas is not the answer to everything, only about half of everything.

Tappers Dad

15th Jun 2007, 16:31

This is a typical BOI report as Nig says; Lynx BOI extract

CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES 75. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:
a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
b. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
c. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX
If our BOI report is the same what justice or closure will we be getting .

WasNaeMe

15th Jun 2007, 16:32

DV

Correct, in that...

If the MR2 design which is retained is flawed, obviously MRA4 will be similarly flawed. But nothing so far has been proven to be flawed.
The AAR system is not double skinned.
The qual of the AAR system will be for the customer to define.The finger has been pointed at the AAR system and speculation (rumour) has it that this may have caused the tragic events in Afghanistan. A BOI has been set up to report on the circumstances which led to the tragedy & make recommendations such that the same events do not lead to another.
Lets wait until the report hits the streets, then we can offer up our expert opinions. It may not be the AAR system. It may be undetermined...... Lets wait a little longer.

toddbabe

15th Jun 2007, 16:39

what do you mean maybe undetermined?

Tappers Dad

15th Jun 2007, 16:45

Steve Austin said

Short Fat One (who is not a ISK by the way) and Betty Swallox are both involved in the MRA4 programme, have a working knowledge of the MRA4 systems, have flown the aircraft, are current to fly the aircraft, and, therefore, know more about the aircraft, its systems and the safety case than most people on this thread.

Ok ,so here is a question for The Short Fat One and Betty Swallox

Given the fact there have now been 2 bomb bay fires on Nimrods will the Safety Case reflect this and recommend fitting some form of fire fighting exuipment in the Bomb Bay . Or does the Safety Case for the MRA4 start by saying well there has been no incidents with this a/c therefore it is safe??

WasNaeMe

15th Jun 2007, 16:52

Toddbabe
It may have been this, It may have been that..... Conjecture. It may be that the cause cannot be positively identified....

With very little access to the wreckage (as reported somewhere..) it must be a nightmare trying to establish the cause.

I have no insider knowledge before anyone jumps on that bandwagon.

Safeware

15th Jun 2007, 17:02

TD,

Probably neither,

The safety case should reflect the level of risk. There may well be a risk of loss of aircraft through fire. The safety case should should identify the hazards leading to such an accident and show that such hazards have been mitigated to an acceptable level (As Low As Reasonably Practical). Such an level doesn't mean no risk though. The problem though, is for those risks which are not Intolerable, but also not Broadly Acceptable. There will always be debate over such Tolerable risks because of all the factors and stakeholders views that a duty holder is trying to balance when deciding whether to accept such a risk.

sw

nigegilb

15th Jun 2007, 17:59

There are aspects of the Lynx crash that are extremely unpalatable. But is this really the right way to deal with it?

THE DAS FIT 30. Background. The 847 NAS Lynx Mk 7s were originally fitted with a XXXXX flare system using stock held by the Lynx IPT from a legacy Service Modification. This was to satisfy an unfunded requirement to fit Lynx with DAS. More recently funding was released to fit a further 15 Hamden Lynx Mk 7 with a DAS fit. XXXXX was invited to deliver a further tranche of XXXXX, however it was no longer in production. The XXXXX chaff and flare system was offered as an alternative and due to its similarity with the XXXXX system, the Lynx IPT selected it to simplify the modification process. There was also an aspiration to upgrade the XXXXX to the XXXXX system in order to achieve fleet commonality and to improve supportability. This aspiration was eventually realised and XXXXX was introduced under a Service Deviation approved by the Release to Service Authority, HQ DAAvn (Reference O). The 847 NAS Lynx had the modification carried out in theatre by a Service mods team from 7 Bn REME. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
31. Advice on DAS Effectiveness. The opinion of the AWC is that the Lynx has one of the most effective DAS suites of all the UK helicopter assets in theatre. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
34. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX: a. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Page 15 of 34
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
b. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX c. XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
d. XXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. e. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
f. XXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
5. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX

Winco

15th Jun 2007, 18:10

Safeware

Your comments concern me slightly.

You say that the risks should be 'mitigated to an acceptable level (As Low As Reasonably Practical)' Might I ask you what exactly constitutes an acceptable level? My own view is that if there exists a risk with an aircraft, then that aircraft should not be flown and should certainly not enter service. The Secretary of State for Defence has a 'duty of care' responsibility to all military personel, as does the RAF hierarchy to RAF personel. If there is any doubt as to the safety of the aircraft, then there should be no doubt about it not being flown IMHO.

You see, from reading this thread and the others, there has clearly been a serious fuel leak problem with the Nimrod aircraft over the past few years and a problem in general with the fuel system for a lot longer. I am slightly confused by what has been said by Nigel, Betty and the Short One. It certainly appears that they are at odds with each other about the fuel system and if, as you say, they are all on the project, why are there such discrepancies?

I am also concerned that as Nimrod 4 is being hailed 'a new-build' aircraft, that things such as foam, inert gases in the bomb bay etc are not being incorporated now into what is alledgedly a new aircraft? Why has that been overlooked? Did no one learn any lessons from the loss of the Hercules? Surely they did?

Mr Austin, whilst TSM might be generalising a little, I think it would be fair to say that we have heard 3 stories, from 3 different 'MR4' people, about the very same fuel system, and all three are somewhat different. Could you explain to me why that is please? I am not being rude, but I genuingly don't understand why there are differences.

Thank you.
The Winco

Safeware

15th Jun 2007, 19:09

Winco, I fully understand the issues of duty of care - I'm not trying to defend or justify the safety argument being used on Nimrod, merely to explain 'the facts of life' in relation to risk management.

Absolutely safe aircraft are ones that don't fly. In HSE terms, a Broadly Acceptable level of risk for an activity is one where the per annum risk of death to an individual is 1 in a million. An Intolerable level of risk is generally accepted as 1 in 1000. In between is the Tolerable region, where the benefit gained must be balanced against the level of risk.

In coarse terms, one of the riskiest things people do is drive a car. However, society accepts the level of risk because of the benefits having a car brings. Flying has its risks, and a duty holder has to balance the level of riisk with the benefit gained. While not getting into an argument of the rights and wrongs and levels of risk, this is what the duty holder for Nimrod will have had to consider when authorising AAR post the XV230 incident - is the level of risk in conducting AAR worth it for the beneifit it brings?

Trust me, I'm not known for buying into cr@p safety arguments.

sw

betty swallox

16th Jun 2007, 10:17

Nigegilb. Apologies if I misconstrued what you were saying; I retract my statement "fundamentally wrong".
For the record, I am in agreement with ShortFatOne; we do "sing off the same sheet, etc".

Tappers Dad. We haven't communicated before. I am genuinely sorry for your loss. I didn't know Ben, but I was close to all the ex-206 guys. Unfortunately I am unqualified and not in a position to reply to your question, much as I would like to.

Regards,
BS

toddbabe

16th Jun 2007, 10:50

Wasnaeme Sorry I was taking the piss I don't think for one minute that the board of enquiry will be able to determine very much at all for the very same reasons that you stated.

nigegilb

16th Jun 2007, 10:58

BS, no worries, I am just concerned that the redactors are getting more heavy handed as the BoIs appear.

Take this line from the Lynx BoI;

Advice on DAS Effectiveness. The opinion of the AWC is that the Lynx has one of the most effective DAS suites of all the UK helicopter assets in theatre.

OK, so how come this particular Lynx was shot down then?

Notice that AWC refer to "the Lynx," in general and does not refer to the Lynx that was shot down. The type of missile is a point of interest here, but I know there were other factors that affected this particular flight. Once again, it will fall on the Coroner to decide what information can be placed in the public arena. The BoI has a limited usefulness. Problem with the Inquest is the lengthy time frame. I hope you can understand what TD is trying to do.

Winco

16th Jun 2007, 11:24

Safeware
Thank you for your explanation, and whilst I don't accept the bit about absolutely safe aircraft not flying, I do understand where you are coming from. But I still have concerns over this fuel system 'problem' that we seem to all keep coming back to.

Whatever the statistics are, there does seem to be common ground in the understanding that Nimrod 2 has a fuel system problem. Now that may well be down to age of components etc. however, it appears that the MR4 is NOT being manufactured to a better degree of safety (Fuel system wise) than the MR2 currently is. The IFR system on the MR2 was fitted in weeks - literally. I know, because I was at kinloss when the likes of John R, Martin C (and others) trialed it prior to going South. It was an 'emergency fix' to get us to the south Atlantic, and as such we all accepted it as so. But from what I can glean from others still on the fleet, nothing much has changed, other than the pipes no longer trail through the cabin prior to going into the tanks.

Now the system at the time was a success, no question about it, but was it the safest it could have been? I doubt it frankly. We often had fumes in the cabin post AAR, but we accepted it because it was an emergency 'short-term' fix and the success of the task out-weighed the possible dangers.

We are now some 25 years on, and it is proposed that we use exactly the same system in MR4, and in some cases the same components! Are you seriously suggesting that after 25 years, this 'ad-hoc, quick-fix' modification cannot be improved upon? I am sure it can, and I'm sure it can be made safer, but it all boils down to £££££££££££

The loss of the Hercules should have been a wake up call to CAS, ACAS, AOCs etc about the need for foam and inert gasses for fire suppression, especially on aircraft that have no escape systems. The loss of the Nimrod only highlights the fact that nothing was done as a result of the Hercules loss, and the powers on high should be ashamed of that.

The time has surely come when we must stop accepting a 'half safe' aircraft when, for the sake af some extra funding, we can make them (in your words) aircraft with a tolerable risk. I would suggest to you that at the moment, the risks are intolerable, NOT because we have only lost one Nimrod (one Nimrod too many of course) but because that risk can be greatly reduced, if not elliminated, by simply spending some money on retrofitting of inert gas, foam etc etc. Heavens above, Nimrod 2 dosn't even have a bomb bay fire extinguisher! Does the MR4 I wonder??

The Winco

Roland Pulfrew

16th Jun 2007, 13:04

OK, so how come this particular Lynx was shot down then?

Because despite having one of the best, the best wasn't good enough!!!!

AC Ovee

16th Jun 2007, 13:33

But from what I can glean from others still on the fleet, nothing much has changed, other than the pipes no longer trail through the cabin prior to going into the tanks.

Now the system at the time was a success, no question about it, but was it the safest it could have been? I doubt it frankly. We often had fumes in the cabin post AAR, but we accepted it because it was an emergency 'short-term' fix and the success of the task out-weighed the possible dangers.

Winco, the originally designed refuel system (no AAR pipes) in the 1970s, has not changed, but has been regularly removed, inspected and re-fitted. The initial probe and temporory pipework that was put together during the Falklands War has long since gone. The new AAR pipework, that by necessity has to pass through the cabin, is double skinned and is monitored for interspace leaks by a detector. We have definitely moved on from the initial AAR mod.

AC Ovee

16th Jun 2007, 13:47

Heavens above, Nimrod 2 dosn't even have a bomb bay fire extinguisher! Does the MR4 I wonder??

The Nimrod Mr2 bomb bay is huge. When it has fuel tanks in it, taking up a lot space, the volume available outside the tanks to inject extinguishant into, to suppress fire is a great deal smaller, so fire extinguishers were a practical precaution.

I would guess that the size of extinguisher bottle(s), with pre-positioned spray heads/tubes needed to put out a fire in an empty Nimrod bomb bay would probably take up at least a third of the space in the bay. It would need a sustained blast of extinguishant throughout the bay. Is that practical? No.

Tappers Dad

16th Jun 2007, 15:21

AC Ovee
Is that practical ?

Air Safety Week (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT), April 19, 1999 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_16_13)
Inert gas generators
According to Bill Leach, fire protection team leader for the Naval Air System Command, an inert gas generating system has been developed with potential application to commercial airliners. "An air bag without the bag is effectively what we have," he said. When an air bag is activated, the chemical reaction produces a large volume of nitrogen gas almost instantaneously.
Metal canisters, filled with the same chemicals, with holes predrilled to exhaust the gas and with electrically-activated initiators, have been placed in the dry bays of Navy F-18 fighter-bombers and V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft to provide near-instant fire protection.
In the dry bay forward of the engines on the F-18, for example, six generators, two optical sensors and a "smart control box" provide fire protection with a two millisecond reaction time. Since the generators produce a great deal of inert gas very quickly, they are activated in a carefully-timed sequence to corral fires while avoiding overpressures that would distort the aircraft structure.
A similar system installed in the mid- and trailing area of the wing is credited with saving a V-22 which recently experienced a hydraulic fire.
The technology, Leach believes, can be exploited to deal with the polyimide fire threat in commercial aircraft. "We have taken the concept from the commercial automobile industry, applied it to military aircraft, and we have an opportunity to go full circle back to commercial aircraft," Leach said. The added weight is marginal. "You can almost describe this system as prepositioned fire extinguishers," since bottles and lines are avoided, Leach added.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_16_13/ai_54428998