Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
The 'majority' of the fleet could technically mean 1 more than 50%...
Disgraceful. What percentage of US and RAAF C130s are fitted with ESF and what makes the UK so different?
Another morale boosting idea from the mad MoD box!
Disgraceful. What percentage of US and RAAF C130s are fitted with ESF and what makes the UK so different?
Another morale boosting idea from the mad MoD box!
I’m sure this has been said before, but introducing a mixed fleet (some with, some without ESF) is a false economy for any number of reasons – none of which are remotely understood by the beancounting lamebrains who make these decisions. This is not a palletised mod that can be removed and fitted on another tail number in five minutes. It effectively creates in-theatre and out-of-theatre fleets. Seen this before on RW – the fleet management issues were horrendous. Who’d like to be the guy making the decision to send a non-ESF a/c into theatre? Finally, and this may be arguable, but I know at least one aircraft DA who would think the differences in build standard, safety and use that will arise from this decision so fundamental that they’d want the ESF a/c to be a different Mark/Designation.
From Def Stan 05-123...
Mark number changes are made as a result of major equipment installation changes which alter the performance or operational use of the aircraft or otherwise result in its segregation in Service.
From Def Stan 05-123...
Mark number changes are made as a result of major equipment installation changes which alter the performance or operational use of the aircraft or otherwise result in its segregation in Service.
Last edited by tucumseh; 7th Dec 2006 at 14:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% US fleet not sure where the Aussies are on the program, but I think they are aiming for 100%, maybe our Aus contributors could confirm?
Tuc, I absolutely agree and we all know that when push comes to shove poorly equipped ac are sent into theatre, period. A mixed fleet is not smart because it reduces flexibility in an already over-stretched AT fleet, (witness the problems on the Tri Star). MoD could make a pledge not to send these ac in, but who would believe them? I understand that the day after the BoI was announced in Parliament the RAF requested that the entire fleet be given foam protection. I may now have to verify that statement, if it is true, then someone somewhere along the line has said no.
Tuc, I absolutely agree and we all know that when push comes to shove poorly equipped ac are sent into theatre, period. A mixed fleet is not smart because it reduces flexibility in an already over-stretched AT fleet, (witness the problems on the Tri Star). MoD could make a pledge not to send these ac in, but who would believe them? I understand that the day after the BoI was announced in Parliament the RAF requested that the entire fleet be given foam protection. I may now have to verify that statement, if it is true, then someone somewhere along the line has said no.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Dec 2006 at 15:20.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Whatever the Services need, they will get. All they have to do is ask"????
Well, Tony...............................?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parker to inert Airbus fuel tanks
Parker to inert Airbus fuel tanks, includes the A400M
Airbus has selected Parker Aerospace to provide fuel tank inerting systems on a large percentage of its product line, starting in 2009.
The contract, which could exceed $500 million over the life of the program, comes in anticipation of impending European Aviation Safety Agency and US FAA rules next March that will require manufacturers or airlines to incorporate flammability reduction or ignition mitigation measures to prevent fuel tanks from exploding under certain conditions.
The proposed rule, issued by the FAA last November, was spawned by several high profile center fuel tank explosions, most notably TWA 800, a Boeing 747 that disintegrated in midair in 1996.
The Parker system uses air separation modules to inject nitrogen-rich air into the aircraft’s center fuel tank, reducing the flammability of fuel vapor in the tank. Airbus is planning to use the system on factory built A320 family aircraft, A330, A340 and A400M military transports.
If the FAA rule is implemented as written, the existing fleet will also have to be modified in total by 2014. That work is not included in the current contract.
Parker has a separate contract with Airbus for inerting systems for the A380 freighter, though no customers have ordered an aircraft with center tank option, says a Parker spokeswoman.
Boeing is planning to implement similar safeguards. Honeywell, in partnership with Parker, has FAA certification for a nitrogen inerting system that Boeing plans to install in its factory-built 737, 747 and 777 aircraft line starting next year. Boeing is incorporating a nitrogen generator built by Hamilton Sundstrand in its 787.
Airbus has selected Parker Aerospace to provide fuel tank inerting systems on a large percentage of its product line, starting in 2009.
The contract, which could exceed $500 million over the life of the program, comes in anticipation of impending European Aviation Safety Agency and US FAA rules next March that will require manufacturers or airlines to incorporate flammability reduction or ignition mitigation measures to prevent fuel tanks from exploding under certain conditions.
The proposed rule, issued by the FAA last November, was spawned by several high profile center fuel tank explosions, most notably TWA 800, a Boeing 747 that disintegrated in midair in 1996.
The Parker system uses air separation modules to inject nitrogen-rich air into the aircraft’s center fuel tank, reducing the flammability of fuel vapor in the tank. Airbus is planning to use the system on factory built A320 family aircraft, A330, A340 and A400M military transports.
If the FAA rule is implemented as written, the existing fleet will also have to be modified in total by 2014. That work is not included in the current contract.
Parker has a separate contract with Airbus for inerting systems for the A380 freighter, though no customers have ordered an aircraft with center tank option, says a Parker spokeswoman.
Boeing is planning to implement similar safeguards. Honeywell, in partnership with Parker, has FAA certification for a nitrogen inerting system that Boeing plans to install in its factory-built 737, 747 and 777 aircraft line starting next year. Boeing is incorporating a nitrogen generator built by Hamilton Sundstrand in its 787.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simple stunning facts. The commercial aviation world cracks on a pace ahead of any legislation. I assume the military will ask for a waiver for the next 20 years whilst it gets its ducks in a row. Remember, before we started our little campaign, UK MoD was the only European outfit NOT to have ordered fuel tank protection on A400M. It still has not officially done so yet, but you heard it here first.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Aside
Gents
I realise that the comments regarding the BOI for XV206 are little more than an aside to the main discussion on this thread but I still take issue with them on two fronts:
Firstly, many of the so-called facts that you have “heard” about the loss of XV206 and the subsequent BOI are pure speculation (at best). PPRUNERS are rightly quick to condemn media speculation as to the causes of accidents. Surely then, we too should refrain from similar speculation in open forum (no matter how well-informed we may believe that we are).
Secondly, Flipster makes numerous comments doubting the integrity of the BOI, culminating in “I could almost guarantee you that the original findings of the BOI will be massaged. To anyone with half a brain, that will be a bit of a cop out”. These comments are not only an insult to the integrity of those involved in the BOI, but also imply a total lack of appreciation of how a BOI is actually conducted. The Board’s responsibility is to determine the cause and any other relevant factors and then make recommendations. They report in full to the AOC and to other agencies as required; those that need to see the reports to better carry out their duties will see it. Just because the full findings are not necessarily released for the chattering classes to discuss on PPRUNE does not mean that the findings have been “tampered with” or are a “cop out”. That said, the Board can do little about whether their recommendations are subsequently actioned. If it is subsequently decided not to action any particular recommendation, I would suggest that you direct your contempt at whoever makes that decision rather than at those involved in the original BOI.
N Joe
I realise that the comments regarding the BOI for XV206 are little more than an aside to the main discussion on this thread but I still take issue with them on two fronts:
Firstly, many of the so-called facts that you have “heard” about the loss of XV206 and the subsequent BOI are pure speculation (at best). PPRUNERS are rightly quick to condemn media speculation as to the causes of accidents. Surely then, we too should refrain from similar speculation in open forum (no matter how well-informed we may believe that we are).
Secondly, Flipster makes numerous comments doubting the integrity of the BOI, culminating in “I could almost guarantee you that the original findings of the BOI will be massaged. To anyone with half a brain, that will be a bit of a cop out”. These comments are not only an insult to the integrity of those involved in the BOI, but also imply a total lack of appreciation of how a BOI is actually conducted. The Board’s responsibility is to determine the cause and any other relevant factors and then make recommendations. They report in full to the AOC and to other agencies as required; those that need to see the reports to better carry out their duties will see it. Just because the full findings are not necessarily released for the chattering classes to discuss on PPRUNE does not mean that the findings have been “tampered with” or are a “cop out”. That said, the Board can do little about whether their recommendations are subsequently actioned. If it is subsequently decided not to action any particular recommendation, I would suggest that you direct your contempt at whoever makes that decision rather than at those involved in the original BOI.
N Joe
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N Joe,
Thanks for the reminder. I have never criticised the Board of Inquiry for XV179, in fact they did a fantastic job in pressing circumstances. What is unusual about XV206 is the vivid series of photos taken as the ac landed on the strip. You can hardly expect people not to comment on the likely cause. The regular contributors to this thread are firm believers in fuel tank protection so I hope you understand where we are coming from. Unusually I know some of the people on this BoI, I hasten to add I have not spoken to them about the incident, I do though, have absolute faith that they have carried out their duty diligently. I would like to add that I do not like to post hearsay and that if I have posted something here it is for good reason. You must forgive some of us who are somewhat cynical about other aspects about the CoC. I am sure Flip will answer your other points directly.
Nige
Thanks for the reminder. I have never criticised the Board of Inquiry for XV179, in fact they did a fantastic job in pressing circumstances. What is unusual about XV206 is the vivid series of photos taken as the ac landed on the strip. You can hardly expect people not to comment on the likely cause. The regular contributors to this thread are firm believers in fuel tank protection so I hope you understand where we are coming from. Unusually I know some of the people on this BoI, I hasten to add I have not spoken to them about the incident, I do though, have absolute faith that they have carried out their duty diligently. I would like to add that I do not like to post hearsay and that if I have posted something here it is for good reason. You must forgive some of us who are somewhat cynical about other aspects about the CoC. I am sure Flip will answer your other points directly.
Nige
Last edited by nigegilb; 9th Dec 2006 at 00:12.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N Joe
Feeling a little sensitive; got something to hide?
Joking aside, you are right; of course I don't know the full facts.......but those photos are fairly powerful images and everyone can make their own conclusions.
While this is a rumour-site, I apologise if I sound like I am pre-judging the BOI. Certainly, I am not and I, also, try to discount hearsay.
Nige is correct, however; the integrity of the BOI members is not in question. Although we know most of the people very well, not one word has been spoken about the BOI (neither have we asked). The BOI members are beyond reproach and have done an exceptional job in exceptional circumstances, as did the XV179 BOI.
We all know how the BOI process is meant to work, but unfortunately, it is often the case that the higher echelons stick in their grubby little noses for face-saving, political, legal or even personal reasons; it is not unheard of for AOCs to pre-brief BOI Presidents to come to a particular conclusion or even to get BOIs 'rewritten'. I do not doubt that this has happened in past and it has been part of the higher-level political process which, of course, all higher level staff officers deny. However, I am not saying that this happened to XV179 BOI nor yet in XV206, . (This is especially so with the current AOC, who seems to be quite level-headed - but his seniors may not be so sensible?) I was postulating that, should the AOC-approved BOI 'findings' not mention ESF, then we will suspect that the original BOI findings will have been grossly censored for purely political reasons (their airships/lawyers could hide behind 'security implications' but the amount of detail released in the public 179 BOI sets a precedent).
Ultimately, this is all conjecture and I suggest we wait for the findings to be made public; I will not comment further on the outcome of the BOI.
Flipster
Feeling a little sensitive; got something to hide?
Joking aside, you are right; of course I don't know the full facts.......but those photos are fairly powerful images and everyone can make their own conclusions.
While this is a rumour-site, I apologise if I sound like I am pre-judging the BOI. Certainly, I am not and I, also, try to discount hearsay.
Nige is correct, however; the integrity of the BOI members is not in question. Although we know most of the people very well, not one word has been spoken about the BOI (neither have we asked). The BOI members are beyond reproach and have done an exceptional job in exceptional circumstances, as did the XV179 BOI.
We all know how the BOI process is meant to work, but unfortunately, it is often the case that the higher echelons stick in their grubby little noses for face-saving, political, legal or even personal reasons; it is not unheard of for AOCs to pre-brief BOI Presidents to come to a particular conclusion or even to get BOIs 'rewritten'. I do not doubt that this has happened in past and it has been part of the higher-level political process which, of course, all higher level staff officers deny. However, I am not saying that this happened to XV179 BOI nor yet in XV206, . (This is especially so with the current AOC, who seems to be quite level-headed - but his seniors may not be so sensible?) I was postulating that, should the AOC-approved BOI 'findings' not mention ESF, then we will suspect that the original BOI findings will have been grossly censored for purely political reasons (their airships/lawyers could hide behind 'security implications' but the amount of detail released in the public 179 BOI sets a precedent).
Ultimately, this is all conjecture and I suggest we wait for the findings to be made public; I will not comment further on the outcome of the BOI.
Flipster
Last edited by flipster; 9th Dec 2006 at 10:32.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Kam, I know that the RAAF made a pledge a couple of years ago not to send Aus Hercs sausage side without the protection of ESF. This is certainly an option for our MoD, as a compromise. Well it would be an option but for the fact that hardly any RAF Hercs have been fitted out yet. I have to say I am sceptical about the time period announced by Ingram. Any engineers care to comment? Ingram is the king of Guff.
By the way Kam, when Monty is selected we will whip your ass you know!!??
Cutting along.......
By the way Kam, when Monty is selected we will whip your ass you know!!??
Cutting along.......
Last edited by nigegilb; 9th Dec 2006 at 12:24.
Guest
Posts: n/a
and for my last comments about the cricket...who cares how he runs? He has claimed the best figures in World Cup history with an amazing 7-15! Now get on with stirring people in politics and uniforms!!!
Last edited by kam; 9th Dec 2006 at 11:28.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Massaging of BOIs
N Joe,
If you want to see a massaged BoI read that for ZD 576 (Mull of Kintyre) and see if you can miss the join - especially in the Stn Cdrs' comments.
In 1972 I was the engineering member of a BoI into a Buccaneer Crash en-route to the Paris Air Show. Without going into details the AOC did not like the original findings so we started again with a new Wg Cdr President and Sqn Ldr pilot - I was left on it and had two trips to Paris so no complaint there. With the AOC's help we got it right the next time. Not massaging perhaps but definitely a case of trying again until the appreciation had been situated.
Later as President of Unit Inquiry I was told by the Gp Capt Staff Officer who briefed me what the findings were to be before I had even been appointed! I refused to accept the Inquiry on this basis and he backed down - I did not find what he wanted, but he still managed to get the Sqn Ldr he was after to resign.
No the system is/was definitely clean!!!
JB
If you want to see a massaged BoI read that for ZD 576 (Mull of Kintyre) and see if you can miss the join - especially in the Stn Cdrs' comments.
In 1972 I was the engineering member of a BoI into a Buccaneer Crash en-route to the Paris Air Show. Without going into details the AOC did not like the original findings so we started again with a new Wg Cdr President and Sqn Ldr pilot - I was left on it and had two trips to Paris so no complaint there. With the AOC's help we got it right the next time. Not massaging perhaps but definitely a case of trying again until the appreciation had been situated.
Later as President of Unit Inquiry I was told by the Gp Capt Staff Officer who briefed me what the findings were to be before I had even been appointed! I refused to accept the Inquiry on this basis and he backed down - I did not find what he wanted, but he still managed to get the Sqn Ldr he was after to resign.
No the system is/was definitely clean!!!
JB
I’m not sure what’s worse, John’s experience or withholding relevant information from the BOI, conveniently “losing” files or trying to pin the blame on someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
The majority of MoD contracts simply list the responsible post, but when it comes to airworthiness/type approval the postholder is named. I learned two valuable lessons very early. Given the number of people in MoD who consider maintaining airworthiness and safety a waste of money, you ALWAYS keep detailed personal records of your meetings and decisions – don’t rely on the minutes being placed/retained in files. And when someone tries to shaft you, or lies to you, record ALL subsequent conversations. These lessons served me well when they tried to pin a fatal GW2 accident on me. They got the shock of their lives when I produced minutes that didn’t exist. Still don’t know if BOI ever got to see them. I wonder how many reports are based on incomplete evidence. John mentioned one – Mull of Kintyre.
The majority of MoD contracts simply list the responsible post, but when it comes to airworthiness/type approval the postholder is named. I learned two valuable lessons very early. Given the number of people in MoD who consider maintaining airworthiness and safety a waste of money, you ALWAYS keep detailed personal records of your meetings and decisions – don’t rely on the minutes being placed/retained in files. And when someone tries to shaft you, or lies to you, record ALL subsequent conversations. These lessons served me well when they tried to pin a fatal GW2 accident on me. They got the shock of their lives when I produced minutes that didn’t exist. Still don’t know if BOI ever got to see them. I wonder how many reports are based on incomplete evidence. John mentioned one – Mull of Kintyre.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N Joe
You are one of the lucky ones but as you are now aware, some guys haven't been so fortunate. Fingers crossed, recent BOIs may be more like the ones with which you have been involved.
Regrettably, high-level politics do happen and that makes me really mad!
Sad senior bods pulling rank, ignoring the hard graft of relatively junior officers on the BOI and/or playing with our lives or those of our comrades ........grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Keep the faith
Flip
You are one of the lucky ones but as you are now aware, some guys haven't been so fortunate. Fingers crossed, recent BOIs may be more like the ones with which you have been involved.
Regrettably, high-level politics do happen and that makes me really mad!
Sad senior bods pulling rank, ignoring the hard graft of relatively junior officers on the BOI and/or playing with our lives or those of our comrades ........grrrrrrrrrrrrrr Keep the faith
Flip
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just T O
Of course I know who is on the BOI and if you look closely I haven't for one minute criticised, him or any of my other friends. I don't have a right to citicise nor would I want to; quite the reverse, actually!
All I am saying is that 'star'-level officers have, in the past, stuck in their noses and have tied the hands of some BOIs (and their presidents). Sadly, as has been long-suspected, BOIs are sometimes only pawns in the higher political agme. While JBs and Tucs are not the only BOIs to have been interfered with, I am sure that the 179 BOI was free from undue outside interest. I am sure we all hope that the 206 BOI is similiarly unimpeded.
Meddlers and politicians keep away!
flip
ps I'm not one for xmas cards anyway
Happy Chrimbo - hope you spend it at home with your family and not in the desert!
Of course I know who is on the BOI and if you look closely I haven't for one minute criticised, him or any of my other friends. I don't have a right to citicise nor would I want to; quite the reverse, actually!
All I am saying is that 'star'-level officers have, in the past, stuck in their noses and have tied the hands of some BOIs (and their presidents). Sadly, as has been long-suspected, BOIs are sometimes only pawns in the higher political agme. While JBs and Tucs are not the only BOIs to have been interfered with, I am sure that the 179 BOI was free from undue outside interest. I am sure we all hope that the 206 BOI is similiarly unimpeded.
Meddlers and politicians keep away!
flip
ps I'm not one for xmas cards anyway
Happy Chrimbo - hope you spend it at home with your family and not in the desert!
Last edited by flipster; 11th Dec 2006 at 19:15.