Nimrod Information

[Tappers Dad]

Yes there is.
I understand that there were fuel leaks in the following areas of XV230 in December 2006:
Port Side
Tank 2
Rib 3 Rear Main Spar
Rib 3 Fwd Main Spar
Rib 7 Inboard Rear
Rib 7 Inboard Fwd
Tank 3
Rib 7 Outboard Fwd
Rib 7 Outboard Rear
Stbd Side
Tank 2
Rib 3 Rear Main Spar
Tank 3
Rib 7 Inboard Rear
Rib 7 Outboard Rear

Were the repairs carried out by the CWP/FRA tank team ?

[MightyHunter AGE]

I cannot comment on these as I do not have access to the paperwork, that will be with the BOI.

What I will say however is that there probably were fuel leaks in those areas and if you have had access to information then I believe you.

These can be categorized using the 2(R)1 Lft 11, the limits I have stated on here before, and rectified as required.

If a jet is sent to the Gulf then leaks out with the limits are rectified before the jet goes out. What would be the point in sending a jet out that would have to be rectified in theatre where there is neither the relevant manpower or equipment to do such a task?

I wasn't aware that anyone was pointing the finger of blame for 30's crash on the leaks on the wings. If this is the case then we can ground the fleet right now as I am not aware of one jet that doesn't have adf's for acceptable leaks.

[Tappers Dad]

MightyHunter AGE

I don't know if you fly in the Nimrod but if the present restrictions Re Tank 7 , SCP and AAR were lifted would you still be happy to fly in it not knowing the cause of the crash?

[mad eng]

"That is a totally pointless question, as it would just not happen."

Apart from the AAR bit of course...........

[nigegilb]

Apart from AAR and renewed pressure to bring MRA4 in ahead of the agreed timeline by reducing development testing because the RAF needs the capability.

An aircraft destined for the front line without armour or fuel tank protection....

[santiago15]

Mad Eng,

No. Don't confuse the conduct of AAR Ops with the restrictions on AAR.

I standby my original statement.

[MightyHunter AGE]

TD said
I don't know if you fly in the Nimrod but if the present restrictions Re Tank 7 , SCP and AAR were lifted would you still be happy to fly in it not knowing the cause of the crash?

I am not an aviator but an AGE but I do fly in the jet to get on dets etc.

The cause of the crash has not been ascertained yet so until that point is reached then the SCP and 7tk question would never be an issue as it won't be reinstated until after the BOI findings..
As for AAR it has/is/will be used whenever necessary in theatre and as such I would not be allowed on board for such operations due to operational reasons.

I am however happy to fly in any Nimrod that has been signed as serviceable by any ground crew.

And that includes aircraft with ADF's wing tank leaks that are within the laid down limits of our maint AP's.

[nigegilb]

AGE, can you explain one thing to me. The fuel seals may have melted or failed in some way. I have been told that they were life-exed but that this has been extended recently.

Is it normal for the maintenance/ replacement program to be altered in this way?

[MightyHunter AGE]

The wing leaks that are being talked about here are from integral tanks and therefore the only 'seal' that is there is PRC, a sealing compound that stops fuel leaking from inside the tank through the weak points i.e. bolts, rivets etc (not rubber seals in the meaning of ring seals etc on fuel pipes).

I am unaware of any seals being re-lifed but that would be down to the DA/IPT/manufacturer to do a test on whatever seals were in stock and batch test a cross section to gain information as to whether they were acceptable for use or not.

Not something NLS gets involved with I'm afraid so therefore I cant comment on this.

[nigegilb]

Thanks AGE. The re-lifing of seals is not something that I have been able to confirm, would appreciate any other info out there concerning this subject.

I understand that there are moves afoot to reduce testing on MRA4, cut corners and basically get it to the front line ASAP. Thought it timely to summarize where we are now, in terms of ac protection.

MR2 has underfloor fire protection- MRA4 does not


MR2 has probe inerting system, for pressurixed fuel- MRA4 does not

Neither MR2 or MRA4 has bomb bay fire protection

Neither MR2 or MRA4 has fuel tank protection

MRA4 does not have flight deck armour

What exactly has the MoD learnt after this tragedy?

[camelspyyder]

If you are one of the more impressionable viewers of this forum, I think you should be aware that the previous post (1014) contains at least one statement that is not true and hasn't been for at least 18 months - i.e. before September 2nd.

It also contains another statement that is possibly correct but maybe irrelevant. I cannot be more specific since my employer does not approve of me posting here.

[TheSmiter]

Nige

As always, sterling work on the campaigning front!

However, in the interests of accuracy, and before anyone else jumps down your throat, you may wish to review one of your statements above.

Departmental policy prevents me from discussing the specifics with you.

Sorry. :rolleyes:

[TheSmiter]

Well done Spider, you beat me to it - now get back to work. :suspect:

[Da4orce]

Rumour has that the BOI report will be published by the end of October 2007. So we may all get some answers then.

[nigegilb]

MRA4 does not have inerting system in the probe, but even though AAR will not be necessary the probe remains pressurised with fuel. As for flight deck armour, I concede my info might be out of date for MR2, however, I am sure MRA4 does not have fda.

Apologies for any inaccuracy. It is important that my statement is correct so please PM. I don't want the messenger shot, I want 100% accurate info to be posted here, for obvious reasons.

[buoy15]

Surely the probe is pressurised with Nitrogen prior to, and after re-fuel, which is inert?

[nigegilb]

I understand the MR2 AAR probe has a nitrogen inerting system, surprisingly, this system was not deemed necessary for MRA4. With the enhanced range offered by MRA4 there is no requirement for it to be AAR ready on delivery. Unfortunately, the MRA4 probe will contain pressurized fuel regardless.

My main point in Post 1014, is that MRA4, will have significantly less protection than the 1950s ac it replaces. It is foolish and I would say criminal to procure such an aircraft, especially after XV230 and especially at a time of war.

[Tappers Dad]

I am struggling with some abbreviations can anyone help please.
Could you tell me what the following are and a brief explaination either in a pm or on the forum.

RAMS
NSG
CWP/FRA
NAEDIT/NLS
NLS
FSS
COS(Ops)
MPI
ASIPT
FS EP+R
OC L5F
FRA
WO L5W
AOC
OC L5F
DAS
OC COS
PJHQ
ACC

Its a long list i know but the BOI is on it's way in about 6 weeks so I need to get into the jargon.

[Tappers Dad]

Thanks for the information ??? You know who you are.

[ThirdMonkey]

I don't wish to sound patronising, but you have to stop being such a SAD character & get over it!!

I was widowed many years ago (not giving too many details) & left on my own with 2 young children as a result of losing my husband (aircrew). Your attitude is apalling!

Perhaps when you get the BOI you will finally SHUT UP & leave the other families involved & widows in peace to get on with their lives instead of constantly lambasting everybody involved!! I only hope for your sake that you eventually come to terms with what has happened & find peace!

[Mr Point]

Third Monkey,

Please accept that each of us have our own way of grieving. To lose a partner must be incredibly difficult to deal with, but as a parent just imagine what it must be like.

Even if they are old enough to look after themselves, your children are still your children.

Mr P.

[Tappers Dad]

Third Monkey
I am very sorry to hear of the loss of your husband, it must have been hard for you bringing up two children on your own.
You appear to be very angry, perhaps this recent Nimrod crash has opened up old wounds for you now.
I too feel angry at times this is all part of the grieving process I am told.
I do hope I will eventually come to terms with what has happened & find peace but it is all so raw at the moment and feels like only yesterday that we had that knock at the door.

[Da4orce]

Thirdmonkey

I am very sorry for your loss, you are obviously a great advert for the old maxim that time is a great healer.

It's been only just 12 months since XV230 went down, it's still very raw.

Everybody deals with grief in different ways, there are no rules when it comes to grieving.

Human beings are all different some sit back and take everything that life throws at them, good or bad, without question. However there are others that have the courage of their conviction to stand up and be counted, to stand up and say NO this is not acceptable. If there were not people like that in this world you and I would almost certainly be speaking German now.

[Chugalug2]

Third Monkey,
I am sorry about your loss. If the point of this thread was merely to encourage those who have likewise lost loved ones it would have a somewhat limited application. It is for Tapper's Dad and others who post here to say why they do so. For myself, I have a very great concern as to what has happened to the once very effective machinery of Flight Safety in the Royal Air Force in particular. Time was when all "Incidents" that occurred in service would be the subject of reports which would build up a statistical base for action whose aim would be to prevent repetition and in particular to avoid more serious outcomes, ie accidents. Accidents in turn would be the subject of BoIs whose remit was to determine what had happened, why, and what should be done to prevent further Accidents. The action for both Incidents and Accidents was invariably forthcoming, as by spending money, the MOD would save money as well as lives. All this happens today with the glaring exception of the last sentence IMHO. Money is not spent because there is no money available, so more money and more lives are lost. That is unacceptable, and that is why people post on this thread and others. Already the airworthiness of the Hercules Fleet has been notably improved thanks to the fitting of ESF despite MOD reluctance to do so. The campaign that was conducted in part on PPRune had much to do with that achievement. Now it is the Nimrod Fleet Airworthiness that is similarly under discussion. Hence Tappers Dad's enquiries, which might lead to revelations of shortcomings in the fleet. Should it be the job of a chat site to point up such deficiencies, real or imagined? Yes, in my view, when there has been testimony here of deliberate subverting in the MOD of the Flight Safety process that I described above. The MOD's latest ploy is the DIN issued to limit such talk. They must not succeed in covering up their own inaction.

[Tappers Dad]

Would anyone be able to tell me the difference between Primary Maintenance and the Equalized Maintenance that XV230 had in July 2006.

[Distant Voice]

I understand that in early 2006 there was a plan to bring in a team of specialist from MPI to help out with the Nimrod fuel leak problems. Does anyone know whether if this took place?

DV

[MightyHunter AGE]

Yes it did.

[Tappers Dad]

http://www.mpi.ltd.uk/fuelTank.asp

Fuel tank repairs.

Make your fuel tank problems our problem with MPI 24/7 specialist fuel tank repairs.

MPI 24/7 is a leading specialist in AOG and scheduled fuel tank repairs, aircraft maintenance and modifications, component and loom harness replacement and fuel tank access.

With our guaranteed response times, our unrivalled expertise of working within the Aviation sector, our competitive pricing and full warranties, we pride ourselves in offering a service that is second to none.

[Da4orce]

full warranties !!! :mad:

[MightyHunter AGE]

Yes they have given full warranties and they have been true to their words as well.

I for one was a bit skeptical at first but they have been nothing short of fleet saving as without them, there would be even less Mighty Hunters flying around in the sandy place as there are now.

The guarantee their work and do a brilliant job. as a stop gap they have been great but the money has ran out, will we get more, who knows..................

[tucumseh]

MH AGE

“but the money has ran out, will we get more, who knows..................”


It is well known that, in similar circumstances, a certain RW IPT contacted former, retired staff, asked for their full contact details and told them they were expected to help, advise and assist as and when required. Free of Charge.

Same happened with another non-aircraft IPT when their consultancy budget ran out.

Word is they haven’t had a bite yet.

[santiago15]

full warranties !!!

Da4orce,

What you suggesting?

[Tappers Dad]

santiago15
Maybe what Da4orce is suggesting is answered by MightyHunter AGE in his posting.

MightyHunter AGE said;
Yes they have given full warranties and they have been true to their words as well.
I understand the repairs were guaranteed for 12 mths/2000 Fg Hrs.
How many hrs a day do the Nimrods fly lets say 8 hrs so I make that 250 days.
It would appear from MightyHunter AGE posting that they have had to do further repairs within that warranty time .

[Distant Voice]

Does anyone know when the money ran out? To within amonth or so.

DV

[Da4orce]

santiago15

full warranties !!! Da4orce,

What you suggesting?

I had to restrain myself, what I wanted to say was that the 'full warranty' didn't do 230 and her crew much good.

I also read warranty as guarantee, which are clearly two different things, a warranty is described as:

a written promise from a company to repair or replace a product that develops a fault within a fixed period of time, or to do a piece of work again if it is not satisfactory

Was this warranty supplied by a private company? If so maybe the RAF should ask them for a recplacement jet as it's obviously not possible to repair it.

[Distant Voice]

Fuel tank leak or not, just seen a report (under FOI) which states that XV230 had leaks in rib 7 area in June. Any claims made against MPI yet?

DV

[Da4orce]

You're pointing the finger based on the assumption that 230 was lost due to a tank leak. Big balls without seeing the BOI report.

You're right, I should clarify, I believe it may have been a contributing factor. Although I understand that the list of faults with the jet ran into the hundreds so it could have been one of many.

[Biggus]

Da4orce

I realise this is an emotive subject - and you are far better informed than me. But just a thought in reply to comments like....'the list of faults with the jet ran into the hundreds'.... which will have a strong impact on most laypeople.

I once flew on a civy widebody (300+) seater, where about 1 in 3 of the rear seat entertainment centres (approx 100) weren't working. Thus this jet had at least 100 faults - but did that mean it wasn't safe to fly? Just trying to show that such comments need to be seen in context - I am most definitely not saying whether XV230 was, or was not, safe to fly on that fateful day!!

By the way..... Tappers Dad. From what I know of RAF aircraft usage I would be very surprised if any Nimrod MR2 flew 2,000 hours in less than one year!

Best wishes in your quest for answers!

[tucumseh]

Biggus

I, for one, take your point –re faults entirely. But, given the MoD’s tendency to lie through their back teeth on this subject, and the verifiable fact that in 1991 they pulled almost all funding for fault investigations – and with it the capacity to actually carry out investigations properly, resulting in an instruction to Engineering Authorities to reduce the number of requests for investigation – then I believe Tapper’s Dad and Da4orce are better to ask the questions. This may seem a long time ago, but the effects take years to manifest themselves, and when they do they are almost impossible to retrospectively correct.

The above relates primarily to electronic equipment (sea, land and air), which bore the main brunt of the cuts. The main effect on aircraft (less this equipment) was increasingly poor configuration control, which of course impacts on the ability to maintain a seamless airworthiness audit trail. On more than one occasion the Defence Select Committee has given MoD an ear-bending about this, so this is in the public domain. The problem is that the Committee don’t dig deeper or follow up, so nothing gets done.

Similarly, this doesn’t mean all aircraft and equipment are not airworthy or safe. But it does clearly demonstrate a failure of process and lack of duty of care, compounded by the prevailing view in many IPTs that these processes are a waste of money.

[Distant Voice]

Tapper's Dad & Biggus:

2000hrs or 1 year, it does not matter. What is significant is that when, on 7th June 2006, XV230's Limitations Log read "Wing stations at rib 7 port and stbd not to be loaded. Fuel leaking ......", neither period had been achieved. So, I ask again, what claims have been made against MPI?

DV

[Mad_Mark]

Although I understand that the list of faults with the jet ran into the hundreds so it could have been one of many.

That would make one hell of a thick F700 :rolleyes:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[MightyHunter AGE]

DV said
2000hrs or 1 year, it does not matter. What is significant is that when, on 7th June 2006, XV230's Limitations Log read "Wing stations at rib 7 port and stbd not to be loaded. Fuel leaking ......", neither period had been achieved. So, I ask again, what claims have been made against MPI?

And what is SIGNIFICANT is that this fuel leak would have been rectified otherwise IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GULF WITH BOZ PODS FITTED. You yourself have just stated it said in the lim said that boz pods were not to be fitted. So the leaks would HAVE to be RECTIFIED before the pods were put onto the jet. What part of this do you fail to understand?

What type of claim should be made against MPI and for what tell me? Me thinks your years away from engineering are clouding your memory of the basic principles of aircraft servicing and airworthiness.


As as for that or any other jet having hundreds of faults, you are all living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mad Mark hit the nail on the head, what size of 700 do you think that would take to hold.
Sure jets have ADFs and Lims but do you honestly think that we just stick everything in the book, or even don't bother and just lets jets fly around unsafe. Keep putting into question the ground crews professionalism and you will get no more help or comments from us.

[tucumseh]

MH AGE

Like everyone else involved in servicing, you and your colleagues can only work to the publications provided. Long ago, I did the same, and it never really crossed my mind to ask if the pubs were correct, up to date or if they reflected (or were traceable to) the build standard of the tail number that was presented for CA (MA) Release, and which the Release to Service was based upon. Yes, I could raise a MF765, but only for simple things – if something was omitted I wouldn’t necessarily know that. This is a fundamental requirement of airworthiness - the build standard of all aircraft in a given fleet must be traceable to that first aircraft. Not necessarily the same, but traceable. The process which is designed to ensure this is largely ignored and under funded.

I can cite hundreds of examples where the above traceability doesn’t exist. I’ve seen units get a replacement LRU and say “WTF is this”?” as its mod state bears no resemblance to what’s in the Topic 2. An example. One LRU, in one of our more recent aircraft, has over 60 mods missing from the Topic 2 compared to the DA approved build standard. Complete areas of functionality are missing. If you don’t maintain that build standard, your APs aren’t current and, unwittingly, you don’t maintain it to the correct standard. That particular LRU was also procured for Nimrod MR2. I don’t know if it’s been fitted yet (it’s only 17 years since it was delivered).

Related to this, a good question is not what the build standard is, but what it would be if all ADA Engineering Change Proposals were accepted and incorporated in the design. We already know of one important one that was not – fire suppression. I suspect these decisions are now taken almost exclusively on financial grounds, with engineering / safety a poor second.

So, I do not think anyone doubts your professionalism. Rather, it is the lack of professionalism and integrity of our masters. Apologies for repeating previous discussion from the Mull thread, but it is important to appreciate the common threads that run through these tragic incidents. Chinook, too, did not have up to date pubs, or this traceability. MoD says it doesn’t matter. They are wrong.

[Tappers Dad]

I understand that XV230 was using TS-1 jet fuel which is a kerosine type fuel with slightly higher volatility (flash point is 28°C minimum) and lower freeze point (<–50°C) compared with Jet A-1.jet fuel.
What type of fuel does Nimrods use in the UK and what are the flash point temp for the fuel and what is th freeze point compared with its normal aviation fuel ?

[Da4orce]

Keep putting into question the ground crews professionalism and you will get no more help or comments from us.

I have never intentionally called into question the ground crews professionalism, I have no evidence with which to do so. Appologies if that is how it has come across.

As the F700 was lost with the jet I can't comment on it's thickness. Unfortunately I can't respond any further at this time other than to say that the FOI Act makes it very difficult for this Government to hide the facts.

[Distant Voice]

Mighty Hunter AGE: No the years are not clouding my memory. In fact, as the song goes " I see much clearly now .....".

The point I am making, which I will put across in a polite manner, is that I have assumed that on 7th June 2006 XV230 was in the Gulf when the leaks at rib 7 were reported. If this is the case and MPI carried out repairs back at base before its departure then claims are in order. Do you get the message.

By the way, try and be polite with your replies

DV

[MightyHunter AGE]

DV

Apologies if you were offended by my last post, it is no worse than some of the strong posts put on here by others.

MHAGE out.

[Distant Voice]

Mighty Hunter AGE: Many thanks, no problems.

Would be useful if you could confirm that XV230 was in Gulf in June 2006.

DV

[DaveyBoy]

The normal fuel used by Nimrods in the UK is AVTUR/FSII.

The properties for this fuel are defined in Defence Standard 91-87 (http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/91/087/00000500.pdf), currently at Issue 5 Amendment 2, which specifies the flash point to be a minimum of 38C and the freezing point to be a maximum of -47C.

[Shack37]

I have followed this thread from day one but I don't recall any reference before to something Da4orce mentioned yesterday re the F700 being lost with the aircraft. It's many years since I left the RAF but I'm sure that back then an aircraft carrying it's own F700 was a no no. Normal procedure in the event of an accident was the "locking away" of the F700.
s37

[Tappers Dad]

Thanks DaveyBoy

Shack37
Heres a snippet from an FOI request.
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs. Original Limitations Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.

Unless someone else knows different ?

[Shack37]

TD,
Thanks for that, has anyone queried why this document was on board the aircraft during an operational mission? I can understand it (just maybe) if it was a transit.
Keep searching.
s37

[MightyHunter AGE]

Gents it is standard practice on the Nimrod fleet (and I suspect other large aircraft fleets) for the F700 to fly on the aircraft on EVERY sortie not just transits.

I must admit I was shocked when I first saw this (Hunters, Buccs and Tonkas certainly don't carry them unless on a transit) and asked the question why.

The answer was (i) its always been like that at Kinloss (standard answer there) (ii) there is always a danger that an aircraft diverts to another base and (iii) it is inconvenient for the aircrew (bless, how do other aircrew manage then?).

Well I have been at ISK for 6 years now (yes I know compared to some but at least I have worked on other jets!) but I cant remember the last time a jet diverted away from base.

I thought this practice would change post crash but it hasn't. Maybe post BOI it will, who knows.

MHAGE

[AC Ovee]

Shack,
There is no reason why a F700 cannot be taken airborne in its aircraft. Every page in the F700, with one exception, has supporting and validating entries in other documents held on the ground. Although there might be original signatures in the F700, the signatories must also sign verbatim records in the ground-only documents that give rise to the entries in the F700. Therefore there is no vulnerability to losing unique records. The only pages which must not be carried are the flight servicing certificates because they hold unique records. When away from base, the certificate should be posted home.

[Shack37]

MH AGE & AC

Thanks for your replies. Back in the dark ages, I guess what we called Job Cards would provide that info with more detail than just a line in the F700. These recorded the details of the work done and were signed and, if necessary, oversigned. Last entry was always the loose article check.

s37

[Distant Voice]

I can say that it has not always been the case that the F700 flew with Nimrod a/c.

People that I have spoken to can not believe that the main a/c document, which contains the basic history and from which all other document flows, is allowed to fly with the a/c. I my time if an accident happened the first thing that was done was to impound the F700.

No wonder it is taking the BOI so long, they are having to work backwards.



DV

[Vim_Fuego]

In my just over 21 years it always has...The chief took the servicing certificate and any last minute crew-in completed job cards before he scuttled off and the 700 was placed in a stowage behind the aft galley seat...We would then add snags into it as the sortie progressed or as we were on the approach.

[South Bound]

Probably worth remembering that the F700 has lots of information in it that aircrews need to be able to operate the aircraft. Where there are a great many systems associated with a number of roles, the F700 may need to be referred to in flight. This is perfectly normal and understandable - one would not expect the crews to remember the faults/limitations/config of a particular aircraft and is particularly true of most of the big toys.

[Pontius Navigator]

In my just over 21 years it always has...The chief took the servicing certificate and any last minute crew-in completed job cards before he scuttled off and the 700 was placed in a stowage behind the aft galley seat...We would then add snags into it as the sortie progressed or as we were on the approach.

And of course if it was a Det/Post-Det transit the paperwork was swapped between aircraft. Bit of a bummer if there was a mid-air but fortunately, touchwood, that is unlikely.

[fergineer]

I can say that when I first flew the Nimrod in 78 the F700 was carried on board.

[Tappers Dad]

I think the practise of keeping the F700 on the ac is an outmoded practise. This was a Nimrod jam full of communication equipment in the year 2006 why did they need to carry around a paper file whats wrong with keeping it digitally. Does the information in the F700 never get put on a computer or is it all hand written and only kept in that file?

[tucumseh]

TD

What you say may seem logical but fully digitised data is too easily manipulated/erased. Better to retain a paper audit trail. MoD may still destroy and/or deny the existence of paper (as witnessed by at least one fatal GW2 incident, on 22nd March 2003; and almost certainly the one on the following day), but it is more difficult to manipulate and certifiable copies can be kept and produced as evidence (as witnessed by.........2003).


Don't trust them as far as you can throw them.

[GeoIntel]

I have been reading this excellent site for some time but i feel this thread needs some comments. Sorry but:

I first flew in XV 230 on Feb 4th 1971. It leaked fuel then.

On the first day of Aircrew training an instructor bluntly told us that we may be shot down, killed and fly pieces of junk if required to, in defence of the country, in all weathers at all times, that we were all volunteers for aircrew and if we liked to work in a comfortable workshop we should stay as groundcrew. (Yes I used to fly as groundcrew!)

The intelligence business isn't glamorous, and the closer you get to the centre of power the worse it gets. But as the eyes and ears of the military and government it is a job that has to be done, and the risks are well known.

The Nimrod was an absolute mismatch of conflicting requirements from day one, stuck together to please left wing labour politicians. Today the delusions of politicians task them with conflicts they were never designed for, and when things go wrong politicians cover up as they do all around the world. But consider the majority of us voted them into office.

So please salute those lost in XV 230 for their voluntary service to their country and move on. I am sure they knew the risks, don't need lawsuits or conspiracy theories, and without brave people who volunteer to risk their lives for their country we would not enjoy the freedoms we have.

[Safety_Helmut]

TD
You could start a whole thread on the money (millions) and effort that the MoD has wasted on electronic F700s.
S_H

[South Bound]

Yep, agree completely. Every attempt to introduce an electronic logbook has been a farce as none of them replicate the airworthiness functionality and basic practicality of the paper book. Notwithstanding the inconvenience that the missing F700 can cause, all of the information is available elsewhere, it just needs to be put together.

Interesting to see how the A400M's Maintenance Data System (which will include an e-F700) is proceeding.

[Tappers Dad]

GeoIntel


So please salute those lost in XV 230 for their voluntary service to their country and move on. I am sure they knew the risks, don't need lawsuits or conspiracy theories, and without brave people who volunteer to risk their lives for their country we would not enjoy the freedoms we have.


My son was fond of his quotes and you sound like a character from one of his favorite films.
A Few Good Men
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup):

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post".

I am grateful for the blanket of freedom provided by our armed forces.
HOWEVER:

I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.
I will question the RAF's duty of care.
I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.
I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.
I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.
I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).
Without fuel tank protection.
Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
Without bomb bay fire protection.
Without flight deck armour.

I am sure there are many who read this would prefer I said thank you, and went on my way.

Sorry it isn't going to happen, not just yet.

[Wader2]

I am sure there are many who read this would prefer I said thank you, and went on my way.

TD, I would certainly challenge 'many' and even suggest just 'one or two'.

You, and all the others who lost loved ones deserve the truth and you have certainly drawn attendion to many issues that cannot now be ignored.

Yes, we do you salute them and also you, in your efforts.

Thank you.

[Distant Voice]

Spot on Wader2.

DV

[GeoIntel]

Thank you for the compliment but more like Alan Alder in MASH than Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men. Having had opportunities to see behind "The Wizard of Oz" curtain on many occasions I prefer Hawkeye to Jessup!

>I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.

Known highly volatile and unsafe fuel, wartime operating, spark and oxygen. The question should be "Was the loss worth it to the mission and the outcome of the war." Probably the answer is NO! That is a question worth pursuing.

>I will question the RAF's duty of care.

No military service has any "duty of care", just to carry out the orders of politicians, and that often means innocent people suffering. Today our losses are small compared to the thousands per day in WWII, and tens of thousands per day in WWI. The RAF has never had enough of anything and has operated as an illusion for the last 50 years. It is a credit to everyone, groundcrew and aircrew, that more haven't been lost.

>I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.

There can be a good case made to ground every aircraft, civil or military, as well as keep every car, motor bike, even bicycle in the garage. (I did have the Nimrods grounded once, and was quickly moved on to training Navigators at Finningley.) In a wartime scenario you go with what you have got, not what you want. The Nimrod was designed to fly Maritime Recce, anti-submarine warfare, and to drop parachutists through the rear door. If George Bush wanted a crop spaying aircraft Blair would have volunteered the Nimrod. Who then is at fault, the RAF or politicians?

>I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.

Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".

>I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.

Unrealistic dreams of our "Leaders" who for the last 60 years still believe the UK can project global power, with a budget to run the Isle of Wight Ferry. We forget the Valiant, TSR2, F-111 and a whole string of "Dream Machines' we could not afford, then there are missile systems, avionics and facilities that were hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, to fool the voters.

>I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).

With satellites and Drones the argument could be made for moving into the 21st Century and completely re-examining the whole concept.

>Without fuel tank protection.

Same argument as every civilian airliner. The JP1/JP4 argument again, and the quality of aviation fuel supplied to US led forces.

>Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
>Without bomb bay fire protection.
>Without flight deck armour.

Because the political "leaders" we voted into power decided on our behalf to use the very small UK pot of money to support social programs, building Millennium theme parks, and renovating palaces instead of making their front line military aircraft safer. Compare your points to the thousands of grieving US parents asking why the Humvee did not have the basic protection, or those who dare ask why Leander Frigates were built to burn like a Thermite Bomb, as shown during the Falklands War.

As long as incompetent officials, military and political can hide behind the archaic Official Secrets Act there will never be accountability for stupid, fraudulent and senseless decisions. The UK military have been brainwashed to believe the media are their enemies, as shown by the rhetoric against the BBC. The media are the only defence against the legions of faceless bureaucrats who have absolutely no regard for their "Subjects" life or safety.

Keep up your quest for answers, but ask the politicians "Why" and not get sidetracked by worrying where the F700 was stored, or the other Red Herrings that distract. When you get slapped with a "D Notice" you know you are getting near the truth, and the guilty are feeling the heat!

[FATTER GATOR]

'The Nimrod was designed to fly Maritime Recce, anti-submarine warfare, and to drop parachutists through the rear door.'


'...to drop parachutists through the rear door.'

Really?

I never knew that. Anyone actually seen that done?

[nigegilb]

TD keep a very close eye on the Hercules Inquest. I wouldn't be surprised if the MoD try to claim that they have learned the lessons of the the shooting down ov XV179. This could be their potential get out of jail card.

Remember, previous requests for foam were turned down and that after the tragedy the MoD responded with a plan fit foam to just 5 Hercules aircraft, with absolutely no urgency.

That was before the all arms media campaign. I would agree with geointel,
learn to love the media. That is the counterpoint in the UK. (The Tories were useless).

That MRA4 is being introduced without the long list of protection shows clearly that the lessons learned by the MoD were very selective and were designed to counter embarrassing media and parliamentary coverage.
Keep banging away. When the BoI is published we may require another media barrage.
If so, all hands on deck!!

[GeoIntel]

I recall the seats at the rear of the Nimrod were built in as a troop carrying requirement and the original negotiations included the bird brained ability to drop parachutists through the rear door. There was a serious disarmanent group within the labour movement and the multi purpose plan was the only way to get such an expensive design through the left wing loonies. (Michael Foot, Harold Wilson and Dennis Healey come to mind, although others may have a better idea.)

I remember there were reports of one, repeat one, brave soul who rolled out to prove the concept. The port engines had to be shut down, and the parachutists only just missed the tail. Unfortunately I have no verification of this, but will double check.

Keep in mind the MR1 was a mismatch of ideas, systems and suppliers. The computer came out of an army tank, the radio from the canceled TSR2 and the whole concept was half-assed. It was sold to HMG as an unarmed reconnaissance platform, with nuclear weapons. How the Soviets didn't shoot it down and start WWIII was amazing in hindsight. But after the Shackleton 3.3 it was sheer luxury, and an occasional ATU fire was worth the comfort.

[Safeware]

GeoIntel
While it doesn't contain the words "duty of care", you might want to consider the Secretary of State's policy statement here:

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B3BDB2F1-2253-4DCF-B38D-98EE6B29F152/0/SofSPolicyStatement.pdf

sw

[speeddial]

"No military service has any "duty of care"

GeoIntel, I suggest you try Googling for MoD duty of care, this is the 2000s we're in, not 1940s.

[GeoIntel]

Yes sir, you are correct, and sitting pretty in peacetime home bases, listening to the birds, and watching the butterflies flutter by these pontifications meet the statutory demands of Parliament to comply with domestic health and safety.

The relevant "Get out of Jail Free Clause" is:

"2.4 Where the Ministry of Defence has been granted specific exemptions, disapplications or derogations from legislation, international treaties or protocols, we will introduce standards and management arrangements that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation. I will invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation only on the grounds of national security and only when such action is essential to maintain operational capability. Where there is no relevant legislation, internal standards will aim to optimise the balance between risks and benefits. This does not mean avoiding risks but managing them responsibly, on the basis of impact and likelihood, supported by appropriate rules, procedures and guidance. "

There are also many, many international binding treaties, legislation, orders and agreements that we do not invade sovereign countries, won't indulge in Rendition flights, attack unarmed civilians, bomb civilian targets arrest or torture poor sods we don't like.

When bullets start flying, bombs start exploding and we enter a war scenario then I would suggest these noble documents are ignored. Then the mission becomes the only criteria and you can be shot for not complying. I wasn't around in the 1940's conflict but the 2000's were the worst period in history for ignoring policy statements, treaties, and laws.

You need to dig a lot deeper than Google!!

[Chugalug2]

"I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure."

Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".

Well short of quoting Homer J Simpson's "Yeah? Well, what can you do?", that seems to write off Flight Safety with one proverbial shrug of the shoulders! I would suggest that Civil Aviation has changed itself over the decades from one of the most dangerous to one of the safest forms of transport by taking a totally contrary point of view. That is that every accident has a primary cause, with many contributory ones no doubt, that can all be attended to with (a)technical, (b)training and (c)procedural changes. That used to be the system used in the RAF in my time, but seems to be less so now as a, b, and c cost money, though d, the continued predictable and inevitable repeat accidents caused by not applying a, b and c costs much more financially, operationally and worst of all needlessly costs lives.

As long as incompetent officials, military and political can hide behind the archaic Official Secrets Act there will never be accountability for stupid, fraudulent and senseless decisions. The UK military have been brainwashed to believe the media are their enemies, as shown by the rhetoric against the BBC. The media are the only defence against the legions of faceless bureaucrats who have absolutely no regard for their "Subjects" life or safety.


Speaking as one who frequently indulges in "rhetoric" aimed at the BBC all I can say is that if they are the only defence that the armed forces have against the MOD's apparatchiks then they are indeed doomed. This government has an attitude about the Armed Forces, its political party shares that attitude, as does the BBC, as do great swathes of the population, witness only just over 1000 signatures in support of the RBL's Military Covenant protest petition. None of that makes it acceptable for the MOD to equip the RAF with unairworthy aircraft. That is the nub of this thread, that is the thrust of TD's search, and the proof will be found in the very same paper audit trail that tuc commends to us.

[The Poison Dwarf]

The RAF DOES have a "duty of care" under the Health & Safety at Work Act (1974), in fact your place of work should have a copy of the HSE poster prominently displayed, along with a H&S policy statement from the Secretary of State and another signed by the Station Commander.

However, the Act states that "reasonable" measures should be taken to provide for a safe working environment.

It cannot define what "reasonable" means in every circumstances and I'm sure that NOBODY on this forum would take that to include NOT sending our armed forces into hostile situations, it's the nature of their job when all else, particularly political action, has failed.

However, if there are circumstances of inadequate protection, inadequate maintenance (for whatever reason - and I'm not having a pop at the servicing people here, under resourcing is the significant factor), then there may be a case to answer, but only the legal eagles can sort that one out.

TD, you are quite right, as well you know, to pursue answers, otherwise "silence gives consent", if you don't ask the tough questions, then, by implication you are content, that's the way politics works.

On the subject of dropping parachutists out of the back of a Nimrod, that suggestion lasted until it was pointed out that letting people fall through the jet eflux of 2 Spey 250s (4 if both doors were used) was probably not a good idea!

It, fortunately, went the same way as dropping SF troops, in a "container" from the bomb bay, or a GPMG through a gland in the port beam window (right across the intakes and a couple of fuel tanks - wonderful idea), or the same GPMG attached to a swinging cradle, firing out of the port rear door - the assembly for that one was tried out of a Puma on Aberporth range; the way that was supposed to be aimed was pure Marx Brothers (no, not Karl).

There were, however, several configurations touted by BAe when the MR1 first came into service, in addition to the MR and R variants, there was a tanker version, an AEW version with guess what, an overhead rotating scanner, not an easter egg at either end, and even a passenger version - guess you could have called that a Comet!

BAe produced a very pretty glossy pamphlet at the time, showing all of the possible variations, sadly, I did not hang onto it.

I'm sorry if this has drifted off topic and I wouldn't want it to detract in any way from the prime aim of getting answers as to why that tragedy ocurred, nor to trivialise the aims of this forum, but it does show that the grasp that some VSOs have on reality is, at best, tenuous.

Sloppiness and self-interest are not tolerated at the lower end of the food chain, so why should those at the top not be held accountable? After all they receive their not inconsiderable salaries on the basis that they are "responsible" for the armed forces, well let them take some responsibility.

[GeoIntel]

An excellent and informative reply. Good luck on getting anyone in Whitehall to accept either responsibility or admit shortcomings.

[Safety_Helmut]

This thread has run to 55 pages so far, as ever on pprune there has been some lively debate as people have expressed their opinions. Most of the contributors are well known and have established their credibility one way or the other.

Then there are those who join just to post on this thread, to offer their opinion, well they are free to do that. But please, don't just come on here with a few reminiscences of the Nimrod being designed for para dropping blah blah etc whilst at the same time displaying a startling ignorance of MoD policies, procedures and standards etc.

Have a read through the thread, all 55 pages of it, read some of the other threads on similar subjects, try and get an understanding of what people are discussing. Then, when you've done that, come back and tell us if you still feel the same way, and tell us if you think people should just stay silent when they know that things are inadequate, wrong or involve significantly greater risk than is necessary.

[GeoIntel]

Love to but we don't have the MoD posters used to inform the grease monkeys here in Washington, DC, just the people who make the decisions. I will ask Tony Blair to bring some over at his next Carlysle board meeting.

Tappers Dad - Please don't construe my comments as suggesting you ever stop rattling cages. I have serious issues myself with MoD and USN policy in preserving an effective MR capability, which will be essential in the years, possibly months ahead.

And Helmut, sorry but we are fighting a growing global war, which we are losing, and some of us haven't the time to read 55 pages, or cross post under every miscellaneous thread from motor cycles to gossip, just to get a "feel". My "feel" is that the Iranians want all the Nimrods & MR aircraft out of the skies, so do the Chinese and Russians. We should not help them with stupidity and incompetence.

[Distant Voice]

GeoIntel: Saddam realised that the Iranians were the problem back in the early 80's and decided to invaid. Twenty years later we are back to square 1 - thanks to US.

You may ask, what has this got to do with Nimrod and pprune? I say everything. Nimrod is just part of the big picture. I get very angry because 14 good men lost their lives, and good men and women lose their lives on a regular basis; not defending Queen and country but (1) fighting poppy farmers that the CIA trained to fight the Russians and (2) fighting an enemy in Iraq that wasn't there before 2002.

We have limited manpower and money, it should not be wasted fighting Bush's war.

And before you say anything about "knocking" our troops, I am not doing that. Our troops are the best in the world, it is just that they are being directed by fools.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

If anyone wants to talk to me about MODE-S and the Nimrod fleet please PM me.

[Safety_Helmut]

May be of use:

http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=810

http://www.eurocontrol.int/msa/public/subsite_homepage/homepage.html

S_H

[Tappers Dad]

Thanks for the information S-H however I am more concerned with if it is being fitted on the Nimrod.

I know a new EU ruling comes into force with regard to aircraft safety. All aircraft with a maximum take-off mass in excess of 5700 kg,need to have a MOde S transponder fitted by 31st March 2008 to fly in European airspace.

Is the Nimrod having it fitted?

[GeoIntel]

Agreed! It has everything to do with what you said, but reality is much worse. This isn't even the "US's" war for the vast majority are against it, and many more military units and hardware will be sacrificed before it ends. You are now at the core issue behind this original thread! And for the record it is Cheney's war.

[Safety_Helmut]

GI

Take it elsewhere will you. Either to another forum or start another thread, but don't please don't turn this one into a political debate for you to voice your irrelevant (to this thread) opinions on.

You are wrong about getting to the "core issue behind this original thread". If you can't work out the core issues for this thread, and the others I referred you to, then you really should stick to organising tea parties. And if you can't be bothered to read the rest of the thread, because your'e too busy cosying up to people, then it's probably best not to bother at all.

S_H

[Distant Voice]

S_H

You are out of order. The whole thing is political.

DV

[Safety_Helmut]

DV

A fairly predictable, shallow and easy to make response. Yes, you can easily say "the whole thing is political", you could just as easily say "it's all down to money" couldn't you ? Then we could all quieten down and enjoy/suffer the status quo.

Wouldn't it better to keep the global political debates for another forum/thread ?

S_H

[GeoIntel]

Ja mein Helmut. Ve should worry about the engineering specs and operating rules of der ovens and not vorry about these lines of screaming people. Ve are adhering to SOP's and ve should ignore and NEVER speak politics.

Sorry for being so flippant with such a serious subject Helmut, and yes there needs to be another thread for the political discourse so you can quietly grease your nipples and ignore the dangers to our front line military, and the population of our major cities.

Organizing Tea Parties? With the world spiraling out of control I may just take your advice and do that. Earl Grey anyone?

You could answer a question for me as I pop off and cosy up to talkative politicians, "Why was XV230 and other Nimrods being wasted over Afghanistan and not tracking North Korean ships." If you don't understand the question, ask the Israelis. Why are we penny-pinching the only platform that can potential save London?

Clue:You won't find that answer on any Health and Safety poster, it's political!

[TheStrawMan]

GeoIntel

What an interesting home page you have.

Born in Wakefield, Yorkshire in the industrialized North of England he has worked in every major city in Europe, and fully appreciates the culture and traditions of Europe. He served in the Royal Air Force and worked closely with all military services, giving him a firm grounding in leadership and protocol. For President Reagan he visited over 125 Embassies and Consulates developing Public Diplomacy networks.
He has spoken at the United Nations on five occasions, testified to the US Congress and keynoted conferences around the world. He now advises corporations, business leaders and government agencies on Corporate Diplomacy and executive entertaining.

No wonder it is all political to you.

[GeoIntel]

Absolutely correct!

You missed serving on the Air Safety Group in the House of Commons, and teaching hundreds of senior airline and military captains in safe flight operations in Dallas, TX, when I left the dirty world of politics and went back to aviation for a while. You also missed being one of the very first Brits to be allowed to Join the US Intel Association.

That does not alter my absolute disgust at what we are doing with our Maritime Intelligence capability, as large amounts of nuclear material is on the market and our recce capability is being used to watch Pongos shooting at mud hut villages.

By the way I would have preferred "negotiating" instead of "entertaining" in that blurb but the more I find absolute ignorance at what is going on in the world I may take SH and my wife's suggestions and focus on bringing people together to discuss and negotiate through "Tea Parties", we do own "Chef's Studio" and LTN. Hmmmm... Earl Grey, and Gourmet sandwiches!

Just remember there is as much gossip and leaking in the UN, Congress and in Parliament as there is in the Crew Room. That's how you get through the "Iron Curtain of Secrecy."

[Chugalug2]

Geointel, I once had a flying instructor who like you was a Yorkshire man. Unlike you he was a man of few words, but I suspect that the ones he would use in your case would have been his trademark "F...ing stuff and f...ing nonsense". It is perhaps for DV to say what "the core issue behind this original thread" might be, seeing as he initiated it, but as I understand it is about the loss of XV230 and the 14 men manning it. That is a big enough issue for myself to grapple with, and I suspect the bulk of the other posters to this thread. For those who might wish to follow you into a digression about "Life, the Universe and the meaning of everything" why not take Safety Helmut's advice and start an appropriate thread of your own?

[GeoIntel]

Good idea, although I like the Tea Party suggestion better.

Carry on Gentlemen!

[Shack37]

It seems the thrust of recent posters has been a debate on what this thread is about, each concluding that the others don't understand or are mistaken, thereby successfully avoiding actually discussing the subject of the thread. If you've managed to get all the way through that last sentence can we get back to why 230 exploded?
s37

[nigegilb]

TD, it is my understanding that Mode S is not going to be fitted to the Nimrod, certainly not by Mar 2008. I also understand that failure to comply with the Mar 2008 deadline would require the Nimrod to take an enormous dogleg to avoid European overland. To get around this problem, I expect an engineering det to be set up at Akrotiri. It would appear that the MoD will do anything to avoid spending any money on this aircraft.

[merlinxx]

Your comment re the RBL covenant is rather out of place. I placed my name on the list, but how many of Joe public had any idea of this. I posted this to all my industry & personal chums who had/have connections with our military (all services, but mainly aviation), they posted. Out of the total who posted, how many were service military, how many ex, and how many non military such as I?

It frightens me that this level of apathy could possibly be self generated, yes the media seems (to me it IS) anti military. This is surely down to the Chiefs of Staff who only bollocks-up when they've the pension!

I thought the RBL did not get the publicity right, maybe this can be reborn with the upcoming Poppy appeal?

[fergineer]

Niggilb....and I suppose TCAS is fitted as well!!!!!! most of the sevice fleet did not comply with TCAS when I was flying the routes!!!!!And what else do not only the Nimrod have not fitted but the rest of the Multi engine fleet. This is not a new problem and is one that will be completed only when aircraft are re routed many times and end up unable to complete tasks. Boy am I glad to be out of it now.

[Chugalug2]

Chugalug2 & RBL

Your comment re the RBL covenant is rather out of place.Not only out of place, but wrong, as I see that the count on page two of the RBL thread reached in excess of 7500, to plunge to barely 1000 on page three! I can’t find the up to date figure on the RBL site, without going through the signing up process again. So apologies to all for posting data that was both incorrect and out of place!
None the less, my personal experience has been to hear some pretty tough minded attitudes from some civilians, to the extent that those who volunteer for Military Service should know of the risks involved and not complain, or expect special treatment or recognition if they fall foul of them! I feel that there is a message for this thread here if one includes military airworthiness (or the lack thereof) in such “risks”. For that is surely the MOD philosophy that is in play. Personally I find it even more contemptible than the ignorant views expressed above. Perhaps some of those hard minded civilians might think otherwise if they consider that such compromised aircraft are flying over their houses, schools and hospitals as well as over AFG!
As to publicity for the RBL campaign, it was here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6947770.stm

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6953500.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6953500.stm)

and here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992430.stm


Just for starters!

[AC Ovee]

My understanding of Mode S is that, like TCAS, it is required only at or above above FL300. If I'm correct, this is not an issue.

[nigegilb]

The military exemption is time limited. Nimrods in theatre need to get back to the UK for maintenance. The fuel penalty to avoid Mode S airspace is massive. For this reason an engineering det in Akrotiri is being considered.

[MightyHunter AGE]

I am just wondering from where this magical engineering det in Akt will get its manning from. :bored:

We on NLS certainly dont have enough folk at the moment to cover the working weekends we have been lumbered with EVERY weekend so where this idea has come from is beyond me. :ugh:

Maybe the pixies are being broken out of stores, if so send then down to the line first please.:)

[tucumseh]

Here’s another angle to consider. As aircrew, what would you prefer?

(a) to know the (IFF) functionality was definitely not in your aircraft and to have trained for a “work around”, or,
(b) to be told you had the functionality, and trained accordingly, but it turns out it hasn’t been integrated properly and so doesn’t work?

To be fair, you should know the MoD benchmark decision on this precise issue. PE and DPA 2* and 4*, DE&S, plus 4 successive Min(AF) have ruled (b) is acceptable; most recently last month.

What price Duty of Care?

[AC Ovee]

The fuel penalty to avoid Mode S airspace is massive. For this reason an engineering det in Akrotiri is being considered.

Well, its being considered by a numpty, then.

I don't think I need to explain my comment.

[Tappers Dad]

Nigegilb

For this reason an engineering det in Akrotiri is being considered.

I have heard that recently as well and that the RAF has no money for the MODE S which is fitted for safety reasons.

[nigegilb]

TD, this is most definitely a safety issue. I nearly wiped out in Pakistan airspace back in 2002. Nearly had a mid air against a USAF C130 flying at the wrong level, lights out. Saved by my Air Eng who spotted the potential collision on NVGs and the Co who reacted with an aggressive break at the last second. (Miss distance 50 to 70 feet).

I can't speak for Nimrod engineer manning levels, but this is what happens when everything has been run down to bare thread. I am sure of one thing. the most expedient option, money wise, will be the one selected.

[Mad_Mark]

We on NLS certainly dont have enough folk at the moment to cover the working weekends we have been lumbered with EVERY weekend

I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance! You only work weekends when it is necessary - if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does! :ugh:

Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie! Ohh, but avoid 202 :ooh:

MadMark!!! :mad:

:ouch:

[Not Long Here]

Nigegilb,

I am sorry but I cannot see your incident having any relevance to fitting of Mode S to the Nimrod Fleet.

Mode S is a civilian ATC IFF enhancement giving additional information and with the addition of some extra bits dovetails nicely with ADS-B.

The C-130 not transponding would not have any enhancement offered by Mode S if it ain't switched on and thus would not have been a factor in the tale you related.

[tucumseh]

Instead of debating whether or not Mode S should be in Nimrods, surely the important facts are that;

(a) a fully functional IFF (whatever the appropriate Mk/Mode) is a fundamental safety requirement
(b) senior staffs, up to and including Min(AF), disagree

Here, at para 19,

http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/2004/pdf/maaszg710.pdf

C-in-C RAFSC disagreed with these senior staffs (although it’s not clear if he knew he was disagreeing with them, as the prior warning of the general problem, and the recommendation that aircraft should be inspected, is not acknowledged in the BOI report).

This appalling attitude, which in this and other cases permitted malfunctioning safety equipment to be fitted to aircraft and offered for Release to Service as fully functional (a criminal act, in my opinion), is what should concern us. I’m sure Nige came across this attitude during his C130 ESF campaign.

All the above is open source/obtained under FOI.

[Tappers Dad]

Surely if the RAF do not fit MODE-S on their ac it will effect the safety of ac in Britain and their own safety when these aircraft are flying in and out of Kinloss?

[speeddial]

To fit a Mode-S transponder to the PA-28 Joe Smo flies at the weekend would cost a couple of hundred pounds. Although there would be integration and other mil-only costs to pay it shows just how down the spending ladder the Nimrod is?

[AC Ovee]

TD, arguably, any decision to not fit the latest gizmo on an aircraft will affect flight safety in an environment where everyone else is using the kit. However, the CAA recognises that not everyone can/will comply, so there are procedures in place to ensure that non-compliancy does not increase risk.

Such procedures usually involve barring an uncompliant jet from very busy airspaces, which are 3 dimensional in nature. So flying below or above or to one side or another from the busy airspace will de-conflict the un-compliant jet. The new ground-based radars are backwards compatible so a non-Mode S jet will be seen and controlled/advised as it is now and depending on the nature of that area, another ATC controller will look after the non-compliant jets, so that the busy airspace controller doesn't have to worry about a non-compliant jet on his screen.

I foresee, in the years ahead, airspace above airports such as Inverness and Aberdeen demanding Mode S compliance within their zones and the airways leading to them. Nimrod MR2 will probably not comply, so it will not be allowed to practice approaches there or fly along the airways. Emergencies will be exempt. The effect is increased distance and time to the Nimrod flight and the consequent increased fuel penalty; nothing more than that.

For many years now, the Nimrod has been operating without a Reduced Vertical Separation Minima gizmo, which allows aircrft to fly closer to each other above 30,000 ft (ish). We are not compliant so we cannot now fly up there with the compliant jets without specific authority. I reckon the original cost of fitting the kit has now been exceeded by the cost of the fuel we have needlessly burnt by flying at lower altitudes than fuel efficiency demands.

Flight Safety is not at risk by non-compliance; only efficiency.

[MightyHunter AGE]

MAD MARK said:

I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS
No I don't think you do unless you actually work there, which I am sure you don't

but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance!
Which could be carried out during the week if we had the manpower and I think you will find that I am fully aware that essential maintenance needs to be carried out, probably more so than you seeing as I am one of the ones controlling it

You only work weekends when it is necessary
Thats why we have changed our shifts AGAIN to man working weekends EVERY weekend is it then

if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does!
I put it to you that obviously you are the one who doesn't know what is going on:ugh:


Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie!
After 6 years on NLS I feel I have done my fair share for NLS and Kinloss and thanks but I am already on my way over the road


Ohh but avoid 202 :ooh:
Thanks for the tip


MHAGE!!! :mad:

[Shack37]

MHAGE,
Congratulations on your reasoned and reasonable response to Mad Mark's last post. To do so in the face of such lack of understanding requires some degree of calmness. Good luck at Lossie.
s37

[nigegilb]

Not long here, I made my comments with regard to post 1102, concerning the lack of TCAS on Nimrod ac. TCAS has saved many a mid-air in the civilian world and I did not have the benefit of it on my Herc back in 2002. I don't know where the Nimrod fleet is now with TCAS but the real point is, not fitting Mode S and TCAS will pile up the restrictions on where this ac can operate. And as someone has pointed out, would probably have been paid for in fuel cost savings anyway. (Different budget??) I was just making a point that these advancements in the Aviation world are provided for a reason. The cash strapped MoD always delays compliance for the last possible moment, sometimes beyond. It is informative for anyone questioning the MoD approach to Duty of Care.

Manning an eng det in Akrotiri with no spare Nimrod engineers will be a major headache. Safety aspects of not fitting Mode S probably aren't that great, but the there are fundamental operational changes that will arise because of this failure to comply.

[Tappers Dad]

Can anyone tell me if the aluminium alloy unions on the Hydraulic pipes on the Nimrod were replaced with steel ones which are fireproof?

[Da4orce]

Serious safety concerns have emerged over Britain's ageing fleet of Nimrod spy planes – currently patrolling Iraq and Afghanistan – after an investigation by The Independent on Sunday found their fuselages could be riddled with rust.

Sources have revealed that severe corrosion has been found on the 40-year-old fuselages now being revamped in the UK to form the next generation of aircraft. That £3bn project is seven years behind schedule and millions of pounds over budget.

The Government decided in 1996 that the new generation of Nimrods should use the fuselages of the old aircraft. Several were taken out of service and stripped back to the fuselage, and new wings, undercarriage and floors were bolted on. Problems found in the revamped fuselages are likely to be found in the planes still flying because the craft are the same age.

In January 2006 BAe Systems, which is building the new aircraft, discovered cracks in the rivets holding fuselage sections together. In repairing this problem the fuselage skin beneath the rivets has been found to be corroded. As a result, all Nimrod aircraft now in use will have to be checked.

Full Story:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3035998.ece

[Brain Potter]

Use of TCAS would be dictated by theatre IFF policy. It may well be possible that all transponder modes are employed - in which case TCAS would most definitely be switched on.

As stated Mode S and TCAS are not the same thing. Mode S in isolation does not really improve the safety of an individual aircraft, but does enhance the efficiency, and hence safety, of a suitably equipped ATC environment. The very few flight hours undertaken by non-equipped State aircraft does not degrade the concept.

TCAS requires Mode S to be fitted and then provides a huge extra safety margin for individual aircraft by providing collision protection from any other transponding aircraft - not just those also equipped with TCAS. Not surprisingly, the fitting of TCAS to it's passenger jets was forced on MoD by legislation in foreign countries and wasn't at their own volition. The bonus is that the system bestows tremendous safety and situational awareness benefits in all circumstances, particularly in operational environments that may have less well-developed ATC or even be operating on a procedural/VFR principles. It is short-sighted of the MoD not to fit TCAS wherever possible, and by not doing so they are taking the chance of mid-air collision "on risk".

RVSM for aircraft like the Nimrod is a different issue. It requires an updated altimetry system, an altitude alerter and an autopilot level lock. The fitting and clearance is not always straightforward on legacy aircraft and has to be weighed against the cost of limiting the aircraft to FL280. In theory, State aircraft are allowed into RVSM airspace , but ATC then have to provide 2000' separation and in practice the controller will simply refuse the request due to impact on other traffic. Similarly, aircraft like C-130 and Nimrod are incompatible with the civil traffic due to speed differentials, so would often not be given those levels even if they were RVSM compliant. Incidentally, this is a practical reality that appears not to figure in the claims for C-130J and A400M range/payload.

It is probably not worth giving Nimrod standalone Mode S or RVSM - but omitting TCAS is a wholly different risk.

[Tappers Dad]

Da4orce


In January 2006 BAe Systems, which is building the new aircraft, discovered cracks in the rivets holding fuselage sections together. In repairing this problem the fuselage skin beneath the rivets has been found to be corroded. As a result, all Nimrod aircraft now in use will have to be checked.


And who is going to check them when theres a shortage of groundies and were are they going to get the money from ????

[Mad_Mark]

In answer to MHAGE...

I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS
No I don't think you do unless you actually work there, which I am sure you don't
I may not work on NLS but work closely with them and in that capacity I AM fully aware of the lack of manpower at NLS.

but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance!
Which could be carried out during the week if we had the manpower and I think you will find that I am fully aware that essential maintenance needs to be carried out, probably more so than you seeing as I am one of the ones controlling it
Again, I have no doubt that with enough manpower you would be able to carry out most of the essential maintenance during the week. But you don't have that manpower and my comment was in reference to your use of the word 'lumbered'. I still stand by it and am sorry if you feel you are being 'lumbered' with carrying out ESSENTIAL work at weekends.

Secondly, even with enough manpower, there are times when work on a particular frame needs to be carried out at the weekend (Ops 1 jet, u/s jet required first thing Mon, weekend operational/exercise commitments, etc).

You only work weekends when it is necessary
Thats why we have changed our shifts AGAIN to man working weekends EVERY weekend is it then
As you say, you control the maintenance - and possibly even the shift patterns? You do not control the ISK commitments. As I said, you only work weekends when it is absolutely necessary. If it has been necessary for you to work every weekend then I am sorry but the commitment of the fleet is such that you do exactly that.

if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does!
I put it to you that obviously you are the one who doesn't know what is going on
Sorry, but it appears that I do indeed have a bigger picture view of the required tasks of ISK. You appear to be engineering-centric whereas I am looking at the big picture. As I said before, if YOU do not know why exactly NLS are required to work a particular weekend then ask someone that does. You are not asked to work weekends for the pure hell of it. Those asking you to do so are fully aware of the staffing issues on the line and try to avoid working weekends as much as the possible - but task needs sometimes outweigh the individual needs. You also demonstrated this lack of awareness of the big picture in several of your posts in the "Kinloss........Whats Going on?" thread.

Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie!
After 6 years on NLS I feel I have done my fair share for NLS and Kinloss and thanks but I am already on my way over the road
Good luck.

Ohh but avoid 202
Thanks for the tip
You're welcome.


And I must also thank Shack37 for his knowledgeable response. For someone whose profile states they live in another country and is of such an age that you have probably never worked on the MR2 in recent years, you seem to be more knowledgeable than someone that is a damn sight closer in both location and time than yourself :D

Right, must fly,

MadMark!!! :mad:

[The Swinging Monkey]

Mad mark

Very well said!

It strikes me that MHAge always takes things that are said so badly. Even when you agree with him over manpower and how hard-pushed the groundies are, he still has a go at you!!

I'm off now, sharpish, before he launches off at me again! But well said anyway!

TSM

[MightyHunter AGE]

MM and TSM

I apologies sincerely for I am just a thick groundy and bow down to your officer qualities and superiority.

I know nothing of the Nimrod big picture, I only know my name and service number and that is it.

Oh how glad I am to have such great and inspirational men as you leading me cause I is stoopid.

Where do I work again......................

[Al R]

SHQ.. Med Centre? ;)

[The Swinging Monkey]

MHAge

I have read every last thing you have written on these forums, and never cease to be dissapointed at the attitude you take.

My last post was a bit tongue-in-cheek simply because I hadn't posted for a while, but you really must stop this silly attitude you have towards anyone who even remotely questions what you say mate. Look at it as people not 'questioning' you but perhaps seeking further clarification or something.

I, like all aircrew, have the utmost respect for groundcrew. OK, we take the pi$$, but are you that insecure of yourself that you can't see that??

Come on man, chill out a little, and put all those years of experience to some good here. We're not having a go at you at all.

Kind regards
TSM

[MightyHunter AGE]

TSM

Maybe my satirical sense of humour doesn't come through too well when I write it down. Those who I have had the pleasure to serve with know me better.

My last post was sarcastic in every sense as that is my type of humour.

Those who say sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, fine, I say its one of the funniest!!

Best regards

MHAGE

[The Swinging Monkey]

MHAge

Thanks for that old boy, I'm pleased that you were not getting all horribly and grobbly. I'll take a hit myself then for jumping to the conclusion that you were upset.
Best wishes to you and all the groundies at ISK. Keep up the good work!
All the best and keep up the banter!
TSM

[Shack37]

Mad Mark
Quote
"And I must also thank Shack37 for his knowledgeable response. For someone whose profile states they live in another country and is of such an age that you have probably never worked on the MR2 in recent years, you seem to be more knowledgeable than someone that is a damn sight closer in both location and time than yourself" :D

Thank you for the compliment, at least in your first sentence. The fact that I have NEVER worked on any Mk of Nimrod does not preclude me from understanding MHAGE's attitude and expressing an opinion agreeing with it. It's evident from your response that you can't or won't understand it.
What does living in another country or being of "such an age" (whatever that means) have to do with forming an opinion? There is something to be said for stepping back a bit from a situation to see it more clearly. Working weekends was not a rare event even when I was serving and whilst everyone realised it was necessary and had to be done, that didn't mean you had to like it. I believe that, basically, is what MHAGE is saying.

Carry on enjoying the "big picture", you obviously have to be a long way up to see it all so clearly. Perhaps if you're that high up you may be able to do something to improve the situation and make these posts a thing of the past.

Best regards,
s37

[Distant Voice]

Come on Guys let us stop fighting over "who knows what about the workings of NLS", and get back to the main theme of the thread. I note that no one has addressed the point raised by Da4orce in posting #1123. Are we now spendind £4 billion on rusty MRA 4's? This "magic" aircraft that is going to resolve all the problems of the MK2. Not much point in having modern electronics if the shell is falling about.

DV

[Safety_Helmut]

DV

I think the potential consequences of the corrosion, if correct, have more of an impact on the current fleet than MRA4.

S_H

[Distant Voice]

S-H: I am sure you are correct. Does anyone know if checks have started on MK2's?

DV

[Tappers Dad]

Dv
TO the best of my knowledge since January 2006 BAe Systems,have been checking the MRA4 but I don't know if the Nimrod fleet have been checked at all yet for cracks in the rivets or corrosion.

[Distant Voice]

TD. Seeing as they (MOD/IPT) have still not decided on what other pipes need checking after the XV227 incident, it is most unlikely that they have given any thought to rust examination of the shell.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

Some time ago I asked about Kapton wiring on this thread and the general consensus was that there was no Kapton wiring on the MR2.

Have recieved a copy of the BAE Safety Report on the ac you can imagine my suprise when I read this.


Noted during Zonal Hazard Analysis of XV*** at RAF ****** 17th-20th March 2003.
Electrical Arcing/Fire-Wing Trailing Edge Kapton wiring.
Potential water ingress into Kapton Wiring when combined with insulation breakdown could result in electrical arcing and uncontrolled fire.



Not PVC/Nylon but Kapton !!!!

[ORAC]

Select Committee on Defence Fourteenth Special Report (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/1025/102503.htm) The Defence Committee published its Eleventh Report of Session 2006-07 on Strategic Lift on 5 July 2007, as House of Commons Paper HC 462. The Government's response to this report was received on 20 September 2007. This is appended below.

Government Response (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmdfence/1025/102504.htm)

..........The MoD has assured us that A400M aircraft will be fitted with a Defensive Aid System and a Fuel Tank Inertion system for protection. We assume these systems will be fitted to all A400M aircraft and call on the MoD to confirm, in its response to our report, that this will be the case. It would be a false economy not to fit these systems to all A400M aircraft during manufacture, only then to retro-fit the systems later at great expense. (Paragraph 79)

17. The Department notes the Committee's comments on fitting a Defensive Aids System and a Fuel Tank Inertion system to all A400M aircraft. Procurement and fitting of Defensive systems, including that for the A400M, is kept under constant review. We constantly monitor and take judgements on a range of factors including threats, technology available and industrial capacity to provide the capabilities we need within the timescales we require. In balancing its priorities, the MoD has already ensured that all but one of our A400M aircraft will, during manufacture, be fitted with the necessary equipment to enable full Defensive systems to be installed at a later date; this includes Fuel Tank Inertion and a Defensive Aids System. Thus the higher costs of modifying the aircraft to retrofit these systems will be avoided. The one exception to this is an early development aircraft which is already under construction and cannot be fitted with the enabling pipework for Fuel Tank Inertion during the current production run. However, the MoD is currently looking at ways to address this shortfall. The fitment of defensive aids equipment for the full A400M fleet will be considered in the current Planning Round 2008.

[South Bound]

All but one to be fitted? Presumably that will be one of the aircraft we get 'second hand' from the flight test programme then. Typical that we all (all Nations involved) procrastinated over the requirement for so long that it could not be embodied at initial build.

I hope PR08 gets the numbers right, as long as it permits 25 ac fitted for and close to that number fitted with, it should be ok. Just hope they up their original number from the too few sets of role kit the IPT originally were going to buy. Lot of water under the bridge since then, so will give them the benefit of the doubt until PR08 reports...

[nigegilb]

SB I think you misread the answer. We still ddon't know if A400M will get fuel tank protection. It was supposed to get a nitrogen inerting system and LIRCM but there are no definites in this answer.

Furthermore, I and a number of other people are very concerned about the lack of protection for MRA4. As a result, this question was asked by Mike Hancock, response received today.

Nimrod Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to provide the (a) Nimrod MR2
10Oct 2007 :
and (b) Nimrod MRA4 with (i) armour and (ii) fuel tank protection before deployment in theatre; and if he will make a statement. [156605]

Mr. Bob Ainsworth:Our aircraft are fitted with defensive systems and survivability aids to reflect the operational environment in which they are deployed. We keep the requirement for such systems under review for all our aircraft deployed on operations including the Nimrod MR2. This will continue to be the case for future aircraft, such as Nimrod MRA4. I am withholding further information as its release would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of our armed forces.

So, that will be a no then...........It is my understabding that MRA4 will have significantly less protection than the ac it replaces. Ainsworth is hiding behind national security issues, the favoured answer for MoD Politicians. He fools nobody except himself.

[South Bound]

Nige, soz, mind was on DAS, not the other important bits, but like I said let us wait and see what they have funded. With all your efforts, and those of notable others:D, we might be pleasantly surprised.

We can but hope

[Wader2]

So that is a No then.

On the subject of small number of kits to aircraft I wonder how they will manage the engineering bill?

Given a standard fit for all aircraft you will have a fleet sized maintenance cost.

Given a few kits you will then have a smaller fleet maintenance cost set against a higher strip, service and refit cost.

Which is cheaper I wonder?

[LowObservable]

Consider that there is one case where it might actually be smart not to make a decision on IRCM at this point.
US Department of Homeland Security has a program to develop laser IRCM for commercial aircraft. It probably won't lead to a commercial aircraft fit for various reasons, but it probably will lead to much cheaper, more reliable IRCM kit.
And if you have IRCM to handle MANPADS, maybe you can handle the residual threat through CONOPS - except perhaps for SF aircraft, which will be plumbed for it.
Heretical view here I know.

[South Bound]

Wader

you are so right, but that would depend upon defence knowing exactly how many ac we were going to deploy at any one time AND THEN STICKING TO IT!!!!!!. Bloke in pub told me there were HUGE issues with the company and customer interpretations over 'plug and play' fitting of DAS components. Company thought it meant it was theoretically possible to fit DAS to an ac, customers wanted the ability to fit in 2 hours or so.

I wonder who one that argument... Not in the contract, gentlemen, but of course we can make it happen, just £50M per aircraft please!

LO - not heretical, perfectly sensible to leave decision to a later point as long as we temper what we intend to do with the aircraft vased on its capability when it arrives.

[nigegilb]

Hear what you say, but the original plan for A400M was for just a handful of ac to get DAS and none to get fuel tank inerting. Laser IRCM is the gold standard at the moment, the RAF use it in a very effective way, nuff said here. You should aim to give the best possible protection that is out there.

Americans are looking at commercial fit DAS programs. Please remember that their military ac already have DAS protection along with fuel tank protection. It is fitted as standard, because it is essential. We will soon know for sure if XV230 was brought down by a fuel tank explosion. We can then evaluate Ainsworth's answer in the cold light of day.

XV179 BoI specifically referred to the A400M program when recommending the urgent review of fuel tank protection. Ainsworth and his chums will not get away with just fitting the plumbing. One would have thought they would know better. Please don't give the MoD the benefit of the doubt, the ministry does not deserve it.

When has it made sense to introduce a new ac with less protection than the one it replaces?

[South Bound]

Nige, only makes sense if we could trust our lords and masters with an incremental capability declaration programme to match an incremental procurement of essential equipment. Not commenting over whether that is likely or not, but not seen any evidence of it so far! Makes sense to me that it should come as standard, cheaper to put in during build, but also logic in keeping an open mind for over the horizon capability, as suggested by LO.

Let us just hope they get it right....

[nigegilb]

SB, the reality is we were the only customer not to have signed up to fuel tank inerting systems for the A400M from the outset. I have absolutely no faith that the MoD were hoping a better, even more expensive DAS/Inerting sytem would be available down the track.

P3 Orion has had fuel tank protection for years. Now the RAF/MoD are pressing for MRA4 to be brought in on a reduced testing program, without basic ac self-protection.

Nothing I have seen in Ainsworth's pathetic answer suggests anything different.

[South Bound]

Agreed, I am sure there was no conscious effort on their part, but I live in hope that the efforts you and others have put in have focussed some minds on what is important. Can't comment on MRA4, so won't, but will give the A400M team a chance to get it right, especially as the decisions not to do things were made several years ago and we cannot hang the present incumbants over decisions that seem crass with hindsight. The quote in Orac's quote suggests A400M will come with inerting and DAS capability (undefined), my concern remains over how many sets of DAS they are buying to support the aircraft- PR08 will reveal all.

[nigegilb]

This is a more honest answer than the one provided by Bob.

"they will all come fitted for the OBIGGS as this had to be
agreed and paid for now as it was being done as part of the ac construction.
The additional parts to make it work could be bought at a later date.
The cost cutting is getting pretty daft; we are now down to one sim vice 2
because that will save money - the fact that there won't be enough training
time in the sim means that ac will have to be used for training - at a cost
FFS!!

[South Bound]

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Tappers Dad]

Getting back to Nimrod there is a strong rumour that the BOI will release its findings in the next three weeks.

Does the fact that Nimrods in theatre are now using TS-1 aviation fuel.increase the likelihood of leaks or fire given the lower viscosity and a lower flash point of TS-1 than that of Jet A1 or JP8 ??

[DaveyBoy]

Are you sure they're being filled with TS-1 at Seeb? I thought TS-1 was more of an ex-soviet, cold-weather type of fuel... low freezing point to cope with those Siberian winters, and low flash point compared to AVTUR. I'd be surprised if that was the main type of fuel supplied at an international airport in a Middle Eastern country.

[Tappers Dad]

Yes read your PM

[LowObservable]

"In 1988 DoD changed the payload requirement from 172,200 pounds to 167,000 in order to accommodate the addition of a 4-pallet ramp and OBIGGS that added 5,000 pounds additional weight to the [C-17]"

http://www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/94arq/batte.pdf

Not clear how much was the ramp and how much was OBIGGS (sure and you'll find the man down the pub, with his mate O'Boggs) but OBIGGS is not a trivial piece of equipment on a transport-class aircraft. And by the way if it's onboard it needs to be maintained, and it does have a safety aspect because along with the I it generates O, and you don't want extra O leaking all over the place.

So adding the plumbing is probably smart. Then you can figure out whether none, some or all of your fleet need it.

[nigegilb]

LO, the type of OBIGGS earmarked for A400M is the latest generation constant breathing gas generating system. This protection is much lighter and easier to use than the gen1 nitrogen sytems. Hence the reason for this kind of protection now being fitted as standard to civil airliners. The shere weight and bulkiness had precluded its use until recently. For P3 Orion, USN went for foam. Lightweight, with a small loss of fuel tank capacity and very little maintenance. Foam was also chosen for C130J in a more recent study. Very latest Hercs have switched to latest generation OBIGGS.
Point is they always have some kind of fuel tank protection.

A400M replaces C130K like for like, same role, same job. The case for fuel tank protection has already been made for C130K; it does not need to be made yet again. This stinks of saving money when a safety case has already been made after the loss of an aircraft and crew.

Different in the case of the MRA4. A counter argument to fitting protection to Nimrod might be, in the case of XV230, the amount of aluminium burning negating the explosive protection offered by foam/OBIGGS. I am unconvinced by this argument. XV230 was very close to Kandahar, just as
XV179 was minutes from the safety of a concrete runway. Besides, more fire protection might have prevented a catastrophic fire from developing. There is absolutely no sign of improved fire protection in MRA4, in fact, it has less fire protection than the ac it replaces.

I am at a complete loss to understand why MRA4 has been stripped of it's AAR probe inerting system. I can only figure it is due to financial pressure. The probe will be charged with fuel, regardless of any requirement for AAR capability.

Obviously we have to wait for the BoI. With regard to Flight Deck Armour, if you could guarantee never having to land/take off in vicinity of hostiles, sure, leave it behind, but we live in the real world.

[Exrigger]

RE TS-1 fuel, if the link works there is some info about half way down the page about the use of TS-1 fuel in Afghanistan:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/050300-concept.htm

[Tappers Dad]

These are two questions I should have asked long ago;

Does anyone know the date in 2006 XV230 flew out to the gulf???

Where on the ac is Rib7 ???

PS. Strong rumour the BOI will report in the next 2-3 weeks

[Distant Voice]

Come on Guys, answer TD simple question "When did XV230 go to the Gulf?"

DV

[RAF_Techie101]

Yes DV, it is a simple question. Thankyou for that. Now, if you'd like ot stop treating this like an exam, or a question and answer session, then maybe someone who both knows the answer and is willing to tell TD, may do so.

Till then stop treating this like your own BOI.

[Mad_Mark]

Hear! Hear!

[tucumseh]

I'd prefer to give TD et al the benefit of the doubt. If they are asking questions that are getting too close for the MoD's comfort - then good. Let's face it - we've seen enough rubbish in BOI reports these last few years. And BOIs don't try to get to the root of the cause. Nor do they have any power to do anything except make toothless recommendations. They are often treated with contempt by MoD senior staffs, and juniors are actively prevented from giving relevant evidence - or such evidence is withheld. All this means lessons aren't learned.

[Chugalug2]

Hear! Hear!

[AC Ovee]

The date of the aircraft's deployment and all subsequent flights, will probably be in the full BOI report, which TD will read in due course.

Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"

[Tappers Dad]

AC
The date of the aircraft's deployment and all subsequent flights, will probably be in the full BOI report, which TD will read in due course.

Rib 7 is in the wing, outboard of the engines and landing gear, but inboard of the pod tank. It is not associated with Tank 7, just in case the query is trying to establish an assocation based on the number "7"


I am sure the date of deployment will be in the BOI but that doesn't appear to be coming out until the end of Nov. As for why I was asking about RIB 7, you may soon know!

[chappie]

morning, tappers dad!!
have seen the sky report this morning.

well done you and bloody well done to all those who have helped.
sadly, i know all to well about the process of trying to find out information while grieving, only to find out that again the MoD and it's bloody penny pinching ways have cost lives of our nearest and dearest. the pressure to have the planes working despite the need obvious fact they are working to the max without the necessary bits supplied or servicing done is criminal and unfeasable. the can do attitiude can only go so far, but again it has been forced to go too far. how on earth are the raf supposed to keep their aircrew safe when the pressures are placed on them from the people behind the desks in whitehall. it should have sunk in when XV179 went down that the cost of ten servicemen lives, replacing them, retraining their predecesors, the invaluable loss of experience, repatriation ceremonies, loss of ac, funerals, bad publicity, pensions, BoI, inquests....need i go on..this costs alot more than the necessary repairs or grounding costs of an ac.

you know...it is okay for those top ranking officers...the chain of command...whoever...to turn around and make a stand and say NO! maybe now we've lost 24 special people the next time the risk is evident and the fact that two grieving relatives have been forced to drag their grief and the issues surrounding it into the public domain, might just mean the next aircrew are safe.

keep the faith

[Not Long Here]

Sky News story http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1290207,00.html?&lid=NEWS_TAB_RAF_BLAMED_FOR_SONS_NIMROD_DEATH&lpos=TAB_CONTENT

[beerdrinker]

Who is former RAF pilot Andrew Brookes, who has just been on Sky News criticing the bereaved father who was the subject of the Sky report this morning

[andy mccallum]

I've just seen the Sky News report. I have two boys, 6 and 11. The eldest has wanted to join the RAF since birth! Honestly he must have been a pilot in a previous life, and all he wants to do is fly, fly, fly.

I support unreservedly and with my heart of hearts your efforts guys to find the truth. I salute you Tapper's Dad, hold fast and good luck.

[tucumseh]

Well done, TD.

I've just watched Liam Fox. He speaks well, but I detected a note of wariness, no doubt caused by his knowledge that the MoD's ambivalence toward airworthiness, and flat refusal to fund it properly, extends back to his party's reign.

He noted, correctly, that aircraft (and other equipment) are being deployed in conditions far in excess of what their design specification intended. He talks of "modifications" perhaps being required. I'd say a complete rethink on suitability for these conditions (fitness for purpose). Some quite modern, recently specified kit, is proving totally unsuitable for these conditions. COTS equipment often exacerbates this. He also touched on the RATE at which kit is being used and expended, meaning it requires replacement more frequently. We don't see the necessary funding for this.

The only other thing I'd say is that the reporting and criticism is aimed squarely at the "RAF". The people who make the decisions to, for example, cut funding, ignore airworthiness issues or not provide adequate support to the Services (which is a breach of the MoD's own airworthiness rules), are very often in the "Centre". They are not "RAF" - their decisions affect all 3 Services and, if the families were willing, similar campaigns could be run on other recent fatal accidents, notably during 2003, where the issues and evidence is much more clear cut. I respect their decision not to pursue this, but I know for a fact that what TD has unearthed cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed isolated. But I'm sure the MoD will claim this.

[Phil66]

"Who is former RAF pilot Andrew Brookes, who has just been on Sky News criticing the bereaved father who was the subject of the Sky report this morning"

http://www.iiss.org/staffexpertise/list-experts-by-name/andrew-brookes-
<snip>
Background: Andrew Brookes is a former RAF reconnaissance and bomber pilot. He was a NATO Nuclear Release Officer and the last operational RAF Commander at the Greenham Common cruise missile base. After three years as a Group Director at the RAF Advanced Staff College, he became co-ordinator of air power studies at the newly formed Joint Services Command and Staff College. He has had twelve books published on military aviation and flight safety.

[This hasn't helped]

I can't watch this.
Guys.

Just seen the sky article. I fear that some people supplying TD with information are doing him and his cause a grave diservice.

I know that there is some degree of mistrust regarding the MOD/RAF/Board motives but why not wait until the report is published?

The people compiling report are experts in their field of knowledge. No single person has all the answers, as such they come together as a group of specialists to pool their knowledge. Those on the board have the best interests of the Nimrod community and the safety of the fleet at heart. It is their duty. Wait for the findings, wait for the reccommendations and then ask the questions. They have more information regarding this than you or I ever will.

The board will give their findings regarding the actual cause and are far better placed than one man, who doesn't have an aviation background, trying to piece together snippets from individuals who are trying to help. Individual pieces of information regarding incidents or issues are clearly not being given in the total context. I know that in some cases you are not at liberty to explain why certain facts, incidents and issues don't line up or are irrelevant. Remember your obligations.

One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance. That is the job of the board. I'm sorry to say this but TD and some well-meaning helpers cannot justifiably point the finger at events, people or groups and say 'it's your fault'. It just has no credibility and won't stand up to scrutiny if it ever came to be considered in legal surroundings.

The Nimrod is still flying with willing crews and willing engineers. All volunteers and all still flying the Nimrod.

I'm AAC and I know infantry and cavalry commanders who have sent out patrols or been ordered to an objective knowing that some of their boys are likely to die or be injured. Are they responsible? Is it their fault? No, it's their job. We know the risks and so, I imagine do Nimrod crews. It's all desperately sad and I cannot imagine what TD and his family are going through, but this isn't helping. So much effort is being expended by one man and if he ever wanted to point the finger and obtain some recompense, it won't stand up in court.

[tucumseh]

"One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance. That is the job of the board".


If BOIs looked back BEFORE accidents in any detail, and made judgments or recommendations on what did or didn't happen, then;

a. There would be fewer accidents, and,
b. The reports covering, for example, the loss of a Tornado and two Sea Kings on successive days in March 2003 would be vastly different. (And so too would the Coroner's verdict).

That they don't do this is precisely why we have to go round this tragic buoy time and again. The mistakes are seldom corrected. Lessons are not learned. To do so would cost money and force MoD to admit liability.

Parliament made a momentous decision by repealing Sect 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947. That is, those responsible for, inter alia, airworthiness lost the protection afforded by Crown Immunity. It forever changed the way the MoD had to conduct their business, particularly in the aircraft world. The first step was DCI GEN 89 in March 1993, followed by the up-issue or creation of various JPSs and Def Stans. (A process which, by the way, is still not yet complete).

Critically, however, the powers that be either didn't appreciate the financial implications and the need for complementary funding to bolster the underlying processes, that themselves had to change almost overnight; or they knew but ignored it. Given the cuts in funding at this time, the most savage aimed fairly and squarely at the process of maintaining the build standard (which includes airworthiness and safety), I go for the latter.

While this probably affected very few of you directly (i.e. you did not have airworthiness delegation), we can all now see the outcome - which was predicted in very precise detail by those charged with managing the process under this new legislation.

Again, I don't think the Services are to blame here (except perhaps the people who, for example, sat passively on the Defence Airworthiness Group dictating processes but saying nothing when funding was denied). There are common factors here with other accidents which, because the remit of the BOI is so narrow, will never be exposed or overcome.

[Da4orce]

Criticisms of TD's motives or intentions noted everyone is entitled to an opinion; we live in a democracy after all.

That said maybe something that hasn't been brought out a great deal in the press reports today is why a serving member of RAF personnel at Kinloss felt so strongly about this that they leaked emails and reports in the full knowledge of the implications that would be drawn from there content.

You could say they had ulterier motives, maybe a personal axe to grind, that's possible. It is also possible that they have a conscience, little or no confidence in the BOI, and feel that they have a duty to ensure that the public knows what happened.

[camelspyyder]

When I saw the SKY van outside work as I drove in this morning I thought there might finally be something worth hearing about.

Unfortunately Sky's lead story was Shock! - Nimrods have fuel leaks.

Oh well... it must have been a really slow day at Sky News Centre...maybe next month...

[Tappers Dad]

This hasn't helped

Let me just say to all on here that I did not say to anyone anything about negligance.
That said certain people Not groundies or Crews knew there were big problems with this ac and one other.
One exploded the other limped back to Kinloss before its tour finished for major repairs.
As for the BOI not one of them has any experience of air crash investigation, I was told this when sitting in an office at Kinloss in sept.

One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance.

I have got people with specalist knowledge helping me and when you see written down

Rib 7 leaks have always been there. along with lots of other areas on the jet.

you don't have to be an engineer to work out this ac had big problems.

[airsound]

TD
Just saw you on The West Tonight (ITV) and Points West (BBC). You were brilliant, well done. For anyone who didn’t see the Beeb in particular, they brought on AVM Tony Mason (rtd), who, as usual, made some valid points, and ended by saying “I hope (TD’s) worst fears are not realised when the board does report” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the BOI’s prospects.

Which brings me on to This hasn’t helped, and his post ‘I can’t watch this’

As it’s your first post, I’m going to assume, charitably, that you (This hasn’t helped) may not have read the rest of this thread, or, perhaps the thread on Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety, or even Chinook - still hitting back. If you had taken this precaution before launching your brave encomium on the efficacy of the BOI system, you might have realised that there is a majority of posters in these fora who do not share your faith in the BOI system. Which is why the threads that I have mentioned have lasted so long, and why people keep on banging on at what they see as injustice.

airsound

[Al R]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7063747.stm

[Tappers Dad]

For those of you who are wondering just what these leaked emails said heres a bit of some of them;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TCRGGVWY01RHPQFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/10/26/nnimrod226.xml

[AC Ovee]

The e-mails indicate to me that key people were, and still are, acting very responsibly under pressure.

Every single suspected fault, including fuel leakage, was/is examined and categorized in accordance with well established aviation engineering practice and dealt with properly. Decisions to send the aircraft to the Middle East were easily made: is it fit to fly and defend itself? If yes, go. If not, it stays here and gets fixed. I have lost count of the number of days, weeks and occasionally months, that some jets spent in the hangar having leakage dealt with prior to deployment. There was absolutely no "It'll be all right, its only a little leak, lets send it" type of decisions, even when the pressure was at its greatest.

The leaks that pi$$ me off are the ones I've just read.

Sorry TD, but, with respect to you and yours, you have been fed rubbish.

[Tappers Dad]

AC OVEE
Here is a little more of the emails.
There were other areas of quick-win opportunities. which I have asked the IPT to dive into.
or
There is a knock-on effect on XV230. Although NLS are undertaking the primary servicing RAMS has insufficient manpower assets to undertake the fuel tank repairs on this ac.

Add to this 230 had an equalised servicing May to July and the Tanks repaired in july and yet 3 weeks later was sent out to the gulf after only one flight with "Accepectable" leaks from the same areas that were leaking prior to all this maintainence.

[AC Ovee]

Those quotes indicate discussions trying to find responsible ways to use available resources to cure unacceptable fuel leaks. The language is casual in nature due to the e-mail system; ie it is chatting via the keyboard. Whoever it was who gave you copies of the e-mails is misguided, ill-informed and guilty of a serious misdemeanour.

Regarding the single post rectification flight before deployment: how many "test" flights in the UK should satisfy the engineers? I would say one single flight was enough. Then there would have been the deployment flights (2), then the 1st ops flight. Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults.

[dodgysootie]

"Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults."


Here, here. And was, and is, and still is!! And also a proper pre flight check!
Wait for the BOI, Sir.
DS

[This hasn't helped]

'As you will be aware, XV230 and XV250 both have fuel leak issues that need to be rectified before the aircraft can be deployed into TELIC'

Maybe TD, you should ask yourself why these Nimrods were allowed to be flown before deploying to TELIC? If it were unsafe then why fly it before deploying. Perhaps there is more to the knock-on effect of these particular fuel leaks than you think. Even the hels that I fly leak fuel. This merely reinforces my point about context. TD, you are being misled, I'm afraid to say.

As for whoever leaked the emails along with incident reports leaked to Sky news. You have broken the law. Guys it's not on.

Wait for the board to report.

Second post but I have been watching this forum for years. Very poor show chaps, very poor.

[Chugalug2]

Very poor show chaps, very poor
Very poor shows, THH, are;
The cavalier way that BoIs, and in particular their findings, are treated by senior officers, witness the Mull case.
The way that identified airworthiness shortcomings, having been brought to the attention of senior officers, are ignored and the 'memory' of the warnings wiped, witness the C130s.
The way that vital evidence required by a coroners court is withheld for Opsec reasons more to do with embarrassing an ally, until produced by a newspaper, witness the blue on blue.
Lots more of course, but you get the drift I'm sure old chap!

[everythingbuttheboy]

Is it just me, or is anybody else concerned about the amount of coverage that the nimrod is currently receiving in the press, concerning fuel leaks and "crew uncertainty" about whether or not the aircraft is safe to fly......

At the end of the day, we're all responsible enough to be able to make a decision whether or not we are happy to fly the aircraft.
This amount of bad publicity is doing nothing for the morale of the dedicated and extremely professional crews who are out in the gulf at the moment working their hardest, as every 'rod crew does....At the moment, all we are doing, is de-moralising our own crews, and giving the impression to our enemies, that the nimrod does not deserve its' reputation as such a capable, versatile, and widely respected platform, as we have spent many years proving....
I understand that people want answers, but until the BOI is out, it seems to me that we are asking questions that the BOI may just answer for us...
As for leaks from the MOD........... Just look at the Madeleine McCann case.... "leaks" in inverted commas make for good sales. i know this does nothing to comfort the families, but people will lie and newspapers will lie, to make money from you guys.... this will never change. its a sad fact of life..


sleep tight guys..

[Tappers Dad]

AC Ovee

Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults.

REMARKS OF STN CDR on XV227 incident November 2004,
When the insidious nature of this technical failure and severity of damage to the wing spar became clear, I ordered a UI to establish the cause. The area of the SCP involved was not subject to a maintenance policy; a particular concern as the ageing Nimrod MR2 is extended beyond its original OSD. The F765B comprehensively covers all the issues raised within the UI.
This incident also highlights that it is particularly important that all who are involved in operating ageing aircraft be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes. This is not the first on the Nimrod MR2 in recent months. Airworthiness and design authorities need to be cognisant of this fact as new servicing schedules are proposed/debated; the unexpected failure should be ever at the forefront of our minds.

I agree that Proper post-flight checks are carried out on 230 but as we see from the remarks above they check areas they are told to check if its not on the list it doesn't get checked.
Potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes, shows some areas are not subject to inspection.

dodgysootie
Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults
As i said above it was said that people should be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes.

This hasn't helped

incident reports leaked to Sky news

The incident reports were obtained under the FOI

everythingbuttheboy

Is it just me, or is anybody else concerned about the amount of coverage that the nimrod is currently receiving in the press, concerning fuel leaks and "crew uncertainty" about whether or not the aircraft is safe to fly.......

I spoke to a senior Officer in Kinloss in Sept and asked him if he would be happy to fly the Nimrod if the Limitations on using Tank 7, the SCP and AAR were removed. He wouldn't answer the question so I said if the were OK for XV230 to fly without the limitations why aren't you flying them now without limitations. After all the BOI hasn't reported yet so what makes you think those limitations will make a difference again no answer.

If your son was killed in a car crash driving a Ford and the inquiry was done by Ford and the people doing the inquiry had never investigated a car crash before would you be happy with that?? Would you have faith in their findings given the F700 was destroyed.
Would you be happy to be told in Sept the BOI will report in June then in June told it will be Sept then in Sept be told Nov then late Oct told next year.

As for the BOI we are waiting and waiting and waiting .
Ben's mum and I and his brothers want to know why he was blown into pieces in a so called reliable ac with a good safety record.

[Al R]

TD,

I'm sure you do, and we all do I'd imagine.. you need this put to bed for yourselves and for Tapper. But outing those e-mails wasn't a particularly decent thing to do though, and more importantly, I can't see what good it served you, or Tapper, or the cause. And I say this as someone who admires your resolve, your drive and your determination. You have lost your son, and I can't begin to imagine the pain.. as I can't begin to imagine the pain felt by the dads of those 2 lads run over on the motorway the other day.

Whatever I say will sound patronising, but there's a fine line between allowing something to eat you up, and doing the right thing for your little boy (they'll always be little boys, wont they?). Those e-mails weren't indications of corporate manslaughter, or whatever.,. they seemed to me, to be from blokes who (like yourself most prob.. dads too, hard working officers and with their hearts in the right place) were just trying to sort out one hell of a problem. If they had had the time, and different circumstances, they would have expressed themselves differently I'd imagine. E-mail is like jotting down random thoughts in many ways.. its a modern curse. We spend 4 times as long writing stuff that is 4 times too long.

Let the BoI announce its results, look at the big picture from every angle and then act. I know its frustrating as hell, although as I said, it must be awful for you and I thank God, have never had to know just how awful. But sometimes you might need someone to play devils advocate? Don't lose perspective, stay dignified and if and when you do realise you can nail the bastards.. do it properly but make sure that your aim is true, and pointing at the right culprits.

All the very best.

[MightyHunter AGE]

TD said
230 had an equalized servicing May to July and the Tanks repaired in july and yet 3 weeks later was sent out to the gulf after only one flight with "Acceptable" leaks from the same areas that were leaking prior to all this maintenance.

This is totally standard procedure. There are a lot of items that need to be fitted to an aircraft prior to it deploying to the gulf. Once maintenance has been completed there is little time before the jet leaves therefore only one or two sorties are usually conducted before leaving.

As for "acceptable" fuel leaks, that is EXACTLY what they are, ACCEPTABLE. I am again sat here wondering what the acceptable wing leaks have to do with the loss of 30.

Fuel SEEPING from a wing tank will not cause an aircraft to be lost. Unless of course a tank ruptured, and they were firing flares off at the same time but it was reported as a bomb bay fire not a wing fire so the wing leaks are irrelevant and detract from what the BOI might report.

[Tappers Dad]

I am sorry I should have said some of the "Acceptable leaks were from the same area.
I have under the FOI a list of of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006 and strangely there were no fuel leaks Acceptable or otherwise recorded from 2nd Aug until the 2nd Sept /
Perhaps Mighty Hunter Age you could tell me how many Acceptable leaks an ac can fly with 1,3,7,10,15 all dripping at 9 drips per minute?

[Mad_Mark]

TD said:

dodgysootie
Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults
As i said above it was said that people should be aware of the potential for failure in areas not previously subject to inspection regimes.

I hope that you never fly on civilian airlines if this is your concern. The turn-round procedures, items checked and time taken over these checks on RAF aircraft is far greater than the cursory 30 minute glance that most airlines get in order to maximise profits!

Using your own argument:
If [someone] was killed in a car crash driving a Ford...

Would you have expected them to have carried out pre-drive checks before his journey on EVERY component of their car? Probably the answer would be no. You would reasonably expect them to have checked the standard items (fuel, oil, water, hydraulic fluids, tyres and lights), the items that have been identified as the most likely sources of failure/accident.
If all aircraft were checked to the degree that you are implying then you would see only about 10% of scheduled flights compared to current levels and it would probably take a few days to turn a Nimrod rather than a few hours! Keep things in perspective.

And, surprisingly, I find myself for once agreeing with MightyHunter AGE :eek: It appears that you do not understand what is classed as a fuel 'leak'. Using your car analogy again, I am sure that the underside of your car engine shows evidence of oil leakage, probably just a slight damp staining. Does this overly concern you? Does it make your car unsafe to drive? If you saw the odd drip from coming from the sump you would probably investigate to see if there was a risk to the safety of the engine, car or yourself. If the oil was flowing as a steady stream from the sump I would imagine you would get your car fixed straight away. All of these are oil leaks, just of differing severity and potential risk, at one end of the scale the risk is totally acceptable for a safe journey to be made, at the other end the risk is not.

As I have said to you before, I lost several friends on 230 but can not begin to imagine how you and the other families must be feeling. BUT, you need to keep things in perspective. A slight seepage leaving little more than a stain is classed as a leak, as is a steady flow of fuel - both leaks - one acceptable the other not.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Hugh Spencer]

For what it is worth - in WW2 the pilot checked the aircraft as being airworthy before signing off from the ground crew. As far as I remember this was standard practice.

[BEagle]

MadMark, the difference is that very few, if any, airliners are as ancient as the Nimrod - and none are subject to the same flight profile.

Tappers Dad has every right to view the BoI with scepticism; I hope that his fears will prove to be unfounded.

Although in a culture where cash is king, somehow I doubt it.....

[splitbrain]

Tappers Dad has every right to view the BoI with scepticism; I hope that his fears will prove to be unfounded.

Yes he does, but we also have every right to view the motives and techniques of the investigative journalists of Panorama, Sky TV et al, with scepticism too.
I certainly wonder what good the probing of this forum and E-Goat is serving? TD is trying to make sense of a terrible loss, I appreciate that, but he is trying to examine an extremely complex jigsaw puzzle with innumerably more pieces missing than he actually has available to him and no picture on the box to help place information into context. Yes there is a chance that he may unveil the answer to the loss of the aircraft concerned, but it is rather more likely (particularly on E-Goat) that he will seriously offend the sensibilities, professionalism and judgement of those who have made it their career to keep these venerable machines in the air. And with respect to all concerned, I fail to see how that will help.

[Chugalug2]

the difference is that very few, if any, airliners are as ancient as the Nimrod - and none are subject to the same flight profile

Young or ancient, Beags, the real difference is that airliners are subject to the regulation of an independent airworthiness authority while military aircraft are not.

[tucumseh]

"Using your car analogy again................"


Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?

MoD beancounters, personnel and various other breeds of sycophant are taught to use this when considering requests for additional funds to maintain aircraft or when selecting engineering staff for advancement or new posts. I was once criticised on a promotion board for stating I would take disciplinary action against any engineer whom I found falsifying maintenance records. I was told I was wrong - their feelings were more important than aircraft serviceability and safety. When I asked what the official policy was in such a situation, I was told - Do Nothing. I should simply sign to say the aircraft or equipment was serviceable, even if I knew it was not. I should always wait until it failed and quietly arrange for it to be fixed, "just as I would with my car".

A one-off you may hope, but she was utterly gobsmacked when I told her she was barking. It seemed she'd been using this analogy for a long time and this was the only time anyone had argued. And you know what? It is MY personnel record which says I'm wrong. And the principle she supported that day, that making false statements on serviceability and airworthiness is acceptable, has been upheld by 2*, 4* and the last 4 Mins (AF). In writing. (Although I accept that Mins don't actually write or read what they sign).


And this is precisely why TD should continue to dig deep. I have the utmost respect for the engineering views expressed by maintainers here - in a previous life I was one of you - but until you experience first hand the sheer scale of the lies and deceit "HQ" is capable of in their efforts to hide the truth, then please accept that there are hidden depths beyond which even they have descended, and which even the greatest cynic cannot begin to imagine.

[Pontius Navigator]

I may have missed it but there was an error in the DT article today. LIMS is short for LIMITATIONS not limbs.

[Mad_Mark]

tucumseh said:
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?

I did not hint at anything of the kind, I simply used the analogy, as did TD, to highlight certain points; not to compare the maintenance and operating of the 2 types of vehicle.

My first point was in connection with the statement by TD that only some areas of the Nimrod are checked during the AF/BF maintenance procedures. My point was that this is true of any vehicle. You check what is known to be a major potential hazard or what you know to have a history of failure - you do not, and can not, check EVERY single item of the aircraft (or car). I will use this again to help you understand - do you check your brake pipes at the start and end of every journey? No? Why not? These are a potential source for the cause a major accident. You don't check them because there is no recognised history on your car of them failing and as such do not fall under the normal items to be checked. You probably do, however, check your tyres regularly.

My second analogy was used to highlight the differences in the rate, severity and potential risks to the vehicle of leaking liquids (be it fuel, oil, hydraulic fluids or water). A slight seep and a steady flow are both leaks, but one is acceptable whilst the other is not.


And Beags, I am fully aware of the differences between Nimrod and airline ages and operations, I was simply pointing out that nobody in the aviation industry checks EVERY component of the aircraft, just in case. Even vintage bi-planes probably do not have every single nut, connection and component checked before every flight - although I imagine the checks would be more thorough than those carried out on a C172. Nimrods undergo hours of checks during turns, but you can not check every single component for every flight - that is what minor and major servicing is for.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[tucumseh]

MM

I can't see what prompted your last post, given the context of my own post.

Referring to the point I made, I assume you don't agree with the (various) 2* and 4* (I never mention the 3* as he refused to respond to correspondence) that it is acceptable to knowingly make false declarations -re airworthiness?

In the face of that particular ruling (made, to my certain knowledge, at least 10 times now), I also hope you agree we should all be concerned.

[Da4orce]

Haunting words indeed considering the outcome!


The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of one electronic optics [video-equipped] aircraft in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all to replace it with,” one officer at Kinloss said.

There was relief verging on jubilation at the discovery that the civilian company MPI had “a crack squad of fuel leak fixers”, which normally worked on civilian airliners, and in February it was called in to work on XV230. A few weeks later, QinetiQ reported the results of its investigation, concluding that the aircraft was simply too old, and being pushed too hard, leading to excessive strain on the airframe. QinetiQ found that “the aggressive tempo with which we are flying the jets in stark temperature shifts is contributing to our leak headache,” one officer noted in an email.

XV230 resumed flying in March. But no sooner had it done so than the leaks returned. In the six months before the explosion, there were more than 50 fuel leaks on Nimrods, at least 12 of them on XV230. During June and July, it was the first RAF aircraft to be put through a new system of “equalized maintenance (http://www.bajars.co.uk/dlo_article_aug2006.htm)” designed to save time and money which cured only five of the 12 leaks.

The explosion confirmed all the worst fears. Immediately, the hot air pipe in the bomb bay and the fuel tank at the base of the starboard wing were taken out of use on the rest of the fleet and within two days they were back up in the air. Even before the decision was made to start flying again another Nimrod suffered a fuel leak. A Serious Fault Signal (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1937063.ece) in October 2006 reported leaks with three aircraft, one of them the day after the explosion during refueling on the ground.

On 13 October, fuel was found to be leaking out of two of the tanks of a Nimrod. It was kept flying with the two tanks put out of use but a week later a third tank burst leaking fuel into the bomb bay. Then on 8 November, a Nimrod suffered a major leak during mid-air refuelling with hundreds of gallons of fuel running along the fuselage and pouring out of the rear of the aircraft. Pressure built up in the air-to-air refuelling system to twice the normal limit. Fuel flooded the bomb bay, which had to be opened twice to get rid of it. The RAF suspended air-to-air refuelling briefly, introducing new operating procedures limiting which tanks could be used. But a month later, another Nimrod lost nearly 1,000 gallons of fuel as a result of a leak during mid-air refuelling.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_smith/2007/10/nimrod---the-wa.html

[Alber Ratman]

Only the BOI know all information and only they can come up with the answers.

Speculation is only going to hurt other people involved, as has been seen on other forums. It only allows the sensationalists to earn their crust.

I am sure that the BOI will reach an acccurate conclusion. Do presently serving members of the service need to do washing in public??

Please let the BOI finish their job. If a rat is smelt, there are more than enough people in positions of knowledge to see it and to advertise the fact.

[Charlie Luncher]

TD beware the rats, parasites and those passed over on promotion boards who will use your case to further their own. In perspective how many of the men and women who were and are still Ben's loyal comrades, loyal mates and more importantly pals whom step each day to conduct operational missions have "leaked information".
Maybe they trust their mates who are on the BOI, they are not CSI crash investigators they leave that to the nerds at Farnborough, maybe you should and then act. I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.
The only "conspiracy" are those fuelled by self serving journalists, not forgetting the odd "military expert" thrown in for a fee and a free liquid lunch.
Honour is a term that should be considered, I humbly consider it every time I accompany my loyal comrades, loyal mates and more importantly pals on operational missions over hostile lands.
To the rest I am sorry if I am late getting back to your following comments but I am trying to prevent another parent, partner or child ,including mine, from getting the knock on the door we all dread, do you do the same from your soft armchair or frustrating job. To the lads please dont drink the bar dry before I get there you know what I will have:}
An angry and pissed off Charlie sends

[fergineer]

This conversation has indeed been going on for a considerable time now. It seems to me that there are people speculating over things that they have no real knowledge of and are in most cases coming up with incorrect information that just fires the speculation, lets just take a step back and look again what we have.
XV230 exploded in Afghanistan shortly after AAR. We know of no other official details about it so anything that comes up is mostly pure speculation I lost friends on board but no family, to the families my condolences which I have sent before.
Lets look at life outside and inside the forces. I have flown both. Nimrods, Hercs and Tristar. The first two in the military and the latter in Civvy Street. The one thing that is common on all types is that they have fuel leaks, they have hot air leaks and they also have other major malfunctions. Now I trusted then and if I was still flying would trust them now……What am I talking about…..my ground crew, they are the guys who look with skills that they have acquired for any faults that would endanger the aircraft and the crews that fly them, they would not willingly send an aircraft flying with dangerous faults, fact they would not. The crew chiefs then check again and they also would net send an aircraft airborne with faults. Then the crew checks the aircraft, any fuel leaks will be entered in the log……the position and the rate of leak is put there, any leak found and allowed to go flying would have been assessed against a written guideline and either allowed to fly or not. This is a system that has been around for many years tried and trusted by aircrew and ground crew alike at any stage someone could have said no to taking the aircraft flying the crews are briefed what defects they are carrying, they were red and greens in my day not sure now. People spend time writing up faults, leaks etc so we all know what is happening. These are people I trusted then and would trust now.
Now to the next lot, the press and anyone who leaks unofficial document emails etc to anyone who will listen to them…….words fail me. Cannot think of anything nice to say about them so that should give you an idea of what I think about them. All the armchair experts……when will you stand up in front of a board and say what you think I have done so and it cost me a lot but I came from facts and thorough knowledge of the situation. I did not use hearsay just knowledge that I got myself and used at the inquiry. Facts that I could check myself .I used the details that the BOI had and quashed rumour with fact. Now at the inquiry you will find people that know only what is written in front of them, don’t waste time asking them what they know or think, arm yourself with experts that will know facts and let them speak on your be half.
TD I respect what you are doing in trying to find facts but don’t let sentiment delay the BOI answers, wait till you have their facts before getting in their faces with other information. Remember the more you give them the more they are prepared for your Questions.
I have ranted on enough take a step back all, wait for the BOI results and then take action.
Regards
Fergi

[nigegilb]

An awful lot of trust is being given to the BoI. A BoI which has been frustrated by having little physical evidence of the XV230 crash site. The BoI report was written several months ago and then re-convened. This is highly unusual. I have been told this may have been due to conflicting advice from the boffins themselves. TD has concentrated on procedure running up to the crash. There is plenty enough evidence out there to suggest that this was a fleet operating flat out, running out of resources and operating aircraft that were simply too old. And immediately after the crash, the rush to get back to AAR ops a move questioned by highly experienced pilots at Kinloss. All this speculation is damaging for sure, but the failure to publish the BoI is the reason. Publish and be damned.

The Hercules Inquest will reconvene shortly. I am expecting the MoD line of defence to claim that they have learnt their lessons. Looking at the handling of fuel leaks on Nimrod and the failure to provide protection for MRA4 into the future I would reject the statement that the MoD is learning any lessons here.

How can safety be claimed to be the highest priority when MRA4 is now being rushed into service with less protection on board than its predecessor?

From GK's emails, an anguished statement from an engineer.

The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of 1 EO ac in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all (EO or non-EO) to replace it with.

Article as it appears in ST.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2753527.ece

[DEL Mode]

Rant On

As Chugalug2 said there is independent regulation of the civil world. It is there for a reason. In the event of an accident (or incident) an investigation is launched by an independent body who is there to find out what went wrong. FACT not blame. The AAIB establishes fact, and if necessary the authorities allocate blame (CAA/Coroner/CPS?).

And by comparison it seems to work.

The military on the other hand seems to want to allocate blame (or avoid blame) even if it means that the facts are lost.

If nothing else TD's comments may act as a wake up call to the military in that e-mails should be treated as serious, thought through legal records.

The Military have a duty of care to the civilians who live below their aircraft, and that is true at all times. The RAF also has a duty of care to its own staff and this seems to be presenting real difficulties.

If you cannot afford to operate and maintain the fleet of aircraft then dont.

The idiotic "can do" mentality has made a rod for its own back. The politicians love it. If you can do then the treasury can lean more out, and you can do.

My observation from the comments on this thread are that the ones who will not question government policy will question the ethics of a father who has lost his son. Maybe their OBE, MBE and Knighthoods are more important.

Rant Off

[Tappers Dad]

Charlie Luncher

I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.

Why should anything I say, an ordinary bloke off civie street, have any affect on an independent BOI made up of RAF experts; unless I have uncovered something that they didn't look at.

Here is part of some FOI information I have.

Thank you for your e-mail to the MOD feedback website on the 30 August 2007 requesting a detailed list of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006. I have been asked to reply as this is an area for which Air Command has responsibility. Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000. I will answer each question in turn.
Please see the attached Table 1 that provides a list of fuel of leaks with dates, fault and rectification details.
Limitations Log (F703) – XV230
Acceptable Deferred Defects Log (F704) – XV230
Maintenance Work Orders (F707A) – XV230
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs. Original Limitations Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs Original ADF Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.

How many people have read these ???? I have and the BOI has, therefore I can comment on them.

[chappie]

BOI DO NOT ALWAYS GIVE YOU THE ANSWERS!!! DO NOT BE SO GULLIBLE. FOR GOD SAKE WHY ELSE DO YOU THINK THAT FOR THE BEST PART OF NEARLY TWO YEARS MYSELF AND OTHER VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SPENT PUSHING FOR WHAT IS THE ACTUAL TRUTH AND JUST NOT ACCEPTING WHAT WE ARE FED. IT IS BOTH OKAY AND NECESSARY TO QUESTION ANYTHING THAT YOU ARE TOLD, AND AS THE ABSOLUTE TRUST THAT YOU HAVE IN THE BOI PROCESS SEEMS UNSWERVING THEN WHY IS TD AND ANY OTHER BEREVED FAMILY MEMBER NOT ALLOWED TO INVEST THEIR TRUST IN WHO THEY CHOOSE?

FINALLY.....IT IS NEVER, NOR WILL IT EVER BE THE INTENTION OF THOSE OF US LEFT BEHIND TO DEMORALISE THE DEDICATED AND PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE OF THE FORCES. WE ARE SO BLOODY PROUD OF YOU. I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU POINT THAT FINGER AT THE PEOPLE BEHIND THEIR DESKS WHO DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T HAVE AND DO IN WHITEHALL AND SEE YOU AS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EXPENDABLE ASSET.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

sorry guys, and i'm sure i will calm down soon but i felt the need to rant at the ramblings of EBTB and THHH!!

[nigegilb]

It is informative that when AAR Ops were suspended, AOC 2Gp allowed AAR to continue when operationally necessary. This order came out around 48 hours after the crash. If this does not indicate that Op necessity is the only driving force in the RAF at the moment, what does?

A £1bn shortfall in Defence Budget is also being reported in the press today, what chance securing the funding for bomb bay protection and fuel tank protection for MRA4 in this climate? Overdue a bit of leadership perhaps?

A very senior officer told me that he would love to have this protection on board, but the money simply is not there. This is no way to run our Armed Forces in a time of war.

[Chugalug2]

As Chugalug2 said there is independent regulation of the civil world. It is there for a reason. In the event of an accident (or incident) an investigation is launched by an independent body who is there to find out what went wrong. FACT not blame. The AAIB establishes fact, and if necessary the authorities allocate blame (CAA/Coroner/CPS?).

And by comparison it seems to work.

As compared to:

I assume you don't agree with the (various) 2* and 4* (I never mention the 3* as he refused to respond to correspondence) that it is acceptable to knowingly make false declarations -re airworthiness?

Thank you for picking up on my point, DEL Mode, for unsurprisingly I think it is fundamental to Military Airworthiness at the moment. Taken in concert with Tucumseh’s shocking testimony above it paints a very sobering picture of the senior direction of the RAF. It comes as little surprise to me that this long awaited BoI has been postponed, postponed, and postponed again. I will not be surprised if it is postponed yet again. If it is it will not be the fault of TD, the media, PPRune or Uncle Tom Cobley, but of the MOD and its manipulative ways. To attack those who seek to bring light into such darkness as undermining morale and operational capability is in effect shooting the messenger. I would look to Whitehall for the guilty parties. In the meantime I second Nigegilb’s challenge, Publish and be Damned!

[Distant Voice]

Well said DEL Mode, self regulation always fails. And let us not forget MoD's own definition of "Unacceptable". It is a level of risk that is tolerable under exceptional circumstances (as per DEF STAN 00-56). So in other words, the bottm line is zero.

DV

[Safeware]

In relation to some of the immediately foregoing, it may help to divide the arguments into 2 areas:

1. Would RAF Engineering personel release an aircraft to fly that did not comply with published limitations and maintenance directives, or use their common sense to consider an accumulation of fuel leakage issues against the whole picture?

I would be shocked if the answer to this was "Yes". I don't know the limits, the tanks etc, but I'm sure those directly involved were satisfied that the aircraft as it was, was within limits. Within the bounds of their knowledge, the aircraft (ie in terms of specific airframes) would therefore be considered "airworthy".

2. Does the aircraft meet the regulatory standard as required in JSP 553?

If it is shown that the aircraft (ie the Nimrod as a fleet) doesn't meet that, and the designer and customer knew this, and knew what could be done to improve the situation and did not address the issues, then that is a different matter entirely. The guys directly involved in maintaining the aircraft wouldn't know that they were dealing with a problem beyond their influence.

Going back to cars for a moment, if you have a car that appears perfect, but has an inherent flaw, what visibility of this do you the owner or the garage that services it have visibility of the problem? As an example, have a search for info on Ford and the Pinto car fuel tank. One article on the matter is here: http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?did=522&scid=8

In the case of XV230, and sitting on the sidelines, I'd be looking more at answers to the second question rather than the first question.

The BOI should address both, and, to ally TD's concerns about membership of the BOI having no crash investigation experience I'd advise not geting hung up on that. It is the nature of the composition of a BOI. They aren't there to be expert accident investigators - there aren't enough people in the RAF on each type, or enough accidents (thank goodness) to generate expertise. To get the full picture (or as full a picture as possible without access to the aircraft) the BOI will have sought expert advice form a range of organisations. Been there, done that, so would discourage harassment of the BOI.

sw

[r supwoods]

We seem to be forgetting that these aircraft were never designed to the current levels of Safety as per decreed in JSP550 srs ..These are legacy aircraft and hence it is up to the individual platform to declare their own levels and get stakeholder buy in.

[Safeware]

r supwoods

JSP 553 still applies, but it does contain caveats for legacy equipment and pointers to 00-56. There is also MoD policy on 'at least as good as' and identification and action on areas where legacy equipment may have particular issues in such areas.

sw

[Papa Whisky Alpha]

I have no knowledge of JSP 553 or the servicing procedures on the Nimrod but I do have an interest in knowing the cause of the explosion that lead to the crash of XV230.
The comments made by "Safeware" are in my view the most erudite that I have seen on this subject. I also, believe that the ground crews and engineering staff will have done everything they can to maintain serviceable aircraft to the standard demanded by the RAF. For this they deserve the thanks of everyone, especially those who fly any aircraft.

However - in the case of XV230, if it subsequently transpires that the manufacturer had advised fire suppressant measures which were not implemented on the grounds of cost then it shows a remarkable lack of appreciation of the level of risk posed to those flying the aircraft and a low level of risk management. In other words incompetence. Should it be shown that the hazard was identified but a conscious decision was taken to ignore it on commercial, financial or political grounds, that is criminal.

[Tappers Dad]

Papa Whisky Alpha (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=152172)

See your PMs

[Distant Voice]

Safeware: The gripe is not with the people who are required to maintain and fly the aircraft to the prescribe limits, it is with the people who constantly adjust the limits. As one leaked email states "so the goal posts have changed yet again"

It is all very well saying "I would never fly an unsafe A/C" or " I would never sign off an unsafe A/C", but the limits which define "safe" and "unsafe" are set by other, based on risk acceptance. And the acceptance level fluctuates with pressures and policy. Please read my earlier posting regarding MoD's definition of "unacceptable".


DV

[Distant Voice]

Mighty Hunter AGE: I would like to refer you back to your posting # 1001 in which you state;So DV what you are saying then is that the MU is not doing its job properly? That jets are being sent up with fuel leaks that are not being rectified.

The answer to that, in XV230's case, is YES. Came in with 12 fuel leaks, went out with 7 remaining. Why - Need the a/c, civilian contract, penalty clauses, must get it out when MoD require it.

Give us the benefit of your vast scheduling policy experience.

Well as someone who helped to formulate scheduling policy for Nimrod, I am probably a little more experienced than a "Crew Chief". I have seen Equalized maitenance in other forms; "Day Group Servicing, Progressive Servicing etc". But the bottom line is that when an a/c is sent in for servicing with ADD's, that the flight line does not have time to clear, then they are cleared during that servicing. If not, when will they be cleared.

DV

[Safeware]

DV,
What I was getting at is the focus of the last page or so on leaks and what is or is not acceptable. Acceptability in this sense is clearly defined for the maintainers.

As regards tolerability wrt risk assessment, I think I've posted enough on that matter not to need to revisit that theme.
sw

[r supwoods]

SW

JSP 553 and Def Stan 00-56 cannot lay down hard and fast levels of safety, the RAF operates such a wide diversity of equipment. Guidance is taken but the Operator and the Technical Authority set the targets and measure against them. These levels set the policy for management of risks with any significant hazards assigned to the appropriate owner.

[Safeware]

r supwoods,

And I always thought that JSP 553 was about "Military Airworthiness Regulations" and not "Military Airworthiness Guidance"

sw

[Distant Voice]

Safeware: Yes I agree, acceptabilty is clearly defined for maintainers and operators. My point is that "acceptability" is constantly changing. It was acceptable for XV260 to fly out of Basra on 4th Sept 2006, one day after a fractured pipe was discovered in the bomb bay of XV255 on 3rd Sept (ONE DAY after the crash). A visual inspection was considered acceptable, when normally eddy current testing would be called for as a minimum. Who decided on this: IPT

DV

[airsound]

Despite the great degrees of expertise on display here, are we in danger of losing sight of what this is all about? A large, sophisticated aircraft suffered sudden catastrophic failure, with multiple fatalities. Those bland words ‘multiple fatalities’ do, of course, conceal personal, human tragedies on a large scale. And the phrase ‘catastrophic failure’ can imply far-reaching consequences for the operator of the aircraft concerned.

Catastrophes like this are vanishingly rare, whether in military or civilian operations, mostly because all the possible causes have been foreseen, considered and dealt with. When this rarest of events does occur, it is surely unlikely to be because of something totally unforeseen - but rather because a known, recognised risk has been miscalculated, or worse, ignored.

My fear is that the investigation of this broad view will turn out not to have been ‘within the remit’ of the BOI.

airsound

[Biggus]

Many people on here say wait for the BOI report before commenting, don't pre judge it, etc. I have a lot of sympathy for that arguement. However, when is the report finally going to be published?

In post 1189 Tappers Dad says he has been told successively that it will be published in June 07, Sep 07, Nov 07 and finally somewhen next year, ??? 08! In another post Nigegilb says the report was written 'several months ago' and that the board had been re-conviened to re-examine it (not unheard of I believe). I don't know where Nige gets his facts from, or if they are correct. However, perhaps the status/progress of the BOI report needs to be addressed as much as anything else by people persuing this issue.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that the BOI report be rushed. Neither am I saying it is being delayed as part of some conspiracy or cover up. But if Nige's comments are correct it would appear that the report has been completed by the BOI inself, and is now in the senior officer/management chain. Hopefully it is considered important enough not to spend any length of time in someones 'In' tray.

Given Tappers Dads comment reference publishing somewhen in 08 can we expect another 2 months plus of debate on this thread while we await the offical findings???

[tucumseh]

JSP 553 has been mentioned a few times. (Military Airworthiness Regulations).

It has to be said that this is voluminous to say the least. 7 Chapters, 20+ Annexes, a dozen Appendices. Very few know it by heart. It’s the kind of publication you dip into when a question arises.

Nevertheless, it sets out the Regulations. But, if you were to sit most IPTLs down and ask them to highlight JSP requirements that they simply do not have the funding, manpower or expertise to implement, then you would be horrified.

The part I refer to most often, as it is the one which causes project managers and Design Authorities most hassle, is Ch. 5.53. “It must be possible to establish the actual design of the aircraft (i.e. as flown) has been assessed for safety. The IPTL is to ensure that the design of the aircraft after a Service engineered change is clearly and unambiguously documented, and covered by an identified issue of the safety case”. The reason it is hassle is because the Services and In Service IPTs often ignore it. More often than not, an aircraft will be delivered to a contractor for, say, modification, bearing no resemblance to the build standard reflected in the “up to date” safety case or drawings. (And the knock-on effect is felt by Service maintainers, who indeed “follow the book” but have no control whatsoever over its currency).

The processes and procedures to do this, for both aircraft and equipment, have remained unchanged for over 16 years. Yet, as I have said before many times, the apathy in this general field is appalling. Criminally so. “Complete waste of money” is a typical cry.

I mentioned two sample accidents in a previous post. Read the BoI reports. Then ask if Ch. 5.53 or other fundamental regulations for ensuring airworthiness is (a) achieved and (b) MAINTAINED were investigated by the BoI. And then dig deeper and ask if the BoI were given all the information, or even sought it. Frankly, both reports are a joke. The only possible conclusion, given the information that would answer key questions they ask (but apparently can’t answer) is freely available, is that embarrassment had to be avoided. And this is why I support what TD is doing now. If nothing else, he is very publicly forcing the MoD to ask questions they don’t like the answers to. He may or may not get satisfaction, but if the way MoD implements its own Regulations changes for the better, then this can only be good.

[SpannerSpinner]

May I ask a question,

I've not contributed to this thread for some time now. Having seen the Sky News report about XV230 having "serious fuel leak defects" prior to and during ops, why is all the emphasis on rib 7 leaks?

I dealt with those very repairs and maybe I've missed something massive (and forgive me if I have), but why was all the emphasis on these prblems when it is widely speculated that a bomb bay fire caused her loss?

Rib 7 fuel leaks are linked with underwing stores (Boz etc) as eluded to in the report but what do they have to do with the cause of the crash?

As a very recent MR2 man I'd be astonished (although I am ready to be corrected) if they were the main cause of the crash.

Standing by for countless correction/counter correction and safety quote....

[Mick Smith]

IMHO Airsound has put his finger on a key point:
My fear is that the investigation of this broad view will turn out not to have been ‘within the remit’ of the BOI.
Charlie Luncher said in his plea to TD
I think, if it is worth anything to you, is that you are delaying the BOI and its findings.
The MoD is saying the BOI will not now report next month so Charlie Luncher seems to be correct. The most likely explanation for that given official briefings last week that it would report in late November seems to me to be that the BOI had not seen those emails.
If that is the case, then the leaking of those emails can only help the BOI get to the bottom of this and I suspect whoever leaked them almost certainly did it out of concern that the BOI was not aware of their existence.
What is more worrying is that this is not the first time the BOI has been recovened following publication of information uncovered by TD and others. Biggus what Nigel says about the report being written several months ago is absolutely correct and was confirmed off the record by the MoD back in June when it was reconvened for the first time.
It was reconvened after it emerged that the Kinloss Station Commander had warned in August 2005 - in the wake of the burst hot air pipe on XV227 - that an “unexpected failure” was likely on Nimrod given that it was already 10 years past its out-of-service date.
The most sensible interpretation of reconvening to look at the XV227 case is that the BOI’s remit did not go back that far. What is more puzzling is why its remit did not include the discussions covered in the emails, which ran from December 2005 to February 2006 and centred on the need to get XV230’s leak problems fixed.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

If the BOI reconvenes I hope they've covered everything

1. What's the delivery pressure from AAR tanker?
2. Does this pressure ever surge (overpressure)?
2a. Was the tanker serviceable?
3. What checks are carried out prior to AAR sorties?
4. Are the fuel pipes (in the bomb bay) pressure tested to full system pressure, either routinely, or after component replacement?
5. Where is the ignition source?
6. Would Nimrod electrical wiring pass modern standards of 'Wiring Husbandry' checks (post TWA explosion)?
7. Can a bleed air leak ignite fuel?
8. Is the suspect cooling pack pipe, or any joints of that pipework, anywhere near electrical wiring?

There are plenty of clues out there.

SPHLC

[Pontius Navigator]

The most sensible interpretation of reconvening to look at the XV227 case is that the BOI’s remit did not go back that far.

This is possibly quite likely. A BOI will initially have both a blank sheet and a closely defined set of terms of reference. It is arguably that this is correct so that they may focus on the actual event.

Only as the investigation proceeds may its TORs be altered to cover areas not initially thought relevant. Of course it may be that some areas are not identified or are not brought to the BOIs attention or indeed are ruled outside the BOIs TORs. I believe there have been several recent Government enquiries where the investigation has been constrained by close TORs! (Butler?)

This is possibly the service that TD has performed, lifting the carpet and letting light into areas that some people may have wished to avoid being brought to light

[MightyHunter AGE]

DV why drag something I posted over 5 weeks ago? Oh well here goes:

MHAGE posted
So DV what you are saying then is that the MU is not doing its job properly?

DV answered
The answer to that, in XV230's case, is YES.

Well well DV I wouldn't like to be a fly on the wall when the legal team at NSG read this and start legal proceedings for slander.

So what if a jet went in with ACCEPTABLE fuel leaks and those at the bottom end of the ACCEPTABLE leak end were not rectified? Big deal.
The jet was required for operations and ACCEPTABLE leaks are just that, ACCEPTABLE.

Once again I ask why all the fuss about ACCEPTABLE fuel leaks on the wings. As has been said time and time again the finger of suspicion is being pointed at a bomb bay fire not an ACCEPTABLE leak from an integral wing tank.

Then again as you have pointed out I am only a "Crew Chief" who has spent the last six years keeping these great old jets flying, what would I know about its fuel systems or fuel leak rates and rectification, silly old me.

A slight bit more than you I suspect.

I think evertone is being swayed away from the real possible cause of the loss of 30, SirPeterHardingsLoveChild has hit the nail on the head in his post.

[Da4orce]

Papa Whisky Alpha (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=152172) wrote:



However - in the case of XV230, if it subsequently transpires that the manufacturer had advised fire suppressant measures which were not implemented on the grounds of cost then it shows a remarkable lack of appreciation of the level of risk posed to those flying the aircraft and a low level of risk management. Should it be shown that the hazard was identified but a conscious decision was taken to ignore it on commercial, financial or political grounds, that is criminal.


I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems clearly recommending the fire suppressant measures which were subsequently not implemented on cost grounds, there is no 'if it subsequently transpires', the evidence is in black and white, it happened.

Airsound wrote:


Catastrophes like this are vanishingly rare, whether in military or civilian operations, mostly because all the possible causes have been foreseen, considered and dealt with. When this rarest of events does occur, it is surely unlikely to be because of something totally unforeseen - but rather because a known, recognised risk has been miscalculated, or worse, ignored.


I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems making reference to ignition sources (electrical and hot air) being in conflict with fuel systems. The same report states that the risks are low but covers that by saying that the low number of flying hours means a meanigful assessment of risk is not possible!

SpannerSpinner

Rib 7 fuel leaks are linked with underwing stores (Boz etc) as eluded to in the report but what do they have to do with the cause of the crash?

As a very recent MR2 man I'd be astonished (although I am ready to be corrected) if they were the main cause of the crash.

I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems that Rib 7 had fuel leakage problems and specifically the use of the Boz Pod exacerbated the problem and worsened the leaks.

I've also been told by RAF sources that fuel leaking from the Nimrod wings (not Rib 7) could run along the underside of the wing and pool in the bomb bay, not specifically on 230 but in previous incidents so there does seem to be a precedent.


Mick Smith wrote:


It was reconvened after it emerged that the Kinloss Station Commander had warned in August 2005 - in the wake of the burst hot air pipe on XV227 - that an “unexpected failure” was likely on Nimrod given that it was already 10 years past its out-of-service date.
The most sensible interpretation of reconvening to look at the XV227 case is that the BOI’s remit did not go back that far. What is more puzzling is why its remit did not include the discussions covered in the emails, which ran from December 2005 to February 2006 and centred on the need to get XV230’s leak problems fixed.


Maybe the BoI didn't ask for the emails or didn't know to ask for them, maybe they asked for them but were told they didn't exist. Whatever, someone at Kinloss obviously thought they were significant enough to risk their career by leaking them.

SirPeterhardingsLovechild wrote:


Would Nimrod electrical wiring pass modern standards of 'Wiring Husbandry' checks (post TWA explosion)?

Is the suspect cooling pack pipe, or any joints of that pipework, anywhere near electrical wiring?


I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems making reference to wiring chaffing because its too close to moving parts, arching because of the chaffing, also reference to the continued use of Kapton wiring in the Nimrod systems. Further refernce to hot air pipes being too close to fuel pipes etc

Pontius wrote:


This is possibly the service that TD has performed, lifting the carpet and letting light into areas that some people may have wished to avoid being brought to light.


BINGO !

[MightyHunter AGE]

Da4orce wrote
I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems that Rib 7 had fuel leakage problems and specifically the use of the Boz Pod exacerbated the problem and worsened the leaks. I've also been told by RAF sources that fuel leaking from the Nimrod wings ran along the underside of the wing and pooled in the bomb bay, not specifically on 230 but in previous incidents so there does seem to be a precedent.


Da4orce I am not being facetious but how would a fuel leak from rib 7 manage to pool in the bomb bay during flight when the very motion of the aircraft moving through the air in flight would sweep away any fuel that leaks as rib 7 is approx 10 feet away from the bomb bay?

If there were a leak developed in flight you would certainly notice fuel managing to pool into the bomb bay if it had to fight itself 10 feet across the wing and engine doors to then pool into the bomb bay against the airflow?

And if there was a rib 7 leak on the ground then the ground crew's servicing, the air Eng and subsequent captains walk round would surely have spotted that? I have it on good authority from the very men that saw the jet off that fateful day that there were no fuel leaks when it took off.

[Da4orce]

MightyHunter AGE the simply answer is I don't know enough about the jet to dispute what you are saying, all I know is what I was told by more than one serving at Kinloss.

Maybe I need to clarify my statement and make it clear that the pooling doesn't relate to Rib 7 if that is correct. Maybe you could clarify whether such pooling occurs from leaks elsewhere on the jet?

[Distant Voice]

Mighty Hunter AGE: You misquote your own posting to which I replied, "Yes".
Your statement in full was "So DV what you are saying then is that the MU is not doing its job properly? that jets are being sent up with fuel leaks that are not being rectified"

Acceptable deferred defects are still defects, which should be cleared in the specified time. Normally, they are carried until the next in-depth servicing, unless they get worse before that can take place.

I should also like to point out that a Commissioned Engineering Officer at Kinloss, stated in an email (Dec 2005), "As you are aware, XV230 and XV250 both have fuel leak issues that need to be rectified before the aircraft can be deployed to TELIC". He then goes on to list the defects, which are all located in the wing area. MPI are then called in (Feb 2006) to carry out fuel leak-mapping, negative pressure testing and a full reseal of affected areas on XV230. THE FAULTS RETURN a few months later, prior to the aircraft unndergoing the new equalized servicing, and deployment to the Gulf. However, only 7 out of 12 defects were cleared. The standards which applied in Feb, should still have applied in Aug when the aircraft was sent to the Gulf.

In the end we lost XV230, and XV250, which was also sent the Gulf was asked to return to Kinloss in Nov 2006.

And why do I reply now? timing old boy, timing.

By the way, the posting was not four months ago, it was last month (14th September).

DV

[r supwoods]

SW

JSP 553 is a Regulation but if they regulate on something that cannot be achievable, an alternative may be justified and authorised for use.

[Chugalug2]

JSP 553 is a Regulation but if they regulate on something that cannot be achievable, an alternative may be justified and authorised for use.

If ever there were a phrase that encapsulated the gulf between Military and Civilian Airworthiness then that is surely it!

[jan66]

please guys for gods sake ,think of those left behind...ive been reading these rumours for the past 13 months(i am a family member who lost a loved one that day) and am finding it increasingly difficult to see TD and freinds continually using this site or making speculated news reports.we all need to see the BOI first then make all our questions answered.
there are children who still cry every day for their daddys,...wives,mothers,fathers,brothers and sisters too.i fully understand your grief,but others want to show theirs respectfully and in private and by TD and like bringing it into the public eye as often as they do,does not and will not bring any other the guys back.
im sorry for your loss,but i have lost too.so please give a thought to us,you are not the only one to suffer.


rest in peace guys.x

[Chugalug2]

Jan66, I reply very diffidently to your post, for mine was the one that preceded yours, and if that was indeed the 'final straw' then I apologise unreservedly. Let me firstly commiserate with you in your loss and your grief. I can only speak for myself, but hopefully reflect the feelings of others who have posted here both pro and con your call to wait for the BoI to be published. This dialogue is not the detached gossip of 'tech nerds' but of those serving and retired who have a professional concern for this particular accident, or for the wider but vital enforcement of military airworthiness regulations. With due respect, if we felt that the BoI was likely to 'make all our questions answered', then we might be persuaded to so wait. Precedence does not encourage such hope though I fear, and the urgent need to reform Military Airworthiness Provision has to be addressed to reduce the chances of such tragedies in future. It seems to me pertinent that the views of those, like myself, who castigate the lack of a robust and sound system of Military Airworthiness Regulation, go unchallenged. If such challenges had been made some 35 years ago, when I was in the RAF, I am sure that they would have been met with a resounding response. I hope that you can see that the driving concern of all who post here is the prevention of avoidable accidents, and the grief of yet more bereaved, such as yourself, who lose loved ones. That is our preoccupation and in that I suspect we are all united. Once again my sincere condolences in your loss.
With respect.
Chug

[Safeware]

:ugh: :ugh: :(

[jan66]

i understand where you are all coming from but it doesnt help when the news is covered by TD findings, when yes,he has lost and needs to find out why his son was taken,but what about the other families involved?? dont they have any say when their children are crying too,..thats all i wanted to get across.
TD has two other sons who need him now,but we have to look after what we got left too.
there are alot of us left behind,some that have to deal with this without the support that they should be getting,but we manage.

i truley hope TD gets the answers he wants,just like the rest of us.
good luck

[Distant Voice]

Jan66: I, like everyone who has posted on this thread, am deeply sorry for your loss, and it is impossible for me to appreciate what you are going through. But I can assure you that all we are trying to achieve, for you, TD and the other families who have lost a love one in XV230, is that the whole truth is revealed about this accident. You, like others, say wait for the BoI results, but experience tells many of us that more has to be done than just wait. I am convined, like Mike Smith, that the BoI has had to go back and re-examine their findings several times, because of what has been exposed on this thread. Sometimes, things get a little heated here on pprune, but it is all done in order to achieve the best results in the long term.

God bless to you, and your little ones, and I hope it is not too long before the official report is issued.

Distant Voice

[santiago15]

I think what we've seen wrt the loss of XV230 is a first: widespread speculation before the results of a BOI are published. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot recall such speculation and heresay before any BOI in my military career.

There are so many good reasons not to pre-empt and wait, yet they seem to have been ignored in this instance because so many people seem to have no faith in the BOI system. I hope what we are seeing with regard to pre-BOI speculation in this instance is a one off. Because rest assured, outside of this forum, a lot of harm has been done in terms of upsetting the other families involved in this case. I truely hope that we can look back in a few years time and say it was worth it. Although I have to say, right now, I have a big doubt.

[chappie]

jan 66 PM if you wish.

suffice to say i know both the pain of being left behind. i too know the pain of the trying to comfort the one's left behind, the ones that away or in front of the computer screen cry raw huge ugly painful tears.years on... you are still left to question why.

please understand one thing...many of those on here do not talk, nor indeed speculate, about what happened just as a matter of interest, but to try adn find out the truth behind what has happened and for the simple fact we, the ones left behind, do not want to have any other family go through the agony that we endure every waking moment. it is both painful and distressing to have people you don't know speculate about those moments that led up to the end of your loved ones life. please belelieve that the majority of repondents do not reply without wishing to disrespect the cause for which they are merely trying to help with.

i lost my brother, on the hercules that was shot down in iraq. i have both sat back and endured the "open" discussion about his last moments and the failings that led to that moment. i have also participated in them to. all because i was trying to stop anyone from feeling what i felt. in fact what i still feel even today.there is nothing that will bring them back. there is nothing that will ease the pain that you/we are left with. in fact sometimes open speculation about failings from a government that was supposed to serve and protect them hurt all the more. i had to listen to my little girl today tell me that she knew where iraq was in her atlas and thats where uncle bob was killed and thats why you cry mummy. so please, understand jan that as i write this my eyes are stinging with tears.. again. i understand at how good you have to be at making sudden excuses that you are crying suddenly. i also understand that sadly this process is long, painful and drawn out and we are merely part of it.

sending you big cyber hugs:}

[Chugalug2]

Your most moving post ever, Chappie. Respectfully,
Chug

[theotherhalf]

Jan 66
When you have lost, as we have, it seems a violation of our space that others appear to openly discuss things which should or should not remain private. The most difficult thing I have found is the almost single minded way in which all this horror is dealt with, often at the expense of others who have lost and certainly at the expense of those who have a different perspective which is dismissed out of hand. We all have an interest, we all have unrelenting grief to deal with, it never goes away and I agree with you - we all want the truth but sometimes I am very concerned that many people who have no knowledge of what they are dealing are actually creating more problems. If you are not an experienced technician/pilot etc., then dealing with what can only be another persons view or experience but not your own first hand knowledge is a very dangerous game because it is too easy to read what you want to read or interpret what you want, due to anothers perspective and agenda. I would imagine most people feel they are only helping, sadly for us, this is often not the case and only serves to make an almost untenable situation even more difficult to deal with.
My family are still reeling from our loss, but despite the lack of help and consideration, the love we all had and still have keeps us strong for each other. Nothing will bring him back, nothing can take away the empty feeling or the bleak future, nothing can take away the tears but equally nothing can take away the happy memories and the laughter shared. Unless this experience has been shared by others, it cannot be put into words successfully but I also feel that those who are left behind deserve and need all our time and love and care in order to make sure that healing continues.
Take strength from the fact that many of us feel as you do. My heart goes out to you. God Bless

[nigegilb]

When it became clear that MRA4 was being belatedly rushed into service without a host of protective equipment, I was hopeful that this extended search for truth headed by TD might influence the conclusions and recommendations of the BoI. I know that once the BoI is published, if it does not recommend bomb bay fire protection and fuel tank protection, then the chances of getting this equipment on board MRA4 and even MR2 are slim to none. Tonight, I am sad to say that there are absolutely no signs of the RAF insisting that any of this protection should be provided.

I would imagine, that the evidence now publically available is making the job of MoD lawyers difficult. One wonders what the real reasons are for the delays in the publication of this BoI report.

Thoughts with the families.

[Da4orce]

Sadly I agree with nigegilb

There has been 4 accidents to Nimrod aircraft up until last year. In 1980, 1984, May 1995, Sept 1995

As a result of investigations carried out by the Boards of Inquiry a total of 41 recommendations were made.

In 2004 BAE said 19 of these recommendations had not been addressed.

In a statement on 21st Feb 2005 Mr Caplin MP said:

a Board of Inquiry is an internal inquiry held to investigate the facts of an incident in order to prevent recurrence.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Must agree with the last 2 posters.

I rememeber when Art Stacey put 666 in the Moray Firth, one of the points that came out of that BoI was a weight restriction to be placed on the back end crew as a result of a seat detaching from the floor on impact.

The cost to the RAF of implementing that was £00.00 NOT a single penny! It was a case of simply stopping those aircrew (and there were quite a few I admit) that were over a certain weight from flying in the aircraft.

Now I don't know how long it took for that to come into force, but it wasn't that long ago, I know that ! and when did Art S do his magic ??????

I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government.

The truth of this accident is already known by the board, its time it was made public.

TSM

[tucumseh]

TSM

"I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government".


Agreed. My faith in BoI was shattered forever when I saw, first hand, vital information being (a) withheld and (b) its very existence denied. When I pointed out it this was daft because (respectively) (a) it was freely available, and held by three companies and in a raft of MoD files, and (b) photographic evidence was hanging on the IPT wall (!!!), I at least expected both the BoI and the Inquest to address these issues fully. They didn't.

So, without doubt the MoD act appallingly, some would say illegally. They lie and they deceive. I also suspect collusion with the Coroner in certain cases, but can't prove it. I base this opinion on the irrefutable fact that, despite a BoI report (which I referred to above) condemning a system as "unfit for purpose", neither the BoI or the Coroner thought it wise to ask why it was still fitted at the time of the accident, as the the same conclusion had be arrived at some years previously - and the system removed then. (The photographic evidence I mentioned). If anyone can satisfy me why there was good reason not to ask pertinent questions about this, then perhaps I can be more charitable.

Meanwhile, I think TD's efforts have placed intolerable pressure on the MoD not to repeat the above, and I think they're finding the results unpalatable. And, while I sympathise enormously with all the families, it is only by applying such pressure that the MoD will, perhaps, act decently. Otherwise, it will all be swept under the carpet, again, and more avoidable accidents will occur. In that sense, I sincerely believe that TD does the Services a favour.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Anyone who reads through the entire length of this thread will notice that now, several family members, all from different families effected by this tragic accident, have called for the speculation and the media involvment to end.

Yes TD has the right to grieve in his own way, we also should have the right to grieve in our own way. All of those who have called for a cease to this are asking because our rights to grieve in our own way have been violated. The children, parents, wives, brothers and sisters of all the families are having to deal with their own grief as well as dealing with everything that is brought up in the media.

I know TD wants answers, we all do, we also want to have the right to grieve respectfully and with dignity to those we have lost.

The times are difficult enough for us without the extra strain of speculation and media involvement.

[nigegilb]

Labqueen. The BAe safety report recommended the fitting of a fuel tank inerting system and bomb bay fire protection to the Nimrod, before the crash. I know, absolutely without doubt, that this equpment has still not been requested by the customer for Nimrod. This recommendation was made years before the tragedy. I cannot begin to understand how upsetting this must be, but in my view, failure to fit this equipment is criminal. Furthermore, failure to fit it, after the tragedy defies belief. TD's efforts might just prevent anyone else having to go through this desperate time.

Surely, if the MoD cared, it would arrange a private briefing for the families? The report was, after all, written months ago. I am afraid, the speculation will most likely continue, until this report is published. As I have said before, publish and be damned for everyone's sake.

I am very sorry for your loss.

[Laboratoryqueen]

We are having private briefings.

At the moment we do not know exactly what happened on board XV230 we can not know that until we have been presented the BOI findings.

Yes there will be speculation about those events which caused the deaths of 14 men and the loss of XV230, however, speculation on the events and on the cause will never bring about change. The only thing which will give a platform to fight for change and for safety measures to be implemented are the facts.

[Distant Voice]

Nigegilb: Are we sure that fuel tank inerting system is mentioned in BAe safety case report?

DV

[nigegilb]

See below. Not the same recommend as per Nimrod bomb bay. This rec was pre-crash. One would have thought that another TWA800 style catastrophe was enough to trigger a similar response? I too, question whether the MoD should be allowed to continue to self-regulate.

"Maintain watching brief of current civil regulating developments regarding mandating of heated fuel tank area inerting during flight in line with recent FAA fireworthiness developments following TWA800 Boeing 747 in-flight fuel tank explosion accident investigation. Findings recommend mandating of fitment on new build, and possibly in-service retro fitment of a fuel tank nitrogen inerting system to prevent the occurrence of an explosive vapour in a partially empty tank."

[Da4orce]

LabQueen, respectfully acknowledged, but there are many people on this forum with much more experience of BoI than you or I who have very little faith in the Boards ability or willingness to deliver the facts.

I'm also afraid to say that my earlier post

There has been 4 accidents to Nimrod aircraft up until last year. In 1980, 1984, May 1995, Sept 1995

As a result of investigations carried out by the Boards of Inquiry a total of 41 recommendations were made.

In 2004 BAE said 19 of these recommendations had not been addressed.


Is a fact, a fact which indicates that if left to their own devices little will be achieved from the BoI.

My fear now is that the governemnt is waiting for a good day to "bury" bad news.

[Mad_Mark]

The way I read it, all LabQueen wants is for the media coverage and speculation to end. Let the BOI report be released and THEN, if you find it contentious, fight for what you believe.

You never know, the BOI report many state exactly the same findings that everyone on here seems to be fighting about. It may find that much of the speculation on here is complete and utter bollox and that the cause was something that no-one here has thought of. It may find that the accident may have been preventable. It may find that no matter what fire-suppressant systems were fitted it would still have had the same end result. It may be a complete whitewash. However, until it is released we don't know, and all the speculation is only bringing more pain to many of those families affected.

As LabQuuen said, so far there have been posts from members of several of the bereaved families in this thread and it appears that all but one of those families are being upset by the publicity being generated.

Please, for the feelings of the other families, let this lie until the BOI reports - then, if need be, challenge the findings and/or the subsequent follow-up actions of the MOD.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[The Swinging Monkey]

Mark,

I understand what you are saying with regard to LabQueen, and I have the utmost sympathy for her, along with TD and all of the families involved.

But at the end of the day, this is a RUMOUR forum! Thats what it's all about.

I do genuingly have the utmost sympathy for her, but I would simply suggest that if it causing her and some of the others even more unneccesary grief, they perhaps shouldn't read it.

TSM