Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
A quick Thought
Whilst not being an engineer or aircrew a question which keeps coming to mind is that if the RAF have outsourced all 2nd -3rd and 4th line maintenance to the latest reincarnation of the OEM, who by all accounts are contracted on an availability basis, shouldn’t they be the worried organisation as they are fully liable to the full force of the lawyers?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok then air expert Mr Coroner Walker - if XV230 "has never been airworthy" - how did I manage to complete 306 hrs and 5 minutes in that frame, flying from 1973 as a Mk1 and converting in the 80's to a Mk2, and be here today writing this thread?
Are you saying that if AAR resumed, behind the same tankers, with the cross feed operating, that this tragedy would not be repeated?
The airworthiness remarks are simply pointing out that the aircraft was flown for its entire service life with a bay that was devoid of fire protection, when a fire in that bay would invariably lead to a catastrophic loss of the aircraft. Some of the fallout reflects the fact that nobody seems to have spotted this in almost 40 years, except one chap in the early days who incorrectly figured it wasn't a problem.
I don't believe for a single moment that this is detracting from the memory of any of the guys, they're untainted by the argument and I think it would have been far more of a dishonour to their memory to do anything but dig right down to the core of what happened, so it could be prevented from ever happening again.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old kit worn out kit.........why does the RAF do it?
Because its all they have.
Full stop.
Deaths will occurr more and more whats new? not the aircraft.
More will die............full stop.
Full stop.
Full stop.
Full stop.
Because its all they have.
Full stop.
Deaths will occurr more and more whats new? not the aircraft.
More will die............full stop.
Full stop.
Full stop.
Full stop.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, agreed
The Capt signs the F700 for the serviceability of the ac, not for the Appendix A of the ac Specification
Des Browne was forced to admit liability and was wrong to do so - hitherto, Nimrod performed safely prior to this event, and still does
Spitfires and Hurricanes in WW2 were not fitted with foam/fire depressant, but we don't see those pilots widows trying to wring money out of the MoD
There was a war on then, as there is now - Churchill must have had some sort or ALARP to get the job done otherwise we would have lost - as we have done under New Labour anyway
You hand wringing, bleeding heart, health and safety, ambulance chasing brigade need to get real and go and spend 2 months in the sand with the lads - then we might get some sensible debate on this thread
Davejb - The ac design and build is based on safety in every compartment and the life expectancy of components including seals, valves and pipes, which are lifed - even the best engineer cannot predict a failure at the wrong moment in the wrong place at the wrong time
The Capt signs the F700 for the serviceability of the ac, not for the Appendix A of the ac Specification
Des Browne was forced to admit liability and was wrong to do so - hitherto, Nimrod performed safely prior to this event, and still does
Spitfires and Hurricanes in WW2 were not fitted with foam/fire depressant, but we don't see those pilots widows trying to wring money out of the MoD
There was a war on then, as there is now - Churchill must have had some sort or ALARP to get the job done otherwise we would have lost - as we have done under New Labour anyway
You hand wringing, bleeding heart, health and safety, ambulance chasing brigade need to get real and go and spend 2 months in the sand with the lads - then we might get some sensible debate on this thread
Davejb - The ac design and build is based on safety in every compartment and the life expectancy of components including seals, valves and pipes, which are lifed - even the best engineer cannot predict a failure at the wrong moment in the wrong place at the wrong time
Last edited by buoy15; 23rd May 2008 at 20:49.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its fine cause according to the 'stiash everything is ok and the jet is fully serviceable. HEEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOO??????????!!!!!!!!
Beggers belief.
RIP dudes. Every morning i drive to work i think of you, and every time i fly you are in my mind and yet I still fly.
GH
Beggers belief.
RIP dudes. Every morning i drive to work i think of you, and every time i fly you are in my mind and yet I still fly.
GH
Last edited by grousehunter; 23rd May 2008 at 20:42. Reason: spelling
ian76, mileandahalf, buoy15, GasFitter,
I have been at the inquest for eight long, back-crunching days. I have closely observed Mr Coroner Walker at work.
As someone who has aviation fuel flowing in his veins, I have been deeply, but deeply, impressed with the Coroner’s ability to get to grips with some amazingly complicated stuff. He has sifted his way through masses of documentation, and, even more impressively, through hours of obfuscation, bureaucratic bull**** and downright buck-passing by some witnesses. (Btw, I don't mean any of the RAF techies here)
He has come out of this with an enviably clear view of what actually happened some years ago, and which, sad to say, is still happening today. He has pointed out some deeply important stuff that, perhaps, those of us closer to the action might have missed.
I, for one, am grateful that this society, which seems to be descending in a rapidly tightening spiral of government abuse and micromanagement, does still have people of the calibre of Andrew Walker to look after the interests of us ordinary people.
Btw, Len Ganley, you say
This is what happened on Thursday:
BAE Systems’ chief engineer for the Nimrod, Martin Breakell, admitted that the Nimrod was not airworthy at the time of the crash.
His admission produced an audible reaction of astonishment from the families.
He said that, based on what he had learned during the 12 days of the inquest, Nimrod should not have been flying.
Mr Breakell’s comments came in response to a direct question from a family member as to whether he believed the aircraft was safe to fly.
After initially arguing that he was not qualified to decide on certain parts of the Nimrod, he was pressed by the crew’s relatives and the coroner.
He replied: “I concur that in regards to the evidence on the incident, then no, it wasn’t (airworthy).”
airsound
I have been at the inquest for eight long, back-crunching days. I have closely observed Mr Coroner Walker at work.
As someone who has aviation fuel flowing in his veins, I have been deeply, but deeply, impressed with the Coroner’s ability to get to grips with some amazingly complicated stuff. He has sifted his way through masses of documentation, and, even more impressively, through hours of obfuscation, bureaucratic bull**** and downright buck-passing by some witnesses. (Btw, I don't mean any of the RAF techies here)
He has come out of this with an enviably clear view of what actually happened some years ago, and which, sad to say, is still happening today. He has pointed out some deeply important stuff that, perhaps, those of us closer to the action might have missed.
I, for one, am grateful that this society, which seems to be descending in a rapidly tightening spiral of government abuse and micromanagement, does still have people of the calibre of Andrew Walker to look after the interests of us ordinary people.
Btw, Len Ganley, you say
If this has been reported correctly, does it mean that even BWOS have doubts about the state of the Nimrod fleet???
BAE Systems’ chief engineer for the Nimrod, Martin Breakell, admitted that the Nimrod was not airworthy at the time of the crash.
His admission produced an audible reaction of astonishment from the families.
He said that, based on what he had learned during the 12 days of the inquest, Nimrod should not have been flying.
Mr Breakell’s comments came in response to a direct question from a family member as to whether he believed the aircraft was safe to fly.
After initially arguing that he was not qualified to decide on certain parts of the Nimrod, he was pressed by the crew’s relatives and the coroner.
He replied: “I concur that in regards to the evidence on the incident, then no, it wasn’t (airworthy).”
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 23rd May 2008 at 21:18.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way no Battle Damage assesment has been done on the Nimrod as requiired by Def Stan 00-970.
So if one gets hit taking off or landing in a sandy place its because of the MODs cavalier attitude to safety ( Andrew Walker QC)
So if one gets hit taking off or landing in a sandy place its because of the MODs cavalier attitude to safety ( Andrew Walker QC)
Airworthiness is far more than the aircraft’s ability to take off and land. Crucially, the regs don’t actually tell you how to implement them in practice – they are written for an audience who are assumed to be experienced and competent, the implementation of which QQ recommended (see my previous post). One assumes they had a reason for this! Implementation is (or was) taught both on the job and by ADRP-run courses. In the simplest terms, to clear an aircraft for flight one assesses airworthiness thus;
1. Build Standard
2. Proven Limitations
3. Operational Usage
4. Maintenance
A "serviceable" aircraft is not necessarily airworthy. MoD's definition, not mine.
I can’t speak for 2 and 3 on Nimrod, but it is a simple, verifiable fact that MoD habitually does NOT maintain the Build Standard or most aspects of Maintenance. (There is overlap between these two, the most obvious being Tech Pubs, which MoD accepted were not kept up to date). I won’t bother listing the times these deficiencies have been notified formally to 2 Star and above. Suffice to say I didn’t agree with CDP’s rulings that safety and fitness for purpose were optional, and I didn’t agree with Min(AF)’s decision to uphold this. It is rulings like these which are at the root of this accident. The “error” that was admitted was low level stuff and quite obviously an MoD device to deflect from the real issues.
Others will no doubt inform us of more detail from the inquest, but what is absolutely certain is that what you have seen on tonight’s news is the bare minimum. It is NOTHING compared to what will emerge.
Oh, and the BAeS Chief Engineer's statement (see airsound) presumably means they cannot and will not accept any more Mk2s for conversion.
1. Build Standard
2. Proven Limitations
3. Operational Usage
4. Maintenance
A "serviceable" aircraft is not necessarily airworthy. MoD's definition, not mine.
I can’t speak for 2 and 3 on Nimrod, but it is a simple, verifiable fact that MoD habitually does NOT maintain the Build Standard or most aspects of Maintenance. (There is overlap between these two, the most obvious being Tech Pubs, which MoD accepted were not kept up to date). I won’t bother listing the times these deficiencies have been notified formally to 2 Star and above. Suffice to say I didn’t agree with CDP’s rulings that safety and fitness for purpose were optional, and I didn’t agree with Min(AF)’s decision to uphold this. It is rulings like these which are at the root of this accident. The “error” that was admitted was low level stuff and quite obviously an MoD device to deflect from the real issues.
Others will no doubt inform us of more detail from the inquest, but what is absolutely certain is that what you have seen on tonight’s news is the bare minimum. It is NOTHING compared to what will emerge.
Oh, and the BAeS Chief Engineer's statement (see airsound) presumably means they cannot and will not accept any more Mk2s for conversion.
Last edited by tucumseh; 23rd May 2008 at 21:13.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsound,
Bravo sir. 10 out of 10.
I agree with your last post 100%.
If it was left to the likes of Buoy15 we would have all the safety equipment removed from our aircraft and if you come back count yourself lucky. If you do not then your family should pay for the cost of replacement of the lost aircraft, after all their is a war on and we all need to shoulder the burden.
Cheers
BHR
Bravo sir. 10 out of 10.
I agree with your last post 100%.
If it was left to the likes of Buoy15 we would have all the safety equipment removed from our aircraft and if you come back count yourself lucky. If you do not then your family should pay for the cost of replacement of the lost aircraft, after all their is a war on and we all need to shoulder the burden.
Cheers
BHR
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airworthy
Martin Breakwells asumption was stating the bleeding obvious - "the ac was not airworthy at the time of the crash" - Wow!
No wonder - it was a ball of flame, had lost most of it's systems, was out of control and hit the ground as a result of a unique and tragic post AAR accident? How revealing!
However, it was airworthy at launch and prior to AAR and had been flying for at least 3 hours because it had been deemed safe to fly and had been signed for by the Crew Chief and the Capt
When pressed by clever QC's and Coroners to answer simply Yes or No to a question, the answer never comes out - the man is a pratt
Martin Breakwells asumption was stating the bleeding obvious - "the ac was not airworthy at the time of the crash" - Wow!
No wonder - it was a ball of flame, had lost most of it's systems, was out of control and hit the ground as a result of a unique and tragic post AAR accident? How revealing!
However, it was airworthy at launch and prior to AAR and had been flying for at least 3 hours because it had been deemed safe to fly and had been signed for by the Crew Chief and the Capt
When pressed by clever QC's and Coroners to answer simply Yes or No to a question, the answer never comes out - the man is a pratt
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Davejb - The ac design and build is based on safety in every compartment and the life expectancy of components including seals, valves and pipes, which are lifed - even the best engineer cannot predict a failure at the wrong moment in the wrong place at the wrong time
However, as I understand it, BAe's rep himself has agreed that the lack of fire suppression in that bay made the aircraft non-airworthy. To quote from earlier in the thread:-
Tom McMichael said that if the evidence heard was correct, the Nimrod planes had, at the time of the tragedy, been flying in an unairworthy state for 37 years.
To conclude, I have to take exception to this comment, which I sincerely hope reflects a momentary reduction in judgement rather than a seriously held opinion -
Spitfires and Hurricanes in WW2 were not fitted with foam/fire depressant, but we don't see those pilots widows trying to wring money out of the MoD
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree with Airsound. There are people posting here who would appear to be suggesting that they would prefer the judgement of Bob Ainsworth, "... if it was not safe [Nimrod] we would not be flying it; it is safe with the measures we have taken and that is why we will not be grounding the fleet.".."we are convinced this aircraft is safe to fly." (BBC interview tonight). Anyone who prefers the judgement of this man over Mr Andrew Walker must be stark raving mad. (Check out the infamous Paxman interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziTrlKAkn94 ).
Where was Des Browne today? Oh, on a visit overseas. Where was CAS today? He is the man who told us that Nimrod was as safe as it needs to be.
"Def Stan 00-56 contains numerous references to the point of repeating many times that "tolerable" is NOT acceptable unless ALARP. I'd argue that what MoD call "tolerable" on Nimrod is actually "Unacceptable" but the bottom line is the same - the risk is NOT to be signed off until ALARP."
De facto, NOT AIRWORTHY.
Where was Des Browne today? Oh, on a visit overseas. Where was CAS today? He is the man who told us that Nimrod was as safe as it needs to be.
"Def Stan 00-56 contains numerous references to the point of repeating many times that "tolerable" is NOT acceptable unless ALARP. I'd argue that what MoD call "tolerable" on Nimrod is actually "Unacceptable" but the bottom line is the same - the risk is NOT to be signed off until ALARP."
De facto, NOT AIRWORTHY.
Last edited by nigegilb; 23rd May 2008 at 22:22.
However, it was airworthy at launch and prior to AAR and had been flying for at least 3 hours because it had been deemed safe to fly and had been signed for by the Crew Chief and the Capt
Sorry Buoy15, but I recommend you read JSP553 and the Standards called up therein. "Deemed safe to fly" and two signatures doesn't remotely cover it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THIS SUMS IT ALL UP
Joseph Windall, whose 22-year-old son Joe died in the Nimrod accident, said: 'This shows an appalling lack of care for our fighting men - to send them to war with ancient, inadequate equipment services.'
Coroner Andrew Walker has called for the entire RAF Nimrod fleet to be grounded
'The Nimrods are a relic from a bygone age. They belong in the air museum at Duxford. It is a dreadful indictment of the Government's cost- cutting policy.'
Coroner Andrew Walker has called for the entire RAF Nimrod fleet to be grounded
'The Nimrods are a relic from a bygone age. They belong in the air museum at Duxford. It is a dreadful indictment of the Government's cost- cutting policy.'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy 15
Your comment 'we don't see those pilots widows trying to wring money out of the MoD' is utterly shameful and I hope that the moderator removes it immediately. How dare you suggest, even remotely, that the families of XV230 are doing this for finacial gain, you are a real sh1t, and that is a terrible thing to say.
How is it that you are so right, and the real experts from RR, QQ, and even BAe themselves are so wrong?
Get a life and accept that the aircraft should be grounded and just thank God that, like me and lots of others, you were never faced with the sequence of events that struck XV230, and accept with humility that it was more by luck than judgement, that we are left and able to talk about it.
To TD and all the families, let me be the first to apologise on behalf of all PPruners for buoy 15's outrageous comment.
Your comment 'we don't see those pilots widows trying to wring money out of the MoD' is utterly shameful and I hope that the moderator removes it immediately. How dare you suggest, even remotely, that the families of XV230 are doing this for finacial gain, you are a real sh1t, and that is a terrible thing to say.
How is it that you are so right, and the real experts from RR, QQ, and even BAe themselves are so wrong?
Get a life and accept that the aircraft should be grounded and just thank God that, like me and lots of others, you were never faced with the sequence of events that struck XV230, and accept with humility that it was more by luck than judgement, that we are left and able to talk about it.
To TD and all the families, let me be the first to apologise on behalf of all PPruners for buoy 15's outrageous comment.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
further to B15s, good advert for aircrew, comments. Might I suggest you should have gotten off your arrse and turned up at the Inquest?
Seeing the families assembled together, in great dignity, is very humbling. You might have learned something, even by simply counting how many are directly affected by this tragedy.
Humility is something you do not appear to possess.
Please remove your post forthwith and show a modicum of sense.
Seeing the families assembled together, in great dignity, is very humbling. You might have learned something, even by simply counting how many are directly affected by this tragedy.
Humility is something you do not appear to possess.
Please remove your post forthwith and show a modicum of sense.