Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLC I apologise, I was not referring to the Nimrod tragedy because we do not yet know the cause. That we have lost 2 talented, priceless crews is undeniable fact. It is too early to state if lack of fuel tank protection was a factor in the Nimrod crash. However, lack of foam was a major factor in the Herc crash and we await the BoI for the 2nd Hercules that perished on a strip this year, thankfully with no loss of life. However, I strongly believe that no mil ac should be procured without fuel tank protection and I would hope that those involved in the Nimrod procurement project are looking at this.
Last edited by nigegilb; 20th Nov 2006 at 10:38.
You will no doubt recall that, a few years ago a DHL A300-B4 was hit by a MANPAD missile after leaving Baghdad. The missile did not hit the engines, it hit a wing tip. The outer tank caught fire and exploded; all 3 hydraulic systems were lost and the crew only managed to land with exceptional flying skill and differential thrust.
This is what the wing looked like after the landing:
If this wasn't a wake-up call to all who task large aircraft to fly into hostile areas, then what is. Surely the MoD had cause to think after this incident?
EVERY large aircraft, whether old, new or yet to come into service should have on-baord fuel tank inerting. I spoke to a bunch of Kwinty-Kwoo boffins after this event; they were pre-occupied with boffinry designed to decoy or jam missiles. None of which is any use if the missile actually hits...
Or a large calibre shell, for that matter.
nige - it might be interesting to ask whether MoD studied the DHL A300 incident - and if they didn't, why not?
This is what the wing looked like after the landing:
If this wasn't a wake-up call to all who task large aircraft to fly into hostile areas, then what is. Surely the MoD had cause to think after this incident?
EVERY large aircraft, whether old, new or yet to come into service should have on-baord fuel tank inerting. I spoke to a bunch of Kwinty-Kwoo boffins after this event; they were pre-occupied with boffinry designed to decoy or jam missiles. None of which is any use if the missile actually hits...
Or a large calibre shell, for that matter.
nige - it might be interesting to ask whether MoD studied the DHL A300 incident - and if they didn't, why not?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Of interest, BEagle, does the FSTA contract specify fuel tank inerting? I know the FAA is making it a requirement, including retrofit on existing aircraft, but only for the 40 odd A330s on the American register.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags, as you imply there is an obsession with fancy DAS kits. Fuel tank inerting systems protect against electrical fuel pump malfunctions, fires, attack from AK47s up to SAMs, and they are relatively cheap. USAF install it as No.1 base protection. I have been saying this til I am blue in the face. The fire reported in the starboard wing root of XV230 could have originated from the refuelling pipe adjacent to the wing fuel tank. This is why I wanted to talk about fuel tank protection on the Nimrod. It is a debate that should have been happening before this tragedy because it applies to every large ac going sausage side.
US retrofit airliners with no risk from being shot at whilst MoD sends Mil crews to war with no protection. It is not on.
US retrofit airliners with no risk from being shot at whilst MoD sends Mil crews to war with no protection. It is not on.
Last edited by nigegilb; 20th Nov 2006 at 14:11.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Where the sun don't shine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orac: While I agree that a large dose of cynicism is healthy when it comes to dealing with the press, I think it is unfair to tar all journalists with the same brush. Mick Smith has made some valid points and asked questions that the public, and more importantly crews at ISK, would like answers to. The Nimrod is an ageing aircraft that seems to be developing more problems as it gets closer to retirement. This is a reflection on the DPA, not the aircrew or ground engineers.
The Buccaneer is a prime example. There are more modern aircraft I could also mention but this is not the place to do so.
Value for money is one thing. I hope the beancounters will get the message this time round.
Sadly I fear not.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the progress made over the past 15 years to go for real VFM seems to have reverted to VFM=cheapest.
You get what you can afford, and pay for. However, that's not really the fault of DPA: it's a politcal problem of a government wanting a Jaguar for the price of a Mini and making everyone dance to that tune.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just remember that every bit of kit that our valiant services manage to eke out of the MoD, invariably is made by the the lowest bidder!
I am with Nige - irrespective of 206/230 BOI results, fuel tank protection for all ac whether they be AT, MPA, SH or FJ.
I am with Nige - irrespective of 206/230 BOI results, fuel tank protection for all ac whether they be AT, MPA, SH or FJ.
Apologies for coming a bit late to the thread (do pay attention, 007) - but I really have to say, ORAC, that you’ve made me quite grumpy. At least, I think you have, although I can’t be quite sure because you’ve removed the vital evidence. Whatever, I believe that your treatment of Mick Smith is surprisingly ill-informed, not to say thoughtless.
I realise that, to some PPRuNers, the mere mention of a journalist is enough to precipitate heaving heaps of pavlovian grumpitude - but I hadn’t thought you, ORAC, to be one of those. But have you considered the logical extension of your excoriation of Mick S? In his ST article, it seems to me, he was doing exactly the sort of thing that we desperately need the media to be doing - exposing misrule, misgovernment and plain penny-pinching incompetence on the part of our current (and recent past) elective dictatorships. Indeed, my big fear is that that we are rapidly approaching a national situation where democracy is replaced by presidential rule without the benefit of cabinet examination or parliamentary scrutiny.
In that situation, almost our only defence is a free and independent media. The trouble with that is that it is, well, free, and independent. Which, of course, means that there will always be reporting of the kind that virtually everyone on PPRuNe (me included) will despise. Sad to say, quite a lot of that will come from parts of the same appalling Murdoch empire that Mick Smith writes for. But I believe that Mick’s article was a model of journalistic competence. It was well researched and well argued, it exposed something that we needed to know, it was factual, and it didn’t contain groundless speculation. And, importantly, it was in an organ that the movers and shakers read. So, let’s not include Mick in the sad pantheon of muckraking, sensationalist scumbags.
If you want to sh1tbag journos, ORAC, please choose the ones who deserve it - which gives you a target-rich environment anyway - but lay off people like Mick Smith. He’s on the side of the good guys.
And, btw, if anyone’s interested, I have never met Mick, and I’m not familiar with his previous oeuvres. But I’ll be looking out for him.
Grumpitude ceased. Standing by for incoming.
airsound
I realise that, to some PPRuNers, the mere mention of a journalist is enough to precipitate heaving heaps of pavlovian grumpitude - but I hadn’t thought you, ORAC, to be one of those. But have you considered the logical extension of your excoriation of Mick S? In his ST article, it seems to me, he was doing exactly the sort of thing that we desperately need the media to be doing - exposing misrule, misgovernment and plain penny-pinching incompetence on the part of our current (and recent past) elective dictatorships. Indeed, my big fear is that that we are rapidly approaching a national situation where democracy is replaced by presidential rule without the benefit of cabinet examination or parliamentary scrutiny.
In that situation, almost our only defence is a free and independent media. The trouble with that is that it is, well, free, and independent. Which, of course, means that there will always be reporting of the kind that virtually everyone on PPRuNe (me included) will despise. Sad to say, quite a lot of that will come from parts of the same appalling Murdoch empire that Mick Smith writes for. But I believe that Mick’s article was a model of journalistic competence. It was well researched and well argued, it exposed something that we needed to know, it was factual, and it didn’t contain groundless speculation. And, importantly, it was in an organ that the movers and shakers read. So, let’s not include Mick in the sad pantheon of muckraking, sensationalist scumbags.
If you want to sh1tbag journos, ORAC, please choose the ones who deserve it - which gives you a target-rich environment anyway - but lay off people like Mick Smith. He’s on the side of the good guys.
And, btw, if anyone’s interested, I have never met Mick, and I’m not familiar with his previous oeuvres. But I’ll be looking out for him.
Grumpitude ceased. Standing by for incoming.
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
I'm not sure what your 'beef'' is with Mick Smith, but as far as my friends at ISK are concerned, he is right on cue with hjis comments.
As for the PVR rates since the crash, the fact is that:
a) the number of Nimrod aricrew PVRs HAS gone up
b) the number of requests from Nimrod aircrew to come off flying ops has also gone up
c) the problem is not only with Nimrod MR crews! I understand the R fleet is having a similar 'debate'
I have little time for journos, only because 99% of what they write is utter 'tosh, however, on this occasion Mr Smith has got it correct, and I for one applaud him for publishing it. Thanks Mick
TSM
I'm not sure what your 'beef'' is with Mick Smith, but as far as my friends at ISK are concerned, he is right on cue with hjis comments.
As for the PVR rates since the crash, the fact is that:
a) the number of Nimrod aricrew PVRs HAS gone up
b) the number of requests from Nimrod aircrew to come off flying ops has also gone up
c) the problem is not only with Nimrod MR crews! I understand the R fleet is having a similar 'debate'
I have little time for journos, only because 99% of what they write is utter 'tosh, however, on this occasion Mr Smith has got it correct, and I for one applaud him for publishing it. Thanks Mick
TSM
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Age: 65
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that's why all Nimrod starter motors are fitted with overspeed cut-out switches now.
The CDS has also confirmed that the crew reported a technical problem, connected with a fire, just after refuelling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5314358.stm
The CDS has also confirmed that the crew reported a technical problem, connected with a fire, just after refuelling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5314358.stm
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Sloppy reporting..... its even worse in the actual paper....
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is it that sloppy though! they may have embellished a bit but wouldn't say it was that far from the mark.
The fact that someone has spoken out from Isk speaks volumes in itself, people usually loyal and professional wouldn't speak out if they didn't think there was a serious problem going on here.
'Its all too easy to brush it under the carpet and say sloppy reorting/
The fact that someone has spoken out from Isk speaks volumes in itself, people usually loyal and professional wouldn't speak out if they didn't think there was a serious problem going on here.
'Its all too easy to brush it under the carpet and say sloppy reorting/
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Where the sun don't shine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft must have been depressurised at low level in the first place to allow the launcher to open, and the door just wouldn't close when the crew had finished. Simple - fly home below 8000' just like the SH, SARH and FJ world, all with the advantage of a better view!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The teapot was just part of the article, has everyone forgotten about the four serious fuel leaks since the crash that was mentioned in the report!?
I reiterate that a member of the crew wouldn't have spoken out about the fleet unless he/she was fed up of it all and concerned about it's safety.
Yes the record has picked up on the more trivial part of it for a headline but their are more issues here.
I reiterate that a member of the crew wouldn't have spoken out about the fleet unless he/she was fed up of it all and concerned about it's safety.
Yes the record has picked up on the more trivial part of it for a headline but their are more issues here.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: West Yorkshire Zone
Posts: 976
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem here is that the 'MOD' don't think?
As someone mentioned earlier, You would have thought the DHL A300 incident would have 'Rang Alarm bells' with the MOD regarding 'Vulnerable' Aircraft like the Hercules and the Nimrod operating over enemy lines.
What has always annoyed me about the MOD is that they have the Approach of 'We''ll only fix it if it's broken' But in this case It is too late as what we are discussing here.
You cannot Sail a Tight Ship when your running the RAF.
The MOD chief's are obviously not on the 'Ground' with the people and their Equipment, Instead all their decisions are made in some office in London, They listen to others point of view but then go and do what they want?
The Nimrod has proved to be a loyal 'Workshorse' for the RAF, But they can only give it so much life time as in Concorde's case.
The MOD should have concentrated on upgrading the safety features of the oldest Aircraft in the fleet, Instead of getting excited about the MR4 program.
The Nimrod was operating over enemy lines without any Fuel Tank protection, A risk that is critical to the the Aircraft and it's crew.
The 'Media' said that the Nimrod Captain only had 2/3 Minutes to look for a suitable forced landing, I cannot imagine the scene in that time.
This tragic accident along with the 2 Hercules crashes in 22 months, will 'Backfire' on the MOD, And constantly remind them that If funding for safety projects is not maintained it will risk losing it's Standards, Safety, Morale, and most importantly it's people.
The service personnel will only take so much, They are people not Robots!!
Regards.
As someone mentioned earlier, You would have thought the DHL A300 incident would have 'Rang Alarm bells' with the MOD regarding 'Vulnerable' Aircraft like the Hercules and the Nimrod operating over enemy lines.
What has always annoyed me about the MOD is that they have the Approach of 'We''ll only fix it if it's broken' But in this case It is too late as what we are discussing here.
You cannot Sail a Tight Ship when your running the RAF.
The MOD chief's are obviously not on the 'Ground' with the people and their Equipment, Instead all their decisions are made in some office in London, They listen to others point of view but then go and do what they want?
The Nimrod has proved to be a loyal 'Workshorse' for the RAF, But they can only give it so much life time as in Concorde's case.
The MOD should have concentrated on upgrading the safety features of the oldest Aircraft in the fleet, Instead of getting excited about the MR4 program.
The Nimrod was operating over enemy lines without any Fuel Tank protection, A risk that is critical to the the Aircraft and it's crew.
The 'Media' said that the Nimrod Captain only had 2/3 Minutes to look for a suitable forced landing, I cannot imagine the scene in that time.
This tragic accident along with the 2 Hercules crashes in 22 months, will 'Backfire' on the MOD, And constantly remind them that If funding for safety projects is not maintained it will risk losing it's Standards, Safety, Morale, and most importantly it's people.
The service personnel will only take so much, They are people not Robots!!
Regards.
MPs ‘misled’ on Nimrod safety
From today's The Sunday Times:
Des Browne, the defence secretary, appears to have misled MPs when he told them an independent report had ruled that the RAF’s Nimrod aircraft were safe to fly.
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3736587.ece
Des Browne, the defence secretary, appears to have misled MPs when he told them an independent report had ruled that the RAF’s Nimrod aircraft were safe to fly.
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3736587.ece
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Beagle,
The report referred to by Des Browne does indeed highlight areas where the fuel system does not meet risk category ALARP (as low as reasonably practical). However, to be exact, he said the following (taken from Timesonline):
The words, "and.....in light of measures taken" refer to Limitations put in place on 4 Sep 06, to mitigate the risks that would later be highlighted by the report. Therefore, the report (which covers all aspects of the fuel system) together with the Lims, which were in place well before the report was commissioned, gives the whole system a clean bill of health. The Lims remain in place to day and will do so for the rest of the Nimrod MR2/R1's life.
Ed Sett
The report referred to by Des Browne does indeed highlight areas where the fuel system does not meet risk category ALARP (as low as reasonably practical). However, to be exact, he said the following (taken from Timesonline):
“QinetiQ has conducted an independent investigation into the fuel system and confirmed that, in light of the measures taken since the crash, the fuel system is safe to operate,” said Browne.
Ed Sett
Last edited by EdSet100; 13th Apr 2008 at 19:05. Reason: change of word in ALARP: "possible" changed to "practical"