Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SW your analysis is spot on, this Govt is particularly sensitive to public opinion. I often think that New Labour represents a continuous process of reaction to focus group consensus. However, I am still surprised by the speed of the success of the foam campaign. I also hope that by being up front and shining a light in a dark place I am helping to show politicians that serving and ex- military personnel have an opinion, are not politically naive and cannot be taken for granted. I saw Ben Griffin on Newsnight last night commenting on the case of Kendall Smith. Could it be that the old order of military sacrifice and stiff upper lip is changing. Is now the right time to consider some kind of military federation? The Lords are already talking about it. For too long politicians have taken the military for granted. If I have helped in some small way to change this way of thinking I will have achieved another success.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FF, I have been reading the printed version of the private session between Ingram and the HCDC. The Committee are still asking for answers and assurances about protection of RAF AT assets, I think it is fair to say that they are sceptical of the flimsy way their initial questions have been answered. Watch this space, this issue is not going away. Several things are going on in the background. Foam is not a sop, it is a first step. We have all learned about how politicians and their advisers answer questions. Or rather do not answer questions. the MoD is not getting off the hook that easily.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even a DAS is only as good as the latest int and software to program it. From what i hear, even a DAS or Foam wouldn't have saved the poor souls in the Herc.
At the end of the day we take good money to risk our lives - not nice to think this way but we can't complain when we are asked to take a risk! The politicians balance cost against risk to decide what is acceptable and at the end of the day, a few of our pink bodies may be an acceptable risk - live with it.
Ask the crews from the cold war all about it!! (Or WW2 for that matter)
Grow up or leave and get a paper round
At the end of the day we take good money to risk our lives - not nice to think this way but we can't complain when we are asked to take a risk! The politicians balance cost against risk to decide what is acceptable and at the end of the day, a few of our pink bodies may be an acceptable risk - live with it.
Ask the crews from the cold war all about it!! (Or WW2 for that matter)
Grow up or leave and get a paper round
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
I wonder who you are listening to.
Without compromising too much - foam in the engine isn't too good without a wing! and a Dass will only counter a SAM!!! Perhaps we should invest heavily in forcefield technology!!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage,
You get paid to take an acceptable level of risk. You should be in a position to either understand that risk (like getting in your car to drive to work) or at least have the expectation that somebody with some responsibility has given due consideration to the risk. You don't get paid to take an unacceptable level of risk. Well, you get paid, but you shouldn't be doing it. That's what nigegilb is chiselling away at.
sw
Would be nice to have the kit but we get paid good money to take a risk
sw
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage, So, the Into knows the probability and consequences of the failure modes of ballistic penetration of vapour filled fuel tanks? I would expect he knows the threats, not the mechanics.
And I thought we had a military serving a democracy.
sw
And I thought we had a military serving a democracy.
sw
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Safeware
Vage, So, the Into knows the probability and consequences of the failure modes of ballistic penetration of vapour filled fuel tanks? I would expect he knows the threats, not the mechanics.
sw
sw
and when that democracy decides we do something we do it - that's our job, we elected the govenment. if we don't like it then un elect them instead of whingeing!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage
agreed, but it should be under the reasonable expectation of 'duty of care'.
sw
and when that democracy decides we do something we do it - that's our job
sw
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VR
Well you've clearly got a handle on the technology involved here then 
To be honest, I too believe we're paid a good a wage and there are certain times we should man the f**k up and get on with it. The tents are crap, the dets come round too often yada yada - yes, get over it. Similarly I know that there are limitations with some of the kit on my aircraft but I and everybody else at the secret wiltshire airbase gets on with it. I've personally done 6 dets in Iraq and 2 in AFG without blubbing once. Check me out.
What I don't have any time for is lying politicians and wriggling senior neddies making false claims about either the threat or our equipment. We're not talking about sharks with lasers on their heads or multi billion pound deflector shields, we're talking about a very cheap mod (foam) that instantly reduces the risk to our aircraft, and more importantly our pax, by a very large percent.
No other fixed wing aircraft in the RAF inventory regularly flies within the same threat band as the C130. Suggest you go away and find out what we actually do.
foam in the engine isn't too good without a wing
To be honest, I too believe we're paid a good a wage and there are certain times we should man the f**k up and get on with it. The tents are crap, the dets come round too often yada yada - yes, get over it. Similarly I know that there are limitations with some of the kit on my aircraft but I and everybody else at the secret wiltshire airbase gets on with it. I've personally done 6 dets in Iraq and 2 in AFG without blubbing once. Check me out.
What I don't have any time for is lying politicians and wriggling senior neddies making false claims about either the threat or our equipment. We're not talking about sharks with lasers on their heads or multi billion pound deflector shields, we're talking about a very cheap mod (foam) that instantly reduces the risk to our aircraft, and more importantly our pax, by a very large percent.
No other fixed wing aircraft in the RAF inventory regularly flies within the same threat band as the C130. Suggest you go away and find out what we actually do.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Safeware
Vage agreed, but it should be under the reasonable expectation of 'duty of care'.
sw
sw
Personally i am happy with the risk. i can't counter every threat with technology but i understand and accept the risk - It's part of my job. I might not agree with what i am doing, but it is my job. Sometimes, the objective might justify the risk, or the expense. i hope not, but that is my job.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite sure what you are flying vagerot but foam has got nothing to do with engines. Maybe you have been reading the press or perhaps you would like to enlighten us on why foam at 50000 pounds per aircraft would not have saved the crew. Also please bear in mind this crew had only just dropped off 50 or so of our highest trained troops. Do you know how many we have at Hereford? I do not mind how much risk you take I just want Chiefs of Staff and politicians to recognise it. Good luck with your flying.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fat albert
. Suggest you go away and find out what we actually do.
Think i might know that!!! You guys ferry me around lots.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Not quite sure what you are flying vagerot but foam has got nothing to do with engines. Maybe you have been reading the press or perhaps you would like to enlighten us on why foam at 50000 pounds per aircraft would not have saved the crew. Also please bear in mind this crew had only just dropped off 50 or so of our highest trained troops. Do you know how many we have at Hereford? I do not mind how much risk you take I just want Chiefs of Staff and politicians to recognise it. Good luck with your flying.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PM me with your address and i will send you a copy of the crest video of a round hitting a fuel tank with/without foam. I think you will find it interesting viewing. I would also like to add that many of the relatives and widows of the dead crew are reading this thread. I do not mind you contributing but your pseudonym is offensive and in view of your audience you may wish to consider removing your comments.
Last edited by nigegilb; 15th Apr 2006 at 05:15.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's possible to argue for hours that foam supressant might not have helped but in reality few if offered the option would turn it down. The Tornado has a nitrogen inerting sytem for the fin tank and I have never heard anyone saying it's a waste of money.
Much as people like to say they are paid good money and there are risks - as a taxpayer it's a good investment to spend 50K in the hope that a Hercules might survive a war zone rather than have to buy a new one and pay widows pensions and train new crews.
Much as people like to say they are paid good money and there are risks - as a taxpayer it's a good investment to spend 50K in the hope that a Hercules might survive a war zone rather than have to buy a new one and pay widows pensions and train new crews.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therein lies the snag VR - we spend about 5% of our time taking you lot out of theatre
Like I said, go find out what we do for the rest of the time
(apologies for dragging this off topic
)
Like I said, go find out what we do for the rest of the time
(apologies for dragging this off topic
)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look guys - if we get the foam, it will just mean that somebody else will do without something just as important. It ain't a perfect world and 179's crew knew the risks and the capabilities of their aircraft. The types I have flown on ops were not equipped as I would have liked them, but that just life.
The military flying game is all about risk; sometimes we are lucky...
The military flying game is all about risk; sometimes we are lucky...