Nimrod Information

[Distant Voice]

In recent weeks there has been much talk (even in the Commons) of the number of serious Nimrod bomb bay fuel leaks that have occurred since the XV230 incident, many after AAR. But it is obvious to everyone that bomb bay fuel leaks did not start on 2nd Sept 2006, the accident simply brought an ongoing issue to a head.

I understand the XV230 had fuel leak problems before the accident, but the cause and rectification had become routine within the fleet. The only reason why flying could continue in the Gulf on 3rd Sept (next day), was because the likely cause was known and checks revealed that the a/c required to fly was considered low risk.

It's a case of operations before safety.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

Nimrod Aircraft

Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether he has received representations on the safety of Nimrod aircraft from fleet flight crew since September 2006; [126588]
(2) whether he received representations on the safety of the Nimrod fleet before September 2006; [126589]
(3) what representations he has received on the use of fuel lines on Nimrod aircraft. [126481]

Mr. Ingram: Representations has been defined as parliamentary questions and letters from third parties to Ministers.
Defence Ministers did not receive any official representations on the safety of the Nimrod fleet or the use of fuel lines on Nimrod aircraft from

Since September 2006, whilst Defence Ministers have received official representations on the safety of Nimrod aircraft from members of the public, none of these referred to the use of fuel lines on the aircraft. I have no evidence to suggest that any of these representations were from serving flight crew.

In recent weeks the Department has received three requests under the Freedom of Information Act on the safety of Nimrod aircraft and on the use of fuel lines on the aircraft. There is no evidence to suggest that any of these requests are from serving flight crew.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070420/text/70420w0003.htm#07042031000045 (javascript:ol('http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070420/text/70420w0003.htm%2307042031000045');)

[Tappers Dad]

Emergency landing at airport 6th July 2006
An RAF 'Nimrod' aircraft encountered an unspecified problem when landing at Gibraltar yesterday afternoon, with the MOD saying it was 'a minor emergency'.

It is known that the aircraft approached Gibraltar shedding fuel, some of which was sprawled over the runway and required the RAF fire service to hose down and make the runway clean and safe.

It is not clear if the aircraft had to release its fuel due to weight considerations on landing, or whether it developed a leak.

Does anyone know if it was the XV230 as my son did a fly past in July 2006 over Gibraltar

[Avtur]

Not sure which aircraft it was or what the problem was, however the following are several reasons why this could have happened: The landing distance available at Gib is somewhere around 5700 feet. This is not very long for a heavy aircraft to stop on before either the brakes fail and/or it goes for a dip in the Med. If the aircraft had a problem that required it to be landed sooner rather than later, fuel would have been deliberately dumped to reduce the all up weight during its positioning for an approach. Nimrods are also notorious for venting fuel when the tanks are reasonably full, particularly when it is warm (eg Gib in July). It is therefore possible that the fuel "leak" may have been normal venting that continued after the aircraft landed.

Of course, it could have been a large fuel leak.

Hope this helps and sorry I don't know what actually happened.

[SpannerSpinner]

Tapper's dad - Firstly and most importantly my most sincere condolences to you and your family. I spent 2 years up at Kinloss and loved every minute of it. This is my first post on the site but I may be able offer some info. I was on a trip to Gib where we performed a flypast with your son's crew but that was in mid-late June. It was for some big celebration in the main square in Gib (I hope this helps to narrow down the dates). If this is the same trip you refer to, we did not fly in XV230 and we did not experience any emergency. We did return back to Kinloss earlier than expected, det should have been a week and turned into just a couple of days. I hope this helps.

[dodgysootie]

Tappers Dad, the aircraft concerned was not XV230.
The "incident" at Gibraltar was due to an electric actuator on one of the 4A fuel tank failing after jettison which prevented the 4A tank jettison valve from closing.
RIP CXX/3

[Tappers Dad]

Thanks Guys you have helped. I suppose I am trying to find the reason why they all died. I now the aircraft exploded but I need to know why, not the BOI type of why but the Dad type. Why my boy, why that aircraft, why did it leak,why couldn't they stop the fire, why can't I talk to him anymore. And why is everyone so tight lipped.

[Tappers Dad]

From the House of Lords

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

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

Mmmmmm makes you think

[Distant Voice]

On 8th Nov 2006 a Nimrod landed safely, after AAR, with a major fuel leak. At first glance it seems similar to the incident on 2nd Sept (XV230), all that was missing was the ignition source. Does anyone know what the investigation of this incident revealed?

DV

[XV277]

Mr. Ingram: Representations has been defined as parliamentary questions and letters from third parties to Ministers.

Now there is a classical piece of political interpretation. He knew what was meant, WE know what was meant, but let's not answer the question.

[ianlg]

"My name is Ian Liddell-Grainger and I am the constituency MP of Ben Knight, one of the RAF airmen who died in the XV230 Nimrod crash near Kandahar last year. Since the incident, I have been made aware of concerns among air force personnel about a range of issues concerning the Nimrod aircraft and the fleet. I have visited aircrews in the Gulf and I have raised the issue in Parliament recently. I am very interested in hearing more from those within the RAF, especially from people who have concerns about the state of the fleet in the Gulf and Afghanistan. Please contact me in the strictest confidence at my email address [email protected] (javascript:parent.ComposeTo(). I guarantee to maintain the complete confidentiality of individuals. If you prefer to telephone my direct line at Westminster is: 0207 219 8149"

[Tappers Dad]

Thank you for all your support Ian and all the questions you have asked about safety in the House Of Commons.
Here is a little part of his recent speech.

"I am always struck by the enormous enthusiasm and resilience of our soldiers and airmen. They make it their business to get the job done in some of the most hostile terrain in the world, even though they are unfortunately often without the proper kit. Our people are performing daily miracles in these places and they deserve the united applause and support of this House—I know that they get it."

"They also deserve the Government’s support in all shapes and forms, especially through procurement. That means providing more than the bare minimum. I have no doubt that the Minister will respond, as we all sometimes do, by reeling off huge, impressive-sounding figures to show how much has been spent and what has happened. We all accept that defence is always expensive; everybody is aware that even the bare minimum does not come cheap. My argument is that we are in danger of cutting too many corners and of procuring nothing but danger for the very people who courageously carry the flag for this country."

[The Swinging Monkey]

Ian,

I will call you within the next couple of days.
TSM

Come on guys, this is the opportunity many of us have been waiting for - contact this chap and lets try to stop this ever happening again. We owe it to all the friends we've lost surely?

[ianlg]

Many thanks I will be in Parliament next Tuesday. If you could call me any time after that. The number comes through to my desk.

Ian

[Level 28]

Yes, we are all duty bound to question and challenge failings within our system, so as to minimise the loss of life in an inherently dangerous environment. However, this is not the path that we should choose to take to achieve this.

I am appalled that a sitting MP should post such a Thread.

[MrFlibble]

Yes, we are all duty bound to question and challenge failings within our system, so as to minimise the loss of life in an inherently dangerous environment.

Im glad we agree.


However, this is not the path that we should choose to take to achieve this.

Why not? A person has asked for information and assistance, from people who can offer it.


I am appalled that a sitting MP should post such a Thread.

Wrong. This is democracy in action. Albeit with a modern twist, it is part of the democratic process - the great British public, through their legally and democratically elected representatives, opening up debate on an issue which affects us all.

That is what they're there for, and I applaud the honourable MP for offering his assistance.


Finally, lets have some Justice for Sgt Ben Knight, and all the others who've been injured or killed, due to lack of proper equipment.

[BEagle]

Level 28's comments remind me of the inadequately testiculated so-called leaders who were petrified of the grass roots truth getting outside the 'chain of command'....:yuk:....and compromising their onward and upward thrust of ambition - and b*gger the truth

Not that I'm advocating anarchy, more that the constipating "There are correct channels" nonsense should be ignored, when that is clearly going nowhere as the Ministerial platitudes exhibit only too clearly.

Good on Ian Lidell-Grainger - an MP who is openly prepared to bypass the MoD's $hit-filters is a rare asset indeed.....:ok:

[rafmatt]

i thinks it great a mp who actually takes a proper intrest in what the people who work with these aircraft actually have to say.

as a member of the armed forces i am appualled by the treatment of us by the goverment.

ive recently been told by higher authority that my trade is to be made obsolete because its a non deployable trade meaning there is no operational need for us in places like afgan and iraq. however we do work in akotiri and falklands where there is an established post for our trade. which are now closed to us.

so for those who have not left or are waiting to leave the trade. we are going to be sent to hubs where they are going to gather the last of our trade so we can see our time out.

but here is the part which is the kick in the teeth we will be used to go out to afgan and iraq as driver escort and guards. and while we are at the hubs we will be in/wating/just back from these places.

its just a mess please someone sort it out

[speeddial]

Well the official channels are obviously working aren't they Level 28?!

Well done Mr Liddell-Grainger, you have accepted that the RAF is screwed and that the Nimrod is one of the areas that is suffering badly right now.

We look to you to fulfil your honour and keep your duty by ensuring our servicemen get the representation they deserve from someone who won't let the matter drop.

[The Swinging Monkey]

Level 28
I'm disgusted by your comments, and if anyone is appalled, it will be the majority on here who will read your utterly pointless contribution to this thread.
It seems to me that this is the perfect thing for the RAF at the moment; an MP who can take the problems of the service directly to the House of Commons and, hopefully, get things sorted out, and I applaud him for having the balls to offer his services. I would only encourage others to give him a call or send him a PM.
The only reason I can think that anyone would disagree is if perhaps you have something to hide maybe??
TSM

ps, Level 28, what would be your prefered path?

[The Gorilla]

Level 28 could well be a Senior Air Rank, that's just the kind of tosh they pour out!
:mad:

[JFZ90]

Call me a cynic, but it just sounds to me like this guy is a tory looking for ammunition to score points over the current govt in the house for political gain. I could be wrong and he may really care about the RAF, however I would urge caution as to what you divulge - it could bite you and I suspect he won't give two hoots. The tone of parts of his thread implies to me that his motivation is not as noble as he would like you to think.

[MrFlibble]

For JFZ90, from Wikipedia with love :hmm: :

----------------------------------

Liddell-Grainger was born at Edinburgh and educated at Millfield School in Somerset and South Scotland Agricultural College. Before entering Parliament he ran a 250 acre farm in the Scottish Borders, and later became a company director in Newcastle of his family holdings in the City. He was also a Major in the Territorial Army with the 6th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, commanding the machine-gun Platoon and then X Company of the Battalion in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and has often acted as an adviser to the Ministry of Defence.

Liddell-Grainger is on the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. He is also a member of the All Parliamentary Armed Forces Scheme with the Royal Air Force. Liddell-Grainger was previously on the DEFRA select committee and the Scottish Committee, as well as on the all Parliamentary Radio Group and the Pharmaceutical Group. His interests include the economy, constitutional affairs, rural matters and he has also spoken out in favour of making Herceptin available for early-stage breast cancer sufferers.

----------------------------------


Sounds like a decent man - sure he's Conservative, but then no-one's perfect :ok: (joke)

To be honest, I dont care whether he's Labour, Tory, or bloody Martian. If this man can help deliver our Armed Forces out of the un-equipped, underfunded chaos we've been stuck in for years, then he's got my support.

[The Swinging Monkey]

well said MrFlibble.

[Chicken Leg]

i thinks it great a mp who actually takes a proper intrest in what the people who work with these aircraft actually have to say.

as a member of the armed forces i am appualled by the treatment of us by the goverment.

ive recently been told by higher authority that my trade is to be made obsolete because its a non deployable trade meaning there is no operational need for us in places like afgan and iraq. however we do work in akotiri and falklands where there is an established post for our trade. which are now closed to us.

so for those who have not left or are waiting to leave the trade. we are going to be sent to hubs where they are going to gather the last of our trade so we can see our time out.

but here is the part which is the kick in the teeth we will be used to go out to afgan and iraq as driver escort and guards. and while we are at the hubs we will be in/wating/just back from these places.

its just a mess please someone sort it out

As a member of the Armed Force I'm appalled that anyone is allowed in with English as poor as rafmatt's. :p

Mr Liddell-Grainger. Have you got any Pongo mates up there in Westminster who might want to start a similar crusade on behalf of us green types? Good on you!

Drumstick

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember Churchill and the Wg Cdr.

Look where Churchill got.

Certainly 'channels' would ensure that what was passed was 'wholly accurate' and free from errors of interpretation. Note 'wholly' as related to accurate and not 'whole'.:)

[rafmatt]

Sorry chicken leg lol
But are we here to talk about my English or the RAF.

So what my English is a bit :mad: but at least im trying.

MONKEYBOY :D

Personally i would like to see the RAF and the other armed forces stopped getting cut and get the equipment and manpower we so despretly need (i know my spell check don't work)

[Mick Smith]

Call me a cynic, but it just sounds to me like this guy is a tory looking for ammunition to score points over the current govt

JFZ90. The most important qualification for what he is doing is not his links to the services cited by MrFlibble, helpful though they are. It is that he was Ben Knight's local MP and remains Graham and Trish Knight's MP. He is just doing his job as a constituency MP and that has nothing to do with party politics.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Tappers Dad

Seeing as this is about info on the Nimrod and it's safety, PVR rates, general dissent amongst those at ISK, I was wondering if you'd managed to aquire all the information you've been after for the BBC program you've been working closely with, that's due to air at the time of the BOI report. From what I've seen here, you've had a wealth of information.

[Lyco360]

Des Browne has a far more suitable path for this kind of information...


...it ends in his bin. :ugh:

[betty swallox]

Call me old fashioned. But rather than second guessing (as is so rife on this forum) why not let the Board of Inquiry publish their results. I still have faith in the system, if many don't.

[Laboratoryqueen]

If the speculation as to events that day were to stop, then a lot of hurt and upset could have been avoided and not added to the suffering already felt. Some people do not seem to realise that comments made in the press have had dire consequences on other families involved in this accident, and some of those who have been upset the most have been children. Some things which have been reported should never have made it into the media.

The BOI report is due very shortly, yes it is with the legal team, though I doubt very much that the speculation will end with that.

Some people would like to be allowed to grieve and not have their loved ones dragged through the press at every given opportunity

[L J R]

Will the MP also raise issues about other War related (and non war related) accidents, that can have managerial connotations.

[Snow Dog]

I presume, Mr Liddell-Grainger, you are one of the many MPs I met last year - I had so many 'popping in' to tell me how hard life must have been and tending an ever-so-sympathetic ear, yet at the same time scraping for a bit of 'gen' to help secure your position in the 'house'.

Thanks for your 'sympathy', but I really have doubts as to your and many of your kind's actual motivation for digging into something which is:
a. beyond your comprehension
and b. a vehicle to further your political presence.

If you can do something, then I would be very, VERY appreciative, but slamming the Royal Air Force does not help anybody. It comes down to money - and that is beyond me, my immediate superior (line manager for those of that bent) or anyone else up the ladder.

Stretched, working hard with the resources we are left with and rather quite p*ssed off that those who might be able to intervene are looking in the wrong place.

Convince us, in this open forum, that your interest is well founded.

[The Swinging Monkey]

betty, lab queen & snow dog,
Why are you all so anti someone offering to help here?
I too still have faith in the BOI route, and I have little doubt that the results will be truthful and honest. But what I don't have faith in, is for it to publish the facts and problems with the fleet leading up to this accident.
It is many years since I was on the Nimrod fleet, and so I cannot speak first hand about on-going problems with fuel leaks etc. however, friends and colleagues still on the fleet tell me that it was 'more than common' and I would suggest that further incidents since the loss of XV230 seem to confirm that.
Now I dont know this politician from Adam, I've never met him nor do I know anything about him, but out of all this tragedy, he is the one, and only person who has stuck his head above the parapit and offered to help. What's wrong with that?? I don't know or care what his motives are frankly; if he can get something done then we should applaud him and support him.
Snow Dog, your final comments speak volumes:
'Stretched, working hard with the resources we are left with and rather quite p*ssed off that those who might be able to intervene are looking in the wrong place'
I couldn't agree with you more, so why not give the guy a call or drop him a line and tell him where its all going wrong?? It's pointless us all coming on Prune, bleating and whinging like we all do, and then pass up an opportunity to do something positive, when the opportunity arises.
We owe to the likes of Tappers Dad and the rest of the families left behind so lets just do it.
TSM

[Hill Walker]

Like other posters I believe caution should be exercised and facts checked, but I think the guy deserves the benefit of the doubt for trying to help.

[Laboratoryqueen]

I am not against help towards giving the RAF what they need to be able to perform their work in a professional manner, What I am against is the amount of speculation, the lies, the hurtful comments, and the amount of needless details which have been printed in the press. None of those have had any bearing on gaining support or a change in manpower or resources for the RAF or the services as a whole.

Yes it is agonising waiting for the BOI report, it has been a very deeply agonising time ever since that fateful day, and some matters have not helped in this. No one wants to see more names added to the list of casualties or deaths, under any circumstances, there have been too many already.

Too often it's reported about the bad, hardly ever has it been mentioned of the support that has been given by the RAF and all the guys at ISK as a whole.

The BBC program which is being produced, if that was to show support for the need to increase resources, and to aid the fight in this area, then why were the RAF press officers not made aware of it's existence, not even those at ISK.

[Distant Voice]

Very interesting Ian, I note that you made your posting on the very same day that Angus Robertson got a reply to his question on Nimrod fuel defects. Had to jump on the band-waggon.

1st May Hansard

Angus Robertson (Moray SNP): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average annual fuel defect rates of the Nimrod fleet per fifty flying hours were in each of the last 10 years: and will he make a statement.

Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces) MoD): The average annual fuel system defect ("fuel defect" is defined as any reported fault relating to the aircraft fuel system) rate per 50 flying hours for Nimrod fleet over the last 10 calendar years for which information is currently available, is as follows:

1996 3.93
1997 4.61
1998 4.72
1999 4.64
2000 3.83
2001 3.81
2002 3.83
2003 3.99
2004 4.75
2005 3.80


This tells me two things (1) If I want real action I will approach the MP who covers the Kinloss area (and I recommend others to do the same), and (2) MoD believes that the Nimrod fuel system was better in 2005 than in 1996. If you believe the latter you will believe anything, and it gives us some indication of what sort of BOI report will be issued by MoD when they decide to do it.

DV

[Wader2]

DV, very interesting but surely the phrase 'fuel defect' is wholly ambiguous.

For instance a fuel defect may be the erroneous indication of a fuel flow indicator to a fuel tank problem.

'A fuel tank problem' was how the failure of a test launch of the Thor missile was described. The actual problem was the failure of the bottom of the fuel tank to lift off at the same speed as the rest of the missile.

In other words, lies , damn lies and . . .

[Wader2]

The reference to Churchill and the wing commander was actually a reference to Desmond Morton of SIS http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/newsroom/news_releases/2006/061017_churchill.asp?ID=192
and the BBC Drama The Gathering Storm http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2002/06_june/17/gathering_storm.shtml

essentially how you need proper and accurate information to persuade those who do not wish to acknowledge uncomfortable truths.

[tucumseh]

Wader 2

I agree.

But I must say I’m impressed that the MoD could actually produce such statistics, given that the funding necessary to collect, collate, analyse and report was largely pulled from 1991-93, and never resurrected. I’m not saying it wasn’t done thereafter, but it became optional. You’d be unlikely to have similar detail for most avionics. And it certainly wouldn’t be accurate, or have been subjected to a thorough engineering appraisal.

The very existence of the data may indicate concern over the failure rate. A fuel system failure every 12 flying hours (regardless of their definition which, if anything, is likely to tend to make reliability look good) would, in my experience, lead to Engineering Authorities and MoD Technical Agencies begging, stealing or borrowing money to investigate potential safety problems VERY URGENTLY. (Bearing in mind that money to investigate safety problems was also slashed at the same time. I do not mind admitting that I lied through my back teeth on many an occasion to acquire or re-direct funding to investigate safety issues I’d been instructed to ignore).

Assuming such investigations and subsequent product improvement (modifications , changes, SEMs etc) took place, it would be reasonable to assume they were “firefighting” just to keep the failure rate stable over that period. I know nothing of Nimrod (MR) support, so am willing to be put right. But it emphasises your last point that accurate information is required, which requires a properly phrased question.

[Pontius Navigator]

tucumesh, altering the statistics to 1 every 12 hours, given sorties of 6-9 hrs and not counting flight refuelling means either every other flight or, assuming no faults during shorter sorties, one flight on every LROFP or whatever they call them now.

[Distant Voice]

As a matter of interest, it took MoD just 7 working days to come up with those detailed stats. The question was placed by the MP on 19th April and an answer given in parliament on 1st May. It could indicate that the figures were at hand, at the time the question was placed, in support of a BOI finding that the Nimrod's fuel system is sound and has shown no deterioration over the last decade. But you would have to be of a suspicious mind to think that of MoD.

DV

[JFZ90]

Its odd as the question was clearly planted - how on earth did the MP know which units to ask the question in? Not exactly household knowledge to ask for defects/50Flight hours is it?
I'm not really sure what it shows - the problem has not got worse, but is a known issue with Nimrods for many years, and is being tracked. Its also clear there have been alot of incidents without serious incident if you see what I mean.
I personally don't suspect any cover up here - its not really part of UK flight safety culture is it? Which, on the whole, I think should still be regarded with respect and integrity, no? (I was last involved in 2003).
Look at the Mk3 Chinooks - left in a shed for years over the faintest whiff of a safety issue (which IMHO is something of a statistical red herring, though I note many a Boscombe purist (with a vested interest mind) would disagree).
On the whole I think its still true that UK engineering culture is one that DOES NOT cut corners on air safety issues and if anything errs on caution and retains a healthly open attitude to understand crashes / human factors issues properly & places correct emphasis on learning from mishaps and not apportioning blame.
(yes, yes noting early Chinook Mk3 architecture decisions etc. - but its STILL in the shed remember, never fully cleared, so the culture persists at the end of the day).
NB Whilst I also believe Mull was a crew issue, not technical, the blot on the above is the decision of the BoI re the crew blame for which I offer no defence - their loss and the knowledge that the Mull incident was down to crew should have been enough to learn from for the wider RAF aircrew community. This incident rather flys in the face of the "no blame" culture which I think still prevails in air accident investigation, or do the learned here think this has really changed?

[nigegilb]

"....Further, on inspection of another ac in theatre a small hole was found in the pipe. The pipe is welded to several brackets which are themselves attached to the supporting rib wall and the hole was close to one of the welds.

It is not uncommon for there to be pressure spikes during the refuelling process as refuel valves are closed elsewhere during the process. It is possible that repeated pressure spikes or repeated applications of normal pressure during either ground refuelling or AAR might have lead to the weakening of the weld and the subsequent hole. Atomised fuel could then escape into the space. What is missing, however, is an ignition source and that is a bit of a stumper.

If we assume that somehow ignition took place it is conceivable that the fire could then heat a fuel tank that is positioned in the wing root area, and this may have led to the explosion.

What is interesting to ponder is that the same airframes are generally being used for the Gulf theatre due to their fit. These few frames would be used in AAR more frequently than the other ac in the fleet. This argument might also be backed up by the fact that the fuel pipe hole was found in another Gulf ac in theatre."

I know the above quote is supposition, but this was known when AOC2Gp ordered nimrod crews to continue AAR sorties 4 days after the tragedy. I have no idea if the BoI has since discovered the source of the ignition which led to the explosion. What I cannot understand is the decision to go ahead with a single skin AAR system which was designed on the back of a piece of paper 25 years ago. Furthermore, to protect the crews from a fuel tank explosion it would be relatively simple and cheap to fit a nitrogen inerting system to the current nimrod fleet and the MRA4 replacement.

Safety does not appear to have been given the highest priority here.

[JFZ90]

"Safety does not appear to have been given the highest priority here."

Do you know that to be true, or is this speculation? Can you draw these conclusions from the info above - not sure you can.

[tucumseh]

“On the whole I think its still true that UK engineering culture is one that DOES NOT cut corners on air safety issues and if anything errs on caution and retains a healthly open attitude to understand crashes / human factors issues properly & places correct emphasis on learning from mishaps and not apportioning blame”.


Correct, but note key word – engineering.

As I said, I’ve been INSTRUCTED to ignore safety problems, but ALWAYS by non-engineers who have authority but no commensurate responsibility, precisely because they are not engineers and therefore do not (cannot) sign for airworthiness, type approval and have no delegated Financial & Technical approval powers. (One hell of a list of limitations which means, by definition, they are of limited value to MoD and the real responsibility in these domains rests with lower grades/ranks). The problem is they are now the majority in an organisation whose job is to – acquire technology.

Don’t agree –re Mull. The aircraft was not airworthy. Full stop. MoD can’t answer the key questions on airworthiness and safety. There is no seamless audit trail. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons why they are better prepared on this one, so think you are right linking Nimrod and Chinook. Look at the MoD family tree. Look at the common denominators. Look at their benchmark decisions. Maintaining safety is a waste of money. Airworthiness is optional. Wasting money is of no concern to them. Heads above the parapet are to be lopped off.

[nigegilb]

I made that statement on the basis of detailed contact with nimrod crew and engineers. I did not make that statement lightly. The contacts made it clear that they were not happy with the continuation of the original AAR system on the MRA4, they also made it clear that there is no current plan to fit fuel tank protection to the nimrod. Both of these statements contradict your argument that air safety considerations are not being compromised.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Until the BOI report is given then it will be just speculation as to what happened and why.

I'd say that safety is a high priority, especially to those who work with the Nims. Precautions have been made and are being followed.

[Distant Voice]

JFZ90: This wasn't a planted question, it was a PQ raised by a member of the general public (Nimrod experienced) through an MP. The MP responded in a very efficient way. You can do the same, through the same MP if you wish.

DV

[JFZ90]

"I made that statement on the basis of detailed contact with nimrod crew and engineers. I did not make that statement lightly. The contacts made it clear that they were not happy with the continuation of the original AAR system on the MRA4

WHY - without sustance this is just personal opinion, not a valid robust technical judgement on its safety

they also made it clear that there is no current plan to fit fuel tank protection to the nimrod.

SO WHAT - fitting system X does not automatically a safe aircaft make. Assumption & speculation.

Both of these statements contradict your argument that air safety considerations are not being compromised."

I didn't say this - you are implying that these statements PROVE that air safety considerations are being compromised - seems to me THEY DO NOT.

Must stress I have no direct knowledge here, but until BoI is out we should not speculate or feed the MP with "potentially suspect but unproven either way" motives with potentially misleading facts.

[JFZ90]

"This wasn't a planted question, it was a PQ raised by a member of the general public (Nimrod experienced) through an MP. The MP responded in a very efficient way. You can do the same, through the same MP if you wish."

Errr - thats what I meant - it was planted by someone with inside Nimrod knowledge to try and create a certain effect with its answer. I assume the "planter" knew the answer, so not really sure what they thought this would achieve as its not really damning as far as I can see (noting that the incident rate has been consistently high per FH, but as stated above this proves little).

[JFZ90]

"Correct, but note key word – engineering.

As I said, I’ve been INSTRUCTED to ignore safety problems, but ALWAYS by non-engineers who have authority but no commensurate responsibility, precisely because they are not engineers and therefore do not (cannot) sign for airworthiness, type approval and have no delegated Financial & Technical approval powers. (One hell of a list of limitations which means, by definition, they are of limited value to MoD and the real responsibility in these domains rests with lower grades/ranks). The problem is they are now the majority in an organisation whose job is to – acquire technology.

Don’t agree –re Mull. The aircraft was not airworthy. Full stop. MoD can’t answer the key questions on airworthiness and safety. There is no seamless audit trail. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons why they are better prepared on this one, so think you are right linking Nimrod and Chinook. Look at the MoD family tree. Look at the common denominators. Look at their benchmark decisions. Maintaining safety is a waste of money. Airworthiness is optional. Wasting money is of no concern to them. Heads above the parapet are to be lopped off."



I'm surprised by this. Have you REALLY been instructed to ACTUALLY ignore real safety problems? Find this hard to believe, but if true worrying. My experience in these kind of areas has been one of universal caution in the UK when it comes to managing real airworthiness risks. I've never observed the "non-engineers" overrule engineers in cases where there is tangible risk of loss/incident. I have seen alot of pressure applied to FIX problems (i.e. restore safety), and weak/unsubstantiated safety concerns challenged - but this is quite different to ignoring valid safety issues.

[Distant Voice]

JZF90: The planter did not know the answer. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH? ARE YOU A MEMBER OF MOD?

[nigegilb]

The design for the MRA4 was frozen as of December. It is perfectly relevant to challenge the thinking behind bringing into service a multi million pound military ac with no fuel tank protection, which, if built in the US would have been given state of art protection as a matter of course. Instead, it is being provided with a flawed AAR system, subject to scores of emergency engineering measures, which has not been designed to a civil standard, when there is a much safer design already in service.

Nobody can talk in absolutes here, it is in everyone's interest that the BoI report is published ASAP.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Nobody has said finding the truth is wrong, we all want the truth, what is wrong is speculating about events. The BOI report is being given next month to the families, so until then, there can be no absolute truths. Once the BOI report is then published, any questions can and should be brought up then, as how can they answered before that point.

I'm not MOD, I'm not RAF, but I's obvious to me that until the BOI report is made, then anything which it states is pure and simple guess work.

Speculation on what happened can and does have serious consequences on those involved

[JFZ90]

JZF90: The planter did not know the answer. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH? ARE YOU A MEMBER OF MOD?

Hey calm down. Just curious about the obviously set up question, so thanks for the inside info. Nothing wrong with the truth - it is probably out there. I'm surprised that the "insider" felt compelled to use his MP to find out - much easier ways for an "insider" to get the info, though it is an excellent way to get the info out in public and discussed / speculated about in an inappropriate way - which is why I'm going to follow LabQueens senitments and stop debating pre BoI.

[tucumseh]

JFZ90

“I'm surprised by this. Have you REALLY been instructed to ACTUALLY ignore real safety problems?”

Yes.


“and weak/unsubstantiated safety concerns challenged”


An example? I wouldn’t call “smoke in cockpit”, “crash landings” and “aircrew injured”, in the same sentence, in the same serious incident signal, weak. The supplier, who controlled funding (!) and refused to release funds to investigate and fix, obviously disagreed. Many more, but that’s the one I always remember. Ignored him, transferred money, fixed in 48 hours. Got bollocked. Aircrew safe. Next?

[JFZ90]

" I wouldn’t call “smoke in cockpit”, “crash landings” and “aircrew injured”, in the same sentence, in the same serious incident signal, weak."

No I wouldn't either. Not quite what I meant. I would have thought the above would fall into the (at least consider) "grounding fleet" category.

[nigegilb]

If anyone has details of the warranty period, written in contract, on nimrod fuel seals and would prefer to PM, I would appreciate any info. I will clear my box.

[tucumseh]

JFZ90

Thank you. Grounding was avoided, but only just.

I said “Next?”.

Same supplier. Same time. Instructed me, to direct contractor, to SCRAP £2M worth of spares, primarily used on C130, VC10 and Nimrod. At same time, instructed me to then let a contract on same contractor to immediately replace same spares. And gave me the money to do so. That is, knowingly waste £2M. Same applied to almost every contract we had at 4th line. (Many tens, if not hundreds, of millions).

I replied that the £2M would fix a lot of problems, including smoke in cockpit. I refused to waste money.

Next? Visit from Air Vice Marshall. Threatened with dismissal unless I comply with his staffs instructions.

Next? Initiated audit report which trashed AVM and his staff. Report rejected by….. see common denominators above.

[FEWNCOP]

Having followed this thread since it started, with much personal interest, I can't help thinking that we've all lost sight of what we all want. The reason this tragic accident occurred. The result of the Board of Inquiry is upon us. Finally, an end to the speculation. Let's wait for the result before we retire the fleet.
However, with all of the questions being asked in parliament (and here on PPRUNE!!) if the board does cast doubt upon the future servicability of the fleet, what happens then? Let's hope that someone has the balls to do .....On second thoughts, hmmm.

[tucumseh]

FEWNCOP

If you read the original posts, the concern boils down to money and how it is allocated and spent.

…”concerns about the state of the fleet”.

…”without the proper kit”

…”especially through procurement”

…”defence is not cheap”

…”cutting too many corners and procuring nothing but danger”


If you read my posts, you (and Mr Ian L-G) will see they directly address all these concerns. They distil the issue down to two simple facts – the MoD wastes money on an industrial scale and this is condoned at the highest level.

I think that last bit “the highest level” makes the majority stop. (It’s ok, I get that in the MoD. It gets above their pay grade – they’re only a 2* after all - they step back, and suddenly you’re alone against the big hitters). The point I’m making here (Mr Ian L-G) is that, having witnessed and proposed a solution to the basic problem, in my case face to face with a number of 2* who did nothing (except threaten me, or have me threatened), I elevated it to 4* and Ministers – who did nothing. I have their responses, in writing under FOI, so it’s hardly a secret. Clearly, the Ministers involved simply signed drafts prepared for them but if you read the lies the MoD are prepared to tell to protect the guilty, you’d begin to appreciate how much they have to hide. These are the benchmark rulings you are faced with when you take on waste and inefficiency in the MoD.

I wish Mr Ian L-G well, but his starting point needs to be SofS, and then work upwards. Not many will do that.

[Shack37]

tucumseh

Have followed this thread and your posts with great interest.
I hope Mr. I. L-G and others have the good sense to take your advice on where to start looking and the tenacity to follow it wherever it leads, whatever level that may be.

The financial waste is of great concern but is as nothing compared to the loss of life as a direct result of the uncaring incompetence of those "professional" politicians and civil serpents who regard it all as a great game.

With my respect.
S37

[JFZ90]

Mr I L-G is on BBC Parliament at the moment - spouting anecdotes & suggesting to a public services exec director that he should ask Tescos for help making the queues at Passport control in Heathrow shorter / improve public services (!?).
Comes across as a bit of a know-it-all patronising smart ar*e, but is probably genuine in the context of the original post here.

(PS - should say I don't normally watch BBC P - just by co-incidence I had a look at what the committee were upto and there he was)

[toddbabe]

A few have stated that they believe in the BOI, but I personally have concerns over what will be published, the very fact that I and many others are concerned about it's integrity speaks volumes about our trust in the Government,Mod,and Airforce as a whole.
What a sad and sorry state of affairs, good luck to those of you who work in recruiting, you have got your work cut out! still you can put a positive spin on anything if you try!

[Laboratoryqueen]

I will always have confidence in those who work with the Nims and especially in those at ISK, albeit I have no confidence in the government. I am wholly confident in myself that all relevant checks were made before XV230's final flight not only by the ground crew but also by crew 3 themselves. I have spoken to a majority of those involved and have met some of them too, I get my confidence from people such as them.

I don't claim to know or understand the principles of the firewalls or anything else to do with major safety on board, but I do know that what the guys can feasibly do with what they have now is being done to try and prevent this tragic fate happening to anyone else.

I have had a vast amount of support from those concerned with XV230 and from many others, I've formed strong friendships with many at ISK, and they have helped me come to some form of understanding and acceptance.

I know there are problems but I do not wish to speculate on what problems could have caused the deaths of 14 men, I wish to wait for the BOI report to be given and then, and only then will I be able to look for the answers to the many questions I have as to why this happened, until the BOI report is made there are no answers which can be given, only speculation, and I know how much speculation does hurt and the damage it has done. Too many details have been leaked into the press, which never should have, and have caused immense pain and extra suffering, all of which could have been avoided, and so much of that suffering is felt by the children of the crew. Some of the speculation and many of the remarks and quotes made have been ignorant to the feelings of the others involved.

I have seen endless newspapaer reports with false information, full of speculation on what may have been, interviews and quotes, I'm aware that a BBC program is being made to coincide with the release of the BOI report, how can that hold the truth when It's made before the information is released and without the RAF's knowledge of it.

I do know intimately the cost of the lives from this accident, I know the grief and I know the suffering this has caused, I live with it every single day, yet I will still not speculate on what may or may not have happend as I remember that I'm not the only one who lost a great man on board, there were 13 others, and that means 13 other families struggling like I and my family are.

How would you like to hear of details of what might have occured reported in the press, what state the bodies were in, how do you then explain those details to young children. Some of the details were given in strict confidence to the families at the time of the accident and as each fact was leant, and were never to be made public due to the harm it would cause the children.

Speculation does have consequences and so yes, I do have faith in the BOI, even if that just means that then we can ask the relevant questions, and we can be given the truth, and not more of the guess work because then we will at least have the facts to be able to quote to find the answers.

[TheStrawMan]

Laboratoryqueen
I thought this thread was called NIMROD Information please
Not Nimrod stop talking about it !!!!!!!

Whilst I sympathise with you, this is a rumour network were people discuss rumours if you don't like rumours and speculation then don't use the network.

[tucumseh]

“this is a rumour network were people discuss rumours if you don't like rumours and speculation then don't use the network”.


This may only be a rumour, but I heard on the grapevine that if Mr Ian L-G opened a parliamentary speech with “Based on Pprune rumour, I’d like to voice concern over the state of the Nimrod fleet” he’d be slapped down by Gorbals Mick. (Who would invite a Government Minister to speak – they don’t deal in rumour or fact, just lies).

The man sought facts. It just so happens his immediate interest is Nimrod, but the underlying issues apply to Defence as a whole. (A fact I hope he has taken on board from the verifiable facts that have been posted).

This is, apparently, your first post. Quite robust, I’d say. I can think of quite a few in MoD who’d want to undermine Mr Ian L-G before he got started. Among them those who condone wasting money that could otherwise be spent on saving lives. A couple of verifiable, if inconvenient, facts there.

Too serious an issue to contaminate with rumour, I suggest.

[TheStrawMan]

tucumseh

This may only be a rumour, but I heard on the grapevine that if Mr Ian L-G opened a parliamentary speech with “Based on Pprune rumour, I’d like to voice concern over the state of the Nimrod fleet” he’d be slapped down by Gorbals Mick.

Thats almost exactly what he did say read the thread PPRuNe mentioned in the House of Commons
This is only my second posting but I have noticed loads of people talking about Nimrod safty so there must be something seriosly wrong

[nigegilb]

I have seen the effects of the BoI process and I have a couple of criticisms.

In the case of XV179, the BoI completely failed to explain why it was that 30 years after the US started fitting fuel tank protection, the RAF did not have a similar protection on its Hercules aircraft. Neither does the Nimrod.

The BoI recommended that the RAF urgently look at fitting foam to the Hercules fleet. This urgency stalled weeks later, the BoI findings do not have enough clout when dealing with the purse string holders or military commanders willing to send crews to war without protection.

The BoI process is fundamentally flawed, staffed by contemporaries and immediate seniors of those involved in the incident. IMO the BoI process is nowhere near independent enough and does not have sufficient power to ensure its recommendations are followed.

At several recent inquests, the Coroner has criticised the BoI findings.

Finally, the likes of Ingram will refer to the BoI report as the only version of events that the Govt will work with. Witness Chinook and XV179. For months the Govt refused to accept that the crew of XV179 would probably have survived if they had had foam on board.

The spate of articles and the press interest in the Nimrod tragedy will ensure a microscopic examination of the BoI. The families will also know the right questions to ask on the day. In the case of XV179 the relatives had no legal advice and were given no preparation when faced with terms like ESF etc.

I was amazed to hear that decision about not to proceed with fuel tank protection but to continue with the single wall IFR have already happened, ahead of the BoI. It is for this reason that I put forward my own criticisms.

[DEL Mode]

When the train crash occured at Hatfield the report concluded that it was due to a systemic failure. Railtrack was re-nationalised, and things changed.

Everyone has their own opinion of airworthiness management within the MoD, but I would ask whether the BoI will have either the remit, or the authority to question the balance between task and risk across the wider STC operations.

The results of the BoI may answer the question of what happened, but I hope that someone (maybe Mr Ian L-G) can ensure that the strategic circumstances that caused it are investigated.

Military operations cost money.

The MoD is bankrupt.

Gordon does not want to give any more money.

Military commanders provide can do solutions.

You make your own mind up as to what is going on.

I welcome enquiries from interested politicians.

Good on you Mr. L-G

[Biggus]

Without wishing to sound a sour note, I presume people have considered the possibility that the BOI findings themslves may, and I say may, have to be little more than speculation - more a case of ruling out certain possibilities rather than ascertaining what actually happened?

Due to the location of the crash site, and the type of incident itself, the BOI may have minimal physical evidence to work on? No doubt all will be revealed shortly.

[nigegilb]

Agree with Biggus, real problems with physical evidence, I doubt the BoI will be able to state the cause of ignition with any certainty. An enormous amount of work has been done since the crash to remove venting, hot air, etc etc. Various ideas have been put forward and the leaks have continued. Sadly, none of the executive at Kinloss are pushing fuel tank protection and are sleep walking into an unsuitable AAR system for the replacement.

I have just read the BoI for the Lynx, it is so heavily redacted it is not worth publishing. I have heard what people are saying about the crash and I would suggest it has been heavily redacted for reasons other than simply national security.

I have much more faith in the Inquest. I have taken a small part in the Inquest for XV179, and I am confident that a root and branch investigation is now taking place including an examination of the wider picture.

[TheStrawMan]

I agree with you nigegilb have a look at the BOI reports on the MOD page and they have great big holes in the text were they sensored it, or XXXXX everywhere.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/BoardsOfInquiry
I think it will be at the Iquest were the real questions will be answered.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Tappers Dad oops sorry I meant TheStrawMan, thanks for the PM by the way, didn't realise my mentioning the BBC programs production could make you so irrate.

You may notice I'm not the only one to ask for the speculation to cease and to await instead the findings of the BOI report, I have explained the reasons for my request, without making demands, I have given my opinion as have many others, it just happens that my opinion differs from your own.

I always thought information was based more on factual findings, not on rumour or speculation, so if actual information is being sought, why ask on a rumour network, instead of awaiting the facts. I would have thought that for any change to be brought about by an MP he would arm himself with actual facts and not with "what may have been", and surely having the MP for Kinloss as the representative in this case, would have been more appropriate, maybe even if both MP's had become involved.

Surely it would have more effect if instead of saying based on rumour, it was based on fact

[Tappers Dad]

Labotatoryqueen
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070417/halltext/70417h0007.htm#07041770000476
17 Apr 2007 : Column 49WH
My first trip to Afghanistan was a grim reminder of just how dangerous the place is; the wreckage of the RAF Nimrod that came down last September was still in the desert. The plan was to lay a wreath there for those killed in the accident, but the last resting place of this huge aircraft was slap bang in the middle of an effective Taliban firing range. So I had the great honour of laying a wreath at the memorial in the Kandahar base on behalf of the Knight family. I got to know some of the brave airmen, and they told me harrowing stories about the conditions in which they are working and the equipment that they are expected to use.

Thats why I support my Families local MP and not one in Kinloss

[Laboratoryqueen]

This is a copy an e-mail I received on the 21st March this year

Hello
The Knight family have been liaising with a L*** M******** from the BBC in relation to a programme that they are making highlighting concerns over Nimrod safety and the implications of the XV230 loss. The programme is likely to be broadcast to coincide with the release of the RAF Board Of Inquiry which is expected to be released in the next few weeks
L*** is keen to hear from anyone with concerns about the Nimrod, safety issues, overstretch, PVR rates etc. He is also interested in what life is like working relentlessly in the Gulf and also any incidents which they are aware of, fuel leaks, fires, hydraulic leaks, concerns about air-to-air refueling.


Bearing in mind that production started well before the BOI report was complete, it's not even been released to the families yet, so it can't exactly hold true facts as to the cause and effect of the loss of XV230. If it were to be a factual account, surely it would be produced after the BOI has been published

Now I find it a bit of a coincidence that the MP is asking along the lines of the same information, would he perhaps also be appearing in this program?

[Lima Juliet]

Lab Queen

I'm with your thinking over this lengthy thread on the poor old Nimrod - let's await the BOI. Also, let's not turn this whole thing into a conspiracy theory, please; I've seen enough with the Chinook, C-130, the A-10s and the 2x F15Es.

I dread the speculation and the so-called experts that will come out of the woodwork on the Nimrod BOI - some of whom will only have very untasteful £-signs in front of their eyes. Furthermore, I have huge distrust of MPs, regardless of their past (sorry, my honourable friend, if I'm wrong).

Nige - please stop harping on about nitrogen inerting systems and ESF. IF it was a fuel leak in a pipe like the rumour describes then neither would work would they? ESF and nitrogen only work by displacing the explosive vapours in fuel tanks...:= ..and will not inert a leaky pipe or union!

Finally, I hope that once this sad accident is closed off we can let our brothers rest in peace and stop trying to blame people - the loss of the Nimrod was never a deliberate act. Aviation is inherently dangerous and all of us that fly for Queen and Country are volunteers. Yes, we deserve the best, but at the same time we recognise that aviation is a compromise between safety, operational capability, technology, performance and budget - those that aviate for Queen and Country know this and do so with pride and dignity; those that don't, leave the Service disgruntled and often post on this forum...

Rant over and out.:ok:

LJ

[Winco]

LJ
I was interested in reading your post, right up until the point where you say ".....we can let our brothers rest in peace and stop trying to blame people" I can find nowhere in this thread where any one individual has been blamed or where it is even suggested that there is blame attached to them, other than to those responsible for procurement, whether that be spares, manpower or whatever.

The cold, hard and brutal facts are that our Royal Air Force, yours, mine. everyones has been starved of the financial support vital for any organisation to survive. There is not enough money given for manpower, and there is not enough money for spares. Throughout the whole of the services you will see evidence of cost cutting measures to a degree that borders on the ludicrous and now the dangerous. Of course we all know that in fact there is plenty of money around, just not for our Armed Forces any longer (dome, Olympics, Asylum seekers, Refugees - you name it!) And so the only real people to blame is the government for the starvation of those funds, and the hierarchy for not making a stand over it. But who elected them to power? Unfortunately we did. Not me personally, but the British public did, and therebye lies the problem Sir.

Tappers Dad has every right to demand the truth about XV230. He has a duty to his son and to the rest of his family, to learn about the tragedy of XV230 and I find peoples inability to understand and accept that as disturbing and unfair on him. I would feel exactly the same if it was my son also. I would want answers.

Lab Queen, I am aware of who you are, and you have my sympathy, but try not to stoop to personal attacks on individuals who are dealing with their loss in a different way to the way you are dealing with yours.

Nige, I have (sadly) been on a BoI and would just point out that in the main, the job of the inquiry is to (try) and ascertain the facts immediately leading up to, during and immediately post the event. The BoI can make recommendations, but I would stress that they are only recommendations, and nothing else. At the end of the day, it is up to the airships to decide how and where they spend the money, and therebye also lies another problem.

We all complain about MPs, and I would be the first to say that they are in the main untrustworthy andunderhanded, but we cannot condem one of them for doing his job and representing his constituant can we? Lets give the man the opportunity to do the right and proper thing and then pass judgement on the outcome.

The Winco

[Vim_Fuego]

The documentary alluded to in the e-mail on LaboratoryQueens post and it's specific request for any faults on the Nimrod plus levels of PVR rates etc rather sounds like a trawl for dirt on the fleet and not a request for information that may help make the events of September last year any clearer...

According to who you listen to the fleet is suffering from low morale as it is without labelling every hydraulic problem on start-up as a life threatening drama in direct consequence to government under spending...

Surely the search for the truth should begin when you've officially been told a lie?

[Laboratoryqueen]

I have not made a personal attack on Tappers Dad nor anyone else here, my only comments which have been directed towards him alone have been enquiring as to the BBC program, my request for the cessation of speculation into this accident have been made as a sweeping comment, not aimed at just one person, I too am wanting the truth which is why I'm awaiting the BOI findings

[Da4orce]

LabQueen - you keep contradicting yourself! :=

You say:

"I have no confidence in the government."

Then you say:

"I too am wanting the truth which is why I'm awaiting the BOI findings"

Who do you think signs off the BOI report?

Secondly if you were as up to speed on the whole situation as you claim to be then you would know that the members of the Knight family have been in communication with Angus Robertson who has as a result raised very significant questions in parliament.

As for the BBC programme I hope it's impact and ability to influence those in power is not harmed by your determined efforts to undermine it's making.


All

I think we have all lost sight of the fact that we all have the same goal, that is to get to the bottom of what happened on 2nd September and make sure it never happens again. Whether we agree on the scale of the problems at Kinloss or not, one thing that we all seem to agree on is that the MOD is seriously degrading the British military and something needs to be done before we are relegated to a third world fighting force.

[Laboratoryqueen]

Not a contradiction at all, as I have previously stated, with the findings of the BOI we will then have the facts at hand to be given the answers to those questions we seek, I may have not have confidence in the government however the BOI is at least based on hard facts and not on heresay and rumour, only facts will give us the answers.

As to your second point Tappers Dad states I support my families local MP and not one in Kinloss.

As for the BBC program, if it appeared to be an informative and factual portrayal of the fleet and appeared to be an attempt at putting pressure on the government for change then it would have my support, however I was shocked to find that if a program such as this is in production then surely those at ISK themselves would have been made aware of this, after all, they are some of the people who are being fought for in these calls for change

[Da4orce]

1. I believe the programme is being made under the Panorama banner which has a very good track record of uncovering some uncomfortable truths.

2. How do you know that the programme is not "informative and factual", it hasn't been made yet.

3. Do you think personnel at ISK would be allowed to be involved in the programme? This is the airforce not the Navy!

4. I'm sure that the RAF and the MOD will be given every opportunity to comment on the programme before it is aired.

5. The fact that you did not deny that you are trying to undermine the making of the programme and you persisent disapproval of it suggests that it may have been you who tipped off the MOD about it. If it was, and your actions serve to reduce it's impact or undermine it's ability to influence then I hope you can sleep easy at night. A lot of people have spent a lot of time on that programme, as you appear not to have been involved I suggest you are doing little more than speculating about its content!

[Laboratoryqueen]

The programme it was stated in the mail I received, is said to be expected to be broadcast to coincide with the BOI release, so if it's broadcast at that point how can it have the actual facts from the findings.

If the programme is solely about putting pressure on the government to force a change then why did the RAF or MOD need tipping off, surely they would have been involved at some point or simply just informed of the intention to make such a programme.

[bigwordsmith]

I'm a former journalist ( flight International et al) and now work in the IT industry - and worked with the guy who blew the Chinook story onto the front page of Computer Weekly.

Ever since dawn of history the people at the top have made it their business to create SNAFUs and hide behind the men on the ground who take the cr@p. Now someone for whatever reason is offering to listen to the guys who are in the front line.

Don't knock it, there are far too many suits in Whitehall / Westminster who only ever listen to 'advisors,' almost all of whom have wealthy paymasters with axes to grind. HEre's one MP who sounds like he's doing the job he was elected to do.

If you want to preserve anonymity, get yoursellf a Yahoo or Hotmail email address, give some examples that show you know what you're talking about and write to him from that email - just make sure you don't leave a trace on home PC or use on on base.

[Da4orce]

:ugh: Labqueen - Have you ever thought of a career in politics?

[Vim_Fuego]

Da4orce...By the knowledge you admit to having about this programme are you a journalist yourself or a blue suiter a little too involved?

[tucumseh]

“however the BOI is at least based on hard facts…..”.

In an ideal world, this would be true. But I’m afraid there are many examples in this forum where their rulings have, demonstrably, been based on incorrect or incomplete information. Also, it is crystal clear that BOIs take an enormous step back when they come across something that could upset the political imperative or senior staffs (often the same thing).

Nor, seemingly, do BOIs ask obvious or penetrating questions, or dig deeper. Some would say they only dig as deep as the pre-judgement permits. The most obvious example in recent years is the Tornado / Patriot incident. The BOI recommended “The Tornado IFF installation be modified to ensure that the cockpit warning (sic – singular) is triggered in all modes”. In a report which points the finger straight at the Patriot crews and their procedures, is it not an obvious question, “Why was the cockpit warning not integrated in the first place, given it is a fundamental safety feature of the system design?” And perhaps, “Has such a failure/omission occurred before, on other aircraft, and been condoned?” Or how about, “Was a 2* personally advised the previous year to have all Tornados’ IFF systems checked for precisely this failure/omission?”

Or how about the multiple fatality incident where the BOI slammed an on-board system as “unfit for purpose” yet didn’t ask why contemporary photographs show the system was not installed in the trials aircraft. (Answer – it had been assessed as unfit for purpose and removed before experimental flight approval could be granted).

I do not fully understand the powers of a Coroner, but the admirable Mr Walker in Oxford has been very robust with the MoD over their pompous deceit. I only wish he could order BOIs to reconvene to take into account the evidence placed before his court which has clearly been withheld from the BOI. Perhaps he’s being removed from post before he does just that, or starts ordering judicial reviews.

My apologies if this upsets anyone, but I have a grave sense that natural justice is being swept aside under the BOI system. It may well be that the Nimrod (or any other) BOI takes an honest view of the evidence before it, but I sincerely doubt if that evidence will be as complete as it could be.

[Exrigger]

Da4orce, I must be reading Laboratoryqueen's inputs somewhat differently to you, as nowhere do I see anything written that deserves your comment of The fact that you did not deny that you are trying to undermine the making of the programme and you persisent disapproval of it suggests that it may have been you who tipped off the MOD about it. If it was, and your actions serve to reduce it's impact or undermine it's ability to influence then I hope you can sleep easy at night.. A tad harsh I feel and is neither warranted nor helpful to the thread topic.

[The Swinging Monkey]

LabQueen,

I hate to say this, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
This is, granted, a rumour forum, however there is an immense wealth of experienced people who post valid, constructive and more importantly accurate postings here. Some will undoubtebly be wrong, but in the main, a lot of what has been posted is factually correct, albeit a rumour. You are correct in having faith in the BoI, and if you prefer to wait for its outcome then thats fine, but I would therefore suggest you don't read this forum frankly, if you don't want to hear other peoples views.

As for the BoI, I have a limited knowledge of the workings of a BoI, and do not profess to be up-to-speed on them, however I do believe that the report will be as comprehensive as possible, and certainly 'the Wincos' explanation of them and what the job of the board seems correct from what I can remember. Da4orce, your comment about the signing off of the report? you suggest that the government are somehow involved in this process? I'm afraid you are incorrect Sir. The report goes from the board, initially to the Station Cdr, then the AOC and then finally to CAS (perhaps via ACAS also) but at no stage is the government involved. The SoS will most definately get to read the report, but he certainly does not 'sign it off'

This thread has cast doubts over the real reason for the intervention of an MP in the loss of the Nimrod. Tappers Dad has also come in for a bit of unwarranted attention, and those responsible for these personal attacks should be ashamed of themselves. Tappers Dad, perhaps more than anyone on this forum, has a fundamental right to seek the truth about the accident and has the right to ask some far-fetching questions about the tragic loss of his son and the others on XV230. Those who question that right need to stop for a second and think about what they would do in his position, and I for one would do exactly the same.

The same applies to this MP quite frankly. He is the MP for the Tappers, and is doing what we all pay him to do, and that is to represent us in parliament. I don't care what his underlying motives may or may not be. As far as I'm concerened, he is doing his job representing the Tappers, and we should all be grateful for that. I haven't heard too many other MPs kicking off about this or other losses in the Gulf - have you?

TSM

[Tappers Dad]

I think what Da4orce (One of my sons) is trying to say is .
As long as the desert sand is stained with my sons blood and that of his fellow crewmen , we as a family will talk to the BBC, ITV, Sky, MPs Minister, Prime Ministers, Newspapers and Coroners.
Whoever we have too, to find out why we shall never welcome him home again and put my arms around him.

All accidents have a cause We want to know what caused the fuel to leak, what caused the fuel to ignite. Maybe the BOI will have the answers if not then maybe the answers will come at the inquest.

I know this though,we will never give up asking the questions ,never.

[Vim_Fuego]

Tappers dad...If the BOI offer you a reason that lays the blame on nobodies doorstep i.e. a terrible accident would you accept it or would you carry on until someone/anyone has a finger pointed at them?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Tappers Dad,

You and I have correponded before Sir, and I for one applaud you and all of your family for your courage and steadfastness in the search for the truth. You and all of the families deserve nothing less and I sincerely hope that this MP finds the answers you so rightly deserve.

Da4orce - I hope you understand that I wasn't having a go, just pointing out that the BoI is in the hands of the RAF and NOT politicians.

Ben and all the crew are still very much in my thoughts and those of many others I'm sure. God Bless them all.
TSM

[Tappers Dad]

I am not looking to blame anyone, I don't know what the BOI is going to say .If they say it was the Kapton wiring that arced and caused the ignition who do you think I should blame?
The people who wired the plane 30 years ago ? The manufactures of Kapton wiring? The Government for knowing that

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm

"Despite ample warning about its dangers, the Royal Air Force took delivery of Kapton-wired Harrier GR5s. Two crashed because of the wire before the RAF embarked on a program to modify the use of Kapton in all the vulnerable parts of their planes."

Who would I blame "THOSE WHO KNEW AND SAID NOTHING"

[barnstormer1968]

I have spoken via email to Tappers dad on two occasions, and believe him to be an honourable man.
There are many post's before this one, and many Ppruner's clearly find the whole Nimrod safety issue a very serious matter. I have never been to ISK, and can only go on the rumours and comments mentioned on this site. But, if we all took a step back for one minute, then surely none of us would wish to be in Tappers dad's position. While some might think we know how we would act or behave in his position, none of us ACTUALLY know, and cannot know, until we were stood in his shoes.
Here is a man who is grieving for his son, but also trying to be of help to others, so that no other parents have to go through what the Tapper family have had to endure.
So please, lets support Tappers dad and his local MP.

Personally I don't care what the motives of the MP are, but I think I fully understand the need of a parent to come to terms with this event.
If some of you don't want to help, then that is your choice, but please don't bicker, as this all to easily leads to things being ignored. Or classed as service squabbling, and a divided lobby, is a powerless lobby.

[Laboratoryqueen]

It's been said there, what would we do in his position, and also none of us actually know what it's like to be in that postion.

You want to bet on that

[cooheed]

The arguing that is going on here really cuts me to the marrow. Can't we just let them all Rest In Peace? Witch hunt's won't achieve anything IMHO.

[Distant Voice]

Tapper's Dad: Are we sure that that Nimrod has Kapton wiring? According to Hansard (9th Dec 1999), Nimrod has PVC/Nylon wiring.

Maybe others can help on this one?

DV

[Wader2]

tucumseh PM please.

[Tappers Dad]

DV
You will find the answer here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991209/text/91209w01.htm

9 Dec 1999 : Column: 591W
Type of aircraft Nimrod .
Main locations Kinloss
Date first entered service 1969
Life expectancy (approximate figures in years) 40

Kapton wiring. Kapton is a trademarked material. It is one of a range of polyimide coverings used to insulate aircraft wires. Some 740 British military aircraft contain wiring of this type.

I hope this is helpful

And if you want to read a longer discussion go to :
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/Trans/hpw106-37.000/hpw106-37_1.HTM

SORRY
I was wrong and DV was right I have a job with all these technical terms

[Distant Voice]

TD; Yes, I have read Hansard for that day and it clearly states that Nimrod, Kinloss, has PVC/Nylon wiring. Nimrod is not mentioned in the table for Kapton wiring. I have re-read the statement several times.

DV

[Vim_Fuego]

I also have read the document several times and it clearly states there is no Kapton wiring on the Nimrod aircraft...

[Tappers Dad]

Still that said the PVC/Nylon wiring. life expectancy on the Nimrods runs out in 2009

I did say "If they say it was the Kapton wiring " obviosly they won't

[Distant Voice]

VF; Many thanks for clearing that one up. I had started to doubt my eyes - Tapper's Dad was so sure.

Are there any Nimrod avionics/electricians out there, who can state what the current situation is on Nimrod regarding wiring type? With all the new add-on equipment in recent years, things could have changed since 1999.

DV

[betty swallox]

For goodness sake.
I tried before. And I will again. I was not related to any-one on the aircraft, but personally knew a number of the crew, the captain particullarly well. Whilst I sympathise with a lot of the theories abounding above, can we please, please let the BOI report, and, if neccessary, take things from there?
I state this for no other reason that I have faith in the system.
BS

[Winco]

Betty,
This is a rumour forum old bean - if you don't like that then don't read it, would be my advice Sir

The Winco

[Tappers Dad]

You took the words out of my mouth Wnco ,or maybe someone could start a new thread. "Nimrods stop talking about them"

[betty swallox]

Winco.
Completely take that on board.
However, whilst not trying to get into a, "you said that, I said that" email bouncing match, all I am endeavouring to suggest is that some rumours are more useful than others. I only wish to see those that are doing their job, the BOI chaps, be left to get on with it. I'm all for fairness. To suggest I don't read PPRUNe any more is niave and unhelpful. My comments were neither.

[Vim_Fuego]

Winco 'old bean' yes this is a rumour network but I always thought it had appropriate limits and a self regulatory attutude to what we 'rumoured' about...Imagine the damage and hurt that could occur if we did not...
TD...Feel free to talk of the Nimrod but as you proved to us all and pointed out yourself you have extreme difficulties with the 'technical' side of any of your theories...
One hopes your Kapton ideas have not been included in any program you are making!
Why not wait and see if you are unhappy with the boards findings instead of grasping at staws? The boards findings may place you in a more knowledgable position to see in which way you wish to proceed with your quest...Honestly I mean you no malice and you as ever have my extreme sympathy but if you continually leap at potential reasons without a modicum of non rumour website research and trying to second guess the board before they've even had a chance to present you may begin to upset the very people you claim to want to help ie maritime aircrew.

[Tappers Dad]

VF
If I recall correctly you said "Tappers dad...If the BOI offer you a reason that lays the blame on nobodies doorstep i.e. a terrible accident would you accept it or would you carry on until someone/anyone has a finger pointed at them?"
I then said "I am not looking to blame anyone"
and went on to give an example using Kapton wiring, of who I would blame .Finishing with "THOSE WHO KNEW AND SAID NOTHING"

Maybe in hindsight and thanks to the technical knowhow of others I should have used fuel leaks as an example.As I was told by the RAF that was the source of the fire.
Can we agree on the fact that fuel leaked out VF ?? Yes or No

As for the TV programme do you really think I or anyone else has said what they think about the BOI findings before they are known?

[ianlg]

All MP's are responsible to seek the truth for constituents, no matter were it leads. The reason I need the help of the RAF is to find out what happened and make sure we learn from it.

Given the on going situations over seas and at home, I will continue to search and with your help get to the truth.

All contacts are in total confidence.

[Vim_Fuego]

TD...The only thing I would agree on with anyone at the moment is that we should wait until the BOI issues it's findings...Then and only then can we begin to discuss this subject with any grounding and knowledge...For the sake of just a few weeks it's a shame we can't agree on that.

[ianlg]

We do the need for an understanding of the situation is vital. All reports are only as good as the writer intends.

[Pontius Navigator]

We do the need for an understanding of the situation is vital. All reports are only as good as the writer intends.

Speaks volumes doesn't it.

[difar69]

"TD...Feel free to talk of the Nimrod but as you proved to us all and pointed out yourself you have extreme difficulties with the 'technical' side of any of your theories...
One hopes your Kapton ideas have not been included in any program you are making!
Why not wait and see if you are unhappy with the boards findings instead of grasping at staws? The boards findings may place you in a more knowledgable position to see in which way you wish to proceed with your quest...Honestly I mean you no malice and you as ever have my extreme sympathy but if you continually leap at potential reasons without a modicum of non rumour website research and trying to second guess the board before they've even had a chance to present you may begin to upset the very people you claim to want to help ie maritime aircrew."
VF I,for one, agree with all you said in your post, spot on.:D
Betty, good on you for expressing views in line with how a few operators are feeling at this moment in time.
I await the inevitable shouting down that seems to permeate this thread.....

[The Swinging Monkey]

VF & difar69

You cannot possibly expect something as tragic as the loss of the Nimrod NOT to create a reaction like it has here. To suggest that we all sit back and do and say nothing is farcical. This is a rumour network. We all know that and we all understand that amongst those rumours will be a certain amount of comment that is factual and correct, and some will obviously be less factual.

TappersDad is not an aviator (at least I don't think he is anyway) and so we should allow him a 'margin of error' when he isn't as accurate about some things as many of us are. But come on guys, give him a break for Christ's sake. He is a grieving Father who simply wants answers to basic and simple questions about what went wrong on that fateful day. And something did go tragically wrong, whether we like that fact or not, something went wrong

We have no right to criticise him for his lust for the truth, just as we should NOT criticise this MP who is offering to help him and the other families. It would be easy to just tell the families to sit back quietly, in a corner and wait for the BoI. But I doubt if any of us would or could do that. We would be up there, shouting the odds and demanding answers now, not in another month or week, but now, today (right this minute if it were me I can assure you!)

So, lets all just cut TD a bit of slack and more importantly stop telling him what he should and shouldn't be doing. He can do whatever he wants to do, if he feels it is right and proper for him and his family to get answers and the truth, and none of us are in any position to object or argue with him over it.

Kind regards to all
TSM

[I've_got a traveller]

TSM,

Here here well said Sir.

TD- Total respect Mr Knight, carry on the good work.

[Biggus]

Does anybody know when the BOI report will actually be released, other than such terms as.....'a few weeks'.....'soon'......etc?

[Laboratoryqueen]

The official line on is it will be given to the families in June but as yet no set date has been given

[Vim_Fuego]

TSM...As tiresome as this is becoming I'll reply...No-body is saying do not talk about the aircraft...all I, and to be honest a growing number of my operator colleagues are saying is cut back on the harmful conjecture...the desperate grasping of straws...The plucking from the air to keep the subject warm...The talking with technical authority in one breath then a sidestep in another and so on...

How about giving the fleet a break? Sure, rumour away at an appropriate level and perhaps put as much emotive effort into why they aren't getting airborne enough currently instead of trying to ground the fleet...If the BOI supplies us with the facts that satisfy the many interested parties then happy days...If it leaves us feeling as uneasy as some in here I'll personally construct my own tin foil hat and join the gang...

[Froobs]

I do wonder what some people here, are trying to find out. I echo Vim Fuego's words in that all the conjecture and speculation isn't doing anything positive for those still operating the fleet, and certainly nothing for the families. Why can't we all just wait for the BOI's findings and take the fight from there?

[Tappers Dad]

I was told by Wing Commander ...... ...... that there was a fuel leak on the Nimrod . FACT

And let me just put the record straight once and for all.

The Knight family have been liaising with a L*** M******** from the BBC in relation to a programme "
Can I draw your attention to the word Liasing this means "To communicate with or be in contact with someone , often in order to discuss something"
I have at no time said that I will be appearing on any BBC programme and neither have I been interviewed for any BBC programme .FACT
I have however appeared on the BBC News ,ITV News, and Sky News talking about the petition to Downing street Re the 3-4year wait for an Inquest .FACT

And I am sure once the BOI findings are released to the press they will be asking many of the familes to appear on the news to give there feelings.FACT

Does anyone else on here apart from me think they will be interviewed by the media . What I am seeking is information so when I am asked to comment I can make an informed comment .
As it has been pointed out I am not an Aviator I am a former Registered Nurse.And if I showed you a medical report saying Px's, TTAs and asyptomatic you wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. The same with me I have got some of the jargon but the report will be full of the stuff. So its info like abrevations etc types of wiring, fuel pipes I am after so I don't stand in front of a camera not knowing how to reply.

[The Swinging Monkey]

VF

What gives the right to tell a grieving father, or indeed anyone what they can and can't say or do? Just who the hell do you think you are? And what exactly is the problem here that you have so much difficulty undrestanding? You are begining to sound like some pathetic bullied little schoolboy......

'harmful conjecture...the desperate grasping of straws...The plucking from the air to keep the subject warm...The talking with technical authority in one breath then a sidestep in another and so on...' how utterly pathetic you sound. Where is there any harmful conjecture? What has been plucked from the air or grasped at straws?

And what about this 'How about giving the fleet a break' Come on man, take a reality pill. People are NOT having a go at the 'fleet' nor are they having a go at the aircrew and certainly not the groundcrew. People are discussing this tragic event on an open forum in a fairly sensible and civilised manner (compared to a lot on prune) I fail to see why you are getting so upset by it.

TD dosn't want to wait another week or month. In fact, I should think that he and his family don't want to wait another second more. They want answers right now. I appreciate they might not be able to get them yet, but stop telling him (and others) that they can't ask questions about their loved ones, or make genuine enquiries about a 'possible' cause or reason for the accident. He admits that he isn't an aviator, so why not direct your efforts into aiding him rarther than lambasting him?? shame on you really VF.

I was on the fleet also, and I want answers too. I lost many good friends that day like many others and its human nature that people will talk about it and speculate (not that I have made any speculation on here whatsoever) especially if they are ex Nimrod aircrew or groundcrew.

But I'll say the same to you and froobs as I did to Betty, if you don't want to read it, then its quite simple......don't look at it. It really is that easy.

Mr Knight, you carry on Sir, and keep asking as many questions as you like, and feel free to pm anytime you want with any specifics.
Kind regards
TSM

[Vim_Fuego]

TSM...

'He who angers you conquers you.' (Elizabeth Kenny )

Seriously though, I'm not going to back down on my stance and apparently neither are you...I doubt wether Froobs or Difar69 (I have no idea who these people are and probably never will) and many others who stop short of contributing will cease reading this forum due to your 'outrage' and 'shame on you's'...I think I'll stick around and join in the informed discussion the BOI results are bound to stimulate.

My very best wishes to you.
Vim

'

[The Swinging Monkey]

Vim,
I'm not angered mate, I just don't believe that any of us on this thread have the right to tell Bens Dad (or anyone in their position) what he can or cannot do, or what he can or cannot say or ask, thats all.

Don't back down on your stance by all means, that's what freedom of speech is all about, but don't give a grieving father, mother or anyone in that position a hard time for asking fair and justified questions, please. Thats all I'm saying here. Thank you.

My best wishes to you also.
TSM
ps. I know who difar69 is, but not froobs, and who the hell was Liz Kenny?

[Tappers Dad]

The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”:ugh:

Winston Churchill

“What is this the sound and rumor? What is this that all men hear, Like the wind in hollow valleys when the storm is drawing near, Like the rolling of the ocean in the eventide of fear? 'Tis the people marching on”

William Morris

In other words
As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defence

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

First of all, I have every sympathy with Tappers Dad for wanting to understand the technicalities of what may have happened to 230 and, similarly, his interest in problems relating to other Nimrods. That said, I think I understand the point that Vim_Fuego is making.

Let us remember that this Thread was started by a certain Ian Liddell-Grainger, MP. He may or may not be solely concerned with the interests of one of his Constituents; who really knows what the true motives of a politician are. I would say that the man deserves the benefit of the doubt and should be afforded every courtesy. We must think of the possible outcomes, though. One may be a recognition that the Nimrod force is under-resourced and needs additional support and funding. On the other hand, it may recognise an under-resourced Nimrod force that is not deemed worthy of additional support and funding. The former case would to many here be a blessing and result in restoration of the Nimrods as safe available force elements. The latter case, though, would probably result in the loss of a still essential capability, at a net cash saving, as a duty of care matter.

Basically, while facts are facts, politics will always be politics and I would recommend caution and clarity on phrasing replies and points.

[cornish-stormrider]

TD, Keep up the good work sir. If I can be of assistance don't hesitate to ask. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and all the grieving families. Keep Fighting.

TSM Well said.

[Distant Voice]

Lab Queen: I am informed that the BOI will not report in June, thay are still working on it, and will release it asap. It will will then do the signature round.

TD: Are you sure that a W/C told you that the Nimrod had a fuel leak? This would have been speculation if he did.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

DV
To avoid giving out details on here which may cause upset I will pm you what we were told on the understanding it is not then posted on ANY THREAD as was a previous pm I did to someone. Agreed

[Laboratoryqueen]

On the point of Tappers dad saying they were informed officially of a fuel leak, I will back that up as my family was also told this information.

As to the BOI, I have been informed that the BOI findings will be made to the families in June, though no set date is in place, when the report then makes the rounds, I do not know.

[toddbabe]

Found on another forum talking about Kinloss! confidence inspiring stuff!


At my present posting, by the time all the PVR's filter through the only non JNCO or above ranked guys on my desk (for my shift) will be myself and an SAC(t), both of us having only newly arrived on the section. He has no 1st line experience and I have no experience on this aircraft type, only fast jet.

In the space of 15 months nine fairys from my shift have PVR'd leaving a gaping hole in experience. Add to this the continued desert dets, flying the boll*cks off the jets and plumeting morale.

[Hoop Stress]

Just read this on a unclassified brief about the state of the military as at Apr 07:

"Voluntary Outflow rates have varied little over the last few years. In addition to existing retention measures to rectify outflow from shortage trades the AFPRB have announced further incentives for the Infantry, Royal Marines and aircrew. Voluntary outflow has dropped over the last quarter."

Not quite what I am seeing or hearing.

[cornish-stormrider]

If that last statement isn't a head in the sand and make up a soundbite then I don't know what is.

[Tappers Dad]

I agree CS :D

My son was fond of his quotes and here's an appropriate one I think:

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
- Martin Luther King Jr.

I was taught that while good men stand by and do nothing then nothing will get done. But I am pleased to say that there are good men on Pprune who are not standing by and doing nothing.

To Vim_Fuego

When you said
"How about giving the fleet a break? Sure, rumour away at an appropriate level and perhaps put as much emotive effort into why they aren't getting airborne enough currently instead of trying to ground the fleet".

Perhaps toddbabe has gone some way to answering why "they aren't getting airborne enough currently"

And Froobs you said
"all the conjecture and speculation isn't doing anything positive for those still operating the fleet"

Do you honestly think those of us on here who ask questions can have any influence on the those still operating the fleet. If you do then you are saying the few good men on here are able to make a difference add an MP to that and who knows what may be achieved.

Maybe the fleet my son was so proud to be part of will once again be a fleet full of highly motivated aviators.

[Vim_Fuego]

TD...We all know amongst the fleet why the aircraft aren't getting airborne enough...maybe I was being too subtle for you...It's always been a manpower issue with our groundcrew and there nothing particuarly sinister about it either...It's down to multiple and repetitive deployments and a job market that lures them away...The people that are left are doing a herculean job to make the flypro but it must be getting harder every day as experience bleeds out...


"Maybe the fleet my son was so proud to be part of will once again be a fleet full of highly motivated aviators."
Whats your insinuation?

[Tappers Dad]

VM
"Whats your insinuation?"
Not so much an insinuation more of an observation, wasn't there a thread a while back entitled
Kinloss........Whats Going on?
Here are a few reminders of postings

Ginger Beer "I hear of Aircrew refusing to fly the mighty hunter any more and QFI's, line Pilots and Flight Eng's PVR'ing in large numbers, what is the truth and what are the real reasons behind the issues?"

The Swinging Monkey "I don't think I have ever spoken to friends who are so sick-to-death with what is happening, not only to the aircraft that they fly, but to the station and the squadrons and the RAF in general."

Had Enough 77 "I was back up visiting ISK recently and you can feel the difference on the base, the atmosphere has definately changed. There is going to be a large experience gap in the fleet due to basically all the experienced pilots PVRing along with a significant number of flight engineers"

nimblast " ISK is no longer fit for purpose.
Until it stops pretending otherwise nothing will change."

Etc etc.......
Not my words those written by others more knowledgeable than me.
Low morale =Low motivation or is there no correlation ?

[Vim_Fuego]

Some people are bugging out, many are staying. Morale is low for some and not for others. Amongst the knockers I don't think many have pvr'd (low single figures) but I think more people are thinking hard about what to do at their IP points. Lots of pilots are jumping ship all over the RAF to attractive packages with the airlines as for many the career options that perhaps they joined up with are shrinking as the RAF comes down in numbers, squadrons and aircraft. Eng's are an odd lot as we've stopped training them but not stopped needing them...The location of ISK for some eng's that have been asked to go from southern bases to up north has been a factor...And what can the posters do if the option of waiting for the training system to spit out some more has been disbanded? ans: keep trying to post more until one sticks.

From a personal point of view I don't connect morale with motivation as the fleet is still attempting it's tasking with the level of professionalism people expect of the maritime force... To be honest if the motivation wasn't there you perhaps wouldn't climb up the steps.

[fin1012]

TD
I totally sympathise with how you must be feeling, but at the risk of being flamed out of existence, it's probably worth bearing in mind 2 things:
Firstly the warning on the front page of this forum which says 'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.' and secondly that out of 45000 (ish) serving members of the Royal Air Force, only about 40 - 50 (and I'm being deliberately on the high side here to avoid claims of understating the number) regularly post here. That is a tiny tiny fraction of an overwhelmingly larger number who don't feel strongly enough about many of the topics here to post on them (although I suspect the majority like me like to view the threads occasionally to see what might be an issue in the future). Some of the postings I have seen here have been ill informed, hopefully unintentionally, but ill informed nonetheless.
I have been honoured to have been a member of the MR2 flying fraternity for over 20 years and knew and served with all of the aircrew on XV230. I really believe that the right thing to do is to wait and see what the BOI says and then question any bits that I either don't understand or don't agree with. Unlike many here, I do have faith in the BOI system - there have been hundreds over the years and I can only think of 2 or 3 out of all of those that (in my view) might have been questionable. I also know some of the people involved with this BOI and they are all good people who have worked extremely hard for very long hours - I refuse to believe that anyone wants to see the thousands of man hours wasted by producing a report that everyone disagrees with. My only worry is that they won't be able to gather enough evidence to come to any meaningful conclusions.
All the best to you and I hope you take this in the well meaning spirit in which it is intended.
Fin

[Froobs]

TD, on reflection, I should have worded my last post in a clearer manner so apologies there. I was commenting on the ongoing speculation, and the fact that ISK and its aviators still have to fly the aircraft with all the he reckons this, and she reckons that, as to the safety of the MR2. I am of the opinion that supposition and second guessing is not conducive to the instilling of confidence with those still flying. Let's see what the BOI has to say about the tragic loss when it finally releases its findings.

Respects to all

[Tappers Dad]

Fistly may I remind some of you of an earlier posting on
Kinloss whats going on
http://www.pprune.org/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 28th March 2007, 09:23 #8 (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3202898&postcount=8) Tappers Dad (http://www.pprune.org/forums/member.php?u=153733) vbmenu_register("postmenu_3202898", true);
Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title (http://www.pprune.org/ptorder/ptorder.htm) and help support PPRuNe

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 64


Whats going on ?
Whats going on is the same if not worse that has been going on for the last couple of years. 30+year old aircraft being patched up and sent up !!
No thought given to the morale of the crews. If we as a family didn't get offered counselling after the Nimrod explosion 2nd September , then you can bet no one at the base did either. My son Ben loved every minute he was in the RAF but he would not have wanted to die due to a technical fault. And I know its not an isolated incident ,they are happening every day. The blue suits at Kinloss need to tell the MOD to get there fingers out and say ,Enough is Enough we are not puttting up with it any more . Spend some money get the manpower Get it sorted. You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees.


Hopefully it is plain to see I am not knocking any aircrew or ground crew at ISk. The opposite is true "You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees."

Secondly if you look back in all of my posting I don't think you will find I have said I don't have an faith in the BOI. They will I am sure do a first class job. However it doesn't stop there,
I believe they willl say no more than the families have already been told but in more technical terms.

As you are aware all aircraft were grounded following the crash for a number of days. How did they know what to check if they had no idea what happened.They didn't check the whole fleet out end to end they were looking at certain areas.
This whole thread is about how the crash and the long wait for the BOI has effected morale and "concerns among air force personnel about a range of issues concerning the Nimrod aircraft and the fleet"

There are rumours I have heard I will not post on here and I will wait for the BOI to confim or disprove them.

[Mad_Mark]

As you are aware all aircraft were grounded following the crash for a number of days. How did they know what to check if they had no idea what happened.They didn't check the whole fleet out end to end they were looking at certain areas.

The following is based only on what I have heard from open sources:

The crew reported a bomb-bay fire in their mayday. Eye-witnesses saw a fire coming from the underside of the aircraft before it exploded. The crew had just tanked. The aircraft was over a region with hostile ground forces.

So, what are the possibilities?

1. Hostile action - was the aircraft inside the threat envelope of hostile weapon systems? No? - rule out enemy action.

2. Where was the fire reported/seen? Bomb-bay - concentrate efforts in that area.

3. What could possibly cause a fire in the bomb-bay? Ordnance - was the aircraft carrying any? No? Rule that out. Electrical? Could a purely electrical fire cause the intensity of fire reported? Possibly. Hydraulic fluid? Possible. Fuel lines? Just tanked - more likely candidate for the intense fire.

So, based on the above the things to check the rest of the fleet for immediately after the accident was narrowed down to just a few areas. It is unlikely they knew "what to check if they had no idea what happened" as they did have some idea what happened, an intense bomb-bay fire, which narrows down the possible causes. Exactly what happened is left to the long-term investigation by the BOI, but the tempo of ops meant that the rest of the fleet needing checking immediately for any obvious signs of the cause.

I am in the camp that await the findings of the BOI to see what they assess the cause of this tragic accident to be. Like others here, I know some of the members and trust them to to their up most in order to find the cause.

MadMark!!! :mad:

[Distant Voice]

Very good Mad Mark, you should have been involved with the Concorde incident. You would have had BA flying them again next day.

(1) Engine fire
(2) Check all pipes in area
(3) If all OK, lets go.

Sorry, never thought that the problem was caused by an exploding tyre.

DV

[nigegilb]

DV, a bit harsh. Mad mark is making the point that he is waiting for the definitive from the BoI. He was explaining how the Investigators were directed to certain checks after the crash. I have not read open source, that the crew reported a bomb bay fire. I also have it on good authority that the incident was witnessed by a Harrier pilot, he too would have given information to the BoI. The checks that were carried out immediately afterwards revealed damage in AAR pipes to other Nimrod aircraft.


Apologies. Edited IAW comments below. To clarify, these are recommendations from the accident.

MODIFICATIONS TO CONCORDE
It was decided that the main cause of the accident was the ignition of the kerosene flowing from a massive rupture in a fuel tank caused by debris hitting the underside of the tank. After researching the possibilities for shielding the tanks the best source of protection was found to be lining the insides of certain tanks with kevlar-rubber panels.

link

http://www.open2.net/forensic_engineering/methods/advances/advances_13.htm

[Safety_Helmut]

Incidentally, to be more accurate, the concorde crash to which you refer was caused by a fuel tank explosion. The source of ignition was caused by the tyre explosion, which may have been caused by a piece of metal on the runway. Either way Concorde did not have fuel tank protection, just like the Nimrod.

Sorry Nige you've got that wrong. Concorde had a ruptured fuel tank, caused by a burst tyre, other damage to the undercarriage also occurred. I believe the igntion source was not conclusively proved, but was thought to be arcing from damaged wiring in the undercarriage bay. The aircraft did not explode before hitting the ground. The crew could not maintain altitude and airspeed given the state of the aircraft and the engines.

S_H

[betty swallox]

Fin1012. Here, here.
You put it beautifully. Nice to see someone TO THE POINT. And appropriate.

As you see, the thread is devolving into Concorde insignificance now....

[Distant Voice]

Betty S: No it is not really. Just trying to show that in the "correct world" of accident investigation we treat the cause not the effect. Condorde was shown as an example of how the process should be carried out. If XV230 had come down over Elgin or Nairn, we would be going the same way with Nimrod.

DV

[BEagle]

The AF Concorde report failed to report with any clarity that:

1. The Commander commenced the take-off with the aircraft outside Perf A limits. According to Concorde experts who have completed performance calculations using available data, even if marginally over MTOW, it was at least 5 tonne over RTOW....
2. The FE shut down an engine which was still producing thrust without having been ordered to do so. From that moment they were doomed.

Sorry, I digress. But the Concorde accident report is NOT a good model to consider.

If the cause of the Nimrod accident is established as having been caused by a fuel fire in the bomb bay, surely thee must be immediate flight restrictions, thorough fleet inspection, and, if necessary, appropriate modification of all other Nimrods.

I just hope the BoI's Accident Report isn't 'modified' by the airships...:mad:

[Tappers Dad]

As laboratoryqueen and I know we were informed officially of a fuel leak on XV230.
THIS TROUBLES ME>

Nimrod Aircraft
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last
six months; and if he will make a statement. [134919]


8 May 2007 : Column 66W

Mr. Ingram: Between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 a total
of 25 fuel leaks were reported on Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft. A fuel
leak is defined as any leakage of fuel from aircraft couplings, pipes or
fuel tanks. These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures.

Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
whether (a) the current air-to-air refuelling system will be replaced and
(b) the single skin fuel pipes will be replaced by double skin fuel pipes
as part of the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft refurbishment programme. [134920]

Mr. Ingram: The MR2 and the R1 are two separate variants of the Nimrod
aircraft. There are no current plans to refurbish the MR2 fleet before
it is replaced by the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. No decisions have yet been
taken on whether the R1 platform will carry the replacement for the
current mission system, and whether the R1 fleet will be refurbished. The
air-to-air refuelling system on MRA4 is an almost entirely new design
and built with only a small number of components retained from MR2 which
will be re-furbished. Jacketed fuel pipes will be used selectively
where it is judged to be necessary and all its fuel pipes will be newly
manufactured.

[Distant Voice]

Is Kapton wiring used in the Nimrod Yellowgate system?

DV

[The Swinging Monkey]

This should be interesting! TD, I hope you're sitting comfortably Sir!!
Kind Regards
TSM

[toddbabe]

why?
Kapton isn't a problem unless it gets contaminated, chaffed or dripped on by oil fuel etc.

[samuraimatt]

DV you should look here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3275546#post3275546) as there is some discussion on Kapton wiring in the Nimrod.

[Tappers Dad]

I would like a definitive answer once and for all.
Does the Nimrod MR2 contain any Kapton wiring or not .
Only last time I spoke about it I was told it didn't.

[FJJP]

I would have thought post #4 on the above link makes it quite clear.

In any case, so what? Are you trying to formulate a theory in case the BoI misses it?

[rab-k]

SWR111 powerpoint presentation re Kapton - if you're interested.

http://www.iasa-intl.com/uploads/ELEC/extras/KaptonWires%5B1%5D.ppt

[Mick Smith]

This is also interesting. Note the Nimrod reference.

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/ual965/ual965.html

Dont know how reliable it is but it is from the same organisation as the powerpoint.

[Tappers Dad]

FJJP
I am doing no more than the all those that posted on the thread
Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Just asking questions, all I want is a yes or no from someone qualified to know.

[toddbabe]

tappers dad Keep digging I too wouold be interested to know, one thing is for sure all the civi's won't touch it with a barge pole.

[Exrigger]

Found this item for those interested in aircraft and wiring, toddbabe as you can see a few civi's have/do use kapton:

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/wire_types.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991209/text/91209w01.htm

[Distant Voice]

Exrigger: Many thanks for that information. I have read the Hansard statement many times, and it is clear that the spokesman states that Nimrod carries PVC/Nylon wiring not Kapton. My feeling is that although that was the case when Nimrod entered service, Kapton wiring has been used for additional equipment fits such as Yellowgate. My basic question simply begs a yes/no answer from avionics at 1st line.

By the way, I note from your 2nd reference that whilst Kapton wiring is considered to be very dangerous, PVC/Nylon is regarded as dangerous and is subject to aging and has a low operating temperature. It is not used by the USAF

DV

[Da4orce]

Mad Mark said
The crew reported a bomb-bay fire in their mayday.

I have personally been told by senior figures at Kinloss that no mayday call was made by the crew of XV230. A call was made that was described as something else (name escapes me now) but it was some sort of priority call to report a problem but not a mayday call.

I have no intention of adding further to the speculation around the incident just wanted to clarify that one point.

[Distant Voice]

A "Pan" call

DV

[Da4orce]

That's it a 'pan call'.

[Tappers Dad]

Oh look another politician interested in Nimrods.

NIMRODS FUEL-LEAK FIGURES SHOCK
The Ministry of Defence confirmed yesterday that 25 fuel leaks had been reported in the six months to March 31 this year.
These latest figures will heighten concerns about the safety of the aircraft which has been in service with the RAF for more than 35 years.
Last night, Moray MSP Richard Lochhead said: "Clearly this is alarming and reinforces the anxiety of service personnel and their families who are awaiting the final conclusions of the on-going investigations into the Nimrod tragedy.

Although the RAF board of inquiry into last September's crash has still to publish its findings, a fuel leak is thought to have led to the catastrophic fire and explosion which brought down the aircraft.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=17375385&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch

[Len Ganley]

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=792192007

[JFZ90]

RE: scotsman article

No. of hours / year is not necessarily related to safety - so it is extremely misleading of this article to imply that it is.

Its a bit like saying I planned to drive 10,000 miles this year in my car, but actually did 12,000.

Is the person who wrote this a complete muppet, or am I missing something?

[nigegilb]

James Kirkup, is switched on, he works out of Westminster and has written several articles about lack of equipment, overstretch etc, but I don't think he has specialist knowledge of aviation matters.

He is a good guy though, I have had several chats with him, why not give him a call and set him straight. I have his number somewhere.

[Distant Voice]

Sorry JFZ, I think James Kirkup is making a valid point. If you examine all the available data (from 1997) you will find that prior to 2004 "achieved" and "planned" are roughly the same. It is only during the last 3 years that the overflying has taken place. I understand your point about running a car, but if I had a 39 year old car I would not be flogging it to death at the end of it's life.

[Not Long Here]

"It is only during the last 3 years that the overflying has taken place."

And with less assets, both air and groundcrew :ugh:

[Distant Voice]

NLH. By overflying I mean "achieved" is greater than "planned". This does not mean that more flying was carried out in last 3 years than in the previous years. In fact number of hours flown last year was about 30% down on what it was 4 years ago.

[Len Ganley]

......if I had a 39 year old car I would not be flogging it to death at the end of it's life.

I'm guessing that you would not have cut the number of people looking after it either.

[Distant Voice]

Len G: You are correct. As machines get older you have to spend more on spares and support crews, and we haven't done that.

[Safety_Helmut]

Am I also right in thinking that the intervals between scheduled servicings was increased again recently. The major cycle was changed from 2000 to 2400 flying hours in the late 80's or early 90's. What's the interval now ?

S_H

[Tappers Dad]

I did hear that since the crash the intervals between scheduled servicings was increased . However whether they are major servicing or routine ones that have increased I don't know.

[Distant Voice]

I see there are no takers yet for my original posting. It should be an simple question for any current avionics guys out there. "Does the Yellowgate system use Kapton wiring?"

If there are problems posting a reply, then please email me.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

Come on Pontius Navigator I am sure you either know the answer to DV's question RE Kapton WIring or know someone else that does?

[Pontius Navigator]

TD, sorry, I am a navigator and an historian and had never heard of Kapton wiring until it was raised here.

As you no doubt know, the wiring was manufactured by DuPont. You will also have seen it was used in the Harrier GR5. How did it get into the GR5?

[FJJP]

The only reference to Kapton wiring my addled brain can come up with - ISTR an incident involving a Harrier accident in which a Kapton wiring fire may have been involved. I don't have any details and I don't have access to mil docs any more.

It's a vague memory, I'm afraid, but it did lead to controversy at the time about the use of this cabling in other [commercial] aircraft, maybe even to the extent of replacing it fleetwide...

[Kitbag]

I believe the Tornado was (is?) still full of the stuff, due mainly to it weighing less and being less bulky than just about any other type of insulation then available. I remember attending an early Q course were the carbon arc tracking video was shown. I am sure several losses were attributed to this. The footage looked to be quite old even then.

Has kapton got anything to do with Nimrod? I don't know, but I'm fairly certain that civil fleets spent a lot of effort in getting the stuff removed.

[AC Ovee]

The ESM system incorporates Kapton wiring.

[Pontius Navigator]

AC Ovee, who is the manufacturer?

[Distant Voice]

AC Ovee: Thank you, you are an ace. That explains why the CB's should not be reset if they trip in flight.

DV

[Pontius Navigator]

DV from what I read, the Kapton sheath acts as a conductor and bypasses the CBs, that was the nub of the problem.

[covec]

"Somewhat concerned" questions from an aircrew bod:

1. Scheduled servicing intervals - have they increased? [I keep remembering the Air Alaska MD incident]. Why did they increase?

2. Re the YG system & Kapton wiring - is this why the CB issue is so important re Pod overheating or Fan failures?

[mojocvh]

Well, for what it's worth I think Kapton wiring installations** that have been properly designed, correctly installed AND maintained are ok. However when added "ad hoc" to airframes as "short term modifications" that then are still flying some 20+ years (in some cases) later it does call into question the integrity of the engineering processes that STILL call for these mods to be left in the airframes.

Re the YG system & Kapton wiring - is this why the CB issue is so important re Pod overheating or Fan failures?..

..Basically after the topcoat becomes damaged the kapton degrades as an insulator until it "flashes over" and basically becomes a conductor liberating a lot of energy as heat (<3000C). It also can support the current demands of the consumer units thus not providing the crew with any type of system failure as a warning whilst it can have the very sneaky practice of not tripping cb's due to the short duration of the flashovers. It can also spread ALONG a harness.


**No I wouldn't call the battery/avionics compartment of your average Tornado such a suitable installation/zone.


Mojo

[Tappers Dad]

Mojo
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Safety_Issues/Aircraft_Wire/RAFKapton.html
It is worth emphasizing that polyimide wiring was implicated as a contributing factor in the loss of two Tornados.
Furthermore, numerous ground fires have been recorded as a result of damage to this type of wiring. Laboratory tests have shown that the power of the Carbon Arc not only can destroy wiring looms, but can severely damage structures.
Without doubt, complacency cannot be allowed to creep in when handling polyimide wiring. It is no longer a ‘fit and forget’ component or a suitable place for hanging your torch in confined areas. To maintain our aircraft in an airworthy condition, it is essential that cables be continually inspected, cleaned and re-cleated. It should be noted that this form of inspection and maintenance will be with us for some time as Harrier GR5, Sentry AEW and Tristar all contain a polyimide construction of cable that is even more susceptible to carbon arc tracking than Tornado wiring.

[BEagle]

The attitude towards resetting any tripped CBs in flight changed radically in the civil airline world after the Swissair crash near Halifax.

For example, although it is sometime permitted to pull and reset certain specific CBs to 'reboot' some systems, it is never acceptable to reset a tripped CB in flight in most modern airliners.

On the military large aircraft program in which I'm involved, I asked whether a 'once only' reset of a CB was acceptable in flight. The answer from the OEM was an emphatic "NO!"

What is the current RAF teaching?

[AC Ovee]

Hi Beagle,
Current policy on most types is to allow one reset/replacement of a CB or fuse, where it is known that the wiring is not Kapton. Even if it is Kapton, if the reason for the CB trip is known by the crew, ie a power surge or interrupt throughout the jet or a switch pigs, and it is safe to do so, then it can and should be reset. We have a job to do.

[Pontius Navigator]

Tappers Dad,

Following your link above I am not sure how it arrived at the fact that Kapton wiring was implicated in the crash of two Tornadoes. It could be sloppy writing but this statement occurs for the first time in the conclusion. Conventionally mention of the Tornado should be made in the body first.

However I am pasting some extracts from web searches.

The first shows that Kapton wiring was fitted to the Boeing Harrier GR5.
The second, from Hansard, refers to two incidents of electrical fires on GR5s. I suspect this is pre-labour spin and it is possible these were accidents or, in other words, crashes. The final extract refers to Harrier crashes.

I don't doubt the accuracy of your quote; I doubt the accuracy of your source.

<<The BAE Systems/Boeing Harrier II (GR5, GR7, and GR9 series) is a second generation vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) jet aircraft used by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and, since 2006, the Royal Navy. It was developed from the earlier Hawker Siddeley Harrier and is very closely related to the US built AV-8B Harrier II. Both are primarily used for light attack or multi-role tasks, and are often operated from small aircraft carriers.

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAE_Harrier_II>

<<Pasted from <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/vo991213/text/91213w07.htm>


13 Dec 1999 : Column: 24W
Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military aircraft have been grounded as a result of advice on the safety of Kapton wiring. [100925]

Mr. Spellar: None. However, following two instances of electrical fires on RAF Harrier aircraft in 1991, the Harrier GR5 and GR7 fleets were restricted to operational flying only for a short period. Subsequent investigation showed that the fires had occurred as a result of the mis-routeing of wires. Modifications were subsequently introduced to improve the electrical installation.

Kapton - the aromatic polyimide wiring insulation around the wire strands - has no place, he says, in passenger-carrying aircraft. He says that the main reason is that, in an electrical short, the wiring insulation chars to a conductive carbon residue and ignites like a dynamite fuse, affecting the whole wiring bundle (and therefore many disassociated systems).

<<Pasted from <http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm>

Although the United States Navy has banned Kapton and the insulation is no longer used by Boeing since 1992, the world's largest planemaker Airbus Industrie continue to use a version of it in their new planes. Even though the British CAA (Civil Aviation Authority) has forbidden the use of Kapton insulation in new aircraft designs, a loophole allows it to be used in current designs.

Despite ample warning about its dangers, the Royal Air Force took delivery of Kapton-wired Harrier GR5s. Two crashed because of the wire before the RAF embarked on a program to modify the use of Kapton in all the vulnerable parts of their planes.

British Airways admit they use Kapton widely in their aircraft, but that its use meets the requirements of regulatory authorities. Panorama understands, however, that British Airways was warned of the dangers of Kapton insulation and did make its concerns known to Boeing, its principal supplier. BA has declined to confirm or deny this.

Kapton insulation (a DuPont trade name, although their patent has now expired and they are no longer the sole manufacturers) seemed to be the dream wire insulation for commercial and military fleets in the 1970s and '80s. Wiring is like a plane's blood vessels, and the average big jet carries up to 250 kilometres of it. When the giant aircraft manufacturers were looking for something extremely light, tough and flame resistant they settled for Dupont's Kapton. Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed and later Airbus Industrie all installed it in good faith in their models during the '70s and '80s. Today, 40 per cent of all planes still carry Kapton-insulated wiring.

Pasted from <http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/aviation/kapton_mangold.htm>

[mojocvh]

contributing factor in the loss of two Tornados

What were the other factors? Hot air leaks? Hyd fuel leaks? Titanium fires?

Mojo.

[mojocvh]

Despite ample warning about its dangers, the Royal Air Force took delivery of Kapton-wired Harrier GR5s. Two crashed because of the wire before the RAF embarked on a program to modify the use of Kapton in all the vulnerable parts of their planes.

The mod's called KT in generic terms, all harriers still have a % of Kapton left installed no mind whatever MOD/BAe say, back end of a modern Harrier is not a pretty sight.

MoJo

[PICKS135]

According to Jeremy Vine at the end of this evenings 'Panorama' [28/05/07]
Next weeks [04/06/07] is all about the 'Nimrod Problems'.

[TMJ]

Not wanting to sound too negative here, but giving the absolutely appalling standard of reporting on Panorama this year, I wouldn't get too excited. The wi-fi episode was utterly, utterly biased and showed little or no understanding of the technical issues. http://www.badscience.net/?p=418

[mojocvh]

Yes it HAS gone down the soundbite route, probably easier to produce and costs less, that presenter, Vine is it?; sounds good on the radio but if you take a step back and look at the structure of the program it's the old "we think this so it must be right" scenario again from bliars broadcasting corporation.

[Tappers Dad]

mojocvh

I think this Panorama programme will be one that Mr Blair et al won't like one bit.

[Green Flash]

Mojo
Agreed, it's become the Jeremy Vine video show. It's all sound and light and fury, all about the surface froth and no digging down to the real substance of the subject as used to happen. I suppose that takes time, effort, talent and money.

[Distant Voice]

So now we pre judge a TV program as`well as the BOI

[TMJ]

I hope it's a balanced piece of good journalism that will shed light on the matter. But given how the series to date has gone, I doubt it will be.

[KPax]

The next Panorama is based on the tragic Nimrod crash. This is the title.
'On a Wing and a Prayer: Shelley Jofre investigates whether Britain's single biggest loss of military life in over two decades could have been avoided'

[snapper41]

Ah yes - Panorama. Anyone remember when it used to be an incisive, investigative political comment programme, rather than an extension of the Jeremy Vine show, or a later-night version of Watchdog?

Let's hope for some balanced BBC reportage...:rolleyes:

[Tappers Dad]

I think people would do well to wait , watch the programme and then comment on its validity. As for being balanced if therre are problems with the nimrod fleet then there are . They are not going to say on the one hand there are and the other there aren't.

[Mad_Mark]

As for being balanced if therre are problems with the nimrod fleet then there are . They are not going to say on the one hand there are and the other there aren't.
If the BBC are such experts on the Nimrod then maybe the MOD should have invited THEM to carry out the BOI instead :rolleyes:

MadMark!!! :mad:

[JFZ90]

"I think people would do well to wait..."

What you mean like the BBC have waited for the BoI results?

I would say the approach they are taking beggars belief, but sadly the standard of BBC reporting (i.e. woeful) not longer surprises me.

[Green Flash]

TD

Agreed. Despite what we might think about Vine-orama at least it will bring the Nimrod problems to a wider audience. All publicity is good publicity.

Still don't like Vine. But not as much as Nicky bl@@dy Campbell. Makes my skin creep.

[Tappers Dad]

JFZ90

Why do the BBC have to wait for the BOI to make a programme about the state of the Nimrod fleet. Is there not a thread on here intitled Kinloss........Whats Going on? that has had 308 postings and 54,730 hits.
Does this not show the amount of concern people have ???

If the BBC had done the inquiry maybe the families would not still be waiting 9 months later for it !!!!!

3 people on the BOI working 40 hrs a week x 9 months = 4320 hours and still no result :ugh:

[JFZ90]

Why?

To be fair it depends upon whether the BBC start linking gossip and rumour with the last years tragic loss. If they don't then fair play to them, I wonder what it will be about.

If they do however try to link rumour with the loss (and I'd be surprised if they didn't try to as its a "good story"), they then I think they should be ashamed.

If the BBC had done the BoI would you believe it?

[TheSmiter]

Despite what we might think about Vine-orama at least it will bring the Nimrod problems to a wider audience. All publicity is good publicity

Flashy, I suspect the message (whatever it is) will be lost to a huge swathe of the population

BIG BROTHER starts tonight :ugh: 'Bigger, better, badder than before'

Once again proving that the education system is in serious need of reform :sad:

[Tappers Dad]

JFZ90
Maybe they will talk about the number of fuel laeks per 50 flying hours
Maybe they will talk about the number of parts swapped from one a/c to another to get it flying
Maybe they will talk about Nimrods exceeding their planned flying hours
Maybe they will talk about PVR rates
Maybe they will talk about a/c availability and serviceability
Maybe they will talk about about the poor risk management on the fleet
Maybe they will talk about groundcrew shortages
Maybe they will talk about spending millions on ecological work at the base instead of on the aircraft

Or maybe they won't wait and see.

BOI's don't make programmes and the BBC doesn't sit on BOI's

[Green Flash]

Oh, fcuk, is that BB cr@p back on again?:sad:

[hobie]

Hang in there TD ..... :ok:

[JFZ90]

Just found the programme description (just noticed this is mostly in the original post too).

"Shelley Jofre investigates whether Britain's single biggest loss of military life in over two decades could have been avoided, and reveals a series of potentially-catastrophic faults with the RAF's ageing fleet of spyplanes."

So Shelley is, in fact, doing a kind of BoI into the loss, prejudging the official BoI.

I detect some here feel that this is a good thing, perhaps envisaging probing journos finding the truth etc., just like in films ("All the presidents men" spings to mind).

I can only judge by recent BBC journolistic standards, but I fear that the programme will be sensationalist, poorly researched, make tenuous and misleading associations and deductions and generally do many in the RAF a rather large disservice.

Of course, I'm prejudging the programme here having never seen it - that would be stupid thing to do wouldn't it!!!!!

[Distant Voice]

JFZ90; Or Watergate

[AR1]

I dont see haw describing the fleet as ageing will do a disservice to the RAF. Ok its true, I dont really know the current state, but those airframes & that 'technology' have been around a few years too long IMHO.

Of course, it may well be full of 'dramatisations' illustrating what happened (we even get those in toothbrush adverts these days), lets wait & see.

I'll watch it anyway, even if its just to shout 'Bo&&ocks' at the TV every time I think they get something wrong.

[Roland Pulfrew]

TD

Despite the grievance that you must feel, 9 months is not a long time for a BOI. It is just not that simple. The BoI for the squirrel crash at Shawbury hasn't reported yet after almost 5 months. And that [I]only[I] had one fatal and 3 injured. It happened on a military airfield in the UK, not in a hostile country thousands of miles away. They had access to the wreckage without the danger of being attacked by the Taliban.

I am sorry for your loss, but you cannot prejudge the BoI and NOR SHOULD THE BBC. I will watch the programme, but going by recent BBC journalistic standards I will not be surprised if it is full of inaccuracies and rumour.

[I've_got a traveller]

I find it incredible that people have automatically made up their minds about this documentary days before it has even been broadcasted. What are people scared of? It is a documentary by the BBC!!
Whether conjecture or not it is journalism trying to enlighten the public on the tragic events of that day thus encouraging our pitiful goverment to act before it happens again.
I'm sure it will be full of dramatization, exaggeration and perhaps inaccuracies but it has got to be a step in the right direction.

Like someone has already said Hang in there Tappers Dad our thoughts are still with you.

[Len Ganley]

Absolutely right.

Maybe we should watch it before we pass judgement upon it.

[The Swinging Monkey]

JFZ90

Why are you so anti??
Surely, any programme that highlights things of this nature, that are patently wrong is a good thing isn't it? Only a complete fool would suggest otherwise, certainly as far as the Nimrod fleet is concerned.

Roland,
whilst I appreciate your sentiments Sir, the comment: 'but you cannot prejudge the BoI and NOR SHOULD THE BBC' casts a slur on the guys running the BoI frankly. Do you really think, for one second, that they will be influenced at all by any programme? Of course not.

I am looking forward to the programme, not so much for it's 'factual' content, but to see the BBC bring the problems that not only the RAF face, but the Nimrod fleet in particular have to put up with, into the public domain. If it changes the views of the public about how continuing cuts in defence funding is putting the lives of our friends and colleagues at risk, then that has to be a good thing.

Kind regards to all
TSM

[No Vote Joe]

TSM, Hear, Hear!! :D

It may not be the most technically acurate piece, but anything that highlights the sorry state of all our fleets at the moment is good news.

The only bad publicity is no publicity.

[Roland Pulfrew]

TSM

I think you have misunderstood what I meant, either that or I did not make it clear. In fact I cannot see how my comments cast a slur on the BOI team. I do not state, or infer, that the BOI team will be influenced by a BBC programme.

Just to make this clear I am NOT having a dig at the BOI team!!!!

To quote TD If the BBC had done the inquiry maybe the families would not still be waiting 9 months later for it !!!!!

3 people on the BOI working 40 hrs a week x 9 months = 4320 hours and still no result

I am just trying to say that TDs assertion that 9 months is too long for a BOI is at best naive. It is a difficult unpleasant job and made ALL THE MORE DIFFICULT, in this case, because of the location and circumstances.

I suspect that the BBC will come out with rumour and half truth without waiting for the FACTS from the BOI. Unfortunately the general public will accept the BBC programme as "fact" but without an understanding of any of the factors that the BOI WILL investigate and present when they HAVE COMPLETED THEIR INQUIRY.

[I've_got a traveller]

Roland,
I can't see why you can't accept this forth coming documentary in a positive light.

The public need to see the state of the current armed forces, after all they pay for it, and the danger it's putting serviceman in. Like someone has already mentioned on this thread any publicity is good publicity.

Even though I'm confident that the BOI will carry out their job effectively, I'm not so certain that the average Joe on the Street would give two hoots about their findings however, I think a hard hitting Panorama documentary would carry more impact in highlighting our current plight!!!

[Roland Pulfrew]

IGAT
I am not a fan of sensationalist reporting. I believe that many of our news services do not report facts anymore. I am fed up with "special correspondants" being asked for "their opinions" rather than just reporting the "facts". I feel (and I will be happy to be proved wrong) that the BBC report will be based on rumour and half truths - because the BOI has not yet reported. Significant amounts of work will be generated in answering MPs and the publics questions raised by this programme many of which cannot be answered because the BOI still has to report.

And, IMHO, this programme will not generate the good publicity that we seek, it will drive the public's opinion, if they even care, along the "Bring our troops home" route rather than the "Fund our military properly" route. If we cannot be used for what we are employed for then we leave ourselves wide open to further and drastic cuts from HM Treasury.

If the progamme went out with the benefit of having the BOI, ie with the "facts", then I could understand the value - until then......

[The Swinging Monkey]

Roland,
What is needed, more than anything right now for the RAF IS publicity. I don't care if it is a bit sensationalist, as long as it gets out into the public domain the unacceptable and catastrophic position that the aircrew and the groundcrew of the RAF are currently in, especially those up at Kinloss.

After the programme is aired, I want the public to talk about it non-stop and comment on the appalling state that our Armed Forces are in. It's no good having a 'nicely nicely' report about the crash, it needs to be hard-hitting and shocking. I accept that some of it will not be 100% factually accurate, but frankly I don't care anymore. Reasonable debate has failed us, as has the joke refered to as the PR machine (I refer to Abingdon? - enough said!)

The public need hitting hard with the stark reality that our Armed Forces are:
1. Overstretched
2. Outdated (Typhoon excepted)
3. Undermanned imeasurably
4. And lastly, BANKRUPT!

Now if the BBC wishes to dress that up in any way they want, I'm all for it. But it's about time the British people were shown a few home truths, and I for one hope sincerely that we are all utterly shocked, each of us, after we have watched the programme.

TSM

[I've_got a traveller]

Once again, well said TSM!!

[TheSmiter]

Agree 100% Roland , the most effective and credible programme on this disaster would have been one after the BoI reports. Then, armed with all the facts and considerations of the board, they could make a critical assessment of the findings and make whatever point they wanted.

Suspect the programme was intended to transmit coincident with the BoI report, but with time dragging, the BBC decided not to wait.

Naturally, there is a lot of interest in the report, not least from the families. This is understandable. They want the answers as quickly as possible.

However, the BoI is considering all the FACTS and circumstances. This takes time. The 'public' accident report is generally a very slim document, but the complete report is generally inches thick, reflecting the time and effort going into it.

The public, if they care at all, will watch the programme and make up their minds based on that, not the facts. Panorama may well identify some of the salient issues, but I for one want to see the official report.

[Roland Pulfrew]

TSM

You and I know that we are:

1. Overstretched - to the point of going snap in certain areas
2. Outdated - in most areas
3. Undermanned - and yet we are still persisting with MTWS :ugh::ugh:
4. Bankrupt - and that applies to all 3 Services

It is a shame that the Very Senior Officers at the top of the tree don't say so more but...........

If you think the general public give 2 hoots about the Armed Forces when the Treasury will use the vote catching Sacred Cows (for which read black holes) of Educashun and the NHS then I think you may be deluded. This story will run for 2 days, tops, before the great unwashed turn their attention back to Big Bruvver or Bid for a Kidney.:(

[spanners123]

Roland, i believe you 100% correct, all we are going to get is hearsay and rumour, no doubt the journo's have looked at this site. The BBC don't have access to the aircraft, the documentation or personnel involved in
in Nimrod servicing, where as the BoI does. Yes it has been a long time comming, but surely we want an accurate investigation with a sound conclusion!

[The Swinging Monkey]

spanners, Roland and the Smiter,

We all know that the vast majority of the Public will never ever get to see the results of the BoI. Indeed, because of its CAVEAT, probably very few people will get to see it in it's entirety, and I would even suggest that the families will only get a sanitised version of it if they're lucky.

The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown.

TSM

[spanners123]

TSM,
"The time really has come to stop pussy footing about and get this out into the open, irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise the BBC portray. I am at a loss as to why you are so adament for this programme to be shown."

I am not against this programme being shown, far from it. It's just that I feel that it could be shown at a better time, ie post BoI.
Inaccuracies can only do harm and short term wise, the Nimrod will get publicity, but bad IMHO. This can not be in anyone's best intrests!

[JFZ90]

Roland, Smiters and spanners - add me to the list 100% agreeing with you.

As you stated, a panorama programme that looked on 12 months from now to see how any BoI recommendations had been implemented (or not), would be OK. As it stands however, Mondays programme before the BoI is likely to :

a) be boll*x
b) possibly whip up a political storm to get MoD to act on "BBC findings".

On the surface b) sounds helpful (as many here seem to assume), however, the actual outcome of b) is what worries me, in that the BBC could dredge up any old airworthiness issue (for the sake of argument, lets avoid Kapton and take another old chestnut "V Band Clamps"). Hence, having whipped up storm demand action taken on "V Band clamps" despite not having a clue as to what they are or whether they are really implicated or not. Politicians face questions as to why they are not doing anything about "V Band Clamps". Politicians insist that MoD/RAF be seen to be doing something about "V Band Clamps" so they can asnwer the questions. Expensive programme put in place to "fix" the V Band Clamp problem (remember - I'm making this up without facts but just cobling together vaguely believable babble). Hence valuable money gets wasted so politicians can say they are acting on "BBC findings". Engineers pull hair out in frustration whilst real problems not addressed/properly funded.

This is exactly the sort of thinking that has money being spent on the "filter lake for de-icing fluid" that TD complains of. Hence I hope I've shown that pre-BoI nonsense could lead to more money spent in the wrong places.

[tucumseh]

On balance, I agree with TSM. I have no faith in BOIs; or, to be more precise, I think they honestly seek out the truth, but when they discover its unpalatable politics kick in.

Look at the BOI reports into Mull, Tornado/Patriot, AEW collision, Sgt Roberts/Body Armour and others. You can see they found out the truth, or got very close, but backed off to the extent that KEY issues are just mentioned in passing, if at all. They don’t dig deeper, ask searching questions or follow up their recommendations. In at least three of the above examples, pertinent evidence was, I believe, withheld from the BOI. (Otherwise the narrative wouldn’t be so embarrassingly bereft of detail). An example, which I’ve used before as it’s so simple. The Tornado report recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Fine. But why not ask (a) Why was this not done in the first place, (b) Why was it not done when more instances were discovered in the mid-late 90s, and (c) Why was it not done when specific warnings were given the previous year. Here’s a cracker. Why did CDP rule it was ok not to integrate IFF warnings – 18 months before the incident? Go through all these cases and the common denominator is – they were warned.

One other aspect I don’t like. I have twice personally experienced being hunted down and the finger of blame pointed at me. On each occasion, due to meticulous record keeping (records others denied the existence of) I was able to re-direct the inquisition. No further action was taken, because, while it was ok to come after me, a mere pleb, they didn’t like it when the true culprits were more senior. Nor was I asked to give further evidence.

[Release-Authorised]

This thread is full of what ifs and maybes - just what most people are accusing the BBC of!!

Lets wait for the programme, watch it and then pass judgement upon its effects and causes. Anticipating events is the very thing that we criticise the media for so perhaps we should not indulge in the practise ourselves. Like the BOI, we can make our own sound judgement once the facts are known and not descend into prejudice and rumour.

(We can then all bash the BBC/Senior Officers etc on Tuesday).

[Winco]

Gentlemen,
There is nothing to stop the BBC from presenting another programme on the Nimrod post the BoI, and I wouldn't be surprised if this is something they are keeping up their sleeve. This then gives them some ammunition to say...'look, we said this before the BOI, the BOI siad the same, and yet nothing has been done'... it seems fairly logical to me. I would look on this as a way of bringing the subject back in the public domain before the results of the BOI are announced, and I can see nothing wrong in doing that.

I think that your fears about money being wasted on unneccesary projects are quite unfounded. We all know, only too well that despite the loss of the C-130, the government didn't immediately throw money at what was, at the time, a vital recommendation namely the use of fire-suppressant foam in fuel tanks. The fact is, neither the government or the service has money to spent in the wrong places as far as the military is concerned.

As has already been said, the programme will probably be full of inaccuracies and will therefore will be slammed by the military, but I think the fact that it gets it back out into the public domain will be a valuable tool for when the BOI is released. It then opens the door for the BBC to produce another programme on the matter and have another go, and that can only be a good thing surely?
Kind regards
The Winco

[fantaman]

What you mean like the BBC have waited for the BoI results?
Or like they waited until the MoD actually confirmed what kind of aircraft actually crashed?

I seem to remember hearing stories of worried families at Odiham, Benson, Lyneham and Kinloss as the BBC reported a Herc down, no wait it was a Chinook, no wait it was a Merlin..... :mad::mad::mad:

[Headstone]

I don't believe half the comments on this thread. Firstly I've been on the "wrong side" of a BoI three times. Once after CAT 5'ing one of Betty's aeroplanes and twice due paperwork I had been involved with prior to losing aircraft. I have every faith with the actual BoI and it's individual members. Once they report fully of course certain Very Senior officers may poke noses in and B'Liars mob may alter the thrust of the report. However comments such as that from TSM quote- irrespective of any inaccuracies, deliberate or otherwise - unqoute are absolutely appalling and nonsense. If the programme contains deliberate or unintentional innaccuracies then the spin docs in the MoD and B.Liars entourage will be ale to rubbish the whole programme. If any unpalatable facts are found out and the finger of blame is pointed somewhere then any incorrect statements will mean the whole prog will be rubbished. Aren't we the ones on this site who are always demanding absolute perfection from the Beeb and the rest of the journos normally described as "Lying Journo Scum". After that tragic event last Sept. this site was full of comments from people demanding the Beeb get it's facts right first and as the previous poster said we were complaining about the usual rent a mob talking head avation "experts" being wheeled out at the Beeb prattling on about Chinooks and Hercs whilst it seemed all the Kipper fleet and many others had worked out it was a Nimrod from the crew complement and where it was working. If this programme presents "Facts" as spouted on this site e.g the MR2 is a converted Comet airliner - then it does not deserve to be shown. In the event of the BoI report either ducking the issue or being pressurised to say certain things then that is when a good Beeb journo could really do some good by pulling it to ribbons and asking why it was altered and who altered it.

[Winco]

Headstone, I have a feeling I know who you are, but whatever.

As you will be well aware, the findings of any BOI have a caveat that almost always prevents them from getting into the public domain. Indeed, a couple of year ago I came across one for a Vulcan that was lost, many years ago, and was still classified. It didn't have anything untowards in the actual report other than the fact it was a V Bomber, and it was still classified many years aftre its loss.

That said, there is no way that the BBC (or anyone else of a similar organisation) will be able to get hold of the report to see 'the facts' and the outcome of the BOI. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the BBC to produce the best programme possible with the limited amount of factual information available to them surely?

I know they have approached a number of people at Kinloss and I have no doubt that they will have spoken at length to a number of ex Nimrod 'experts' in an effort to get as much legitimate info as possible, and that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

The thrust on this forum is that the BBC should have waited until after the BOI announces their findings. I would suggest that it is equally justified to wait until after the programme has been transmitted before we condemn it, don't you?

The Winco

[clicker]

I can only speak from the civvie side of the fence and will never see, or hear, anything you Lads and Lasses will from any BOI.

Regardless of what the BBC may know or doesn't, I would like to hope that it may open the eyes of some non military minded voters and make them change their vote at the next general election. They won’t know the real story, or even understand the details, but in my mind any publicity will be better than none at all.

I may be :ugh: but again if it gets questions asked by an MP, even better. :ok:

[blogger]

Tappers Dad best regards to you and you family.

I just hope this report will highlight the true fact of white wash in the service's today.

Old kit held together by over worked techies doing sell certification, LAC's doing what once was a JT's job (no dis-respect it's just the way it is.)

After all forces are only firefighters now....... If its not need yesterday we can't spare the time to do it today.

Smaller, leaner and just about falling over.

1983 RAF was 102,000 bodies now in 2007 41,400...... sad.

[xcbx]

Us familys were approached to appear in the programme so at least there maybe some facts in it...

[Fluffy Bunny]

Like Wingco said, I think the Beeb may be lining this one up for a follow on after the BoI has reported. Not that they'll get anything particularly useful out of the :mad: version released to the public.


P.S. Blogger 41,399........ 41,398........ 41,397....:\

[buoy15]

Tucumseh
BOI's are honest and DO produce unpalatable reports
That's when politics and litigation kick in
The Nimrod BOI for Toronto was re-convened 3 times to achieve an "acceptable" conclusion - (unique in BOI history) - much like the EU Constitution shambles - keep on amending and organise the voting to get the desired result!

[AC Ovee]

As we all know, the Toronto crash was caused by human factors. The jet was serviceable when it hit the sea. That fact caused major problems for the top brass and politicians, because ownership of human factor failings lies with the individuals involved and their supervisors i.e names are in the frames. Its very sensitive and needs careful management for obvious reasons.

However, when an aircraft causes its own crash, due to breakage, ie no human factors, the RAF is such a large, faceless, organisation that no one individual can be identified as the owner of the problem. The BOI will produce the established facts, the higher ups will thank the BOI and make suppporting comments, the politicians will shrug their shoulders and the RAF will do nothing, except move on.........to the next accident.

Incidentally, as a senior policemen said recently, there is no such thing as an accident; every crash was destined to occur for one reason or another. Someone or something failed to do what was expected. Thats not an accident.

Whoever wrote the synopsis for Panorama needs his ares kicking. Joe Public is being mis-informed that Panorama will provide the answer before the BOI. Thats not good.

[TheSmiter]

Incidentally, as a senior policemen said recently, there is no such thing as an accident; every crash was destined to occur for one reason or another. Someone or something failed to do what was expected. Thats not an accident.

In police parlance, RTA's (Road Traffic Accident) are now officially classified as RTC's (Road Traffic Collision) to accurately reflect the current belief that there is no such thing as an accident.

You can argue about this til the cows come home (and the police do, ad nauseum, on their forums).

With regard to 30, I was at a meeting not 2 weeks before the tragic day, when a senior officer, discussing flight safety issues, said:
".....all these 'accidents' and incidents were caused by a failure of leadership"

Sir, in the circumstances that was a very prescient remark, and you know what?

So very true

[Tappers Dad]

Can anyone answer this question ?

As Kandahar airfield is 3,300 feet above sea level if an a/c was flying over it at 23,000 ft does that include the 3,300 feet above sea level. Or would it actually be flying at a true hight of 26,300 feet ???

[Pontius Navigator]

Probably 20000 feet agl. And above any SAM threat.

[Distant Voice]

Yes the BOI will produce the established facts. However, their report will only form one part of the evidence for the coroner. Other factors will be considered in order to ensure the whole truth is revealed and blame (if there is any) assigned. So I say to Tapper Dad, and all the other families affected by this accident, keep digging - for the truth.

Let us not forget the recent "blue on blue" case, involving a British soldier and two American A10 aircraft. The US BOI, support by Des Browne and MoD cleared the pilots. The coroner, aided by a newspaper and family research and investigation, thought differently. He returned a verdict of "Unlawful killing". Big difference.

So in Churchill's words, the BOI report will not be the end, it will not be the beginning of the end, it will be just the end of the beginning. The rest will most likely by completed by the families involved, and people who are prepared to come forward to help.

DV

[Tappers Dad]

So I say to Tapper Dad, and all the other families affected by this accident, keep digging - for the truth.


Thanks for that DV, one example of our digging is a request via the FOI act on the Harrier in the air at the time of the accident. We were told by High Wycombe that " the Harrier which saw the Nimrod attempt to recover to Kandahar did not film the incident.

Yet I understand that they are fitted with CCD TV camera for video reconnaissance and as this was a major incident it would have been filmed . In fact we have been told by 2 parties at different ends of the country that a film exsists. So what are we to do forget it or keep digging ? The latter I think as in the Bue on Blue case mentioned. The relatives knew a film exsisted and yet they were told time and time again it did not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=XSM3ISUD0TX2ZQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2007/02/07/nfriendlyfire107.xml

Mr Cameron raised the family's concerns that they had been "misled" by the MoD over the existence of the cockpit tape, in which the two US pilots were heard discussing whether to attack the British tanks - and their reaction when they were told that had fired on "friendly" vehicles.
He said three years ago, the British board of inquiry saw a copy of the video that had now been released. But the MoD told the family at the time that some classified material had been withheld from them, but didn't tell them exactly what it was. "The family thought they were told that no tape existed," he said.

You see even the MOD can mislead relatives :=

[Distant Voice]

TD. If there is a film recording it will be similar to that taken by the A10. It is long time since I worked on Harriers, but I believe there should be a mission analysis camera which takes video through the HUD (Head Up Display).

DV