Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, my organisation is not primarily JAA, yet we routinely use those JAA documents as guidance for determining reaction times.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M (F) S
Do you have any links to the right places in these docs, as I agree they could, perhaps should, constitute 'good practice' - which is indeed referred to in R2P2.
flip
Do you have any links to the right places in these docs, as I agree they could, perhaps should, constitute 'good practice' - which is indeed referred to in R2P2.
flip
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flipsterM
Thats because none of them do, the Coroner asked Hickman to point out where in JSP 553 or DEF Stan 00-56 it said that they could have time to make it airworhy.
He couldn't, his reply was it is understood we have time to make it airworhy.
Do you have any links to the right places in these docs, as I agree they could, perhaps should, constitute 'good practice' - which is indeed referred to in R2P2.
Thats because none of them do, the Coroner asked Hickman to point out where in JSP 553 or DEF Stan 00-56 it said that they could have time to make it airworhy.
He couldn't, his reply was it is understood we have time to make it airworhy.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good practice
M(F)S
Thank you for your tip-off,
After some googling I found the following reference to ACJ 39.3(b)(4) which
"provides guidelines to assist in establishing rectification campaigns to remedy discovered defects"
Sadly, it is in total mathematical/aero-eng speak - would you be able to decipher the tables and graphs into pilot-speak for us?
flipster
For those interested - the timescales vary from
"ground the fleet.... now"
to
"15 months to get it sorted"
- depending on the mathematical probability of further occurence and its consquence.
TD - you may wish to look this way yourself.
Thank you for your tip-off,
After some googling I found the following reference to ACJ 39.3(b)(4) which
"provides guidelines to assist in establishing rectification campaigns to remedy discovered defects"
Sadly, it is in total mathematical/aero-eng speak - would you be able to decipher the tables and graphs into pilot-speak for us?
flipster
For those interested - the timescales vary from
"ground the fleet.... now"
to
"15 months to get it sorted"
- depending on the mathematical probability of further occurence and its consquence.
TD - you may wish to look this way yourself.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Flipster I found it here:
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/issues/...02-2doc17c.doc
ACJ 39.3(b)(4)
SUBJECT TITLE DEFECT CORRECTION - SUFFICIENCY OF PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION
PURPOSE This ACJ provides guidelines (not regulations)to assist in establishing rectification campaigns to remedy discovered defects.
This ACJ contains guidance material of a general nature, not intended to be regarded as binding in specific cases, but, by being used in conjunction with engineering judgement, to aid airworthiness engineers in reaching decisions in the state of technology at the material time.
Table 1
Estimated catastrophe rate to aircraft due to the defect under consideration (per a/c hour) Necessary reaction time for each aircraft at risk (hours)
On a calendar basis
4 x 10-8 3750 15 months (How long has it been since 230-22 months)
5 x 10-8 3000 12 months
1 x 10-7 1500 6 months
2 x 10-7 750 3 months
5 x 10-7 300 6 weeks
1 x 10-6 150 3 weeks
1 x 10-5 15 Return to base
3.3 While it should clearly be the objective of all to react to and eliminate emergency situations i.e. those involving a potentially significant increase of airworthiness risk levels without unreasonable delay, an Authority must be able finally to rule on what is a minimum acceptable campaign programme. It has therefore seemed desirable to devise guidelines to be used in judging whether a proposed campaign of corrective actions is sufficient in airworthiness terms, and clearly this ought to be based on determining the summation of the achieved airworthiness risk levels for the aircraft and passengers during any periods of corrective action and comparing them with some agreed target.
4.3 It must be stressed that the benefit of these guidelines will be to form a datum for what is considered to be the theoretically maximum reaction time. A considerable amount of judgement will still be necessary in establishing many of the input factors and the final decision may still need to be tempered by non-numerical considerations, but the method proposed will at least provide a rational 'departure point' for any exercise of such judgement.
It appears as with everthing else the RAF has overran the maximum time this gives them to rectify the problems.
But thank you Flipster I will take it along with me when I meet with Bob Answorth and the Chief of Airstaff this wek.
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/issues/...02-2doc17c.doc
ACJ 39.3(b)(4)
SUBJECT TITLE DEFECT CORRECTION - SUFFICIENCY OF PROPOSED CORRECTIVE ACTION
PURPOSE This ACJ provides guidelines (not regulations)to assist in establishing rectification campaigns to remedy discovered defects.
This ACJ contains guidance material of a general nature, not intended to be regarded as binding in specific cases, but, by being used in conjunction with engineering judgement, to aid airworthiness engineers in reaching decisions in the state of technology at the material time.
Table 1
Estimated catastrophe rate to aircraft due to the defect under consideration (per a/c hour) Necessary reaction time for each aircraft at risk (hours)
On a calendar basis
4 x 10-8 3750 15 months (How long has it been since 230-22 months)
5 x 10-8 3000 12 months
1 x 10-7 1500 6 months
2 x 10-7 750 3 months
5 x 10-7 300 6 weeks
1 x 10-6 150 3 weeks
1 x 10-5 15 Return to base
3.3 While it should clearly be the objective of all to react to and eliminate emergency situations i.e. those involving a potentially significant increase of airworthiness risk levels without unreasonable delay, an Authority must be able finally to rule on what is a minimum acceptable campaign programme. It has therefore seemed desirable to devise guidelines to be used in judging whether a proposed campaign of corrective actions is sufficient in airworthiness terms, and clearly this ought to be based on determining the summation of the achieved airworthiness risk levels for the aircraft and passengers during any periods of corrective action and comparing them with some agreed target.
4.3 It must be stressed that the benefit of these guidelines will be to form a datum for what is considered to be the theoretically maximum reaction time. A considerable amount of judgement will still be necessary in establishing many of the input factors and the final decision may still need to be tempered by non-numerical considerations, but the method proposed will at least provide a rational 'departure point' for any exercise of such judgement.
It appears as with everthing else the RAF has overran the maximum time this gives them to rectify the problems.
But thank you Flipster I will take it along with me when I meet with Bob Answorth and the Chief of Airstaff this wek.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD
You might consider taking 'expert' engineering input on this (as I can't make much sense of the rest of that ruling) - but it would seem as if time is a commodity that the MoD do not have.
Of course, the outcome of all this is that the risks that our crews face are still significant - and that liability must rest with the MoD during the time left until the Nimrod is ALARP.
However, I fear that the risks to the guys and girls on the ground in theatre would be whole lot worse, if it were not for the Nimrod and so, it should stay flying. In view of this, the Nimrod crews and their support staff are to be highly commended for their continued courage and stoicism (as well as, of course, the people whom they are helping to protect!)
I would wholeheartedly agree that this is not a wholly palatable position, especially should another accident occur but I do wish the MoD would come out and admit the mess we are in.....and that the buck stops with them. (sadly unlikely).
This is what happens when the Military suffer funding cuts, year upon year and then try to do too much with too little!
flipster
You might consider taking 'expert' engineering input on this (as I can't make much sense of the rest of that ruling) - but it would seem as if time is a commodity that the MoD do not have.
Of course, the outcome of all this is that the risks that our crews face are still significant - and that liability must rest with the MoD during the time left until the Nimrod is ALARP.
However, I fear that the risks to the guys and girls on the ground in theatre would be whole lot worse, if it were not for the Nimrod and so, it should stay flying. In view of this, the Nimrod crews and their support staff are to be highly commended for their continued courage and stoicism (as well as, of course, the people whom they are helping to protect!)
I would wholeheartedly agree that this is not a wholly palatable position, especially should another accident occur but I do wish the MoD would come out and admit the mess we are in.....and that the buck stops with them. (sadly unlikely).
This is what happens when the Military suffer funding cuts, year upon year and then try to do too much with too little!
flipster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Scampton, Lincoln
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Without wishing to get involved in the bun fight between MH Age and the Winco, may I just politely ask any current or past Nimrod groundcrew, what methods of fuel leak detection were used at the time 230 was lost and what is currently used please?
The one true hard fact here is that the aircraft was lost due to a significant fuel leak of some description. It would seem logical therefore, that the methods of fuel leak detection would have been looked at in some detail.
many thanks
TKR
ps, I'm NOT an aircraft engineer, licensed or otherwise, and I am NOT an airline captain!
Without wishing to get involved in the bun fight between MH Age and the Winco, may I just politely ask any current or past Nimrod groundcrew, what methods of fuel leak detection were used at the time 230 was lost and what is currently used please?
The one true hard fact here is that the aircraft was lost due to a significant fuel leak of some description. It would seem logical therefore, that the methods of fuel leak detection would have been looked at in some detail.
many thanks
TKR
ps, I'm NOT an aircraft engineer, licensed or otherwise, and I am NOT an airline captain!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is how Hickman described it;
MR RAWLINSON: The fuel system was to be limited to 50 psi. How was that to be checked? For instance, what is the system on board the Nimrod to ensure that the pressure does not exceed 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: We’re not talking about these checks which are done at 50 psi.
MR RAWLINSON: (overspeaking) under which is …?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Okay, every 30 days the fuel system is pressurised through the refuelling probe, so that we pressurise the whole system. That’s done using a fuel (inaudible) at 50 psi.
THE CORONER: With the tanks full or empty?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, with the tanks full. So, we refuel so we refuel the aircraft through the probe, filling
THE CORONER: So, all the tanks are full?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Filling all the tanks up and then so the system is pressurised.
THE CORONER: Are all the tanks full when you carry out your pressure test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, yes.
THE CORONER: Have you had a blow off yet?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
MR RAWLINSON: As a matter of interest, when you carry out the tests, do you ensure that the aircraft is flat enough and not declined or anything like that?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, we’ve learned from we certainly learned from that instrument report that you referred to earlier that if the aircraft is in a nose down attitude, then that causes problems. So, no, we make sure that they are at least level.
THE CORONER: What do you test, just as a matter of interest? The fuel comes into the tanks; how do you test the system that transfers fuel from one tank to another? The fuel-transfer system; is that tested at 50 psi. How do you do it, do you open everything, all valves?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the use of booster pumps for pressurising. They’re also turned on to make sure that both the refuel and the fuel feed systems are pressurised.
THE CORONER: So, every pipe that is connected to a fuel tank is pressurised to 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: Except those feeding the engine?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: And this is done when all tanks are full?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So it’s in fact a hydraulic test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the aim is to look for leaks. We’re looking for leaks from fuel couplings.
THE CORONER: Yes. If you fill a system to its maximum so all the tanks are full, so you have a complete system full of fuel, then if you pressurise that you are, in effect, conducting a hydraulic test, is that right? Of the system.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Well, as you’ve heard before, we’re not going to see those sorts of pressures throughout the fuel system.
THE CORONER: No, we’re talking about the test referred to. If you fuel the tanks and every fuel system in the refuel gallery and the transfer gallery, you fill that up so all those tanks are full and then you conduct your pressure test, would you simply fill it 50 psi and watch for leaks? That’s what I am trying to understand. What do you do?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Well, we … what we’re doing is we will refuel the aircraft completely so that it would start off empty and then it will end up full. During that refuel, we will look for leaks.
THE CORONER: That is your pressure test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So you don’t do anything else other than that?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
THE CORONER: So you just refuel normally and watch. You refuel at 50 psi and you expect, therefore, that all components of the refuel system to be at 50 psi? It is an important piece of evidence and it is important to understand exactly what it is you test. Are you testing the system as part of a hydraulic test of the system, or are you simply refilling the aircraft and watching for leaks, knowing that the fuel going in is at 50 psi, and if there are no leaks by the time the aircraft is full, then the system must be able to withstand a filling pressure of 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes. I mean, it’s an attempt to it’s certainly an attempt to reproduce what the aircraft will experience during air to air refuelling, by refuelling through the probe, and using the aircraft booster pumps to responsibility and pressurise the fuel feed system as well.
THE CORONER: So you are trying to recreate the system in flight?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: It is not a hydraulic test, then, is it?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
MR RAWLINSON: Forgive me; the purpose of recreating the actual refuelling conditions is what AAR is now planning?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, it was introduced when air to air refuelling was still instated, but because the system was still in the aircraft, we’re continuing to check that part of the system.
THE CORONER: To put it clearer, you refuel the aircraft using the air to air refuelling probe?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: That is all you do?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: And if there are no leaks, that is your pressure test.
MR RAWLINSON: How do you check for leaks?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: The aircraft is depanelled, as far as possible, and then it’s inspected by the tradesmen.
THE CORONER: What equipment is used for this refuel? Is it the same ground refuel system, only adapted an attachment for the probe at the nose?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: That test equipment was already in existence, the ability to refuel through the probe, so that part of the system could be tested. So we’ve simply introduced we’ve just adapted that maintenance procedure that was already in existence. Because when a component in a fuel system is replaced, it’s normal to pressure test it using this MP, and we’ve just pulled up that MP as a way of pressure testing.
THE CORONER: You can see the subtle difference between pressure testing, which is a natural test of withstanding pressure, and refuelling an aircraft and seeing if it leaks?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: What you do, if I understand it, is refuel the aircraft and watch to see if it leaks.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So it is not really fair to describe it as a pressure test.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the same test that we would conduct if we replaced a component in that system.
MR RAWLINSON: The fuel system was to be limited to 50 psi. How was that to be checked? For instance, what is the system on board the Nimrod to ensure that the pressure does not exceed 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: We’re not talking about these checks which are done at 50 psi.
MR RAWLINSON: (overspeaking) under which is …?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Okay, every 30 days the fuel system is pressurised through the refuelling probe, so that we pressurise the whole system. That’s done using a fuel (inaudible) at 50 psi.
THE CORONER: With the tanks full or empty?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, with the tanks full. So, we refuel so we refuel the aircraft through the probe, filling
THE CORONER: So, all the tanks are full?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Filling all the tanks up and then so the system is pressurised.
THE CORONER: Are all the tanks full when you carry out your pressure test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, yes.
THE CORONER: Have you had a blow off yet?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
MR RAWLINSON: As a matter of interest, when you carry out the tests, do you ensure that the aircraft is flat enough and not declined or anything like that?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, we’ve learned from we certainly learned from that instrument report that you referred to earlier that if the aircraft is in a nose down attitude, then that causes problems. So, no, we make sure that they are at least level.
THE CORONER: What do you test, just as a matter of interest? The fuel comes into the tanks; how do you test the system that transfers fuel from one tank to another? The fuel-transfer system; is that tested at 50 psi. How do you do it, do you open everything, all valves?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the use of booster pumps for pressurising. They’re also turned on to make sure that both the refuel and the fuel feed systems are pressurised.
THE CORONER: So, every pipe that is connected to a fuel tank is pressurised to 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: Except those feeding the engine?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: And this is done when all tanks are full?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So it’s in fact a hydraulic test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the aim is to look for leaks. We’re looking for leaks from fuel couplings.
THE CORONER: Yes. If you fill a system to its maximum so all the tanks are full, so you have a complete system full of fuel, then if you pressurise that you are, in effect, conducting a hydraulic test, is that right? Of the system.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Well, as you’ve heard before, we’re not going to see those sorts of pressures throughout the fuel system.
THE CORONER: No, we’re talking about the test referred to. If you fuel the tanks and every fuel system in the refuel gallery and the transfer gallery, you fill that up so all those tanks are full and then you conduct your pressure test, would you simply fill it 50 psi and watch for leaks? That’s what I am trying to understand. What do you do?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Well, we … what we’re doing is we will refuel the aircraft completely so that it would start off empty and then it will end up full. During that refuel, we will look for leaks.
THE CORONER: That is your pressure test?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So you don’t do anything else other than that?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
THE CORONER: So you just refuel normally and watch. You refuel at 50 psi and you expect, therefore, that all components of the refuel system to be at 50 psi? It is an important piece of evidence and it is important to understand exactly what it is you test. Are you testing the system as part of a hydraulic test of the system, or are you simply refilling the aircraft and watching for leaks, knowing that the fuel going in is at 50 psi, and if there are no leaks by the time the aircraft is full, then the system must be able to withstand a filling pressure of 50 psi?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes. I mean, it’s an attempt to it’s certainly an attempt to reproduce what the aircraft will experience during air to air refuelling, by refuelling through the probe, and using the aircraft booster pumps to responsibility and pressurise the fuel feed system as well.
THE CORONER: So you are trying to recreate the system in flight?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: It is not a hydraulic test, then, is it?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: No.
MR RAWLINSON: Forgive me; the purpose of recreating the actual refuelling conditions is what AAR is now planning?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes, it was introduced when air to air refuelling was still instated, but because the system was still in the aircraft, we’re continuing to check that part of the system.
THE CORONER: To put it clearer, you refuel the aircraft using the air to air refuelling probe?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: That is all you do?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: And if there are no leaks, that is your pressure test.
MR RAWLINSON: How do you check for leaks?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: The aircraft is depanelled, as far as possible, and then it’s inspected by the tradesmen.
THE CORONER: What equipment is used for this refuel? Is it the same ground refuel system, only adapted an attachment for the probe at the nose?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: That test equipment was already in existence, the ability to refuel through the probe, so that part of the system could be tested. So we’ve simply introduced we’ve just adapted that maintenance procedure that was already in existence. Because when a component in a fuel system is replaced, it’s normal to pressure test it using this MP, and we’ve just pulled up that MP as a way of pressure testing.
THE CORONER: You can see the subtle difference between pressure testing, which is a natural test of withstanding pressure, and refuelling an aircraft and seeing if it leaks?
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: What you do, if I understand it, is refuel the aircraft and watch to see if it leaks.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: Yes.
THE CORONER: So it is not really fair to describe it as a pressure test.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: It’s the same test that we would conduct if we replaced a component in that system.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Scampton, Lincoln
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
Thank you for that, however, I am still confused as to how the groundcrew tested the aircraft for leaks. Did they de-fuel the aircraft and then refuel it through the AAR probe or what?
Where does the soapy water test come in? and has it now been replaced with some other method of detection as has been described earlier?
It strikes me that if what the winco says is correct, and there are now more modern and better ways of detecting fuel leaks, then that is the way forward surely, and not just for Nimrod.
If, on the other hand, the groundcrew are having to 'make do' (for want of a better phrase) with the old-fashioned method because of lack of funds to purchase the new kit, then that is a scandal and needs to be looked into.
Can anyone at Kinloss advise us as to what is used today please?
Thanks
TKR
Thank you for that, however, I am still confused as to how the groundcrew tested the aircraft for leaks. Did they de-fuel the aircraft and then refuel it through the AAR probe or what?
Where does the soapy water test come in? and has it now been replaced with some other method of detection as has been described earlier?
It strikes me that if what the winco says is correct, and there are now more modern and better ways of detecting fuel leaks, then that is the way forward surely, and not just for Nimrod.
If, on the other hand, the groundcrew are having to 'make do' (for want of a better phrase) with the old-fashioned method because of lack of funds to purchase the new kit, then that is a scandal and needs to be looked into.
Can anyone at Kinloss advise us as to what is used today please?
Thanks
TKR
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF will ground Nimrod to ensure Kinloss-based fleet safe in flight - Press & Journal
RAF will ground Nimrod to ensure Kinloss-based fleet safe in flight
The RAF is to ground a Nimrod spy plane and strip it down to ensure the Kinloss-based fleet is safe to fly............
I have heard it has been sent to Boscombe
RAF will ground Nimrod to ensure Kinloss-based fleet safe in flight
The RAF is to ground a Nimrod spy plane and strip it down to ensure the Kinloss-based fleet is safe to fly............
I have heard it has been sent to Boscombe
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone help Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Glenn Torpy? I understand, at the meeting with the families yesterday, in which he spoke very little, he was unable to say where the Nimrod was being stripped down, he didn't know. All Ainsworth and Torpy knew was that BAe had taken charge of a serviceable Nimrod, "ALARPed" and safe to fly, and decided to strip it down. Please post your answers to this thread or send them direct on a postcard to Sir Glenn.
God help us...
"ALARPed" - the Govt definition.
Nimrod crash families unconvinced of fleet's safety - Telegraph
God help us...
"ALARPed" - the Govt definition.
Nimrod crash families unconvinced of fleet's safety - Telegraph
Last edited by nigegilb; 11th Jul 2008 at 12:51.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would one expect CAS to know where that machine is? Why not ask CDM? If Air operate similarly to Maritime in DE&S, it should now be his responsibility.
I would also like to commend Gp Capt Hickman for his obvious restraint regarding the Coroner.
I would also like to commend Gp Capt Hickman for his obvious restraint regarding the Coroner.
Last edited by GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU; 11th Jul 2008 at 14:07. Reason: Finger trouble
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice Nimrod fly-by at RIAT yesterday
Guess it must have been airworthy
TD and Shona - you are both suffering from myopic dislexia - you can see the writing on the wall, but you can't read the message! - much like Tac Navs that try to fight the ac but are not listening to the rest of the crew
I appreciate your struggle, but MR2 will survive until MR4A enters service- you have to accept that this is a foregone conclusion
Regards B15
Guess it must have been airworthy
TD and Shona - you are both suffering from myopic dislexia - you can see the writing on the wall, but you can't read the message! - much like Tac Navs that try to fight the ac but are not listening to the rest of the crew
I appreciate your struggle, but MR2 will survive until MR4A enters service- you have to accept that this is a foregone conclusion
Regards B15
Last edited by buoy15; 12th Jul 2008 at 03:21.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUOY15
I really don't understand why you have to make personal attacks on myself and Shona, you have been banned from here once for your insensitive remarks and I would have thought you would have now shown restraint.
Shona did not attend the recent visit to London by the families. If you are able to read newspapers you will have seen that ,
But we are still not satisfied that the planes are fully airworthy," said Mr Dicketts.
Another family member Michael Bell said none of coroner's suggestions or the Borad of Inquiry report from last December had been fully implemented."We who have lost our loved ones are not in agreement," he said.
A third report into the crash is being conducted by Sir Charles Hadden-Cave, QC, and Mr Dicketts insisted if anyone in the RAF was found to be negligent the minister agreed that "action will be taken against them".
As you can see there appers to be a number of people with myopic dyslexia.
Oh, by the way, stop hiding behind your false name (Buoy15) and be a man. Or are you ashamed of who you are and what you write on here ?
If the RAF fully believed what they say why have they asked BAE to strip down a Nimrod at Boscombe ? (Ainsworth told us it was to insure they had not missed anything). Like they did on XV230 . Makes you think doesn't it or perhaps not.
PS; You appear to be unable to spell dyslexia sir.
Nice Nimrod fly-by at RIAT yesterday
Guess it must have been airworthy
TD and Shona - you are both suffering from myopic dislexia - you can see the writing on the wall, but you can't read the message! - much like Tac Navs that try to fight the ac but are not listening to the rest of the cre
I appreciate your struggle, but MR2 will survive until MR4A enters service- you have to accept that this is a foregone conclusion
Guess it must have been airworthy
TD and Shona - you are both suffering from myopic dislexia - you can see the writing on the wall, but you can't read the message! - much like Tac Navs that try to fight the ac but are not listening to the rest of the cre
I appreciate your struggle, but MR2 will survive until MR4A enters service- you have to accept that this is a foregone conclusion
Shona did not attend the recent visit to London by the families. If you are able to read newspapers you will have seen that ,
But we are still not satisfied that the planes are fully airworthy," said Mr Dicketts.
Another family member Michael Bell said none of coroner's suggestions or the Borad of Inquiry report from last December had been fully implemented."We who have lost our loved ones are not in agreement," he said.
A third report into the crash is being conducted by Sir Charles Hadden-Cave, QC, and Mr Dicketts insisted if anyone in the RAF was found to be negligent the minister agreed that "action will be taken against them".
As you can see there appers to be a number of people with myopic dyslexia.
Oh, by the way, stop hiding behind your false name (Buoy15) and be a man. Or are you ashamed of who you are and what you write on here ?
If the RAF fully believed what they say why have they asked BAE to strip down a Nimrod at Boscombe ? (Ainsworth told us it was to insure they had not missed anything). Like they did on XV230 . Makes you think doesn't it or perhaps not.
PS; You appear to be unable to spell dyslexia sir.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 12th Jul 2008 at 09:28.
With regard to the stripping down of a Nimrod for inspection, the phrases used in the newspaper article include.....'the RAF will'.....'the RAF is to'.... Which, in terms of the English grammar used, implies this is a future event that is yet to happen.
Does anyone know when this will occur, and how much later before the results are announced....???
And before anyone 'flames' me on this somewhat emotive thread, I do not have an agenda, or an axe to grind, nor am I calling for the fleet to be instantly grounded. I am just seeking information!!!
Does anyone know when this will occur, and how much later before the results are announced....???
And before anyone 'flames' me on this somewhat emotive thread, I do not have an agenda, or an axe to grind, nor am I calling for the fleet to be instantly grounded. I am just seeking information!!!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't bother asking Sir Glenn Torpy, he went to a meeting with the families of the deceased and wasn't even briefed on the situation. One of the families told him that he thought the Nimrod was at Boscombe. One wonders why Torpy bothered to attend.
Experts at the Inquest testified that Nimrod was XV230 was not airworthy on that fateful day and that the aircraft could only be considered airworthy when risks were reduced to ALARP. Now we have a politician, namely Ainsworth telling the families that it is ALARP, airworthy and safe to fly, because someone "has told him."
Why are we taking the word of a politician, when the experts say something different?
Why is a serviceable frame being stripped when Ainsworth has no worries about the safety of the aircraft?
Experts at the Inquest testified that Nimrod was XV230 was not airworthy on that fateful day and that the aircraft could only be considered airworthy when risks were reduced to ALARP. Now we have a politician, namely Ainsworth telling the families that it is ALARP, airworthy and safe to fly, because someone "has told him."
Why are we taking the word of a politician, when the experts say something different?
Why is a serviceable frame being stripped when Ainsworth has no worries about the safety of the aircraft?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we taking the word of a politician, when the experts say something different?
Why is a serviceable frame being stripped when Ainsworth has no worries about the safety of the aircraft?
Why is a serviceable frame being stripped when Ainsworth has no worries about the safety of the aircraft?
and (2) in the absence of any other activity - apart from slipping the ALARP work another few months, of course - this way they can point at something and claim they were doing all they could etc etc.
Will looking at every nut and bolt identify other potential weaknesses where systems interact with each other?
Guest
Posts: n/a
DaveJB , you quoted there a serviceable aircraft is being stripped and no worries to Ainsworth ?
You are one that says the aircraft is not serviceable to fly , so what is it meant to be safe of unsafe . Its ok to fly a serviceable jet to Boscome yet fly an unserviceable one any other time ?
You are one that says the aircraft is not serviceable to fly , so what is it meant to be safe of unsafe . Its ok to fly a serviceable jet to Boscome yet fly an unserviceable one any other time ?