Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ
He was told the current situation as it was then. The situation hadn't changed by the time the Times published that article on the QQ fuel system report on Monday, ie 21 of the QQ points being dealt with, so not already dealt with, four still being assessed, and six not deemed necessary because they related to AAR, which is no longer taking place.
This was the position on April 13 when the Sunday Times first reported on the QQ fuel system report, ie before the inquest. Two months on, nothing seems to have changed.
I'm not having a go at the fact it is still flying, just trying to point out that the coroner had no choice but to make his recommendation and leave it with the SoS. The coroner did his job and, contrary to what has been suggested here, moved the families much closer to closure than the BoI ever could have done. He does not deserve the grief he is being given by people who say he knows nothing about airworthiness.
I would add that this issue has not been helped by senior people within the MoD who have clearly decided to stick two fingers up to him.
We have no constitution, instead we have what has previously been a largely effective system of checks and balances. Ainsworth immediately coming out and saying there was nothing wrong with the aircraft was not only playing hard and fast with the truth, it was sticking two fingers up not just to the coroner but to the way this country's system of checks and balances work.
The behaviour of ministers in this has been disgraceful - witness Des Browne's pathetic attempt to get the courts to gag the coroner - and the air board seems to have simply followed the politicians' lead, putting the Nimrod into the flypast when by the MoD's own admission the 30 points which led to the coroner's decision are still being dealt with.
PS It seems to me that none of this should get tangled up with the issue of whether or not the aircraft should be flying over Afghanistan now. That is a risk assessment that ultimately Browne had to make. I believe the right decision has been made, whether it was made for the right reasons is another matter.
He was told the current situation as it was then. The situation hadn't changed by the time the Times published that article on the QQ fuel system report on Monday, ie 21 of the QQ points being dealt with, so not already dealt with, four still being assessed, and six not deemed necessary because they related to AAR, which is no longer taking place.
This was the position on April 13 when the Sunday Times first reported on the QQ fuel system report, ie before the inquest. Two months on, nothing seems to have changed.
I'm not having a go at the fact it is still flying, just trying to point out that the coroner had no choice but to make his recommendation and leave it with the SoS. The coroner did his job and, contrary to what has been suggested here, moved the families much closer to closure than the BoI ever could have done. He does not deserve the grief he is being given by people who say he knows nothing about airworthiness.
I would add that this issue has not been helped by senior people within the MoD who have clearly decided to stick two fingers up to him.
We have no constitution, instead we have what has previously been a largely effective system of checks and balances. Ainsworth immediately coming out and saying there was nothing wrong with the aircraft was not only playing hard and fast with the truth, it was sticking two fingers up not just to the coroner but to the way this country's system of checks and balances work.
The behaviour of ministers in this has been disgraceful - witness Des Browne's pathetic attempt to get the courts to gag the coroner - and the air board seems to have simply followed the politicians' lead, putting the Nimrod into the flypast when by the MoD's own admission the 30 points which led to the coroner's decision are still being dealt with.
PS It seems to me that none of this should get tangled up with the issue of whether or not the aircraft should be flying over Afghanistan now. That is a risk assessment that ultimately Browne had to make. I believe the right decision has been made, whether it was made for the right reasons is another matter.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ
The coroner considered the aircraft state pre and post crash. In the main the evidence relating to the post crash conditions comes from the QinetiQ Fuel Systems Safety Report and Group Captain Hickman's inquest statement.
The QinetiQ report, which is dated October 2007 (do not confuse it with the 2006), and is the one mentioned by Des Browne on 4th Dec 2007, states the the level of risk is tolerable but not ALARP. It lists some 30 recommendations for making it ALARP. Angus Robertson was informed by SoS on 20th May 2008, that of the 30 recommendations, "21 are acceptable and being implemented, 3 are being considered and 6 are on hold as they relate to AAR". They was no indication in his reply as to when the "ALARP progaram" will be completed. In addition to these recommendations, MOD stated, at the inquest, that a number of hot air pipes in the engine bay areas were to be replaced by the end of this year. It would seem that these are pipes (ducts) mentioned in a 2005 BAe Systems report, following the XV227 incident, as being life expired and in need of replacement.
With regards to Group Captain Hickman, IPT Leader, he accepted that the fuel system is not ALARP, but for some reason believes that he has until the end of the year to put things right.
So, from the current evidence it would seem that the aicraft is not ALARP (not safe), but is could be made safe by the end of this year.
DV
The coroner considered the aircraft state pre and post crash. In the main the evidence relating to the post crash conditions comes from the QinetiQ Fuel Systems Safety Report and Group Captain Hickman's inquest statement.
The QinetiQ report, which is dated October 2007 (do not confuse it with the 2006), and is the one mentioned by Des Browne on 4th Dec 2007, states the the level of risk is tolerable but not ALARP. It lists some 30 recommendations for making it ALARP. Angus Robertson was informed by SoS on 20th May 2008, that of the 30 recommendations, "21 are acceptable and being implemented, 3 are being considered and 6 are on hold as they relate to AAR". They was no indication in his reply as to when the "ALARP progaram" will be completed. In addition to these recommendations, MOD stated, at the inquest, that a number of hot air pipes in the engine bay areas were to be replaced by the end of this year. It would seem that these are pipes (ducts) mentioned in a 2005 BAe Systems report, following the XV227 incident, as being life expired and in need of replacement.
With regards to Group Captain Hickman, IPT Leader, he accepted that the fuel system is not ALARP, but for some reason believes that he has until the end of the year to put things right.
So, from the current evidence it would seem that the aicraft is not ALARP (not safe), but is could be made safe by the end of this year.
DV
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ
In addition to my comments in the previous posting, I should point out that there are other QinetiQ reports to be considered. For example, one relating to fuel seals, dated August 2007. In this report it is recommended "That every effort should be made to ensure that pipe deflections at couplings are within the manufacture's recommended limit of 1 degree". According to the IPT Leader this is being undertaken, where posible, using the Mk 1 "eye-ball". Couplings in vent lines are checked by pressurising the line and listening for "whistling" sounnds. Does not sound a serious approach to me.
MoD informed the inquset that over 300 seals will be changed at Major servicings. Sounds as though someone is trying to make a big effort, but there is little point in doing this if seals are not fitted correctly. Not to mention that some aircraft will not make EQ6 (Major).
DV
In addition to my comments in the previous posting, I should point out that there are other QinetiQ reports to be considered. For example, one relating to fuel seals, dated August 2007. In this report it is recommended "That every effort should be made to ensure that pipe deflections at couplings are within the manufacture's recommended limit of 1 degree". According to the IPT Leader this is being undertaken, where posible, using the Mk 1 "eye-ball". Couplings in vent lines are checked by pressurising the line and listening for "whistling" sounnds. Does not sound a serious approach to me.
MoD informed the inquset that over 300 seals will be changed at Major servicings. Sounds as though someone is trying to make a big effort, but there is little point in doing this if seals are not fitted correctly. Not to mention that some aircraft will not make EQ6 (Major).
DV
Couplings in vent lines are checked by pressurising the line and listening for "whistling" sounnds. Does not sound a serious approach to me.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
techie 101
Instead of asking DV how he would check the seals for leaks, why don't you, as one the 'experts' tell us how to do it? or are you saying that the only way is to listen for a whistle??
If you are saying that is the 'correct' way of testing, then I would suggest that you need to find a more 'professional' way of checking for leaks! I hope the techies at BA aren't checking the seals on my aircraft by listening for whistles, farts, squeaks and bumps!
JFZ90
Sir, might I ask you why you are prepared to listen too and believe the likes of Aisnsworth, Browne, CAS and a few others over the experts at BAe and QQ?? After all, those at BAe and QQ have, tragically, been proven correct.
Instead of asking DV how he would check the seals for leaks, why don't you, as one the 'experts' tell us how to do it? or are you saying that the only way is to listen for a whistle??
If you are saying that is the 'correct' way of testing, then I would suggest that you need to find a more 'professional' way of checking for leaks! I hope the techies at BA aren't checking the seals on my aircraft by listening for whistles, farts, squeaks and bumps!
JFZ90
Sir, might I ask you why you are prepared to listen too and believe the likes of Aisnsworth, Browne, CAS and a few others over the experts at BAe and QQ?? After all, those at BAe and QQ have, tragically, been proven correct.
As it happens Winco, you spent your entire Nimrod career flying on aircraft that had their Vent lines checked by just this method. Vent lines contain air - hence the name. During flight they allow the tanks to be vented and any excess spillage to 'vent' off to atmosphere. The only way to check them is to blank them off at all exits and pressurise using compressed air. Or do you have a better idea?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yep its the same way that garages test your brakes for leaks they look for hydraulic fluid , the same way your exhaust is checked at kwik fit a blowing gasket leak or hot air spillage.
Basic engineering people , as Techie says what other methods would you non engineers use.
These are the same practises used on every single aircraft in use today, everyone must be wrong , no only Nimrod sigh
Basic engineering people , as Techie says what other methods would you non engineers use.
These are the same practises used on every single aircraft in use today, everyone must be wrong , no only Nimrod sigh
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Abbey Inn
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right! Listen in yous lot...
When the vent lines are pressurised to check for leaks, we dont just " listen for whistles", (although a whistle or a hiss is often a very good "leak indicator")! Each and every coupling on the vent line system from each tank to the vent outlet is also tested using "snoop", which is a soapy solution that "bubbles" if there is a leak present.
I hope this clears it up.
DS
When the vent lines are pressurised to check for leaks, we dont just " listen for whistles", (although a whistle or a hiss is often a very good "leak indicator")! Each and every coupling on the vent line system from each tank to the vent outlet is also tested using "snoop", which is a soapy solution that "bubbles" if there is a leak present.
I hope this clears it up.
DS
JFZ90
Sir, might I ask you why you are prepared to listen too and believe the likes of Aisnsworth, Browne, CAS and a few others over the experts at BAe and QQ?? After all, those at BAe and QQ have, tragically, been proven correct.
Sir, might I ask you why you are prepared to listen too and believe the likes of Aisnsworth, Browne, CAS and a few others over the experts at BAe and QQ?? After all, those at BAe and QQ have, tragically, been proven correct.
On this basis I'm still not clear there is a remaining "smoking gun" issue that requires the aircraft to be grounded. It seems that this, in your eyes, makes me some sort of naive idiot for even considering that the "bad guys" in charge may have made a reasonable decision re airworthiness - the reciprocal question is why are you only open to views that support your obvious need to hate and criticise those in charge? Its clear that some only want to see evil wrong doing at every turn (noting of course it does help sell newspapers). IMO, the common sense view is that why on earth would they not ground it, given the media attention, if there was a serious issue? They did for Chinook HC3, in the face of enormous political pressure to get more helos into theatre (cf the current usefulness of MR2 in theatre).
Couplings in vent lines are checked by pressurising the line and listening for "whistling" sounnds. Does not sound a serious approach to me.
but for some reason believes that he has until the end of the year to put things right.
This was the position on April 13 when the Sunday Times first reported on the QQ fuel system report, ie before the inquest. Two months on, nothing seems to have changed.
I eagerly await Wincos response to Techie101, KeepItTidy & DS.
From the BBC:
Defence Secretary Des Browne has been on a flight in an RAF Nimrod aircraft while on a "private visit" to RAF Kinloss in Moray.
It came a month after a coroner ruled that the Nimrod fleet - which is based at Kinloss - has never been airworthy and should be grounded.
The MoD has confirmed that Mr Browne met crews on the base.
But it stressed that this was a private visit, like many others. The MOD has insisted the aircraft is safe.
The coroner's ruling followed a crash in Afghanistan two years ago, in which 14 servicemen were killed, after a fuel leak caused a mid-air-explosion.
The families of those killed have been seeking a meeting with ministers. On Saturday, the MoD came under attack for allowing a Nimrod to fly over Buckingham Palace during a flypast to mark the Queen's official birthday.
Defence Secretary Des Browne has been on a flight in an RAF Nimrod aircraft while on a "private visit" to RAF Kinloss in Moray.
It came a month after a coroner ruled that the Nimrod fleet - which is based at Kinloss - has never been airworthy and should be grounded.
The MoD has confirmed that Mr Browne met crews on the base.
But it stressed that this was a private visit, like many others. The MOD has insisted the aircraft is safe.
The coroner's ruling followed a crash in Afghanistan two years ago, in which 14 servicemen were killed, after a fuel leak caused a mid-air-explosion.
The families of those killed have been seeking a meeting with ministers. On Saturday, the MoD came under attack for allowing a Nimrod to fly over Buckingham Palace during a flypast to mark the Queen's official birthday.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
This was the position on April 13 when the Sunday Times first reported on the QQ fuel system report, ie before the inquest. Two months on, nothing seems to have changed.
The report is older than this, so are you sure nothing has changed? I thought you mentioned earlier you got "no comment" from MoD before publishing?
This was the position on April 13 when the Sunday Times first reported on the QQ fuel system report, ie before the inquest. Two months on, nothing seems to have changed.
The report is older than this, so are you sure nothing has changed? I thought you mentioned earlier you got "no comment" from MoD before publishing?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crawling Line Behind - trumpeting the BBC - what is your point?
He flew and landed safely in an un-airworthy ac, and by all accounts had a good time with the groundies and the crew- that's mine
He flew and landed safely in an un-airworthy ac, and by all accounts had a good time with the groundies and the crew- that's mine
buoy15, you never fail to amaze. Quite aside from your asinine, vicious little bits of sneaky vitriol, it seems that you can’t even make the forum work for you. At 1950 you addressed Creeping Line Ahead - in a sarky one-liner - as “Creepie”. Then, four minutes later, you obviously thought - “Wow I can make this even more painstakingly hard-hitting” - and you changed “Creepie” to “Crawling Line Behind”. With the exact same sarky one-liner. Sad to say, you managed to leave both versions posted.
Well done. Impressive, hard-hitting stuff.
airsound
Oh, while I was writing this, you’ve cottoned on . And deleted the first one. Well done - at least you deleted the right one. Even more impressive.
Well done. Impressive, hard-hitting stuff.
airsound
Oh, while I was writing this, you’ve cottoned on . And deleted the first one. Well done - at least you deleted the right one. Even more impressive.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco said:
Instead of asking DV how he would check the seals for leaks, why don't you, as one the 'experts' tell us how to do it? or are you saying that the only way is to listen for a whistle??
As has been stated by Dodgie Sootie the only way to check for air leaks past a seal is to use snoop UNLESS the air leak is so large that the air going past the seals makes either a whistling noise or a gushing noise dependant on how bad the leak is or the seals are degraded etc.
I would say the people carrying out these checks are far more professional and 'expert' than someone who is not as engineer i.e yourself.
If you are saying that is the 'correct' way of testing, then I would suggest that you need to find a more 'professional' way of checking for leaks! I hope the techies at BA aren't checking the seals on my aircraft by listening for whistles, farts, squeaks and bumps!
I take offense at your tone.
I think you may find that the guys who undertake the leak checks at BA are probably unlicensed and the job will be signed off by an ALE.
As an RAF technician has rather more training than an unlicensed engineer I would be more worried about the state of their work than ours.
Leave the engineering to the engineers as I would not dream of telling you how to fly your jet.
Instead of asking DV how he would check the seals for leaks, why don't you, as one the 'experts' tell us how to do it? or are you saying that the only way is to listen for a whistle??
As has been stated by Dodgie Sootie the only way to check for air leaks past a seal is to use snoop UNLESS the air leak is so large that the air going past the seals makes either a whistling noise or a gushing noise dependant on how bad the leak is or the seals are degraded etc.
I would say the people carrying out these checks are far more professional and 'expert' than someone who is not as engineer i.e yourself.
If you are saying that is the 'correct' way of testing, then I would suggest that you need to find a more 'professional' way of checking for leaks! I hope the techies at BA aren't checking the seals on my aircraft by listening for whistles, farts, squeaks and bumps!
I take offense at your tone.
I think you may find that the guys who undertake the leak checks at BA are probably unlicensed and the job will be signed off by an ALE.
As an RAF technician has rather more training than an unlicensed engineer I would be more worried about the state of their work than ours.
Leave the engineering to the engineers as I would not dream of telling you how to fly your jet.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
House of Commons Debate 19 Jun 08
Good to see someone is listening. Still a deafening silence coming from the MoD and Chiefs of Staff.
Wonder if they will regret flying the Mighty Hunter down the Mall.
I don't suppose the supporters of the mighty shop steward will be moved but at least the message is reaching the legislature. In a week in which 4 soldiers died in a thin skinned Land Rover this can only be a good thing.
ANGUS ROBERTSON MP (SNP)
Although the delays and budgetary increases in the Nimrod MRA4 programme are of course cause for concern, another particular and deadly problem has resulted. Owing to the important capability of the existing Nimrod and the need for its vital services in a range of theatres, the 40-year-old Nimrod MR2 fleet has been pushed to the limits. In the recent case of Nimrod XV230, it proved fatal. Shortly after refuelling over Afghanistan on 2 September 2006, the aircraft exploded near Kandahar, killing all 14 personnel aboard. It was the biggest UK loss of life since the Falklands war, and more than half the victims were my constituents.
On 5 November 2007, a further mid-air incident took place, this time when Nimrod XV235 was over Afghanistan. The crew noticed a fuel leak during-air-to-air refuelling operations. After issuing an in-flight mayday, the aircraft was landed successfully. The Minister of State admitted recently that there had been at least 111 fuel leaks since Nimrod XV230 exploded.
On 4 December 2007, the report of the findings of the official board of the inquiry into the loss of XV230 was published. Four separate factors were listed as having contributed to the accident, and are a matter of public record. On 23 May 2008, only a few short weeks ago, the coroner who led the inquest into the deaths stated that the entire Nimrod fleet had
Last December, the Secretary of State assured Members that Nimrod was safe, citing a report by QinetiQ. It has proved difficult to establish whether that was factually correct. It has taken freedom of information requests to establish that the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations had been implemented. All but one of those recommendations related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.
The inquest heard that if the risk of something going wrong on a plane is only “tolerable”, MOD rules stipulate that it must be further reduced to make it as low as reasonably practicable—ALARP—before the plane can
19 Jun 2008 : Column 1174
be declared safe. The QinetiQ report cited by the Secretary of State as showing the aircraft was safe in fact found that it was only “tolerably safe” but, because of the 30 problems, it was not ALARP.
It is still not ALARP. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been accepted—using the present tense—by the MOD and are still being implemented. Six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods. Three more are still—again, present tense—being considered.
Group Captain Colin Hickman, who is in charge of the safety of the Nimrod fleet, admitted to the coroner that the remaining Nimrods were not ALARP and would not be so until the end of this year. Asked if this process could be speeded up, Hickman replied:
Some say this is a technical point, but I think it is easily understood by the man in the street. The situation now with the Nimrod fleet is as if a driver had been notified of 30 improvements necessary for his car to pass an MOT and, nearly two years later, he is only partially through the mandatory work and is still considering whether to go through with some of the other repairs. It would not be allowed in a car. Why does the MOD think it is okay for a plane? Given that the ALARP standard is the MOD’s own standard, I do not understand why it is not complied with. I hope the Minister will explain that this evening.
Wonder if they will regret flying the Mighty Hunter down the Mall.
I don't suppose the supporters of the mighty shop steward will be moved but at least the message is reaching the legislature. In a week in which 4 soldiers died in a thin skinned Land Rover this can only be a good thing.
ANGUS ROBERTSON MP (SNP)
Although the delays and budgetary increases in the Nimrod MRA4 programme are of course cause for concern, another particular and deadly problem has resulted. Owing to the important capability of the existing Nimrod and the need for its vital services in a range of theatres, the 40-year-old Nimrod MR2 fleet has been pushed to the limits. In the recent case of Nimrod XV230, it proved fatal. Shortly after refuelling over Afghanistan on 2 September 2006, the aircraft exploded near Kandahar, killing all 14 personnel aboard. It was the biggest UK loss of life since the Falklands war, and more than half the victims were my constituents.
On 5 November 2007, a further mid-air incident took place, this time when Nimrod XV235 was over Afghanistan. The crew noticed a fuel leak during-air-to-air refuelling operations. After issuing an in-flight mayday, the aircraft was landed successfully. The Minister of State admitted recently that there had been at least 111 fuel leaks since Nimrod XV230 exploded.
On 4 December 2007, the report of the findings of the official board of the inquiry into the loss of XV230 was published. Four separate factors were listed as having contributed to the accident, and are a matter of public record. On 23 May 2008, only a few short weeks ago, the coroner who led the inquest into the deaths stated that the entire Nimrod fleet had
- “never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service”,
- “I have given the matter considerable thought and 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.”
Last December, the Secretary of State assured Members that Nimrod was safe, citing a report by QinetiQ. It has proved difficult to establish whether that was factually correct. It has taken freedom of information requests to establish that the report said that the aircraft would not be fully safe until its 30 recommendations had been implemented. All but one of those recommendations related to a failure to implement mandatory airworthiness regulations.
The inquest heard that if the risk of something going wrong on a plane is only “tolerable”, MOD rules stipulate that it must be further reduced to make it as low as reasonably practicable—ALARP—before the plane can
19 Jun 2008 : Column 1174
be declared safe. The QinetiQ report cited by the Secretary of State as showing the aircraft was safe in fact found that it was only “tolerably safe” but, because of the 30 problems, it was not ALARP.
It is still not ALARP. In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been accepted—using the present tense—by the MOD and are still being implemented. Six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods. Three more are still—again, present tense—being considered.
Group Captain Colin Hickman, who is in charge of the safety of the Nimrod fleet, admitted to the coroner that the remaining Nimrods were not ALARP and would not be so until the end of this year. Asked if this process could be speeded up, Hickman replied:
- “No, it is driven by resources.”
Some say this is a technical point, but I think it is easily understood by the man in the street. The situation now with the Nimrod fleet is as if a driver had been notified of 30 improvements necessary for his car to pass an MOT and, nearly two years later, he is only partially through the mandatory work and is still considering whether to go through with some of the other repairs. It would not be allowed in a car. Why does the MOD think it is okay for a plane? Given that the ALARP standard is the MOD’s own standard, I do not understand why it is not complied with. I hope the Minister will explain that this evening.
Last edited by nigegilb; 21st Jun 2008 at 00:40.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I can say the MOD has listened and is now doing its bit to make the Nimrod as safe as it can, I cannot say why and how but I know I work a lot more than I ever have , I work that much Im at a point where I feel like im the only person that works (not true) but Im at a point where Im closed to giving up. We have a lot more burden on us now to keep the fleet going with half the manpower since last year, there is only so much people can take. Like most of though we will continue to what agreement we have signed for and then leave.
Only thing that keep us all going is helping our brothers in the Army on the ground in the **** and in need of help. That what Nimrod does the most helps guys in need and that is what keeps us all going.
Everyone has been let down by somebody , forces know we have always been let down by politicians and especially the current ones, but as they debate and try and justify there stuff people day in day out have to continue there job and that includes the UK Forces, we cannot sit around and wait for decisions , everyday is a push to so called better things.
It does sound good but I really think its running out of steam and people are getting fed up
Only thing that keep us all going is helping our brothers in the Army on the ground in the **** and in need of help. That what Nimrod does the most helps guys in need and that is what keeps us all going.
Everyone has been let down by somebody , forces know we have always been let down by politicians and especially the current ones, but as they debate and try and justify there stuff people day in day out have to continue there job and that includes the UK Forces, we cannot sit around and wait for decisions , everyday is a push to so called better things.
It does sound good but I really think its running out of steam and people are getting fed up
Last edited by KeepItTidy; 21st Jun 2008 at 00:21.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MightyHunter AGE
What a stupid and totally incorrect thing to say, and you have shown your complete ignorance regarding civilian aviation. Do you really think that BA or any other large airline would even consider using unlicensed engineers? That displays yout total lack of awareness as to how things are undertaken outside of your small (very small) RAF world - and remember one thing, before you go off another ignarant rant, I too flew Nimrod and spent many years in the RAF. The RAF is NOT the best at everything it does, and that will become patently apparant when you leave it and go out into the real world.
I am currently in the US having brought one of Mr Boeings big birds in last night, but when I return, I will talk to my 'unlicensed engineers' at BA and find out how they do pressure checks and look for possible leaks.
In the meantimne, I would suggest you remove your slanderous comment before WW sees it and takes you to task.
What a stupid and totally incorrect thing to say, and you have shown your complete ignorance regarding civilian aviation. Do you really think that BA or any other large airline would even consider using unlicensed engineers? That displays yout total lack of awareness as to how things are undertaken outside of your small (very small) RAF world - and remember one thing, before you go off another ignarant rant, I too flew Nimrod and spent many years in the RAF. The RAF is NOT the best at everything it does, and that will become patently apparant when you leave it and go out into the real world.
I am currently in the US having brought one of Mr Boeings big birds in last night, but when I return, I will talk to my 'unlicensed engineers' at BA and find out how they do pressure checks and look for possible leaks.
In the meantimne, I would suggest you remove your slanderous comment before WW sees it and takes you to task.
In a letter to me, the Secretary of State for Defence said that of the 30 recommendations, 21 have been accepted—using the present tense—by the MOD and are still being implemented. Six relate to air-to-air refuelling, which is no longer done with Nimrods. Three more are still—again, present tense—being considered.
I don't doubt the forces are underfunded, and this should be addressed by any govt, but the way this debate is going I fear there is a risk that a lot of resource that is badly needed elsewhere could be diverted to achieve a political level of airworthiness, rather than a risk based technical one that may already have been achieved.
...but when I return, I will talk to my 'unlicensed engineers' at BA and find out how they do pressure checks and look for possible leaks.
I hope you don't make such assumptions and judgements during your day job.