Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deleted the wrong posting there!
Yes, for any stooges trying to blame this thread for the frailties on the Hercules fleet please read the following;
Before we started the campaign no contracts had been signed to fit foam to Hercules ac. No plan existed to fit foam to 'J' Herc. The only intention was to fit foam to 5 Herc ac- A DISGRACE.
Now after all the pressure and media exposure contracts have finally been signed and the new plan is to fit foam across both 'K' and 'J' Fleets. Furthermore, the A400M is now getting fleetwide fuel tank protection, as opposed to NOTHING before. A400M is also getting fleetwide DAS protection a opposed to just 9 ac before.
Stooges ask yourself the question is this campaign a good thing or a bad thing?
I thought long and hard before going public. What swung it was the decision by MoD to publish the BoI without acting on the recommendations first. A guide to shooting down Herc ac was handed to the enemy and the only plan was to protect 5 airframes. The Chiefs of Staff are in a mess. On the one hand they reasssure HCDC that the Hercules is fully protected. Even though 'J' DAS was cancelled 2 years ago and Hercs are in theatre without foam and passenger protection. On the other hand they are trying to blame us for exposing frailties that supposedly do not exist. You cannot have it both ways. That argument will not wash here.
Furthermore I pleaded with the Chiefs not to send Herc crews to Afg without foam, not to send Brize underprotected assets into theatre and to cease flying by daylight. The pleas fell on deaf ears. So, just who is taking undue risks with our crews?
Link to latest article about new Hercules crash
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/se...ty_crusade.php
Yes, for any stooges trying to blame this thread for the frailties on the Hercules fleet please read the following;
Before we started the campaign no contracts had been signed to fit foam to Hercules ac. No plan existed to fit foam to 'J' Herc. The only intention was to fit foam to 5 Herc ac- A DISGRACE.
Now after all the pressure and media exposure contracts have finally been signed and the new plan is to fit foam across both 'K' and 'J' Fleets. Furthermore, the A400M is now getting fleetwide fuel tank protection, as opposed to NOTHING before. A400M is also getting fleetwide DAS protection a opposed to just 9 ac before.
Stooges ask yourself the question is this campaign a good thing or a bad thing?
I thought long and hard before going public. What swung it was the decision by MoD to publish the BoI without acting on the recommendations first. A guide to shooting down Herc ac was handed to the enemy and the only plan was to protect 5 airframes. The Chiefs of Staff are in a mess. On the one hand they reasssure HCDC that the Hercules is fully protected. Even though 'J' DAS was cancelled 2 years ago and Hercs are in theatre without foam and passenger protection. On the other hand they are trying to blame us for exposing frailties that supposedly do not exist. You cannot have it both ways. That argument will not wash here.
Furthermore I pleaded with the Chiefs not to send Herc crews to Afg without foam, not to send Brize underprotected assets into theatre and to cease flying by daylight. The pleas fell on deaf ears. So, just who is taking undue risks with our crews?
Link to latest article about new Hercules crash
http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/se...ty_crusade.php
Last edited by nigegilb; 1st Jun 2006 at 16:53.
Certain inadequately testiculated senior officers will be spitting with rage at the fact that this campaign is doing so well. Because it has taken a very determined group to bypass all the **** filtering poodles ("I don't want to know that, young man") who would otherwise only pass on the news they knew their masters would want to hear....
And rather than doing anything productive, they will now move heaven and earth to try to silence those who dare to post on PPRuNe.
Believe me.....
And rather than doing anything productive, they will now move heaven and earth to try to silence those who dare to post on PPRuNe.
Believe me.....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: chippenham
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point BEagle, however, its the hard work of Nige and Chappie that has prompted me to add my opinion on the matter. Well done everyone and keep up the good work. To CAS. I sat in one of your briefings today and hope the UOR you referred to is actioned asap....I have also signed the petition and for the sceptics.....I have on very good authority that it is being viewed frequently!!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc.
Nonetheless, improved ac protection (ESF/DIRCM/LAIRCM/FDA/Lox Armour/Ballistic matting/Groung fire indicators etc) should always aim to get EP funding rather than the continued, time-consuming and sometimes thankless, or even futile UOR paperwork and clearance-chasing etc etc.
One hopes the A400 is learning these lessons...hmmmmmm?
Flipster
ps Why is the petition 'being frequently viewed ?
To check the numbers of signatories and to address their concerns? Nope!
Or, perchance, to watch for any serving personnel of whom can be made an example? Typical!!!!!
I would like to see the bl@ggards try, however - as I think the number of sympathetic 'legal eagles' would out-gun DLA just a tad - and any action would only add to the adverse publicity for the MOD - countering any argument that security is important - pah, they don't know the meaning of the word!!
These people (DLA/PSS) are well intentioned amateurs, coerced by self-serving politicians, whom they are reluctant to criticise. But even these guys are not daft either - one day the 'worm will turn', as there are people involved who do not like the the 'party-line' along which they are being driven.
UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc.
Nonetheless, improved ac protection (ESF/DIRCM/LAIRCM/FDA/Lox Armour/Ballistic matting/Groung fire indicators etc) should always aim to get EP funding rather than the continued, time-consuming and sometimes thankless, or even futile UOR paperwork and clearance-chasing etc etc.
One hopes the A400 is learning these lessons...hmmmmmm?
Flipster
ps Why is the petition 'being frequently viewed ?
To check the numbers of signatories and to address their concerns? Nope!
Or, perchance, to watch for any serving personnel of whom can be made an example? Typical!!!!!
I would like to see the bl@ggards try, however - as I think the number of sympathetic 'legal eagles' would out-gun DLA just a tad - and any action would only add to the adverse publicity for the MOD - countering any argument that security is important - pah, they don't know the meaning of the word!!
These people (DLA/PSS) are well intentioned amateurs, coerced by self-serving politicians, whom they are reluctant to criticise. But even these guys are not daft either - one day the 'worm will turn', as there are people involved who do not like the the 'party-line' along which they are being driven.
Last edited by flipster; 2nd Jun 2006 at 01:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feeling quite good this morning. Heard that in tha last 4 months contracts and spending on self- protection has run into hundreds of millions of pounds. Well done everybody!
“UORs only have a limited applicability - they only last a 'wee while' - whereas Equipment Programmes (EPs) last longer, with frame life-cycle costs considered. However EPs take longer to get funding than UORs - more staffing, bigger long-term costs etc”.
Flipster is correct. That is, you get a years funding for the UOR during which time the sponsoring DEC has to decide whether or not to run an EP bid. If he doesn’t, there is no more funding for the kit. If it is used after the one year nominal lifespan without a complementary EP bid, then something else has to give. Usually spares. In practice, this is the norm, mainly because the sponsor moves on and his relief has new things to occupy his mind. Also the norm is for the UOR to be an SEM, with associated shortcuts taken on installation design, incorporation and safety. One answer is for the Requirements Manager to stick his head above the parapet and demand proper trialling, installation etc for his UOR, but the last one I saw do that was crucified, as it delays introduction. It is the eternal conundrum faced by lower grades/ranks in DPA and DLO – and one which senior management show no interest in solving. However, it must be said that certain IPTs are good at managing this – as ever much depends on the experience of their staff and ability to do DEC’s job for them.
Nigel – I do hope the acquisitions you speak of are sustainable through proper EP funding, and not just short-term political expediency. A question you may wish to ask. I think I posted once before on the subject of very useful and much needed UOR DAS kit lying unserviceable, but fully repairable, because there was no money to repair it. The “system” permitted millions to be spent on replacement kit under another UOR, but not thousands on simple repairs to the originals.
Flipster is correct. That is, you get a years funding for the UOR during which time the sponsoring DEC has to decide whether or not to run an EP bid. If he doesn’t, there is no more funding for the kit. If it is used after the one year nominal lifespan without a complementary EP bid, then something else has to give. Usually spares. In practice, this is the norm, mainly because the sponsor moves on and his relief has new things to occupy his mind. Also the norm is for the UOR to be an SEM, with associated shortcuts taken on installation design, incorporation and safety. One answer is for the Requirements Manager to stick his head above the parapet and demand proper trialling, installation etc for his UOR, but the last one I saw do that was crucified, as it delays introduction. It is the eternal conundrum faced by lower grades/ranks in DPA and DLO – and one which senior management show no interest in solving. However, it must be said that certain IPTs are good at managing this – as ever much depends on the experience of their staff and ability to do DEC’s job for them.
Nigel – I do hope the acquisitions you speak of are sustainable through proper EP funding, and not just short-term political expediency. A question you may wish to ask. I think I posted once before on the subject of very useful and much needed UOR DAS kit lying unserviceable, but fully repairable, because there was no money to repair it. The “system” permitted millions to be spent on replacement kit under another UOR, but not thousands on simple repairs to the originals.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
I think the Herc foam procurement is UOR based because that is the reason given for not fitting it fleetwide. Only ac designated in theatre can get the funding. That is the reason for the petition to appeal to SoS Def for direct funding to get the fleet fully covered. It is a very interesting point that Flip has raised. UOR is an instant fix. Parallels with the Falklands War spring to mind. The Herc then, secured a lot of kit at short notice. The boys then did not get everything they wanted. Post Op they asked for the rest of it and were told it was a one off spend. Tuc is wise to bring this up now. Interestingly, the ac that perished in Afghanistan should have had foam on board if the Defence Chiefs and Ministers had done their job properly. I do not want to step on anyones toes here but I do not believe we should be operating in Afg without foam. I understand it is becoming increasingly hostile, an entirely predictable situation. Meanwhile the spending on Typhoon continues, glass cockpit etc etc. And yet there are very worrying
aspects of Afg deployment crying out for more funding.
Food for thought.
I think the Herc foam procurement is UOR based because that is the reason given for not fitting it fleetwide. Only ac designated in theatre can get the funding. That is the reason for the petition to appeal to SoS Def for direct funding to get the fleet fully covered. It is a very interesting point that Flip has raised. UOR is an instant fix. Parallels with the Falklands War spring to mind. The Herc then, secured a lot of kit at short notice. The boys then did not get everything they wanted. Post Op they asked for the rest of it and were told it was a one off spend. Tuc is wise to bring this up now. Interestingly, the ac that perished in Afghanistan should have had foam on board if the Defence Chiefs and Ministers had done their job properly. I do not want to step on anyones toes here but I do not believe we should be operating in Afg without foam. I understand it is becoming increasingly hostile, an entirely predictable situation. Meanwhile the spending on Typhoon continues, glass cockpit etc etc. And yet there are very worrying
aspects of Afg deployment crying out for more funding.
Food for thought.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerospace International (Page 8)
U-Turn over Hercules Foam Issue
The UK MoD has agreed to fit its C130 Hercules military transport aircraft with explosive suppressant foam. The move comes after 4 years of requests from RAF pilots, recommendations from a board of inquiry in December 2005 and lobbying by relatives and friends of the dead RAF Hercules crew shot down over Iraq by ground-to-air fire in January 2005. US military Hercules have had fuel tanks fitted with fire suppressant foam since the Vietnam War.
Although not widely read by Joe Public, this magazine is produced by the Royal Aeronautical Society and is read by most of the very top people in the aviation industry - military and civil. It will be accutely embarassing for the senior RAF chappies. However, the only way they can regain respect is to 'front up' and say
'Yep, we messed up but now we are trying to sort it out by fitting fleet-wide foam'......one hopes!
U-Turn over Hercules Foam Issue
The UK MoD has agreed to fit its C130 Hercules military transport aircraft with explosive suppressant foam. The move comes after 4 years of requests from RAF pilots, recommendations from a board of inquiry in December 2005 and lobbying by relatives and friends of the dead RAF Hercules crew shot down over Iraq by ground-to-air fire in January 2005. US military Hercules have had fuel tanks fitted with fire suppressant foam since the Vietnam War.
Although not widely read by Joe Public, this magazine is produced by the Royal Aeronautical Society and is read by most of the very top people in the aviation industry - military and civil. It will be accutely embarassing for the senior RAF chappies. However, the only way they can regain respect is to 'front up' and say
'Yep, we messed up but now we are trying to sort it out by fitting fleet-wide foam'......one hopes!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is important to press for fleetwide foam, but I believe the highest priority should be given to hastening the fit of existing ac and a sustained campaign to reintroduce modern DAS for J Hercs. All they have to do is dust off the file, it was all agreed. Just DO IT NOW.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I to sat in on CAS talkshop yesterday.I must admit his buoyant mood about RAF plc didnt sit very comfortably.30 billion on 144 Tyhoons !!! What a waste..although he did give away his next position when he championed the British aeronautical industry and how we must keep british jobs and technology in mind when we procure equipment.Nice little earner im sure..!!!
500d2d
500d2d
Sorry to diverge briefly on a very worthwhile thread, however,......
500days2do, if you joined pprune in Dec2004, as it says on my screen, then surely 500 days have expired (365 + 153 > 500?) and you should be out - so what are you doing hobbnobbing with CAS? Surely you're not working as an outside 'consultant'?
500days2do, if you joined pprune in Dec2004, as it says on my screen, then surely 500 days have expired (365 + 153 > 500?) and you should be out - so what are you doing hobbnobbing with CAS? Surely you're not working as an outside 'consultant'?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to thread (sorry)!
I have heard from a number of people that CAS's visit to LYE was 'a bit weak' and 'wishy-washy'. He spoke most eloquently about 'nothing in particular' - Typhoon got a mention tho........grrreat!
The chaps and chgapessess were briefed NOT to ask about foam!
Communication break-down again!?
I have heard from a number of people that CAS's visit to LYE was 'a bit weak' and 'wishy-washy'. He spoke most eloquently about 'nothing in particular' - Typhoon got a mention tho........grrreat!
The chaps and chgapessess were briefed NOT to ask about foam!
Communication break-down again!?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duty of Care is a grey area in combat operations. I know there are many Ppruners who dislike lawyers and the blame society but the response to the corporate manslaughter notices has been revealing. This is a Govt made up of lawyers, I think there is a real concern amongst them that one of them might end up in court. So much so, that I understand changes are to be made to the legislation. We need to explore the real meaning of Duty of Care, it might be the most effective way of getting decent equipment for our military personnel.
I am concerned that the programme to fit foam will be disrupted by the shortage of frames, it is a subject that I am hoping to raise via PQ.
One other thing, according to my info the A400M is now getting fleetwide DAS. A case of Govt nervousness?
Congrats to the editorial team for a hard hitting opinion.
I am concerned that the programme to fit foam will be disrupted by the shortage of frames, it is a subject that I am hoping to raise via PQ.
One other thing, according to my info the A400M is now getting fleetwide DAS. A case of Govt nervousness?
Congrats to the editorial team for a hard hitting opinion.
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Jun 2006 at 11:20.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combat Immunity for Duty of Care
Nigel,
Obviously MOD will push the Combat Immunity argument as far as possible, and where it applies it seems a reasonable position. However as you will see from an excellent, although quite long, article on the following web site, combat immunity does not extend to failure to provide proper capbilities ie fitness for purpose;
http://www.byromstreet.com/publicati...t_Immunity.pdf (view as html if pdf does not work)
As an example from the article, which you could easily see applying to the need to provide in peacetime operational planning a proper protection system for the C130, you may find this of interest.
The irregular supply of body armour in Gulf 2 has been a topic of discussion in the press and there has been at least one tragic case. Immunity would surely attach to the decision of a commander who required personnel to give up their armour for others in pursuance of the operational imperative.
A Court might be reluctant to look at how the planners decided to obtain and deploy body armour once the decision actually to deploy to the Gulf had been made. However, if a real, effective breach was the peacetime decision not to issue personnel with personal protective body armour (in a wider context there are, after all, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002) it is difficult to see how immunity could defeat the cause of action on that score.
Keep up the good work!
JB
Obviously MOD will push the Combat Immunity argument as far as possible, and where it applies it seems a reasonable position. However as you will see from an excellent, although quite long, article on the following web site, combat immunity does not extend to failure to provide proper capbilities ie fitness for purpose;
http://www.byromstreet.com/publicati...t_Immunity.pdf (view as html if pdf does not work)
As an example from the article, which you could easily see applying to the need to provide in peacetime operational planning a proper protection system for the C130, you may find this of interest.
The irregular supply of body armour in Gulf 2 has been a topic of discussion in the press and there has been at least one tragic case. Immunity would surely attach to the decision of a commander who required personnel to give up their armour for others in pursuance of the operational imperative.
A Court might be reluctant to look at how the planners decided to obtain and deploy body armour once the decision actually to deploy to the Gulf had been made. However, if a real, effective breach was the peacetime decision not to issue personnel with personal protective body armour (in a wider context there are, after all, the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and the Personal Protective Equipment Regulations 2002) it is difficult to see how immunity could defeat the cause of action on that score.
Keep up the good work!
JB