Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)

[Dave Angel]

Originally Posted by PPRuNe Pop

buoy15

Is taking a well earned ban after making his disgraceful remarks. I cannot imagine a worse case of contempt for the families than his - should he attempt another such post he will be gone - permanently.

I regret that we didn't pick it up sooner.

Thanks PPRuNe pop, from a serving member of ISK who is ashamed that Bouy15 was once associated with it.

My very best wishes to all of the families of our lost friends.
DA

[chappie]

PPRuNe Pop making a stand. as a family member, who tries to grapple with all of this i'd like to say a heartfel thank you and a thankyou to all those who have defended us. this is an open forum with many differing views which is good. that is how we learn, open our minds and discuss pertinent issues. i have no right to tell someone what to think but i do feel that repeated refusals to acknowledge the replies to offensive remarks does warrant the closing down of that said person. especially so when this action causes distress.

Dave angel, again a heartfelt thankyou for your post. it is a travesty that you feel you had to to do it but absolutely appreciated.

thankyou from a very grateful me

[OilCan]

Ed, your post #773 has clarified a lot, thanks.

Lab Queen, though you explained that rather well…

…which brings me back to my current frustration..

Can anybody explain exactly where the remaining risks are which make it any more dangerous than any other aircraft? – other than the legal niceties and definitions.

It’s perhaps a little ironic that from an operators perspective, I would have a heightened sense of trepidation flying an aircraft that has just had all the seals replaced in one go! – much like a post major air test.

[Safeware]

Oilcan,

The detailed risks are probably things that people won't want to talk about here.

But the biggest risk is probably that the poor airworthiness and safety management regime means that Rumsfeld rules and people don't not know what they should know.

sw

[OilCan]

Safeware,

fair point, in which case pm me.

re Rumsfeld; he also said something about, somepeople know they don't know whilst others don't know they don't know. (or something to that effect)

My point is, what (else) do they know that I don't?
-------------------



on 2nd thoughts

please don't pm me, lets have it open for others to see.

The 'white collar' workers appear to have reached an impasse with regard to grounding the fleet or not. Meanwhile, the 'blue collar' workers have to decide which group of experts to believe.

This forum is for some of us, the only mechanism with which to balance that judgment.

[nigegilb]

Just wanted to pick up this point from Lab Queen;

The actual definition GP CPT Hickman gave for the Nimrod now is not ALARP at present but they are working towards that standard by the end of year and it is tolerably safe.

This is where I think he is confused. Tolerable refers to tolerable risk reduced to as low as reasonably practicable, if ac deemed airworthy. Not tolerably safe.

I find that worrying if this is the man in charge.

"Hickman insisted that "tolerably safe" was safe and it didnt matter that it wasnt ALARP and that they had given themselves until the end of the year to get it ALARP, no regulation allowing this could be cited. Hickman appeared to think that "tolerable" and "acceptable" were in this case levels of safety rather than levels of risk. At the end of his testimony, Walker thanked him politely and said: "If you came here with a view to reassuring the relatives, I feel that you have fallen well short of that." In mitigation, I understand he was put under considerable pressure whilst giving evidence, could not have been easy for him.

"This morning he [Coroner] asked Hickman who was still in court though not in the box whether if he as the coroner said that it had to be ALARP as soon as possible it would have any effect on the process. Hickman's response was "no it wouldnt have any effect, it's driven by resources".

[GasFitter]

Cornish-Stormrider

Gas Fitter, the can do attitude is commendable. After all the engineers can fix anything, the crews could fly anything........My question to you is this..?

Do you think there is a comprehensive and robust system of ensuring airworthiness and "reasonable" safety in the RAF for aircraft?

Yes, I very much do. The system is good, but it's how the people use the system (or not) that introduces greater risk. I know of NO pilot outside of the training world that always religiously uses the FRCs and aircrew manual for EVERY sortie. Experienced crews will tell you, for each fleet, that there are little work-arounds, quicker "informal" procedures, "quick-fixes" etc that go on every day, on every sqn and often on every sorties/formation. that applies to groundcew as well. if we all followed the book to the letter, we would hardly turn a wheel. So the system is set and we choose through experience, knowledge, ignorance, operational pressure, human factors to move away from the system. We do it at our peril sometimes, but we do it with good intention. However, what I do feel is important, is that ambitious, aggressive or cavalier engineers or operators do nothing to support that system.

[JFZ90]

Can anybody explain exactly where the remaining risks are which make it any more dangerous than any other aircraft? – other than the legal niceties and definitions.

I can only guess that this is related to the QQ report which had 30 recs - it says something like "these recs need to be reviewed and where appropriate acted upon before the equipment risks would be ALARP." The implication being that if the 30 recs are done, then the aircraft is ALARP.

I don't know if there are any more issues/risks precluding ALARP, but from what I've heard on here the ones in the QQ report are not really specific ALARP risks in the traditional sense in any case - e.g. as Tuc mentions one states a consideration should be given to creating a Master Minimum Eqt List. I think another says something like "further work should consider whether consitutued crews are competent". Pretty general woolly recommendations on the whole - no glaring 'ignition source X must be removed or mitigated' etc. that you could really see the risk of. There is something about considering reinstating a Tank 5 pressure warning, but I think Edset (or someone else) has already stated why this was a red herring in an earlier post on this thread.

I suspect that if there was a tangible "must fix risk X before its ALARP and can fly again" issue it would be plastered all over here and the papers. The only thing that springs to mind that has been discussed here is the seals and perhaps their lifing issue, but as you say replacing them all at once could create more problems than it solves - which would be a truely ironic outcome.

[GasFitter]

Winco

Gas Fitter,

What the hell are you on about? This isn't Korea is it? This is 2008 and whatever you say about the coroner, these guys didn't need to die and the aircraft should not have crashed frankly.

I agree with you.

I for one applaud the guy for having the courage to say that.

I agree with you, but there are other courageous wrong people as well

It's time for this so-called head of the RAF, Torpey, to be a true leader, stand up and say 'I'm sorry' and then hold his head in shame and resign. A leader? He couldn't lead a dog frankly. A total waste of space and oxygen IMHO.

And replace him with .................. he's a servant of the HMG like all serving personnel.

[Da4orce]

On Hickmans evidence:

In mitigation, I understand he [Hickman] was put under considerable pressure whilst giving evidence, could not have been easy for him.

He was under pressure because he was being so evasive and the Coroner and the lawyer (for most of the families) were becoming increasingly frustrated with his attitude (hence the Coroners remark). He danced around simply questions that required a yes or no answer and had to look to the MoD legal team for reassurance every time he answered a question.

Lets be very clear about the facts:

• The SoS had already admitted liability prior to the Coroners verdict

• The consensus of opinion from the expert witnesses at the Coroners inquest was that the Nimrod has never been airworthy (according to MoD standards) and remains unairworthy.

• Hickman admitted that the Nimrod is not ALARP therefore by the MOD's own definition is not airworthy.

• The families asked the Coroner not to record a verdict of 'unlawful killing' because the MOD had already indicated that they would appeal and drag everyone through a new inquest (probably 2 years down the line).

• The MOD saw fit to withhold documents from the inquest.

• The MOD argued that the Coroner should not conduct an Article 2 (HRA) hearing, (The case law suggests that it is only those inquests that are concerned with a possible breach of Article 2 by an agent of the state that need to have a wider scope. Other types of inquest can be more limited.It is for the Coroner to decide whether Article 2 applies and therefore which questions s/he will need to address during the inquest.) The MOD argued against this but lost.

• The Coroner praised the BOI for what they achieved from a "standing start".

• The MOD/RAF failed to provide any evidence that the Nimrod is airworthy (according to their own standards).

• The RAF told the Coroner that air and ground crew at Kinloss had been informed that the Nimrod was not airworthy but that ALARP was being worked towards (target end 2008).

It should be astonishing that serving crew are having to ask questions on a public forum to establish the reasons why the Nimrod is not airworthy, unfortunately I'm not remotely astonished. Bob Ainsworth didn't bother to furnish himself with the facts of the case before he gave his reaction (he admitted in a subsequent TV interview that he had not read the verdict), so why would I expect him to tell the people at the sharp end.

Unfortunately we are going to have to wait for a copy of the Coroners Inquest transcript to become available before many of the questions can be answered. Or you could of course as Grp Captain Hickman why the Nimrod is not airworthy!

[EdSet100]

Lab Queen,

If there were a pool fire caused by fuel from the blow off this would have burned for approximately 100 seconds and then gone out as the fuel would have been burnt away, there had to have been a further cause which was needed to sustain the fire. When looking at a possible leak from the refuel/defuel system, it was stated that this would not be likely as those pipes are below the SCP and would not come into contact with the pipe. If it had been a spurt of fuel it would need to have soaked into the lagging on the pipe, but again the problem comes in that once AAR had been completed, the amount of fuel in that system would not be enough to sustain the fire.

I'm impressed with your knowledge, but I would like to make one small, but important, correction: the SCP pipe is below all of the fuel pipes in the bay.

Everyone takes it for granted that the fire started after the AAR sequence. We do not know that. There was no fire detection in the bay. It is entirely possible that a small (?) fire was in there within seconds of the AAR commencing. It would not have been visible to the lookouts. The ESM Op might not have been looking out of his window, indeed he might not have been at his station. The tanker eng would not be specifically checking the Nimrod on the CCTV for leaks or fire and, anyway, the black fuel fire smoke would look just like jet exhaust from the inboard engine on the CCTV screen. We do not know, for sure, when that fire started. The fire warning came from firewire a few feet away in the bomb bay. I'm certain that the fire did not start just before that warning. I notice that the BOI team has not placed a precise time on the clock that the fire started, because there is no evidence of when it started. 6 minutes in contact. Everyone, on both aircraft, was very busy.

Ed

[Laboratoryqueen]

ED

It was the experts who stated the only fuel pipes above the SCP were the vent and feed pipes, that the others are below and that there would not be fuel in the vent and or feed system which would give rise to sustain the fire. The diagrams provided in court also show vent and feed are the only ones above.

As for the sequence of events, very true, we do not know the exact moment the fire began, all we do know is that after AAR the Nimrod pulled alongside the Tristar, the Nimrods Port/left side to the Tristars starboard/right side and the Nimrod then ascended by a height of 1000 feet. The underside of the nimrod was in view and no sign of fuel venting or smoke or flames were visable. A fuel fire takes effect in a very small space of time and it is also vigourous in it's effects and will also produce a long gout of flame. We do know that the Nimrod cleared right and then the bomb bay fire warning alarm sounded 36 seconds afterwards.

They are the only things we truly know as to those sequence of events.

[GasFitter]

John Blakeley

Gas Fitter,

... you are very wrong to criticise the Coroner in the way you have - a similar criticism was made by very senior RAF officers about results of the Mull of Kintyre FAI when the Sheriff did not agree with the RAF's position and unjustified verdict.

Don't start me on the MoK issue, one that I am very close to. My thoughts would send most PPruners into orbit on that subject.

An airworthy aircraft is just that airworthy! A RAF aircraft should indeed be as airworthy as a 737 flying from Luton.

I can't remember the last time I saw any AAR on Easyjet!

.... obligations that rightly, in my view, apply to MOD as to any other walk of life. The Coroner was right!

IMHO, the Coroner, and you, are wrong. It seems that you are suggesting that the Army were right. Perhaps it's the end of the 100 year experiment and we should hand it all over to EasyJet after all! Keep it all very safe, no risk wars.

[GasFitter]

Kitsune

If this happened in a civilian firm then there would be charges of corporate manslaughter at the very least for the officers in charge of the station, engineering, and operations. Is the MOD and the RAF completely devoid of all morality in this or what?

You answered your own question there, fella!

[davejb]

That's a very good point Ed,
even if what 'everyone' thinks is correct, there are questions that simply don't have 100% certain answers... I hope the entire airframe has been examined with a fine tooth comb to ensure there aren't any other areas where fuel and ignition source are capable of mixing.

I can't but wonder where this leaves the Mk4 - I mean, this ihas hardly been a ringing endorsement of the upper echelons of RAF engineering, has it?

[GasFitter]

Biggus

Gas Fitter

... The aircraft could just have well been lost after AAR on the way to the Falklands, or some other more mundane AAR tasking.

Fair point.

... what about the fact that AAR sorties over Afghanistan carried on in the days immediately following the loss of XV230? That fact gets convienently forgotten!

It's a matter of military judgement taking all of the relevant factors into consideration and mitigating them as best as possible. There were bods on the ground that needed that type of support, which without it, could well have cost more than 14 lives. Difficult call, requiring big kahunas! Nevertheless, it was made. There's no 'risk-free' wars out there!

[GasFitter]

buoy15

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?
A BOI is far more in depth than any Coroners inquest (viz, 12 months vs 2 weeks) and should be accepted in good faith, not dismissed in the pursuit of compensation - particularly from an alleged 'MoD hostile Coroner'
I have flown in every Nimrod in the fleet and have had more than my fair share of in-flight heart stoppers, but was lucky to sort them and walk away
This was a unique, tragic accident due to an in-flight system failure rather than systemic engineering ignorance that some of this audience would imply
As this drags on, it starts to insult the memory of Al Squires, his crew and the groundcrew who honestly signed for, and produced, a serviceable ac for that sortie, that day.

I agree with your posts, putting a rational view into the Forum. Unfortunately, there are many PPruners who feel that to have an alternative opinion that may, in some way, support our leadership is somehow bizarre, disloyal to colleagues etc ... and some may even call for your posts to be scrubbed ... oh, they have. You're a shot in the arm for free speech and an alternative opinion!

[davejb]

Gasfitter,
the point is that it's meant to be the chaps on the other side who try to kill you, not your own. The rest of humanity has advanced past General Melchett's style of leadership since 1918, the RAF is apparently dragging its feet a little. I can well remember when big frights occurred, and we'd all be sent flying asap to 'demonstrate our faith in the aircraft'.... I always thought that was a sensible as handing everyone a rabbits foot - it worked about as well. It would be nice if just for once the top brass would err on the side of caution - I'll say this for them, they've got huge b@lls though, I expect they'll be lynched if anything goes wrong now they've decided to ignore the inquest verdict.

The aircraft would have been safer had a number of incorrect assumptions been made, including an apparent stunner...did BAe really not appreciate that we habitually shut down engines on task, and would tend to restart them later? (Sorry if I misunderstood that bit, that's what it sounded like).

Apart from the human misery, given the lack of resources that is now the lot of the armed forces it's stupid to mismanage them to the point that they are lost. The need to get some platform up to do the job is understood -this is perhaps an occasion when Gordon should simply open up his chequebook and buy what is needed (or pay for Nimrod to reach ALARP asap), instead of trying to fight wars on the cheap all the time. Why should our aircrew fly in an aircraft that is, by the RAF's own standards, not airworthy, especially if a big wad of cash will fix it faster?

Edited to add:
Buoy15's posts (and presence) were not censored because he had an alternative view to the majority. His temporary removal is in response to repeatedly insulting the next of kin of the dead crew. Take a deep breath.

[Winco]

Gas Fitter,

I would ask again, what the hell are you on about?
Please don't tell me or any of us here that you actually agree with the comments that buoy 15 made do you?

I asked the moderator to ban him, not for spouting his opinion on the accident and not for spouting his opinion on the airworthiness of the jet. I agree that he has (had) as much right as anyone here to pass his own comments and judgement on thosed 2 issues.

I asked for him to be banned because his comments regarding the families of those lost in 230 were wholly and grossly offensive, and were utterly shameful in fact.

Moderator, thank you.

[GasFitter]

Winco

I'm sorry, but yes, I do.

I didn't read any posts that directly accused the families of anything. If that did happen, then I would certainly not support that in any way, but it's not that clear that buoy15 did .... unless I've missed something!

For me, it is the Coroner's comments that I am questioning. His comments may have been of some comfort to the families, but I do not agree with those comments as it simplifies a very complicated subject and any lasting good that may have come out of this very, very sad business has been lost by such a headline grabbing statement. I believe that he could have been more specific and thus more effective.