Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Going back to the 'black box'.The Nimrod did have an analogue accident data recorder fitted,this was pretty unreliable.'Bird nesting' of the wire recording spools was common & very often the data was unreliable due to lack of calibration post transducer change.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did the crash guard on the St Mawgan one, was a young AC at the time, down from Locking for guarding purposes for the TACEVAL. So that was my first Nimrod experience. Little did I know at that time that I would be flying in them 9 years later and still am.
I wish the BOI well in what will be a difficult and demanding time. I still have faith in the aircraft and the people who crew them.
One of the most irritating facts is the mindless specualtion and the people who talk utter garbage about its roles. I also believe that the freelance journalists are dispicable scum and should be taken care of down a dark alleyway with baseball bats.
So a final plea, if you dont kow what your talking about then dont speculate!!!!!!!
I wish the BOI well in what will be a difficult and demanding time. I still have faith in the aircraft and the people who crew them.
One of the most irritating facts is the mindless specualtion and the people who talk utter garbage about its roles. I also believe that the freelance journalists are dispicable scum and should be taken care of down a dark alleyway with baseball bats.
So a final plea, if you dont kow what your talking about then dont speculate!!!!!!!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Hoots, actually the freelancers can be a distinct cut above the tabloid kind, Jackinocko for instance.
Mind you we had one ******* tried to pass himself off as an official RAF News reporter and 'bluff' his way in with a driving licence.
All he got was the order of the boot and blacklisted too.
Had he come clean and simply asked to come in he would, as we do with any member of the public, have been invited in.
Mind you we had one ******* tried to pass himself off as an official RAF News reporter and 'bluff' his way in with a driving licence.
All he got was the order of the boot and blacklisted too.
Had he come clean and simply asked to come in he would, as we do with any member of the public, have been invited in.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoots,
Speculation on the cause of an accident or incident is human nature, especially within the aircrew community. Inevitably on a forum such as this some speculation will be better informed than others.
Unusually in this case the 'spin' started with anouncements about technical failures even before the aircraft type had been released.
It is useful to separate speculation threads and condolences ( I take the earlier point that family and friends may read both). This protects to a degree the feelings of those closest.
Ultimately though this IS a rumours network and even if some of the speculation may not turn out to be a causual factor in this case, the fact that aviators (and hopefully the BOI) have discussed it may leave it fresh in ones mind should it become a factor in the future.
That in itself is useful as it could one day save someones neck, in the same way that crewroom WOTIFS discussions can.
Speculation on the cause of an accident or incident is human nature, especially within the aircrew community. Inevitably on a forum such as this some speculation will be better informed than others.
Unusually in this case the 'spin' started with anouncements about technical failures even before the aircraft type had been released.
It is useful to separate speculation threads and condolences ( I take the earlier point that family and friends may read both). This protects to a degree the feelings of those closest.
Ultimately though this IS a rumours network and even if some of the speculation may not turn out to be a causual factor in this case, the fact that aviators (and hopefully the BOI) have discussed it may leave it fresh in ones mind should it become a factor in the future.
That in itself is useful as it could one day save someones neck, in the same way that crewroom WOTIFS discussions can.
WRT the St Mawgan incident
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Age: 56
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this post is off thread but the individual in question is an utter twerp who has plagued the Chinook thread with his idiotic inaccuracies, another of which I wish to highlight here.
ASM posted the following:-
The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.
With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.
Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?
Cazatou then chimpishly berates him with following:-
I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.
The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming yadda yadda yadda.
I have already asked Caz to explain to me where in ASM’s post does he allude to the SF guys being deployed from the Nimrod because I sure as hell can’t see it and I would bet my mortgage no one else can either
.
Caz you are not only an arse but an ignorant and ill informed arse at that, a fact that you have proved time and time again on the Chinook thread. I KNOW of at least two types that regularly carry “special” people for the specific purpose of liaising with their peers via “special” comms during Op’s and I suspect this is exactly what ASM, bearing in mind it was also suggested by the media, was getting at
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
ASM posted the following:-
The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.
With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.
Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?
Cazatou then chimpishly berates him with following:-
I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.
The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming yadda yadda yadda.
I have already asked Caz to explain to me where in ASM’s post does he allude to the SF guys being deployed from the Nimrod because I sure as hell can’t see it and I would bet my mortgage no one else can either
.Caz you are not only an arse but an ignorant and ill informed arse at that, a fact that you have proved time and time again on the Chinook thread. I KNOW of at least two types that regularly carry “special” people for the specific purpose of liaising with their peers via “special” comms during Op’s and I suspect this is exactly what ASM, bearing in mind it was also suggested by the media, was getting at
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Of course I did not mean the Nimrod would be deploying Special Forces, but had them on board for their local knowledge. Having men with knowledge on the ground would be sensible if the stated video system was fitted to the said Nimrod. Possibly able to speak some local Afghan dialects and spent some time looking like locals their terrain knowledge I would assume to be invaluable. Notice that not all of the victims had their photographs published?
I think the comments by 'Sennreps' more to the point:-
"Most of you are having a good go at the media, and quite rightly so. They have been doing this for years. But don’t forget they do this with “ALL” stories. You are all having a dig because you understand the subject being talked about. Most of you however, choose to accept the views of the Media (BBC) when you are not totally gen’d up on a particular news item. If it was an article on a subject that you know nothing about, you tend to believe it totally – why? - because most people in this country believe everything they are told. That is why the newspapers will continue to be sold and most people will watch BBC, ITN,or Sky news to get info. And by the way “Most people love speculation!!!!”
The main thing that annoys me is the way Dez Browne and the Government are so keen to say that it was not caused by hostile action. He said yesterday that we must not speculate, yet whet straight on to say that it was “probably” not caused by hostile fire. I might be thick – but is that not speculation???
If it was not by hostile fire, can they wash their hands of any responsibility?????.
I don’t care if it was hostile fire or an accident. The fact is that friends and families are hurting because they are no longer with us.
Finally, yes I have had a few and quite frankly I am sick of loosing friends and colleagues from our Royal Air Force. My thoughts go to all involved in this sad loss.
Indeed, I think it is possible to speculate about any number of technical issues. Not hostile fire? Is that not the same as saying "we know it was a technical problem?" Note the first news reports said Mechanical Failure and not electrical fault causing fire.
It would not surprise me that the incident was subject to the cost cutting measures of an accountants pen ? Where have we heard that before ?
Someone brought up the issue of the Chinook.
Did anybody answer why a helicopter was used on a flight from Belfast to Scotland ? Did it need to land somewhere en-route ?
I am sure there are more issues at stake with regard to the Nimrod than things purely technical ?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For heaven's sake can we stop all these silly theories. For 'mechanical failure' read 'technical fault'. The BoI will establish just what happened and their findings will be published eventually - it's going to take months rather than weeks. I wouldn't mind betting that they have by now got a fair idea of WHAT happened, but WHY it happened is what's going to take the time.
Cost cutting is unlikely to be involved, so let's not go down that path - any complex piece of machinery is likely at some stage or another to suffer a major failure. In this case it proved catastophic.
I don't belive there was any kind of cover up. Nor do I believe the Special Forces were directly involved.
ALL members of the fated crew have had their photos published in various papers - it is just that the Kinloss PR people got the photos to the MOD and thus the media as a single batch. That was headline stuff for the media. The Soldier and RM's photos came from different sources and were published subsequently.
I am sure it would be helpful to the guy and gals on the Nimrod fleets if the speculation was canned and let them get on with their lives and tasks.
If for no other reason than to stop the families from hurting any more than they are at present.
Cost cutting is unlikely to be involved, so let's not go down that path - any complex piece of machinery is likely at some stage or another to suffer a major failure. In this case it proved catastophic.
I don't belive there was any kind of cover up. Nor do I believe the Special Forces were directly involved.
ALL members of the fated crew have had their photos published in various papers - it is just that the Kinloss PR people got the photos to the MOD and thus the media as a single batch. That was headline stuff for the media. The Soldier and RM's photos came from different sources and were published subsequently.
I am sure it would be helpful to the guy and gals on the Nimrod fleets if the speculation was canned and let them get on with their lives and tasks.
If for no other reason than to stop the families from hurting any more than they are at present.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C4 News and Meda
Quality Report on the news.
50000 people stood in silence out of respect for the 14 crew members....
Video of a DC3 shown through out whilst refering to it as a Nimrod,
Airshow was at RAF Lucus apparently.
At least Tony's woo's are keeping war and terror of the headlines.
50000 people stood in silence out of respect for the 14 crew members....
Video of a DC3 shown through out whilst refering to it as a Nimrod,
Airshow was at RAF Lucus apparently.
At least Tony's woo's are keeping war and terror of the headlines.
won't repeat my words when i watched that report !!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im not quite sure what this site is for if people cant speculate or pass on rumours..... isnt it a rumour network. Whilst i understand the grieving has to happen , believe me i know its close to my heart. Why cant the informed on here just say what they have got to say without being shouted down???
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Forres
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing would please me more if this message is to be the last in this thread. The condolences thread stood alone on the front page this morning (Sat 9 Sep), with no sign of this one. Thank you, I thought to myself, self discipline and respect is working and hopefully, with time, this thread will disappear altogether. This evening, to my dismay, I once again see the offensive thread title ABOVE the one that matters, as the latest message associated with the tragedy. I know that most of the discussions in this thread have not been speculative, but the thread title itself does PPRuNe no favours ("No condolences") and encourages submissions that we can do without. Please, let it go, guys. No more replies for a while; lets please try to keep this thread title off the front page. Thanks.
PS, its only the fact that the thread is at the top at moment that made me write.
PS, its only the fact that the thread is at the top at moment that made me write.
Last edited by Kev Nurse; 9th Sep 2006 at 19:02. Reason: clarity
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think I've seen so much righteous anguish on any thread before. Can we possibly spare a thought for the real losers - the families who would have been being informed of the sad news as you typed your pathetic vitriolic tirade against the media? As Col Mustard may remember, the Falklands MoD "spokesperson" (Mr McDonald?) managed to feed the world with the information that the Argie bombs weren't fused correctly - so no real change in MoD competence in the last 24 years then! If you can't fire your weapons at the right target, don't fire them at all.
(As we were trying not to get shot down or blown up in San Carlos Water at the time, I'm glad we didn't find out about this incompetence until after it was all over.)
While it's interesting that the first mention of possible cause didn't appear until P5 (Brain Fade), reddeathdrinker should read ASRAAM's later post - whilst the speculation may not be to your liking, it's been part of pprune since long before you joined the website, and often ends up being as accurate as the BOI, only a year or so beforehand! (That's not criticism of the BOI by the way).
Don't forget that this was a Tri-service loss and even if the non-RAF were just "along for the ride", how devastating must the news have been for their families? For our tomorrows, they all gave their todays - R.I.P.
(As we were trying not to get shot down or blown up in San Carlos Water at the time, I'm glad we didn't find out about this incompetence until after it was all over.)
While it's interesting that the first mention of possible cause didn't appear until P5 (Brain Fade), reddeathdrinker should read ASRAAM's later post - whilst the speculation may not be to your liking, it's been part of pprune since long before you joined the website, and often ends up being as accurate as the BOI, only a year or so beforehand! (That's not criticism of the BOI by the way).
Don't forget that this was a Tri-service loss and even if the non-RAF were just "along for the ride", how devastating must the news have been for their families? For our tomorrows, they all gave their todays - R.I.P.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been up most of the night and have had 5Live on the radio and latterly, BBC News 24 on the Telly... interesting to note that when talking about the return of the crew's bodies to Kinloss, 5Live mentioned initially that the Nimrod may have been involved in an incident whilst "refuelling in the air". However, BBC News 24 have not mentioned this at all and 5Live have now not mentioned it in subsequent reports. Nothing about it on BBC online either.
It's been a week or so since I read through this thread, but am I right in thinking the aircraft had succesfully completed air-to-air refuelling quite some time before the accident?
More journo carelessness, I suspect.
It's been a week or so since I read through this thread, but am I right in thinking the aircraft had succesfully completed air-to-air refuelling quite some time before the accident?
More journo carelessness, I suspect.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I know little about AAR as it was many years ago that I did the course, but an aircraft uses a disproportionate amount of fuel climbing to height compared with the cruise. Roughly an hours worth or cruise fuel. After a couple of hours airborne there would be a significant spare capacity.
Then you presuppose that the tanker will come in to the mission airspace. It might be necessary, for many reasons, that flight refuelling takes place away from the mission area. Furthermore a pre-task refuelling would then allow an uninterrupted mission rather than having to suspend the mission at some point.
This is not to be construed that there was any flight refuelling on this mission just that a top-of-climb top-up and pre-task top-up are both much more likely than an in-mission refuel. If necessary a post-mission refuelling can also take place but this would not necessarily be necessary, certainly for long-range aircraft.
Then you presuppose that the tanker will come in to the mission airspace. It might be necessary, for many reasons, that flight refuelling takes place away from the mission area. Furthermore a pre-task refuelling would then allow an uninterrupted mission rather than having to suspend the mission at some point.
This is not to be construed that there was any flight refuelling on this mission just that a top-of-climb top-up and pre-task top-up are both much more likely than an in-mission refuel. If necessary a post-mission refuelling can also take place but this would not necessarily be necessary, certainly for long-range aircraft.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith,
You are driving us all potty with your utter drivell and nonesense - please go away and stop being an annoying little jerk.
If you have nothing sensible to say, then say nothing.
Thank you
The Winco
You are driving us all potty with your utter drivell and nonesense - please go away and stop being an annoying little jerk.
If you have nothing sensible to say, then say nothing.
Thank you
The Winco