Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Since they are financed through the licence fee, they don't need scoops. They must achieve accuracy, though. If they have the right to demand payment of the licence fee (where independents have to make a commercial gain) they have the responsibility to get their story straight, and be known for doing so.
Gentlemen the thread creep here is totally uncalled for, I lost friends of mine on the Nimrod and when I read the thread I expect to read things about the crash not how good cars were from another era, please have the respect for our dead breteren and remove all the posts about cars, you may start another thread if you need too.
Regards
Fergi
Regards
Fergi
Last edited by Chugalug2; 16th Oct 2006 at 19:04. Reason: Poor choice of words!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GMP: I think, and hope, that our exchanges re the BBC and its coverage of this accident are deemed on thread, but that the brief flurry of posts recalling 'all our yesterdays' of the 50s were rightly seen as off topic. If I am wrong in this assumption ppp, fergi, FJJP et al, please say so, and my posts will follow the others that have already been removed!
Chug
Chug
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aha! They were so briefly visible I missed them, hence my question. That probably explains it. Couldn't work out how a 50s car related to anything we'd discussed!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How is it off thread?[/
Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
From today's Sunday Times:
The Sunday Times October 29, 2006
Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
Michael Smith
AN RAF Nimrod spy plane that crashed in Afghanistan last month killing all 14 men on board broke up in mid-air after a fractured fuel line set off explosions, an official inquiry has found.
The Nimrod MR2, which was providing intelligence for a Nato operation against Taliban fighters west of Kandahar, had just refuelled at 22,000ft.
Sources have disclosed that an RAF board of inquiry’s preliminary report has found that the fuel line fractured either as the Nimrod MR2 was being refuelled or shortly afterwards.
Fuel and vapour that leaked into the bottom of the fuselage then caught fire, possibly because of an electrical fault. Enemy fire has been ruled out as a cause.
The wreckage was so damaged that the investigators have not found direct evidence of the fire. They have had to rely on the pilot’s transmissions before the explosions and records of work done on the plane.
The conclusions will lead to serious concern about the RAF’s Nimrod fleet given that the aircraft have been flying since 1969 with a big upgrade started four years ago. The refurbishment was delayed by a series of problems — for instance, the wings BAE Systems designed would not fit the fuselage. The revamped aircraft will not return to service until 2009.
Nimrod XV230 (the lost jet’s call sign) was providing electronic surveillance for British special forces taking part in Operation Medusa against the Taliban.
The pilot reported a fire on board and was trying to land at Kandahar nearby when a series of explosions led to the aircraft breaking up in mid-air.
Debris was scattered over an area more than a mile long, according to the inquiry, which is taking place at the aircraft’s station, RAF Kinloss in Morayshire.
The crash was the biggest single loss of life for the services since the Falklands war in 1982 and the biggest for the RAF since a special forces C-130 Hercules was shot down by insurgents in Iraq two years ago, killing all 10 men on board.
Soldiers from the RAF Regiment secured the Nimrod crash site and recovered the bodies, but the destruction was so extensive they were unable to recover many aircraft parts.
The crew of 14 consisted of 12 RAF men from 120 Squadron and two special forces signallers relaying intelligence gathered to troops on the ground. Within 24 hours investigators arrived from Britain, but the hard evidence was limited and they had to rely on photographs, maintenance documents and recorded cockpit transmissions.
They concluded that the fuel was safely delivered from the tanker via the refuelling probe above the Nimrod’s cockpit.
It was then pumped down the fuel line to where a computerised control box steadies its flow into the tanks in the wings.
The fuel line that fractured is believed to be somewhere near the control unit in the bottom of the fuselage. The transmissions show the pilot reported a fire, but was apparently unaware of the fuel leak that had caused it.
The full report is some months away but a source close to the inquiry said: “It is clear that there was a fire and perhaps one or more explosions aboard the Nimrod and these factors indicate a fuel source as the cause of the tragedy.”
The Nimrod fleet has not been grounded but recommendations for flight safety will be made by the Defence Aviation Safety Centre at RAF Bentley Priory, northwest London.
“This is a very difficult investigation,” a senior defence source said. “Every aspect of the aircraft’s paperwork history has been checked . . . and all other MR2s have been checked out as a matter of standard practice.”
The Sunday Times October 29, 2006
Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
Michael Smith
AN RAF Nimrod spy plane that crashed in Afghanistan last month killing all 14 men on board broke up in mid-air after a fractured fuel line set off explosions, an official inquiry has found.
The Nimrod MR2, which was providing intelligence for a Nato operation against Taliban fighters west of Kandahar, had just refuelled at 22,000ft.
Sources have disclosed that an RAF board of inquiry’s preliminary report has found that the fuel line fractured either as the Nimrod MR2 was being refuelled or shortly afterwards.
Fuel and vapour that leaked into the bottom of the fuselage then caught fire, possibly because of an electrical fault. Enemy fire has been ruled out as a cause.
The wreckage was so damaged that the investigators have not found direct evidence of the fire. They have had to rely on the pilot’s transmissions before the explosions and records of work done on the plane.
The conclusions will lead to serious concern about the RAF’s Nimrod fleet given that the aircraft have been flying since 1969 with a big upgrade started four years ago. The refurbishment was delayed by a series of problems — for instance, the wings BAE Systems designed would not fit the fuselage. The revamped aircraft will not return to service until 2009.
Nimrod XV230 (the lost jet’s call sign) was providing electronic surveillance for British special forces taking part in Operation Medusa against the Taliban.
The pilot reported a fire on board and was trying to land at Kandahar nearby when a series of explosions led to the aircraft breaking up in mid-air.
Debris was scattered over an area more than a mile long, according to the inquiry, which is taking place at the aircraft’s station, RAF Kinloss in Morayshire.
The crash was the biggest single loss of life for the services since the Falklands war in 1982 and the biggest for the RAF since a special forces C-130 Hercules was shot down by insurgents in Iraq two years ago, killing all 10 men on board.
Soldiers from the RAF Regiment secured the Nimrod crash site and recovered the bodies, but the destruction was so extensive they were unable to recover many aircraft parts.
The crew of 14 consisted of 12 RAF men from 120 Squadron and two special forces signallers relaying intelligence gathered to troops on the ground. Within 24 hours investigators arrived from Britain, but the hard evidence was limited and they had to rely on photographs, maintenance documents and recorded cockpit transmissions.
They concluded that the fuel was safely delivered from the tanker via the refuelling probe above the Nimrod’s cockpit.
It was then pumped down the fuel line to where a computerised control box steadies its flow into the tanks in the wings.
The fuel line that fractured is believed to be somewhere near the control unit in the bottom of the fuselage. The transmissions show the pilot reported a fire, but was apparently unaware of the fuel leak that had caused it.
The full report is some months away but a source close to the inquiry said: “It is clear that there was a fire and perhaps one or more explosions aboard the Nimrod and these factors indicate a fuel source as the cause of the tragedy.”
The Nimrod fleet has not been grounded but recommendations for flight safety will be made by the Defence Aviation Safety Centre at RAF Bentley Priory, northwest London.
“This is a very difficult investigation,” a senior defence source said. “Every aspect of the aircraft’s paperwork history has been checked . . . and all other MR2s have been checked out as a matter of standard practice.”
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The loss of an aircraft and crew from any fleet is sad. As for worrying, of all the hundreds of thousands of sorties flown by the Nimrod fleet this is the only one lost due to a fuel fire. Previous losses are attributable to other factors discovered during the Boards of Inquiry, some of which have led to mods to the airframe or systems.
There will probably be a programme of inspections [I would guess tied in with one of the deeper servicing schedules], just to check out the likely areas that led to this tragedy.
I doubt whether crews will be worrying or sweating over flying the Mighty Hunter for fear of a repetition. My guess is that this is a tragic one-off failure.
There will probably be a programme of inspections [I would guess tied in with one of the deeper servicing schedules], just to check out the likely areas that led to this tragedy.
I doubt whether crews will be worrying or sweating over flying the Mighty Hunter for fear of a repetition. My guess is that this is a tragic one-off failure.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crash was the biggest single loss of life for the services since the Falklands war in 1982 and the biggest for the RAF since a special forces C-130 Hercules was shot down by insurgents in Iraq two years ago, killing all 10 men on board.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement says - "The crash was the biggest single loss of life for the ..........RAF since a special forces C-130 Hercules was shot down by insurgents in Iraq two years ago, killing all 10 men on board".
It's correct.
It's correct.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From today's Sunday Times:
The Sunday Times October 29, 2006
Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
They concluded that the fuel was safely delivered from the tanker via the refuelling probe above the Nimrod’s cockpit.
It was then pumped down the fuel line to where a computerised control box steadies its flow into the tanks in the wings.
The fuel line that fractured is believed to be somewhere near the control unit in the bottom of the fuselage. ”
The Sunday Times October 29, 2006
Fuel leak blamed for Nimrod disaster
They concluded that the fuel was safely delivered from the tanker via the refuelling probe above the Nimrod’s cockpit.
It was then pumped down the fuel line to where a computerised control box steadies its flow into the tanks in the wings.
The fuel line that fractured is believed to be somewhere near the control unit in the bottom of the fuselage. ”
Wow that computer is good.... What the Hell..... load of rubbish
In a newspaper report full of mistakes then it's a bit petty to pick on this in the circumstances but surely Strato Q is correct.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StratoQ. My reading suggests that the C130 crash was then the RAF's largest loss of life in one incident. Subsequent incidents, before Nimrod, killed less than 10 in each incident. Nimrod killed 14, making it now the RAF's largest loss of life in one incident, taking the 'record' from the C130 incident
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Glowcesestershiiiire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StratoQ. My reading suggests that the C130 crash was then the RAF's largest loss of life in one incident. Subsequent incidents, before Nimrod, killed less than 10 in each incident. Nimrod killed 14, making it now the RAF's largest loss of life in one incident, taking the 'record' from the C130 incident
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Way up high
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, Hear
Well said K1RB5. I wish people could leave this whole thing alone and wait for the AIB. I appreciate that people may have 'an interest' but trust me, it's hard enough for the families as it is.
Shandyman
Shandyman