Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
I agree that an investigation into an 'independent' BOI process is long overdue and that the current system uses people who are far too close to the issue - that, in itself, is a result of a shrinking RAF. But there are a few probs that are often cited when talking about an 'independent' or distanced BOI structure.
a. Such a BOI may not have enough knowledge about an ac type's modus operandi. eg Fast jet jockeys deliberating on truckie or SH SOPs/tactics - (or even vice versa) might raise a few eyebrows. Of course, some might say that this would be a blessing......!
b. Not only this but the BOI may not have 'recency' of such tactics used on operations. Take for example our own HQ 2 Gp - who failed to appreciate what 'bog standard' sqn crews were having to do in theatre. While this could have been remedied by having a proper 'operational' chain of command for the AT fleet, an independent BOI may not always remain conversant with up to date ops.
c. There may be security clearance problems - although, this is certainly not insurmountable.
d. Senior Officers will always want the final word, even if they are part of the problem. An Independent system, wholly without the MoD, would at least hold them accountable and they would be unable to sweep things under the carpet or even prejudge BOIs - both of which HAVE happened in the past.
Despite these (and other) problems, IMHO, they could ALL be overcome with a little application, forethought and the considered appointment of long-term staff. Certainly, an overhaul of the present system is worthy of consideration.
Flip
ps Nige,
While I am a critical of the current system, I should just point out that if some people took exception to any previous comments, it was probably because they perceived I was having a go at the people involved in the recent BOIs at Lyneham. Far from it, I only have admiration and respect for all involved in all 3 BOIs. (Three? Crumbs! That says something in itself!!)
The present system, however, must have/does put people in an inenviable position, with all kinds of hidden pressures - which should not happen in an ideal world. The fact that everyone has come out with their sanity intact (mostly!) speaks volumes for their resilience and dedication..... hats off etc.
I agree that an investigation into an 'independent' BOI process is long overdue and that the current system uses people who are far too close to the issue - that, in itself, is a result of a shrinking RAF. But there are a few probs that are often cited when talking about an 'independent' or distanced BOI structure.
a. Such a BOI may not have enough knowledge about an ac type's modus operandi. eg Fast jet jockeys deliberating on truckie or SH SOPs/tactics - (or even vice versa) might raise a few eyebrows. Of course, some might say that this would be a blessing......!
b. Not only this but the BOI may not have 'recency' of such tactics used on operations. Take for example our own HQ 2 Gp - who failed to appreciate what 'bog standard' sqn crews were having to do in theatre. While this could have been remedied by having a proper 'operational' chain of command for the AT fleet, an independent BOI may not always remain conversant with up to date ops.
c. There may be security clearance problems - although, this is certainly not insurmountable.
d. Senior Officers will always want the final word, even if they are part of the problem. An Independent system, wholly without the MoD, would at least hold them accountable and they would be unable to sweep things under the carpet or even prejudge BOIs - both of which HAVE happened in the past.
Despite these (and other) problems, IMHO, they could ALL be overcome with a little application, forethought and the considered appointment of long-term staff. Certainly, an overhaul of the present system is worthy of consideration.
Flip
ps Nige,
While I am a critical of the current system, I should just point out that if some people took exception to any previous comments, it was probably because they perceived I was having a go at the people involved in the recent BOIs at Lyneham. Far from it, I only have admiration and respect for all involved in all 3 BOIs. (Three? Crumbs! That says something in itself!!)
The present system, however, must have/does put people in an inenviable position, with all kinds of hidden pressures - which should not happen in an ideal world. The fact that everyone has come out with their sanity intact (mostly!) speaks volumes for their resilience and dedication..... hats off etc.
Last edited by flipster; 24th Mar 2007 at 12:35.
The present system, however, must have/does put people in an inenviable position, with all kinds of hidden pressures - which should not happen in an ideal world. The fact that everyone has come out with their sanity intact (mostly!) speaks volumes for their resilience and dedication..... hats off etc.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More PQs
I followed up a couple of the recent answers. It appears a team is evaluating the fact that the ac is not test flown after the first sealant coat. Don't know if this was as a result of pressure from our added scrutiny. It needs addressing though, there are several more Ks to go through the foam program. Tuc made the point about FFP including foam, so I went back to Ingram. Funny old thing he will not tell us on grounds of security. Torpy said he would never send a Hercules up against a threat it could not counter. How hollow those words sound now. Thanks again for all the hard facts that come my way, I feed them in direct to the Defence Committee. I know it is a pain in the ass for the guys and girls that have to provide the answers but things like the botch job on the Ks will hopefully get sorted quicker as a result.
When the BBC carried concerns about Herc safety as lead story a few weeks ago they were going to state that onlt 4 aircraft had been fitted. The MoD quickly shoved out a statement that 7 aircraft had actually been fitted. This was just a few days after Ingram had answered a PQ with a flat statement that he was not going to give a commentary on the number of frames fitted with foam. Thankfully the BBC still ran the story.
A word to the crews. The foam is provided by Crest and it is high quality. The FOD problems are being caused by the handling of gasoline soaked foam when it has to be taken out of the tanks.
Thanks again to everyone who continues to contribute.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the reasons for the fuel leaks on the Hercules aircraft after they have been fitted with suppressant foam; and if he will make a statement. [129352]
Mr. Ingram: We are currently collating and evaluating data in connection with the fuel leaks that have occurred on some Hercules aircraft fitted with explosion suppressant foam. This work is being undertaken by a joint MOD/industry team.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2007, Official Report, column 205W, on Hercules aircraft, whether the Fit For Purpose Hercules aircraft available to the Front Line Command provided by The Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract includes (a) explosive suppressant foam and (b) defensive aids suite; and if he will make a statement. [129706]
Mr. Ingram: All of the RAF’s Hercules aircraft are maintained under the Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract. I am withholding the number of aircraft that are equipped with explosion suppressant foam and defensive aid systems as its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
When the BBC carried concerns about Herc safety as lead story a few weeks ago they were going to state that onlt 4 aircraft had been fitted. The MoD quickly shoved out a statement that 7 aircraft had actually been fitted. This was just a few days after Ingram had answered a PQ with a flat statement that he was not going to give a commentary on the number of frames fitted with foam. Thankfully the BBC still ran the story.
A word to the crews. The foam is provided by Crest and it is high quality. The FOD problems are being caused by the handling of gasoline soaked foam when it has to be taken out of the tanks.
Thanks again to everyone who continues to contribute.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the reasons for the fuel leaks on the Hercules aircraft after they have been fitted with suppressant foam; and if he will make a statement. [129352]
Mr. Ingram: We are currently collating and evaluating data in connection with the fuel leaks that have occurred on some Hercules aircraft fitted with explosion suppressant foam. This work is being undertaken by a joint MOD/industry team.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 13 March 2007, Official Report, column 205W, on Hercules aircraft, whether the Fit For Purpose Hercules aircraft available to the Front Line Command provided by The Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract includes (a) explosive suppressant foam and (b) defensive aids suite; and if he will make a statement. [129706]
Mr. Ingram: All of the RAF’s Hercules aircraft are maintained under the Hercules Integrated Operational Support contract. I am withholding the number of aircraft that are equipped with explosion suppressant foam and defensive aid systems as its disclosure would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
The FOD problems are being caused by the handling of gasoline soaked foam when it has to be taken out of the tanks.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PQ's and an update
Way back when we started all this in Feb last year, I wrote to the Defence Committee about the need to upgrade the "J" anti-missile system.. The MoD had cancelled the original program on grounds of cost in 2002. Well I now understand that the "J" is getting an upgrade, which is great news for the crews. Pity the senior officers at the time could not have fought their own corner, but hey, after what has been happening over the last few weeks I doubt if we will ever see them fight hard and upset their political masters.
So, everything we asked for is happening except for cargo bay protection. The latest incident involving a Herc in Iraq highlighted the need for this protection. I do understand the weight penalties particularly affecting the "K" fleet but I wrote once more to the Defence Committee about the matter. Received this reply today. 16 Apr 2007 : Column 154W
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the fitting of kevlar matting to the cargo bays of Hercules aircraft. [127600]
Mr. Ingram: In order to protect our personnel on operations, it is the Ministry of Defence policy not to comment in detail about current or planned levels of air platform protection. We constantly monitor a range of factors including the threat, technology available and industrial capacity to ensure that our aircraft on operations are equipped with appropriate protection systems.
It is my understanding that nobody is looking at cargo bay protection at the moment so I intend to apply some pressure in this direction in the coming weeks.
So, everything we asked for is happening except for cargo bay protection. The latest incident involving a Herc in Iraq highlighted the need for this protection. I do understand the weight penalties particularly affecting the "K" fleet but I wrote once more to the Defence Committee about the matter. Received this reply today. 16 Apr 2007 : Column 154W
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the fitting of kevlar matting to the cargo bays of Hercules aircraft. [127600]
Mr. Ingram: In order to protect our personnel on operations, it is the Ministry of Defence policy not to comment in detail about current or planned levels of air platform protection. We constantly monitor a range of factors including the threat, technology available and industrial capacity to ensure that our aircraft on operations are equipped with appropriate protection systems.
It is my understanding that nobody is looking at cargo bay protection at the moment so I intend to apply some pressure in this direction in the coming weeks.
Last edited by nigegilb; 18th Apr 2007 at 10:11.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
Would it interest you to know that some of our allies do indeed fit cargo bay protection for some missions? If this is so, why don't we??
Flip
ps
Mrs Flip asked me the other day
"How many other ac types are flying around without fuel tank protection?"
I replied that some Hercs, some SH and some FJ have foam/inerting systems but I said I didn't know exactly which ones.
Would anyone care to PM me with a definitive (if short) list of RAF ac with fuel tank protection?
Would it interest you to know that some of our allies do indeed fit cargo bay protection for some missions? If this is so, why don't we??
Flip
ps
Mrs Flip asked me the other day
"How many other ac types are flying around without fuel tank protection?"
I replied that some Hercs, some SH and some FJ have foam/inerting systems but I said I didn't know exactly which ones.
Would anyone care to PM me with a definitive (if short) list of RAF ac with fuel tank protection?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kevlar Matting would be ideal for certain sorties only - but we are still dealing with issues like trying to get para-door armour for our GE's!!! (statement of request 2004)
With the bad news that the MOD now can't afford to re-wing the proposed number of C130Ks it seems that the writing is on the wall for the whole fleet anyway.
With the bad news that the MOD now can't afford to re-wing the proposed number of C130Ks it seems that the writing is on the wall for the whole fleet anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi one and all, sorry for lack of contact and of being any use. you are al in my thoughts, not that helps apply pressure or get the hercules fleet protected!
it would seem to me from day one that any question that mr ingram is asked he will not answer or ever have any intention to answer any question asked. i may be niave but will the security of the fleet really be compromised with the questions that we seek an answer for. i mean unless i am wrong the ac that are protected will have a massive neon sign on it saying whoo hoo to the terrorists guess what i've got! i really don't mean to be flippant but he is a waste of space.
just to say i will be out of the loop again...not that it will really matter or make a dent in all this as tomorrow i will be giving birth to my baby girl! finally! when the dust has settled and we are well again i will be back in contact.
take care
stay safe
thanks for all you do. this really does continue to hurt that over two years on from losing bob i cannot rest happy in the knowledge that the risk of another family going through the pain and loss i and others go through knowing that the ac and pax are still not protected. i am still very much comitted to this campaign and now i'll little one in the outside world if need be will strap her onto back and continue to fight the good fight.
it would seem to me from day one that any question that mr ingram is asked he will not answer or ever have any intention to answer any question asked. i may be niave but will the security of the fleet really be compromised with the questions that we seek an answer for. i mean unless i am wrong the ac that are protected will have a massive neon sign on it saying whoo hoo to the terrorists guess what i've got! i really don't mean to be flippant but he is a waste of space.
just to say i will be out of the loop again...not that it will really matter or make a dent in all this as tomorrow i will be giving birth to my baby girl! finally! when the dust has settled and we are well again i will be back in contact.
take care
stay safe
thanks for all you do. this really does continue to hurt that over two years on from losing bob i cannot rest happy in the knowledge that the risk of another family going through the pain and loss i and others go through knowing that the ac and pax are still not protected. i am still very much comitted to this campaign and now i'll little one in the outside world if need be will strap her onto back and continue to fight the good fight.
There’s much talk here of much-needed kit/capability; and supposed unaffordability.
In bygone days, if one identified a nugatory “requirement” or proposed spend in ANY stage of the procurement cycle (concept to disposal), this was (loosely) called a “saving”, in that waste was avoided. This was because money had been “set aside” for the “requirement”, needed an act of God for anyone else to use it. Offering it up as a saving meant other programmes could benefit, or the subject programme could perhaps buy a previously unfunded aspiration. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve done this.
Recently, the MoD definition of a “saving” has quietly changed. Now, the money has to have been committed, not just set aside.
You may not think this a big deal, but..….
The problem has always been, if a saving is identified, it means someone has usually made an error. (Usually of omission, caused by not following mandated rules). They are usually minor, but mushroom if not corrected. Rather than praise the person who identifies the saving, the MoD will do all they can to hide the error. This includes knowingly wasting the money and taking disciplinary action against the “saver”. (Actions, by the way, upheld many times, in writing, by successive senior staffs and ministers). By cutting down on the number of “savings” in this way, they (a) further protect the guilty/incompetent, (b) remove any perceived incentive to report wastage and (c) waste even more money because people cannot learn from their mistakes. (And please don’t cite GEMS to me – anything more than a 4 or 5 zeros at the end is “political dynamite” and swept under the nearest carpet).
While the precise details are not for this forum, hundreds of millions are quite common. On one current programme, which I have never worked on, I could write the case in five minutes identifying real savings of over £100M, while leaving time and performance intact – in fact improving performance. That would buy a lot of Kevlar flooring! It may even fund C-130s inclusion in proposed DAS programmes. Is someone listening out there? If you are, you get my vote.
In bygone days, if one identified a nugatory “requirement” or proposed spend in ANY stage of the procurement cycle (concept to disposal), this was (loosely) called a “saving”, in that waste was avoided. This was because money had been “set aside” for the “requirement”, needed an act of God for anyone else to use it. Offering it up as a saving meant other programmes could benefit, or the subject programme could perhaps buy a previously unfunded aspiration. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve done this.
Recently, the MoD definition of a “saving” has quietly changed. Now, the money has to have been committed, not just set aside.
You may not think this a big deal, but..….
The problem has always been, if a saving is identified, it means someone has usually made an error. (Usually of omission, caused by not following mandated rules). They are usually minor, but mushroom if not corrected. Rather than praise the person who identifies the saving, the MoD will do all they can to hide the error. This includes knowingly wasting the money and taking disciplinary action against the “saver”. (Actions, by the way, upheld many times, in writing, by successive senior staffs and ministers). By cutting down on the number of “savings” in this way, they (a) further protect the guilty/incompetent, (b) remove any perceived incentive to report wastage and (c) waste even more money because people cannot learn from their mistakes. (And please don’t cite GEMS to me – anything more than a 4 or 5 zeros at the end is “political dynamite” and swept under the nearest carpet).
While the precise details are not for this forum, hundreds of millions are quite common. On one current programme, which I have never worked on, I could write the case in five minutes identifying real savings of over £100M, while leaving time and performance intact – in fact improving performance. That would buy a lot of Kevlar flooring! It may even fund C-130s inclusion in proposed DAS programmes. Is someone listening out there? If you are, you get my vote.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
You scare me with posts like that! Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??
If so, this is a national scandal.
Flip
You scare me with posts like that! Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??
If so, this is a national scandal.
Flip
Flip, Tuc is a man who knows what he is talking about. The connecting factor behind this thread, the Chinook, the Nimrod, the Sea Knight, the blue on blue ones, and others, is the covering of backsides, whether they be clad in uniforms or suits. When bureaucracies go self serving like this it is down to their leadership to identify and resolve. Therein lies the tragic reality of this situation, for just when we get an administration for whom running a whelk stall would be a challenge, the RAF is bereft of the quality of leadership that it needs to meet the challenge. I do not know how this can be resolved. We can only hope that someone does, and is addressing it urgently, for lives are at risk here, let alone your wasted squillions!
Some good news
Hope this isn't too far off thread - but I'm sure everyone will be glad to know that Chappie has produced a little Chappette. She's Katie Grace, weighed in at 7lbs 12oz on 19 April, and in good health. Chappie herself is still in some pain, but otherwise in good form.
If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.
Congrats to Chappie and Mr Chappie.
airsound
If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.
Congrats to Chappie and Mr Chappie.
airsound
Agreed - congrats to Mr & Mrs chappie - and welcome to the world to chappiette! Another person ready to keep Ingram and Brownie awake at night!!
Hope that all the chappies are fit and well - and congrats again!
Hope that all the chappies are fit and well - and congrats again!
flipster
"Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??"
YES.
If so, this is a national scandal.
AGREED.
Like I said, in writing. Over the years, I made a point of having this renewed at every regime change / reorganisation (i.e. MoD(PE), AMSO, AML, DPA, DLO) so they couldn't argue "Ah, but that was in the past". Not that I really needed to, as the facts (and numerous auditors reports) speak for themselves. I wonder if DE&S will follow suite? It's in hand.
Chappie - Congratulations.
"Do you mean to say that the procurement and capabilities wallahs hide their incompetence rather than get the right kit for our ac and crews, all the while hiding behind jargon AND costing the taxpayer (ie all of us) squillions!!!??"
YES.
If so, this is a national scandal.
AGREED.
Like I said, in writing. Over the years, I made a point of having this renewed at every regime change / reorganisation (i.e. MoD(PE), AMSO, AML, DPA, DLO) so they couldn't argue "Ah, but that was in the past". Not that I really needed to, as the facts (and numerous auditors reports) speak for themselves. I wonder if DE&S will follow suite? It's in hand.
Chappie - Congratulations.
Chappie has produced a little Chappette. She's Katie Grace, weighed in at 7lbs 12oz on 19 April, and in good health. Chappie herself is still in some pain, but otherwise in good form.
If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.
If Katie is half the person her mum is, the world will be a better place for her arrival.
Welcome into the world little Katie, you have the most remarkable mum. Listen and learn from her and you won't go wrong, but it will be an exciting ride along the way!
I hope you are soon fighting fit Chappie.
Regards Chug
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: saudi arabia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lost address
Flip
Can't send you email lost the address again please send me your email address via here. I have tried sending you emails to this address but you need to clean out your inbox it says you aren't allowed anymore !!! I apologise for using this thread !
Thanks
Net
Can't send you email lost the address again please send me your email address via here. I have tried sending you emails to this address but you need to clean out your inbox it says you aren't allowed anymore !!! I apologise for using this thread !
Thanks
Net