Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oilcan
Simple answer NO. That is for others to work out
As it has been said on here before , if the captain does not think the ac is airworthy he won't fly it. So it is up to them now Russian Roulette or don't fly it.
NB; It was Gp Capt Hickman who said it was not ALARP so he knows what needs doing to make it ALARP.
Can you put a time estimate on that?
As it has been said on here before , if the captain does not think the ac is airworthy he won't fly it. So it is up to them now Russian Roulette or don't fly it.
NB; It was Gp Capt Hickman who said it was not ALARP so he knows what needs doing to make it ALARP.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just supposing the 'grounding' lobby were to succeed, do we;
a) Ground the fleet, rip them apart, change all the seals, put them back together again and call them safe.
or
b) Ground the fleet and scrap them.
...or is there another option?
a) Ground the fleet, rip them apart, change all the seals, put them back together again and call them safe.
or
b) Ground the fleet and scrap them.
...or is there another option?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick, TD,
Are you suggesting that we risk another catestrophic event just because we have not put new seals onto the aircraft or changed the hot pipes?
If the existance of 25 year old seals makes the jet unsafe, I suggest that none of us flies on any old aircraft supplied by EATON Aerospace. There are hundreds out there. They too are not ALARP, apparently.
The hot pipes are not now hot.
You were misled by Hickman's poor evidence. He doesn't know his ALARP from his SCP elbow.
Ed
Are you suggesting that we risk another catestrophic event just because we have not put new seals onto the aircraft or changed the hot pipes?
If the existance of 25 year old seals makes the jet unsafe, I suggest that none of us flies on any old aircraft supplied by EATON Aerospace. There are hundreds out there. They too are not ALARP, apparently.
The hot pipes are not now hot.
You were misled by Hickman's poor evidence. He doesn't know his ALARP from his SCP elbow.
Ed
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
that'll be option a) then.
Mick,
I think there are alot of people misunderstand what the coroner said, and also misunderstand what is being done to make the aircraft ALARP - ASARP -
A s S oon A s R easonbly P racticle
Ed,
Ha Ha, nice one.
that'll be option a) then.
Mick,
I think there are alot of people misunderstand what the coroner said, and also misunderstand what is being done to make the aircraft ALARP - ASARP -
A s S oon A s R easonbly P racticle
Ed,
Ha Ha, nice one.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Can makes an interesting point. Hickman told the Inquest that they are working towards ALARP by the end of the year. I have done a lot of digging since Friday and I very much doubt that ALARP will be reached by the end of the year-WHAT THEN?. Had a chat with a senior officer at Kinloss, he suggested that the new maintenance regime regarding seals could make things worse. I sought the engineering opinion of someone I trust;
"This is generally true. But if you asked a design engineer how to mitigate this whole risk (leaking fuel lines) he’d say “fit mainplanes which are not of small modular/section construction”. This is what MRA4 will do. The many sections need joined together – the more joints the more fuel and hydraulic joints to match section joints (obviously). And if they use the wrong bolts and the joints flex in the wrong way – read the report. If you make the mainplane out of larger sections, then you reduce the risk. Fine, but the situation is compounded by MRA4 being 10 years late. The MR2 design, especially this mainplane/pipe area, is well past it’s sell by date (far end of the bathtub curve). MRA4 has a dependency on MR2 for build standard, MR2 in turn had a dependency on MRA4 to deliver on time, as they don’t have the wherewithal to SUSTAIN safety and airworthiness. The regs say you carry out an ageing aircraft review, which I believe they did. But that is not the same as having funding to implement recommendations. Did they carry out the review in the knowledge MRA4 would be 10 years late? Perhaps they did it when slippage was 3 years, and said they could cope. That is why every MRA4 slippage MUST force a comprehensive review of MR2. I’ll guarantee it didn’t. Not just physical ageing, but the cumulative effect of ageing, obsolescence, loss of expertise, reducing funding etc. Remember, for the past decades few engineers will have practical experience of dealing with and managing a 60 year old mainplane design. (NOT 1969 – the basic mainplane design dates to the 40s). They’re taught about modern large section designs, where leaks are rare and more easily managed. Again, a basic airworthiness requirement – corporate knowledge, competence, experience
There’s another way of looking at all this. Some may think that MoD is taking a huge gamble continuing to fly. My view is that they have already taken a long series of gambles."
Have to agree with you OilCan; this aircraft is effectively life-exed, but the replacement is not ready. Ainsworth declared the aircraft airworthy and safe to fly on Friday, without even consulting his Chiefs of Staff on the Inquest summation. That is some gamble.
Ed Set Have you had a chance to look at my points regarding the whistle test?
With regard to SW's management point, the following;
"I think the IPT will be very selective (only addressing 20 or so recommendations) and may indeed implement them this year. But many are process changes and easily done. The recommendations from the March 06 report are a different matter, and there is no way they can be done in quick time. (And even then, the report is diluted. You read the damning narrative expecting to see a raft of recommendations mapped to the criticism, but they are watered down. THAT'S the problem with the report. The single most important recommendations "Implement airworthiness regs" isn't there, yet it jumps out at you throughout the report). I think they'd find it difficult to work out the scope of any contract, never mind tender, negotiate and implement. They are concentrating on ALARP in the context of Safety risks, but missing he bigger picture of the overarching Airworthiness risk. If you like, they're bottom-up, not top-down. You need both. If there is no top down (higher policies which Nimrod IPT can't influence) then they will hit their ceiling, perhaps mitigate most Nimrod risks, but wider aviation is still at risk. Then the cycle begins again - they're not doing it, so we don't have to, and Nimrod degrades again."
"This is generally true. But if you asked a design engineer how to mitigate this whole risk (leaking fuel lines) he’d say “fit mainplanes which are not of small modular/section construction”. This is what MRA4 will do. The many sections need joined together – the more joints the more fuel and hydraulic joints to match section joints (obviously). And if they use the wrong bolts and the joints flex in the wrong way – read the report. If you make the mainplane out of larger sections, then you reduce the risk. Fine, but the situation is compounded by MRA4 being 10 years late. The MR2 design, especially this mainplane/pipe area, is well past it’s sell by date (far end of the bathtub curve). MRA4 has a dependency on MR2 for build standard, MR2 in turn had a dependency on MRA4 to deliver on time, as they don’t have the wherewithal to SUSTAIN safety and airworthiness. The regs say you carry out an ageing aircraft review, which I believe they did. But that is not the same as having funding to implement recommendations. Did they carry out the review in the knowledge MRA4 would be 10 years late? Perhaps they did it when slippage was 3 years, and said they could cope. That is why every MRA4 slippage MUST force a comprehensive review of MR2. I’ll guarantee it didn’t. Not just physical ageing, but the cumulative effect of ageing, obsolescence, loss of expertise, reducing funding etc. Remember, for the past decades few engineers will have practical experience of dealing with and managing a 60 year old mainplane design. (NOT 1969 – the basic mainplane design dates to the 40s). They’re taught about modern large section designs, where leaks are rare and more easily managed. Again, a basic airworthiness requirement – corporate knowledge, competence, experience
There’s another way of looking at all this. Some may think that MoD is taking a huge gamble continuing to fly. My view is that they have already taken a long series of gambles."
Have to agree with you OilCan; this aircraft is effectively life-exed, but the replacement is not ready. Ainsworth declared the aircraft airworthy and safe to fly on Friday, without even consulting his Chiefs of Staff on the Inquest summation. That is some gamble.
Ed Set Have you had a chance to look at my points regarding the whistle test?
With regard to SW's management point, the following;
"I think the IPT will be very selective (only addressing 20 or so recommendations) and may indeed implement them this year. But many are process changes and easily done. The recommendations from the March 06 report are a different matter, and there is no way they can be done in quick time. (And even then, the report is diluted. You read the damning narrative expecting to see a raft of recommendations mapped to the criticism, but they are watered down. THAT'S the problem with the report. The single most important recommendations "Implement airworthiness regs" isn't there, yet it jumps out at you throughout the report). I think they'd find it difficult to work out the scope of any contract, never mind tender, negotiate and implement. They are concentrating on ALARP in the context of Safety risks, but missing he bigger picture of the overarching Airworthiness risk. If you like, they're bottom-up, not top-down. You need both. If there is no top down (higher policies which Nimrod IPT can't influence) then they will hit their ceiling, perhaps mitigate most Nimrod risks, but wider aviation is still at risk. Then the cycle begins again - they're not doing it, so we don't have to, and Nimrod degrades again."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the existance of 25 year old seals makes the jet unsafe, I suggest that none of us flies on any old aircraft supplied by EATON Aerospace. There are hundreds out there. They too are not ALARP, apparently.
I'm interested in the 30 ALARP recommendations that QQ made. They are the issues. A week or so ago, the sky was going to fall in on your world if Hickman was right and the aircraft wasnt ALARP. Now it seems not to matter that much.
Your reasoning, seems to be that Hickman misled everyone. Easy target. But how did he mislead everyone, by saying it had to be tolerable and ALARP and it isnt ALARP. There are a wealth of MoD documents out there that make it clear that if the risk is only tolerable and if it is not ALARP the aircraft is not safe. The QQ fuel report says it is tolerable but not ALARP. The SoS has told Angus Robertson - after several weeks waiting to get to the truth - that 21 of the recommendations are currently being implemented, three are still being considered and six dont have to be done because there is no longer any AAR. So the aircraft is not ALARP and therefore currently not safe under the MoD's own regulations because the recommendations that would make it safe are still being implemented. Still being implemented? Following recommendations from a report that was brought out in October last year?
Hence what is actually an uncontroversial statement from me that this needs to be done as soon as, not by the end of the year, and the SoS will have to sign off the risk honestly as a risk until then instead of claiming, as he did in December, that the aircraft is safe.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picking up on Mick's point. According to MoD regulations it was clear to Mr Walker and engineering experts including previous IPTLs that Nimrod is not airworthy. Work towards ALARP is not happening ASAP and resources are limited. Ainsworth stated that Nimrod is Airworthy and that he would never ask Nimrod crews to fly an aircraft that was not safe.
Does Ainsworth realise that Nimrod's tolerable risk has to be reduced to ALARP for it to comply with Health and Safety regs?
How safe are the British public?
Seems clear to me that Ainsworth's statement on Friday could be described as RECKLESS. He did not consult his Chiefs about the verdict and he does not have the qualifications to make such a statement. He cleared the Nimrod to continue to fly.
If anything does happen, it will be Ainsworth who takes the full responsibility.
Does Ainsworth realise that Nimrod's tolerable risk has to be reduced to ALARP for it to comply with Health and Safety regs?
How safe are the British public?
Seems clear to me that Ainsworth's statement on Friday could be described as RECKLESS. He did not consult his Chiefs about the verdict and he does not have the qualifications to make such a statement. He cleared the Nimrod to continue to fly.
If anything does happen, it will be Ainsworth who takes the full responsibility.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's so much bluff and bluster on this thread, it really amounts to little more than a hill of beans. ALARP is being bandied about with such abandon by individuals who either have a rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept, or are deliberately misinterpreting and overlooking finer points to advance their agendas.
Before forming conclusions based solely on what is discussed on this thread, I recommend anyone with a serious interest in this complex, important and emotive subject to have a long talk with a lawyer (with the requisite specialisms) on the precise definition of ALARP and all the legal caveats and nuances which can pertain to it.
It will shed a different light on most of what is written here.
Before forming conclusions based solely on what is discussed on this thread, I recommend anyone with a serious interest in this complex, important and emotive subject to have a long talk with a lawyer (with the requisite specialisms) on the precise definition of ALARP and all the legal caveats and nuances which can pertain to it.
It will shed a different light on most of what is written here.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edset100 wrote:
He's the Head of Airworthiness if he doesn't know his ALARP from his SCP elbow then you're all fcuked!
On the other hand maybe Ainsworth asked Hickman whether they were safe and Hickman not knowing his ALARP from his SCP elbow said yes and that is how we ended up with Ainsworth translating that to the a/c being airworthy.
"90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name" - Henry Kissinger
Send three and six we're going to a dance!
You were misled by Hickman's poor evidence. He doesn't know his ALARP from his SCP elbow.
On the other hand maybe Ainsworth asked Hickman whether they were safe and Hickman not knowing his ALARP from his SCP elbow said yes and that is how we ended up with Ainsworth translating that to the a/c being airworthy.
"90% of politicians give the other 10% a bad name" - Henry Kissinger
Send three and six we're going to a dance!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
....so is that an option a) or an option b) ?
Re-top-down, bottom-up
From the top, there is neither Dark nor Light. It is only Dark, because there is no Light.
From the bottom, It is either Dark or it is Light.
From the top, there is neither Safe nor Unsafe. It is only Safe, because it is not Unsafe.
From the bottom, It is either Safe or it is Unsafe.
(Old Scottish proverb circa 2008)
sorry couldn’t resist….
....so is that an option a) or an option b) ?
Re-top-down, bottom-up
From the top, there is neither Dark nor Light. It is only Dark, because there is no Light.
From the bottom, It is either Dark or it is Light.
From the top, there is neither Safe nor Unsafe. It is only Safe, because it is not Unsafe.
From the bottom, It is either Safe or it is Unsafe.
(Old Scottish proverb circa 2008)
sorry couldn’t resist….
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALARP
Isn't it a criminal offence for an employer to, knowingly, operate a non-ALARP system?
By the way it was clear from Gp Capt Hickmen's sworn statements that it was him, or a member of his IPT, that introduced the phrase "tolerably safe" that appears in QinetiQ's Fuel Safety report of Oct 2007, and not QinetiQ. He clearly thinks that "tolerable" refers to a level of safety and not a level of risk. Such a statement resulted in Des Browne declaring the fuel system "safe" on 4th Dec 2007.
So the QinetiQ report should read "The risk is tolerable, but nor ALARP". And this was repeated by Hickman, on oath.
DV
By the way it was clear from Gp Capt Hickmen's sworn statements that it was him, or a member of his IPT, that introduced the phrase "tolerably safe" that appears in QinetiQ's Fuel Safety report of Oct 2007, and not QinetiQ. He clearly thinks that "tolerable" refers to a level of safety and not a level of risk. Such a statement resulted in Des Browne declaring the fuel system "safe" on 4th Dec 2007.
So the QinetiQ report should read "The risk is tolerable, but nor ALARP". And this was repeated by Hickman, on oath.
DV
With regard to resoucres and money .....'not being an issue'.... in terms of carrying out whatever work (if any) intended to make the aircraft ALARP, I would direct people to my comments in post 820 of 26 May. Since nobody can be bothered to go back and look I repeat them here...
"If resources aren't an issue why aren't there Nimrods now at ever major aviation technical centre in the country, Marshalls of Cambridge, Heathrow, etc with civy techies swarming over them carried out BOI recommendations.
Or why isn't there a tented city of techies from Waddo, St Athan, Cosford, Leuchars, etc currently set up at Kinloss working 3 shifts 24/7 to get the work done.
I think you'll find resources aren't an issue when politicians/senior officers are asked, but when it actually comes to opening the chequebook and providing the manpower..............."
When I posted that someone said I must be joking, and to be honest I was. But the comments I made above would be the actions I would expect if resources weren't an issue, and changes were going to be made AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!! What they actually mean is, as soon as possible within the constraints of business as usual in a long winded ponderous organisation. It's funny how quickly things could be made to happen in the run up to the Falklands War!
Instead, assuming some rectification work is to be carried out, I expect it will be done by the usual suspects at ISK, after contractual negoitations with the civil firms involved, various committees have met, only part of the fleet gets done to save money, etc, etc, while senior officers and politicians talk of work being done..."as a matter of urgency.....highest priority....as quickly as possible", etc, etc. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions so far do not seem representative of something (anything) truely being done 'as quickly as possible'.
By the way, I am not, nor have I stated or meant to imply in any of my comments so far, advocating that the MR2 fleet should be either grounded or scrapped. Neither am I denograting the efforts of either aircrew or groundcrew at ISK.
"If resources aren't an issue why aren't there Nimrods now at ever major aviation technical centre in the country, Marshalls of Cambridge, Heathrow, etc with civy techies swarming over them carried out BOI recommendations.
Or why isn't there a tented city of techies from Waddo, St Athan, Cosford, Leuchars, etc currently set up at Kinloss working 3 shifts 24/7 to get the work done.
I think you'll find resources aren't an issue when politicians/senior officers are asked, but when it actually comes to opening the chequebook and providing the manpower..............."
When I posted that someone said I must be joking, and to be honest I was. But the comments I made above would be the actions I would expect if resources weren't an issue, and changes were going to be made AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!! What they actually mean is, as soon as possible within the constraints of business as usual in a long winded ponderous organisation. It's funny how quickly things could be made to happen in the run up to the Falklands War!
Instead, assuming some rectification work is to be carried out, I expect it will be done by the usual suspects at ISK, after contractual negoitations with the civil firms involved, various committees have met, only part of the fleet gets done to save money, etc, etc, while senior officers and politicians talk of work being done..."as a matter of urgency.....highest priority....as quickly as possible", etc, etc. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions so far do not seem representative of something (anything) truely being done 'as quickly as possible'.
By the way, I am not, nor have I stated or meant to imply in any of my comments so far, advocating that the MR2 fleet should be either grounded or scrapped. Neither am I denograting the efforts of either aircrew or groundcrew at ISK.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Peterborough
Age: 79
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR2 to MR4
When considering the airworthiness of the current airframe what should also be concetrating minds is how much read across there will be from the old to new aircraft when clearing it into service. Discuss.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist, thanks for raising a laugh on the thread
Ainsworth for PM made me chuckle.
Kenny Mac wrote;
"There's so much bluff and bluster on this thread, it really amounts to little more than a hill of beans. ALARP is being bandied about with such abandon by individuals who either have a rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept, or are deliberately misinterpreting and overlooking finer points to advance their agendas.
Before forming conclusions based solely on what is discussed on this thread, I recommend anyone with a serious interest in this complex, important and emotive subject to have a long talk with a lawyer (with the requisite specialisms) on the precise definition of ALARP and all the legal caveats and nuances which can pertain to it.
It will shed a different light on most of what is written here."
Kenny, forget the lawyer and talk to a highly qualified engineer then you will understand ALARP with all it's nuances, then you can pick any lawyer, it really doesn't matter. BTW who said anything about an agenda? Care to tell us what your interest is here? And what do you think a Coroner is, a bricklayer with an interest in law? Do you not think the MoD tried the mitigating circumstances line? Have the MoD appealed the decision?
Did you turn up to the Inquest and listen to the evidence?
Please, inform us...
Ainsworth for PM made me chuckle. Kenny Mac wrote;
"There's so much bluff and bluster on this thread, it really amounts to little more than a hill of beans. ALARP is being bandied about with such abandon by individuals who either have a rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept, or are deliberately misinterpreting and overlooking finer points to advance their agendas.
Before forming conclusions based solely on what is discussed on this thread, I recommend anyone with a serious interest in this complex, important and emotive subject to have a long talk with a lawyer (with the requisite specialisms) on the precise definition of ALARP and all the legal caveats and nuances which can pertain to it.
It will shed a different light on most of what is written here."
Kenny, forget the lawyer and talk to a highly qualified engineer then you will understand ALARP with all it's nuances, then you can pick any lawyer, it really doesn't matter. BTW who said anything about an agenda? Care to tell us what your interest is here? And what do you think a Coroner is, a bricklayer with an interest in law? Do you not think the MoD tried the mitigating circumstances line? Have the MoD appealed the decision?
Did you turn up to the Inquest and listen to the evidence?
Please, inform us...
Last edited by nigegilb; 29th May 2008 at 20:59.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is conflict here between those who want the Nimrod aircrew (current) to be safe - in effect we want the aircrew to (1) only have to contend with enemy action from the Afghans, not MOD parsimony.
But....
(2) We also want the Nimrod on task, to provide much needed support to the troops on the ground, who are themselves suffering from lack of investment - it's not only Landies with Baco foil instead of armour plating, defective GPMG ammo (what a laugh that muse have been in a firefight), and terse memos from MOD if you use too much mortar ammo replusing attacks.
You know, there's a pattern emerging, and strangely enough it's actually one of our oldest traditions as well...
- Spit and Hurri pilots in WW2 during the battle of France were considered lily livered whoopsies for wanting armour plate behind their seats, ie where the BF109 cannon shells had a habit of arriving? Wanting adequate protection is OLDER than the RAF, and is traditionally opposed.
At present we have servicemen (I'm an equal opportunity bigot, I include ladies here) getting furious with other servicemen, and the odd onside civvy, when surely we all have the same aim - minimise 1 and optimise 2?
I'm amazed that some people apparently believe the BOI should be trusted 100% in one case, but ignored as dipsh1ts in another - surely BOI's are competent or not? They might vary a bit in competence, but surely not from divine revelation to complete t0sspots? I think the Nimrod BOI did a damn good job...I don't know they were %100 right, but I'm sure they did a good job.
The MOD resigned itself, before the coroner started work, to paying compensation because in the cold light of day - very soon after the loss of 230 - it was realised that there was no chance of defending any action. That compensation is going to provide schooling, and eventually University placings, for children who now don't have Dad around to help with the homework. If you'll forgive a rant at this point, for all those who are implying that losing Dad was a bonus, I know a number of the children and parents, and that is a gross, unforgiveable suggestion that says a great deal more about the poster than the family. To ask whether they will be donating the cash etc - you have wasted enough oxygen, rethink your ideas, and appreciate what it must be like to have a young family and suddenly Dad isn't coming home ever again... or try wearing a plastic bag.
The RAF and MOD realised very early on that a mistake had been made that rendered the Nimrod unsafe...nobody realised it in advance, it wasn't down to anyone deliberately screwing up, but a mistake was made, and our failure to implement our own regulations on safety led to that mistake being present but not spotted for almost 40 years.
I for one believe the BOI did a stirling job, almost certainly found the cause of the loss, and actually I think the aircraft is presently safe to fly...then again, I retired and it's not my kids' futures on the line, so I quite understand if current aircrew see it differently. I might THINK it's safe, but would I go for a quick circuit bash in it? Dunno - I do think Torpey and everyone from Wingco upwards should do a practise display in it before any old mates go up in it again.
I think Mr Walker made a very valid point - he emphasised it somewhat by repeating what expert witnesses said about airworthiness - that this was the time for the RAF to stop taking shortcuts with safety, and start to implement its own regulations. I cannot fault anyone for doubting Torpey or Ainsworth, why should they - they've said the same PR rubbish after every event... it's indicative of their ability to absorb and debate opinion that they had every faith in Nimrod before the ink was dry on the inquest.
We should not be fighting each other here - the ideal solution is a reliable Nimrod that nobody has to worry about. Money won't solve everything, but I suspect it will cause a lot of problems to reduce or be resolved faster - so spend some. Is Northern Rock really more important?
Labqueen #845: Spot on.
Equivaocator
Yes, I'd say I had a major in flight heart attack on something like that periodicity...maybe a bit longer between engine fire warnings, locked controls, multiple birdtrikes , lightning strikes - maybe I'm a Jonah, but I probably DID have something untoward about that often. (I also sat on the pan three times waiting to taxy out, and watched three aircraft crash, killing crew each time - that was a right laugh). I also got quite airsick - never barfed but felt crap - on my first tour. On the plus side I got to attend a war and visited all sorts of places.
Mac : the Auth Off does not weigh the strategic or Tactical position up as risk v necessity of the op. The auth off is a very minor cog (sorry if this offends) far removed from the decision of whether the flight is necessary for the prosecution of the war.
Dave
(Being a maverick - not the Tom Cruise type obviously- I also think the Army and Navy should get a few quid more, I'm sure you need more than 5 tanks for an army, and you probably need more than 6 frigates to patrol the 7 seas).
But....
(2) We also want the Nimrod on task, to provide much needed support to the troops on the ground, who are themselves suffering from lack of investment - it's not only Landies with Baco foil instead of armour plating, defective GPMG ammo (what a laugh that muse have been in a firefight), and terse memos from MOD if you use too much mortar ammo replusing attacks.
You know, there's a pattern emerging, and strangely enough it's actually one of our oldest traditions as well...
- Spit and Hurri pilots in WW2 during the battle of France were considered lily livered whoopsies for wanting armour plate behind their seats, ie where the BF109 cannon shells had a habit of arriving? Wanting adequate protection is OLDER than the RAF, and is traditionally opposed.
At present we have servicemen (I'm an equal opportunity bigot, I include ladies here) getting furious with other servicemen, and the odd onside civvy, when surely we all have the same aim - minimise 1 and optimise 2?
I'm amazed that some people apparently believe the BOI should be trusted 100% in one case, but ignored as dipsh1ts in another - surely BOI's are competent or not? They might vary a bit in competence, but surely not from divine revelation to complete t0sspots? I think the Nimrod BOI did a damn good job...I don't know they were %100 right, but I'm sure they did a good job.
The MOD resigned itself, before the coroner started work, to paying compensation because in the cold light of day - very soon after the loss of 230 - it was realised that there was no chance of defending any action. That compensation is going to provide schooling, and eventually University placings, for children who now don't have Dad around to help with the homework. If you'll forgive a rant at this point, for all those who are implying that losing Dad was a bonus, I know a number of the children and parents, and that is a gross, unforgiveable suggestion that says a great deal more about the poster than the family. To ask whether they will be donating the cash etc - you have wasted enough oxygen, rethink your ideas, and appreciate what it must be like to have a young family and suddenly Dad isn't coming home ever again... or try wearing a plastic bag.
The RAF and MOD realised very early on that a mistake had been made that rendered the Nimrod unsafe...nobody realised it in advance, it wasn't down to anyone deliberately screwing up, but a mistake was made, and our failure to implement our own regulations on safety led to that mistake being present but not spotted for almost 40 years.
I for one believe the BOI did a stirling job, almost certainly found the cause of the loss, and actually I think the aircraft is presently safe to fly...then again, I retired and it's not my kids' futures on the line, so I quite understand if current aircrew see it differently. I might THINK it's safe, but would I go for a quick circuit bash in it? Dunno - I do think Torpey and everyone from Wingco upwards should do a practise display in it before any old mates go up in it again.
I think Mr Walker made a very valid point - he emphasised it somewhat by repeating what expert witnesses said about airworthiness - that this was the time for the RAF to stop taking shortcuts with safety, and start to implement its own regulations. I cannot fault anyone for doubting Torpey or Ainsworth, why should they - they've said the same PR rubbish after every event... it's indicative of their ability to absorb and debate opinion that they had every faith in Nimrod before the ink was dry on the inquest.
We should not be fighting each other here - the ideal solution is a reliable Nimrod that nobody has to worry about. Money won't solve everything, but I suspect it will cause a lot of problems to reduce or be resolved faster - so spend some. Is Northern Rock really more important?
Labqueen #845: Spot on.
Equivaocator
By your estimation then, anyone with more than 300 hundred hours should have been subject to a significant flight safety incident...
Mac : the Auth Off does not weigh the strategic or Tactical position up as risk v necessity of the op. The auth off is a very minor cog (sorry if this offends) far removed from the decision of whether the flight is necessary for the prosecution of the war.
Dave
(Being a maverick - not the Tom Cruise type obviously- I also think the Army and Navy should get a few quid more, I'm sure you need more than 5 tanks for an army, and you probably need more than 6 frigates to patrol the 7 seas).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some on here who still seem to think that grounding the Nimrod is a good idea. I hope to dissuade you.
Let’s start with something that is not contentious.
We would all like to lose the minimum number of our servicemen whilst accomplishing our military aims.
(I accept that some would like us to just leave the war zones immediately, but that is a different issue.)
Moving on from there, let’s give the chance of servicemen in different roles dying in theatre a Total Risk Score. This score is made up of risk from (A). enemy action, (B). role (i.e. low level NVG, paradropping, low level over the sea, small ships operations etc), (C) poorly designed/serviced equipment, plus (D) anything else I have missed.
This Total Risk Score is the important score. Not any individual part, but the total. That is what decides whether you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of dying during your tour, or a 1 in 10.
It may be more vastly more obscene to die or have your loved one die of (C) rather than (A) or (B), but at the end of the day, the cause is immaterial.
To ground an aircraft just because it has a design flaw is foolish. That design flaw would only be grounds for grounding if, in combination with the other risks, the Total Risk Score was significantly out of kilter with the average Total Risk Score of other platforms.
Even with the design flaws, the Total Risk Score for Nimrod aircrew is significantly lower than that of many other aircraft types. I am sure one of you has the figures for Nimrod aircrew deaths vs Nimrod hrs flown in the last 30 yrs, and even taking into account the Canadian accident, I am willing to bet that you have more chance of surviving an airborne Nimrod hour than almost any fixed wing aircraft in military service, and don’t even get me started on helicopters!
It is not even as if Nimrod is the only Military Aircraft with serious design flaws. All military aircraft tend to operate close to the margins and have their foibles. Examples off the top of my head:-
Harrier:- Can’t land without all the engines working. Only has one engine. That one engine is working very hard. Doesn’t glide much better than a transit van.
Sea Kings:- The VRS1. If it fails in the dip at night, you ain’t walking away. It fails on occasion.
Merlin:- Slowly working it’s way through it’s own selection of killers.
Lynx:- Where do I start? The flot gear, the unfortunate habit of the engines feeling that if one goes it should take the other with it?
If for arguments sake we say that all platforms and personnel in theatre are of equal importance to the war effort, and of equal value as a life, then it is obvious that it is silly to remove one merely because nearly the whole of its Total Risk Score is made up of (C).
In fact it is worse than that, because by removing the Nimrod, when there is, as yet, no replacement in theatre, you are adding to the Total Risk of the soldiers on the ground.
The troops out there currently have an 11% risk of death or serious injury.
I think they are carrying a high enough Total Risk already, don’t you?
Let’s start with something that is not contentious.
We would all like to lose the minimum number of our servicemen whilst accomplishing our military aims.
(I accept that some would like us to just leave the war zones immediately, but that is a different issue.)
Moving on from there, let’s give the chance of servicemen in different roles dying in theatre a Total Risk Score. This score is made up of risk from (A). enemy action, (B). role (i.e. low level NVG, paradropping, low level over the sea, small ships operations etc), (C) poorly designed/serviced equipment, plus (D) anything else I have missed.
This Total Risk Score is the important score. Not any individual part, but the total. That is what decides whether you have a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of dying during your tour, or a 1 in 10.
It may be more vastly more obscene to die or have your loved one die of (C) rather than (A) or (B), but at the end of the day, the cause is immaterial.
To ground an aircraft just because it has a design flaw is foolish. That design flaw would only be grounds for grounding if, in combination with the other risks, the Total Risk Score was significantly out of kilter with the average Total Risk Score of other platforms.
Even with the design flaws, the Total Risk Score for Nimrod aircrew is significantly lower than that of many other aircraft types. I am sure one of you has the figures for Nimrod aircrew deaths vs Nimrod hrs flown in the last 30 yrs, and even taking into account the Canadian accident, I am willing to bet that you have more chance of surviving an airborne Nimrod hour than almost any fixed wing aircraft in military service, and don’t even get me started on helicopters!
It is not even as if Nimrod is the only Military Aircraft with serious design flaws. All military aircraft tend to operate close to the margins and have their foibles. Examples off the top of my head:-
Harrier:- Can’t land without all the engines working. Only has one engine. That one engine is working very hard. Doesn’t glide much better than a transit van.
Sea Kings:- The VRS1. If it fails in the dip at night, you ain’t walking away. It fails on occasion.
Merlin:- Slowly working it’s way through it’s own selection of killers.
Lynx:- Where do I start? The flot gear, the unfortunate habit of the engines feeling that if one goes it should take the other with it?
If for arguments sake we say that all platforms and personnel in theatre are of equal importance to the war effort, and of equal value as a life, then it is obvious that it is silly to remove one merely because nearly the whole of its Total Risk Score is made up of (C).
In fact it is worse than that, because by removing the Nimrod, when there is, as yet, no replacement in theatre, you are adding to the Total Risk of the soldiers on the ground.
The troops out there currently have an 11% risk of death or serious injury.
I think they are carrying a high enough Total Risk already, don’t you?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ground an aircraft just because it has a design flaw is foolish.
Andrew Walker said: "I see no alternative but to report to the Secretary of State that the Nimrod fleet should not fly until the ALARP standards are met."
If the need for the aircraft's capability is so great the SoS can sign it off as a risk while it is being made ALARP. But the coroner can't make that decision for him, he has to deal with the evidence in front of him, which was that the risk was tolerable but not ALARP and therefore the aircraft was not safe.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: over here
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FormerFlake, dear chap.
You talk about the 'Auth' for the trip, maybe you are not aware of who 'Auth'd' it?
You talk about Spins and DAS. Are you aware of the fit of the ac that day?
Never assume. (no offense meant)
You talk about the 'Auth' for the trip, maybe you are not aware of who 'Auth'd' it?
You talk about Spins and DAS. Are you aware of the fit of the ac that day?
Never assume. (no offense meant)