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
Mr Walker is the man in charge and he will be announcing his verdict tomorrow.
Hickman appears to have rejected JSP553, difficult to see how he can come back from that, "mitigating circumstances" or otherwise.
He has gone on to make further comments today, perhaps Mick will elucidate perhaps he won't.
SoS's comments appear in my view to be risible, but it really doesn't matter does it?
Let's be patient for one more day.
Hickman appears to have rejected JSP553, difficult to see how he can come back from that, "mitigating circumstances" or otherwise.
He has gone on to make further comments today, perhaps Mick will elucidate perhaps he won't.
SoS's comments appear in my view to be risible, but it really doesn't matter does it?
Let's be patient for one more day.
Last edited by nigegilb; 22nd May 2008 at 19:20.
From some weeks back...
When Mick wrote the above article, and in his follow up posts, he seemed sure SoS was definately misleading the house; I'm interested to know if he still holds that view as his quote above implies he acknowledges that the statement "although the aircraft was only "tolerably safe" and not ALARP it was nevertheless safe" could actually be a valid and reasonable one.
From today's (13th April) 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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I'm coming to this very,very late but as an ex mil, now civilian pilot, may I express my indignation that a front line aircraft was / is 37 yrs old. In Pakistan the limit on the age of an aircraft in airline service is 18 yrs: in India they have a similar limit.
Nuff said?
Nuff said?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Winco
You have very understandably misinterpreted what the IPTL said. His belief stated in the witness box and mirroring what the SoS said in the House of Commons, citing CAS, was that although the aircraft was only "tolerably safe" and not ALARP it was nevertheless safe. Since the aircraft was "tolerably safe" it was OK to work towards being ALARP while still flying and they were aiming towards being ALARP by the end of the year.
Mick - do your (in my view correct) observations above mean you now believe the SoS was infact not misleading/lying to the House when he told them the aircraft was now safe?
Winco
You have very understandably misinterpreted what the IPTL said. His belief stated in the witness box and mirroring what the SoS said in the House of Commons, citing CAS, was that although the aircraft was only "tolerably safe" and not ALARP it was nevertheless safe. Since the aircraft was "tolerably safe" it was OK to work towards being ALARP while still flying and they were aiming towards being ALARP by the end of the year.
Mick - do your (in my view correct) observations above mean you now believe the SoS was infact not misleading/lying to the House when he told them the aircraft was now safe?
No of course I dont believe that the aircraft can be described as "tolerably safe" and actually be safe without the risk being ALARP. I apologise for misunderstanding you previously JFZ90. I thought that even you, with your indefatigable determination to insist that everything is fine and dandy, had accepted the facts as laid out by numerous posters here.
For the record, I don't hold the same views as when I wrote that article, because, as you pointed out, I said he appeared to have misled the House. It is now very clear that he did mislead the house. I have never suggested he lied. I don't believe he did lie. He was told something that wasnt true and simply repeated it and as we have seen at least one of the people in that chain of senior officers through whom he obtained his "expert" advice, a key figure, actually believed it was true.
It ought to be a matter of deep concern that anyone at any senior level believed this to be true and yet the SoS was assured by senior officers that it was. (Of course you could be one of those senior officers for all I know. You certainly talk as if you are.)
I might add that it is also of some concern that the initial QQ draft report to the IPT cannot be found by anyone within the RAF or the MoD (lost apparently) and the witness from QinetiQ who was supposed to give evidence on it, and any differences between what the original draft and the final version said about safety, and in particular that very odd "tolerably safe" phrase the IPTL and you like so much, didnt turn up to the inquest. Perhaps you have some wonderfully reassuring comments to make on that.
Mick
Apologies if I have given the impression that I have an "indefatigable determination to insist that everything is fine and dandy".
On the contrary it is clear that there has been a failure (or series of issues leading to a failure) in the airworthiness of Nimrod as I think most people, including SoS, have stated - this directly led to the tragedy. The reasons and mistakes behind this must be understood, learned from and action taken to avoid such failures in the future. I don't question this - sorry if I've given the impression I do.
Apologies if I have given the impression that I have an "indefatigable determination to insist that everything is fine and dandy".
On the contrary it is clear that there has been a failure (or series of issues leading to a failure) in the airworthiness of Nimrod as I think most people, including SoS, have stated - this directly led to the tragedy. The reasons and mistakes behind this must be understood, learned from and action taken to avoid such failures in the future. I don't question this - sorry if I've given the impression I do.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Hickman also told the court that NO battle damage assessment, as required by Def Stan 00-970, was done. He said it was not needed because the ac flys too high. I had to point out to him that on take off and landing the height it flys at is quite low.
I will post more tommorow night.
I will post more tommorow night.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When SoS Defence reconsiders his comments perhaps the first thing he should consider is whether the Nimrod fleet should now be grounded.
Credit to the Nimrod crews who were ordered to resume AAR days after their colleagues perished. The routine operational AAR sorties only terminated after a highly publicised MAYDAY following a serious fuel leak, at the back end of last year. It now appears that post crash the fleet should never have been signed off.
One thing is clear, the buck does not stop with Hickman regardless of how he has come across in all this, this goes right to the very top.
"Tolerable" is not acceptable unless ALARP.
Credit to the Nimrod crews who were ordered to resume AAR days after their colleagues perished. The routine operational AAR sorties only terminated after a highly publicised MAYDAY following a serious fuel leak, at the back end of last year. It now appears that post crash the fleet should never have been signed off.
One thing is clear, the buck does not stop with Hickman regardless of how he has come across in all this, this goes right to the very top.
"Tolerable" is not acceptable unless ALARP.
Last edited by nigegilb; 22nd May 2008 at 23:26.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Inquest has caused some confusion because some questions in court have referred to pre-crash risk analysis and some have referred to post crash analysis. Some discussions on oath have been in reference to AAR, some not.
Nigegilb, you said:
which we all know is not a legal policy. So, either he is wrong or you are.
Can you, or anyone else here, tell me in what zone or system is the risk, now, not as low as reasonably practical?
I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding his position. We have had strict restrictions in place, since 4 Sep 06, that make the aircraft ALARP, or better, IMHO. The restrictions are effectively temporary in nature (maintenance log entries with expiry dates), thus it arguable that we are "working towards" permanence in ALARP, ie currently giving consideration to either modifying the design or pemanently changing our procedures, thus enabling removal of the temporary restrictions.
Ed
Nigegilb, you said:
Hickman appears to be saying tolerably safe, but not ALARP is OK, so long as one is working towards ALARP.
Can you, or anyone else here, tell me in what zone or system is the risk, now, not as low as reasonably practical?
I am concerned that you might be misunderstanding his position. We have had strict restrictions in place, since 4 Sep 06, that make the aircraft ALARP, or better, IMHO. The restrictions are effectively temporary in nature (maintenance log entries with expiry dates), thus it arguable that we are "working towards" permanence in ALARP, ie currently giving consideration to either modifying the design or pemanently changing our procedures, thus enabling removal of the temporary restrictions.
Ed
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 55
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the families
My thoughts are with you today and beyond. I hope, in the memory of your loved ones and the future of others, that some constructive outcomes result from what has been a uniquely intense and emotionally demanding 2 weeks. To Tappers dad and Helgar33 thankyou for your kind words and support.
Warmest regards, a widow from XV 179
Warmest regards, a widow from XV 179
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hi kam, love and thoughts to you and yours. email winging it's way to you as we/i type! this may sound so very odd but today, when the verdict is delivered, we will share your grief and the hardness of the situation as we still await completion of the inquest into our lost loved ones. i want to re iterate all that i said the other day but i forgot to add something very important. a huge thankyou for those who have helped us, the families left behind, with all your explanations, support and expertise. without you we would not be able to find out the answers to the questions we ask and we would not be able to help ensure that ultimately this kind of travesty comes to an end. i know i will be forever indebted.
please can someone tell me what ALARP/AAS/JSP553 is, as it gets very difficult to follow!many thanks.
keep the faith
please can someone tell me what ALARP/AAS/JSP553 is, as it gets very difficult to follow!many thanks.
keep the faith
On the BBC News website here
Quite an over the top statement. I never worried about the jet's airworthiness in my small number of hours flying it!
That's quite a statement.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the BBC News website here
Quite an over the top statement. I never worried about the jet's airworthiness in my small number of hours flying it!
Quite an over the top statement. I never worried about the jet's airworthiness in my small number of hours flying it!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He said the crew and passengers on that day could not have known that their plane was not fit to fly.
In his view the entire Nimrod fleet had "never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service" nearly 40 years ago, he added
In his view the entire Nimrod fleet had "never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service" nearly 40 years ago, he added
Big statement. It is going to be interesting to hear the MODs response to that.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sky News is reporting that the Coroner has recommended that the whole Nimrod fleet is grounded immediately. It will be a brave call if the MOD turns down the recommendations and there is a further incident.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coroner Loses All Credibility
This statement just shows that the Coroner is way outside of his professional knowledge. This is a military aircraft not a 737 going from Luton to Edinburgh. The risk of NOT having these aircraft operating would put more troops on the ground at risk, and at any future Coroners Court, they will say "why isn't there any air support?".
Can't win!
A little less 'headline grabbibg' statement and a little more considered thought would have been taken more seriously and had a better impact in support of the RAF and equipment support for the MOD.
It's a case of "Thanks for your comments, Judge" ..... let's carry on.
Can't win!
A little less 'headline grabbibg' statement and a little more considered thought would have been taken more seriously and had a better impact in support of the RAF and equipment support for the MOD.
It's a case of "Thanks for your comments, Judge" ..... let's carry on.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the ruling of Mr Justice Collins on the human rights of personnel (albeit subject to appeal) the MoD would be placing themselves in a very awkward position (to say the least) if they continue operating the fleet.
Stand-down at Kinloss until further notice?
Stand-down at Kinloss until further notice?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TRSS
Guys, I'm coming to this very,very late but as an ex mil, now civilian pilot, may I express my indignation that a front line aircraft was / is 37 yrs old. In Pakistan the limit on the age of an aircraft in airline service is 18 yrs: in India they have a similar limit.
Nuff said?
Nuff said?
Nuff said.