Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
will be largely down to him.
As Mad Mark has pointed out already Lies and Statistics, I guess if you pulled a print-off of all the IRs produced for each of the acft types we operate you would get several thousand hits. I know I have submitted a few, on all of the types I have flown. Most were fairly innocuous, the figures quoted above are meaningless without context!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP, think about it. How many BOI's have resulted in an instant apology from the Govt and agreement to pay compensation? How many Inquests have resulted in the Coroner declaring an ac unairworthy.
Browne did not answer any difficult questions on the day he deferred them to a QC.
You have no idea how much work TD and others put in to the Inquest.
Have you wondered how the MoD case was blown out of the water. I have been privvy to some of the work. It is very impressive.
Elements at Kinloss are in denial. I am not really surprised. 377 leaks in 20 years. It becomes part of the culture doesn't it?
If you want a copy of the QQ report PM me then you can have a look at the engineering standards and implementation of airworthiness regulations for yourself.
Edited to add, as usual MoD add the rider that ESF would not have saved this aircraft. This rider appears in the Herc lost to a mine at Lashkar Gah and the J Herc lost to IED on a strip in Iraq. (My own sources have indicated that this ac suffered a fuel tank explosion).
In the case of the Nimrod, I have been told this morning that design specs dating back to 1981 and 1982 included details of fuel tank protection, one in the tanks and one in the dry bays. If this is the case, Nimrod might have been saved with ESF in the dry bay.
Remember folks, MRA4 will enter service with less protection than an airliner.
Browne did not answer any difficult questions on the day he deferred them to a QC.
You have no idea how much work TD and others put in to the Inquest.
Have you wondered how the MoD case was blown out of the water. I have been privvy to some of the work. It is very impressive.
Elements at Kinloss are in denial. I am not really surprised. 377 leaks in 20 years. It becomes part of the culture doesn't it?
If you want a copy of the QQ report PM me then you can have a look at the engineering standards and implementation of airworthiness regulations for yourself.
Edited to add, as usual MoD add the rider that ESF would not have saved this aircraft. This rider appears in the Herc lost to a mine at Lashkar Gah and the J Herc lost to IED on a strip in Iraq. (My own sources have indicated that this ac suffered a fuel tank explosion).
In the case of the Nimrod, I have been told this morning that design specs dating back to 1981 and 1982 included details of fuel tank protection, one in the tanks and one in the dry bays. If this is the case, Nimrod might have been saved with ESF in the dry bay.
Remember folks, MRA4 will enter service with less protection than an airliner.
Last edited by nigegilb; 16th Jun 2008 at 08:00.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done tuc. Yet again your selective use of quotes has placed my words out of context. The words directly following those quoted by you were
As you can see, I and others at ISK accept that TD has means well but is doing the case no good by using inaccurate information. A classic example has been covered in this thread several times, the most recent of which was by dodgysottie only yesterday, that to do with the definition of a fuel leak. How many times must those of us that maintain or fly the aircraft explain what can be classed as a leak and what makes up the vast percentage of leaks? Using straight figures without the detail is simply misleading those that know no better.
And tuc please, stop using the sympathy card to fight your arguments. We are fully aware of the pain that he and the other families are going through. We may not have lost family members but we lost a lot of good mates and colleagues. We have not parked the tragic loss of so many in some remote part of our brains, we too are reminded of our dear friends by the slightest thing - this weekend has brought their memories to the forefront of many peoples minds. We give the families 100% support in their grieving. I simply stated that TD has lost credibility due to the misinformation constantly being published mostly supported by his quotes.
MadMark!!!
[Edited for spelin mistaks]
You mean well but your constant misrepresentation of the facts and figures...
And tuc please, stop using the sympathy card to fight your arguments. We are fully aware of the pain that he and the other families are going through. We may not have lost family members but we lost a lot of good mates and colleagues. We have not parked the tragic loss of so many in some remote part of our brains, we too are reminded of our dear friends by the slightest thing - this weekend has brought their memories to the forefront of many peoples minds. We give the families 100% support in their grieving. I simply stated that TD has lost credibility due to the misinformation constantly being published mostly supported by his quotes.
MadMark!!!
[Edited for spelin mistaks]
Last edited by Mad_Mark; 16th Jun 2008 at 08:35.
Let's be generous and say it might be partly down to him. Of course the BOI and its recommendations had nothing to do with it. Nor the review of airworthiness. Nor the review of engineering procedures.
I’ve said here many times what happens to MoD staffs who disobey orders to ignore airworthiness regs. I know why the implementation has failed and I know many of the individuals who have stood back and let it happen (and in some cases directed it). I am quite sure in my own mind that if it were not for Tapper’s Dad their actions would not have emerged. Believe me, there is more to come.
Mad Mark – not a lot I can say. I express my sympathy in my own way and I know you do likewise. I feel your loss as keenly, but Graham knows why I support him in the way I do and that is between us. I’m sorry if you feel I have misrepresented you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Mark said "I am sorry TD, but your credibility is next to zero at ISK these days. You mean well but your constant misrepresentation of the facts and figures has done your case more harm than good amongst those that know the aircraft."
Just for balance madmark, I can safely say for those present on the day he gave evidence, whom I have spoken to, your [Nimrod] IPTL has absolutely no credibility either.
Which is more worrying?
Just for balance madmark, I can safely say for those present on the day he gave evidence, whom I have spoken to, your [Nimrod] IPTL has absolutely no credibility either.
Which is more worrying?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Mark
As you can see I am well aware of the differences in leaks but as we were told over and over again at the inquest all leaks in the fuselage are repaired as soon as they are found.
AIR COMMAND
RAF Business Secretariat
Royal Air Force
High Wycombe
Buckinghamshire
HP14 4UE
27 September 2007
Thank you for your e-mail to the MOD feedback website on the30 August 2007 requesting a detailed list of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006.
1. Please see the attached Table 1 that provides a list of fuel of leaks with dates, fault and rectification details. The majority of these leaks are minor. Fuel leaks are categorised according to seriousness. The categories are follows:
Stain
Where fuel wets an area around the leak source not over 50mm (2 inches) in diameter in 2 hours
Seep
Wets an area around the leak source not over 160mm (6 inches) in diameter in 2 hours
Heavy seep
Where fuel appears to spread very slowly to cover an area larger than 160mm (6 inches) in diameter. However, it does not flow or drip
Run
When fuel is running and dripping at a rate less than 10 drops per minute. Alternatively, an area where fuel appears immediately to flow or run, following the contour of the skin where are is wiped dry.
Unacceptable leak
Where fuel is running and dripping at a rate greater than 10 drops per minute.
Stain or Seep are minor leaks that are recorded and documented on and periodically inspected during pre and post scheduled maintenance fuel leak mapping. Heavy Seeps and Runs are leaks that require rectification at the next tank opening or scheduled maintenance. Any leak more significant than those categorised Run are considered unacceptable leaks and repair and exceptional limitation action is taken
PS
If anyone wishes to see the pdf of the 2496 Incident reports on RAF Nimrod aircraft from 1987 to 2007,then PM me your email address and I will send you the whole 51 page file to you.
How many times must those of us that maintain or fly the aircraft explain what can be classed as a leak and what makes up the vast percentage of leaks? Using straight figures without the detail is simply misleading those that know no better
AIR COMMAND
RAF Business Secretariat
Royal Air Force
High Wycombe
Buckinghamshire
HP14 4UE
27 September 2007
Thank you for your e-mail to the MOD feedback website on the30 August 2007 requesting a detailed list of fuel leaks for Nimrod XV230 between 1 April to 1 September 2006.
1. Please see the attached Table 1 that provides a list of fuel of leaks with dates, fault and rectification details. The majority of these leaks are minor. Fuel leaks are categorised according to seriousness. The categories are follows:
Stain
Where fuel wets an area around the leak source not over 50mm (2 inches) in diameter in 2 hours
Seep
Wets an area around the leak source not over 160mm (6 inches) in diameter in 2 hours
Heavy seep
Where fuel appears to spread very slowly to cover an area larger than 160mm (6 inches) in diameter. However, it does not flow or drip
Run
When fuel is running and dripping at a rate less than 10 drops per minute. Alternatively, an area where fuel appears immediately to flow or run, following the contour of the skin where are is wiped dry.
Unacceptable leak
Where fuel is running and dripping at a rate greater than 10 drops per minute.
Stain or Seep are minor leaks that are recorded and documented on and periodically inspected during pre and post scheduled maintenance fuel leak mapping. Heavy Seeps and Runs are leaks that require rectification at the next tank opening or scheduled maintenance. Any leak more significant than those categorised Run are considered unacceptable leaks and repair and exceptional limitation action is taken
PS
If anyone wishes to see the pdf of the 2496 Incident reports on RAF Nimrod aircraft from 1987 to 2007,then PM me your email address and I will send you the whole 51 page file to you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, remind me, where in this guidance does it state that in the event that the fault cannot be reproduced on the ground it is OK to send the aircraft up again, even though a massive fuel leak occurred?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
Unless it is an
Unacceptable leak
Where fuel is running and dripping at a rate greater than 10 drops per minute
Then they are recorded and documented on and periodically inspected during pre and post scheduled maintenance fuel leak mapping. Heavy Seeps and Runs will be rectified at the next tank opening or scheduled maintenance.Maybe 6 months later.
If it doesn't leak on the ground nige then how can they fix a leak that can't be found ?? The only thing to do is keep sending it up until it does leak on the ground or some accident occurs.
Unless it is an
Unacceptable leak
Where fuel is running and dripping at a rate greater than 10 drops per minute
Then they are recorded and documented on and periodically inspected during pre and post scheduled maintenance fuel leak mapping. Heavy Seeps and Runs will be rectified at the next tank opening or scheduled maintenance.Maybe 6 months later.
If it doesn't leak on the ground nige then how can they fix a leak that can't be found ?? The only thing to do is keep sending it up until it does leak on the ground or some accident occurs.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, the tragic accident which subsequently happened, as a result of AAR, did not result in suspension of AAR, for anything more than a couple of days.
"So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management."
And the AAR continued along with associated serious fuel leaks until November last year.
Sound engineering practice?
"So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management."
And the AAR continued along with associated serious fuel leaks until November last year.
Sound engineering practice?
TD, tuc and Nigegilb are variously told that they know nothing about what is being done at ISK, as though there is the centre and solution to Nimrod airworthiness. It is neither. They, and others, repeatedly state that they have no issue with servicing at ISK. The issue is with the CoC above ISK, at Group, Command and MOD levels. Despite this being restated over and over, all they get in return is rows of **** heaped in derision and contempt at their determination to see UK Military Airworthiness Regulations enforced in the UK Military Airfleets. Methinks some people do protest too much! Nimrod is only one facet of this dysfunction, I suspect that it exists in all the UK Military Fleets. The imperative must be to ensure that UK Military Airworthiness Regulations are properly and fully enforced herewith. It is my belief that can only be entrusted to a separate and independent MAA, for the MOD has shown itself to be endemically compromised and not to be trusted with such responsibility.
Roland P - a bit sad to see someone like you come up with such a sad generalisation as this (talking about TD)
I personally know of at least five others who agree with TD (including me), and I'd be very surprised if there weren't many more.
I believe it was a very strange decision of the RAF/MoD to fly the Nimrod in the flypast. OK, it was a logical extension of their decision that Nimrod was, contrary to the Coroner's narrative verdict, airworthy. But one of the arguments which they used in coming to that conclusion was that Nimrod was essential to the safety of troops on the ground. That may be difficult for us lay people to disagree with - but surely it doesn't mean that therefore it's sensible to fly it in a ceremonial flypast?
Had they decided not to fly it, and had anyone asked why not, the RAF could surely have reasonably argued that Nimrods were too busy, and no one would have been able to disagree.
I think it was a PR disgrace, and I'm quite surprised that almost no one in the media picked up on it.
airsound
Quote:
The Ministry of Defence decision to include the Nimrod was crass and insensitive.
Quote:
In the opinion of one person and one person ONLY!
The Ministry of Defence decision to include the Nimrod was crass and insensitive.
Quote:
In the opinion of one person and one person ONLY!
I believe it was a very strange decision of the RAF/MoD to fly the Nimrod in the flypast. OK, it was a logical extension of their decision that Nimrod was, contrary to the Coroner's narrative verdict, airworthy. But one of the arguments which they used in coming to that conclusion was that Nimrod was essential to the safety of troops on the ground. That may be difficult for us lay people to disagree with - but surely it doesn't mean that therefore it's sensible to fly it in a ceremonial flypast?
Had they decided not to fly it, and had anyone asked why not, the RAF could surely have reasonably argued that Nimrods were too busy, and no one would have been able to disagree.
I think it was a PR disgrace, and I'm quite surprised that almost no one in the media picked up on it.
airsound
I give up. I was going to write a long rebuttal but I cannot be @rsed.
Get real people, there is a war on. If the Nimrod is safe enough to fly on an operational or training sortie, it is safe enough to fly straight and level, in formation, along the Mall.
Perhaps the inclusion of a Nimrod in the QBF should have been seen as a tribute to those who died on that operational sortie, and those who continue to do so, supporting TIC. Time to put them first!
Get real people, there is a war on. If the Nimrod is safe enough to fly on an operational or training sortie, it is safe enough to fly straight and level, in formation, along the Mall.
Perhaps the inclusion of a Nimrod in the QBF should have been seen as a tribute to those who died on that operational sortie, and those who continue to do so, supporting TIC. Time to put them first!
I give up. I was going to write a long rebuttal but I cannot be @rsed.
Get real people, there is a war on. If the Nimrod is safe enough to fly on an operational or training sortie, it is safe enough to fly straight and level, in formation, along the Mall.
Perhaps the inclusion of a Nimrod in the QBF should have been seen as a tribute to those who died on that operational sortie, and those who continue to do so, supporting TIC. Time to put them first!
Get real people, there is a war on. If the Nimrod is safe enough to fly on an operational or training sortie, it is safe enough to fly straight and level, in formation, along the Mall.
Perhaps the inclusion of a Nimrod in the QBF should have been seen as a tribute to those who died on that operational sortie, and those who continue to do so, supporting TIC. Time to put them first!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get real people, there is a war on.
And has been since the 90s on 47 Sqn and many other Sqns in the RAF, in case you hadn't noticed.
Do you know something we don't about what brought down XV230 regarding enemy action? Or was it simply engineering incompetence?
Along with the dangerously incompetent engineering/management decision to continue AAR after the crash?
Or are you in the camp that AAR should be continued tomorrow?
And how long do you think the war will last? 20 years? 30 years?
Get real people.....sound advice indeed, perhaps you need some advice of your own delivered with the appropriate level of charm.
If any nimrod crew member wants the QQ2006 professional report just drop me a line and i will send it to you.
The Coroner declared Nimrod to be not airworthy after some appalling witness evidence of substandard engineering practice. I would far rather trust his verdict than the unsubstantiated opinion of a former shop steward.
There is a war on, Britain needs you. I seem to remember that slogan from the first world war and the levels of competency then.
And has been since the 90s on 47 Sqn and many other Sqns in the RAF, in case you hadn't noticed.
Do you know something we don't about what brought down XV230 regarding enemy action? Or was it simply engineering incompetence?
Along with the dangerously incompetent engineering/management decision to continue AAR after the crash?
Or are you in the camp that AAR should be continued tomorrow?
And how long do you think the war will last? 20 years? 30 years?
Get real people.....sound advice indeed, perhaps you need some advice of your own delivered with the appropriate level of charm.
If any nimrod crew member wants the QQ2006 professional report just drop me a line and i will send it to you.
The Coroner declared Nimrod to be not airworthy after some appalling witness evidence of substandard engineering practice. I would far rather trust his verdict than the unsubstantiated opinion of a former shop steward.
There is a war on, Britain needs you. I seem to remember that slogan from the first world war and the levels of competency then.
Last edited by nigegilb; 17th Jun 2008 at 13:47.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mileandahalf
It would appear I am not the only one, as not one of the widows was invited to the "Great weekend you had , with a chance to catch up with lots of old friends, remember those who cannot be with us and to celebrate the very proud history of 120 Squadron.” (Wing Commander Martin Cannard comments in the Press & Journal 14th June 2008)
PS . I had nothing but kind words from those personel from ISK who attended the Inquest and gave evidence, although they did reduce Ben's mum to tears at times they were all great guys.
TD is about as welcome at ISK as a French kiss at a family reunion.
PS . I had nothing but kind words from those personel from ISK who attended the Inquest and gave evidence, although they did reduce Ben's mum to tears at times they were all great guys.
Nigeglib : Sir, you do need to get off your high horse.
No, 230 was not brought down by enemy action, but it was where it was to support OUR and NATO troops who were fighting and dying on the ground.
The IPT/airworthiness organisation banned AAR in Sep 06 except for operational necessity. It was the Operational Commander that ordered AAR to continue supporting the troops.
The continuing tic-for-tac on this thread is achieving nothing. Those family members contributing - and those winding them up - are just prolonging the distress and damaging their own health.
what brought down XV230 regarding enemy action?
Along with the dangerously incompetent engineering/management decision to continue AAR after the crash?
The continuing tic-for-tac on this thread is achieving nothing. Those family members contributing - and those winding them up - are just prolonging the distress and damaging their own health.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Graham,
Well said Sir, and I (and many more I'm certain) continue to applaud you and others like you.
Other than as a complete publicity stunt, I cannot see any just reason whatsoever why the Nimrod was included in the line up. The fact is, that it simply doesn't matter a jot what the rest of us think about it, the aircraft has been deemed as unairworthy by some fairly 'knowledgeable' people, not just by the coroner, and I wonder why some people are so hell-bent on dismissing all the unequivical evidence that abounds. Is the man from BAe wrong? Is the QQ report wrong? After all, we DID lose an aircraft (as pretty much predicted) and NOT to enemy action.
Whatever we think, to include the aircraft was arrogant, stupid and probably bordering on downright illegal, and I am surprised that the CAA haven't got involved in the matter yet - I'm sure they wouldn't allow a civilian aircraft to do the same had it been deemed as unairworthy!
Well said Sir, and I (and many more I'm certain) continue to applaud you and others like you.
Other than as a complete publicity stunt, I cannot see any just reason whatsoever why the Nimrod was included in the line up. The fact is, that it simply doesn't matter a jot what the rest of us think about it, the aircraft has been deemed as unairworthy by some fairly 'knowledgeable' people, not just by the coroner, and I wonder why some people are so hell-bent on dismissing all the unequivical evidence that abounds. Is the man from BAe wrong? Is the QQ report wrong? After all, we DID lose an aircraft (as pretty much predicted) and NOT to enemy action.
Whatever we think, to include the aircraft was arrogant, stupid and probably bordering on downright illegal, and I am surprised that the CAA haven't got involved in the matter yet - I'm sure they wouldn't allow a civilian aircraft to do the same had it been deemed as unairworthy!
Roland - your views, and those of Softie and Techie101, seem to have prevailed in the upper echelons of the RAF, if that gives you any comfort. I merely posted to reflect the oppposite view, and to show that you were wrong when you said that TD’s was
That opposite view does seem to be attracting some more people - and I’m surprised and delighted to find myself on the same side as Winco, as well as the usual suspects.
mileandahalf dear thing, lovely to hear from you again. Do give my regards to Genghis Khan when he pitches up somewhere to your left.
airsound
the opinion of one person and one person ONLY!
mileandahalf dear thing, lovely to hear from you again. Do give my regards to Genghis Khan when he pitches up somewhere to your left.
airsound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Softie said "No, 230 was not brought down by enemy action, but it was where it was to support OUR and NATO troops who were fighting and dying on the ground."
Then get a NATO aircraft that is airworthy to do the job then. We are all allies together are we not?
And just remind me why is it not operationally necessary to do AAR in a Nimrod today? You obviously place a different interpretation on the word "banned", than I.
I happily signed off this thread until people who I assume, sadly, wear the uniform, decided it was fun to kick a grieving father when he was down.
That is about as low as it gets in my book and I will stick around here with the low life until the disgusting insults stop.
"Soon it will be an offence to exist as an MR2 crewman for fear of offending Tapper's Dad."
"Why do you think that guys feel pushed into saying that TD is about as welcome at ISK as a French kiss at a family reunion."
I assume the answer to that one is because they weren't brought up properly by their parents.
You guys really are in denial, flying a Nimrod over London, breaking H&S rules in the process is entirely stupid.
Now then, lay off TD or we just keep cracking on.
Then get a NATO aircraft that is airworthy to do the job then. We are all allies together are we not?
And just remind me why is it not operationally necessary to do AAR in a Nimrod today? You obviously place a different interpretation on the word "banned", than I.
I happily signed off this thread until people who I assume, sadly, wear the uniform, decided it was fun to kick a grieving father when he was down.
That is about as low as it gets in my book and I will stick around here with the low life until the disgusting insults stop.
"Soon it will be an offence to exist as an MR2 crewman for fear of offending Tapper's Dad."
"Why do you think that guys feel pushed into saying that TD is about as welcome at ISK as a French kiss at a family reunion."
I assume the answer to that one is because they weren't brought up properly by their parents.
You guys really are in denial, flying a Nimrod over London, breaking H&S rules in the process is entirely stupid.
Now then, lay off TD or we just keep cracking on.
Last edited by nigegilb; 17th Jun 2008 at 17:05.
I’ll have you know I am not a suspect, usual or otherwise. I have been found well and truly guilty of;
If I am one of those accused of having the moral high ground, why thank you Sir. Why not join me? You can tell me what you did the last time a 2 Star gave you a direct order to make a false written declaration about your legal obligations. Or you can just stay behind him with the majority.
- Trying my best to ensure the 3 Services have aircraft that are airworthy, safe and serviceable and, if they want to deem fit for purpose one that is not airworthy, safe or serviceable, then I’ll also do my best to ensure it comes back; and,
- Trying my best to ensure each and every penny is spent wisely.
If I am one of those accused of having the moral high ground, why thank you Sir. Why not join me? You can tell me what you did the last time a 2 Star gave you a direct order to make a false written declaration about your legal obligations. Or you can just stay behind him with the majority.