Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keepittidy,
sorry, are you able to repost that in English? You might like to check whether you meant unserviceable or non-airworthy?
If you'd like to check my posts I have not at any point said the aircraft is unserviceable - what I HAVE said is that I find it difficult to reconcile the coroner's verdict, the series of contradictory statements from those charged with Nimrod safety, and what appears to be the RAF's own regulations on what constitutes airworthiness being ignored by the RAF. I have asked on here for clarification of some of these points. My official position on all this is best described as 'confused, and dubious'.
I continue, still, to be more than a little cynical about the political leadership and the Air staff. That 230 clearly WASN'T airworthy has been admitted extensively by everyone from Torpy down to the recruiting Sgt in Blckpool CIO, so I think there's a bit of an onus there to show the aircraft has now been made safe. Much of what I've seen recently simply looks like spin.
It took 25 years for the 'right' combination of circumstances to arise for the weaknesses in the AAR system to be catastrophically demonstrated, my post's final point was simply to remind folk that this accident resulted from an interaction between mutliple systems...so the strip is quite likely to show components that are wearing badly perhaps, or might show that something deep in the bowels is leaking a bit, but it won't show that (for example) when the pressure spikes to X PSI there's a fuel overflow that tracks down thisaway and makes contact with a hot air pipe at Y hundred degrees..... it's not just that the components have to be okay, but they have to work together okay too. THAT is my concern - I am not saying that the Nimrod isn't okay, what I'm saying is that there needs to be more by way of proof than a politician standing up and saying so.
Dave
sorry, are you able to repost that in English? You might like to check whether you meant unserviceable or non-airworthy?
If you'd like to check my posts I have not at any point said the aircraft is unserviceable - what I HAVE said is that I find it difficult to reconcile the coroner's verdict, the series of contradictory statements from those charged with Nimrod safety, and what appears to be the RAF's own regulations on what constitutes airworthiness being ignored by the RAF. I have asked on here for clarification of some of these points. My official position on all this is best described as 'confused, and dubious'.
I continue, still, to be more than a little cynical about the political leadership and the Air staff. That 230 clearly WASN'T airworthy has been admitted extensively by everyone from Torpy down to the recruiting Sgt in Blckpool CIO, so I think there's a bit of an onus there to show the aircraft has now been made safe. Much of what I've seen recently simply looks like spin.
It took 25 years for the 'right' combination of circumstances to arise for the weaknesses in the AAR system to be catastrophically demonstrated, my post's final point was simply to remind folk that this accident resulted from an interaction between mutliple systems...so the strip is quite likely to show components that are wearing badly perhaps, or might show that something deep in the bowels is leaking a bit, but it won't show that (for example) when the pressure spikes to X PSI there's a fuel overflow that tracks down thisaway and makes contact with a hot air pipe at Y hundred degrees..... it's not just that the components have to be okay, but they have to work together okay too. THAT is my concern - I am not saying that the Nimrod isn't okay, what I'm saying is that there needs to be more by way of proof than a politician standing up and saying so.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE battles to rebuild its reputation
BAE battles to rebuild its reputation
BAE is also concerned that the MoD has yet to decide whether to increase its firm production order for the Nimrod MRA4 from nine to 12 aircraft, as the type moves towards a delayed in-service date of late 2010.
I wonder why that is ?
BAE battles to rebuild its reputation
BAE is also concerned that the MoD has yet to decide whether to increase its firm production order for the Nimrod MRA4 from nine to 12 aircraft, as the type moves towards a delayed in-service date of late 2010.
I wonder why that is ?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see Andrew Johnson and the Indy keeping up the pressure. Further bulletins on ITV News tonight.
Death-crash spy planes are still leaking fuel
Britain's 18 Nimrods remain in daily use in Afghanistan, two months after a coroner called for the entire fleet to be grounded
By Andrew Johnson
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Crews on the RAF's ageing Nimrod spy planes have reported more than 300 fuel leaks in the two years since the disastrous crash which claimed 14 lives in Afghanistan in September 2006.
Bob Ainsworth, Defence minister, revealed that since the explosion near Kandahar, which caused the heaviest loss of life in a single incident since the Falklands war, crews had been under an obligation to report all fuel leaks.
In May private correspondence between Mr Ainsworth and his Tory Shadow Liam Fox had suggested there had been 111 fuel leaks since the disaster. However, this week Mr Ainsworth revealed that the figure of 111 referred solely to leaks from fuel tanks inside the fuselage of the 40-year-old craft.
It was this type of leak that caused the Afghanistan explosion on Nimrod XV230 when the fuel came into contact with a hot air pipe after mid-air refuelling.
Graham Knight, the father of Sergeant Ben Knight, 25, who died in the Nimrod crash, reacted angrily last night. "We've said all along that not enough has been done to ensure the safety of these aircraft. That there have been 111 leaks proves the point. Even one leak is too many if it's in the wrong place," he said.
A similar incident to the XV230 catastrophe is believed to have resulted in an emergency landing of a Nimrod in 2007. The Ministry of Defence has admitted that it has not been able to find the cause of that second fuel leak but it suspended all air-to-air refuelling as a result and took the hot air system out of use.
One Nimrod has also been taken out of service and stripped down to check for mechanical problems.
In May, the Oxfordshire coroner called for the entire Nimrod fleet of 18 aircraft to be grounded until they were made safe, following the inquest into the 14 personnel who died. However, the aircraft is essential for operations in Afghanistan – it acts as a radio transmitter enabling ground troops to communicate in the mountainous country – and the MoD has insisted it is safe to fly.
"In November 2006, after the loss of Nimrod XV230, [the Government] introduced mandatory fuel leak reporting procedures on all leaks associated with fuel tanks within the fuselage, the fuel system and any residual fuel found in specific areas of the aircraft," Mr Ainsworth said. "So far, our analysis indicates that since the introduction of these procedures, 111 fuel leaks have been recorded."
He added that, in total, more than 300 leaks had been recorded, half of which were from the wing fuel tanks leaking into the plane's slipstream. Experts say that while it is not unusual to find leaks on aircraft, 111 in such a small fleet seems excessive.
Gerald Howarth, the Conservative defence spokesman, said yesterday: "The leaks are a matter of great concern. It's well known that there have been problems with the fuel system, which is why it is important the Government expedites the programme to replace the fleet."
That £3bn programme to strip down the Nimrods and refurbish them is years behind schedule and millions of pounds over budget. It has left the cash-strapped MoD unable to afford the refurbishment of three R1 Nimrods, which carry out top-secret surveillance.
Instead, the MoD is reportedly on the verge of buying three US aircraft known as RC-135 Rivet Joints, along with listening technology. Some defence experts say this is a tacit admission that the British Nimrod – based on the 1950s Comet airframe – is beyond refurbishment.
Tim Ripley of Jane's Defence Weekly said the R1 had been due for an upgrade to see it through to 2025.
"The airframe is the same as the other Nimrods," he said. "They can't afford to get a new one, and can't keep them going, so they have to come up with a solution to replace the planes."
Craig Hoyle of Flight International magazine said it was becoming "politically unacceptable" to upgrade the Nimrod airframe. "The findings of the board of inquiry report into the crashed Nimrod reach over into the R1 fleet as well."
Death-crash spy planes are still leaking fuel
Britain's 18 Nimrods remain in daily use in Afghanistan, two months after a coroner called for the entire fleet to be grounded
By Andrew Johnson
Sunday, 27 July 2008
Crews on the RAF's ageing Nimrod spy planes have reported more than 300 fuel leaks in the two years since the disastrous crash which claimed 14 lives in Afghanistan in September 2006.
Bob Ainsworth, Defence minister, revealed that since the explosion near Kandahar, which caused the heaviest loss of life in a single incident since the Falklands war, crews had been under an obligation to report all fuel leaks.
In May private correspondence between Mr Ainsworth and his Tory Shadow Liam Fox had suggested there had been 111 fuel leaks since the disaster. However, this week Mr Ainsworth revealed that the figure of 111 referred solely to leaks from fuel tanks inside the fuselage of the 40-year-old craft.
It was this type of leak that caused the Afghanistan explosion on Nimrod XV230 when the fuel came into contact with a hot air pipe after mid-air refuelling.
Graham Knight, the father of Sergeant Ben Knight, 25, who died in the Nimrod crash, reacted angrily last night. "We've said all along that not enough has been done to ensure the safety of these aircraft. That there have been 111 leaks proves the point. Even one leak is too many if it's in the wrong place," he said.
A similar incident to the XV230 catastrophe is believed to have resulted in an emergency landing of a Nimrod in 2007. The Ministry of Defence has admitted that it has not been able to find the cause of that second fuel leak but it suspended all air-to-air refuelling as a result and took the hot air system out of use.
One Nimrod has also been taken out of service and stripped down to check for mechanical problems.
In May, the Oxfordshire coroner called for the entire Nimrod fleet of 18 aircraft to be grounded until they were made safe, following the inquest into the 14 personnel who died. However, the aircraft is essential for operations in Afghanistan – it acts as a radio transmitter enabling ground troops to communicate in the mountainous country – and the MoD has insisted it is safe to fly.
"In November 2006, after the loss of Nimrod XV230, [the Government] introduced mandatory fuel leak reporting procedures on all leaks associated with fuel tanks within the fuselage, the fuel system and any residual fuel found in specific areas of the aircraft," Mr Ainsworth said. "So far, our analysis indicates that since the introduction of these procedures, 111 fuel leaks have been recorded."
He added that, in total, more than 300 leaks had been recorded, half of which were from the wing fuel tanks leaking into the plane's slipstream. Experts say that while it is not unusual to find leaks on aircraft, 111 in such a small fleet seems excessive.
Gerald Howarth, the Conservative defence spokesman, said yesterday: "The leaks are a matter of great concern. It's well known that there have been problems with the fuel system, which is why it is important the Government expedites the programme to replace the fleet."
That £3bn programme to strip down the Nimrods and refurbish them is years behind schedule and millions of pounds over budget. It has left the cash-strapped MoD unable to afford the refurbishment of three R1 Nimrods, which carry out top-secret surveillance.
Instead, the MoD is reportedly on the verge of buying three US aircraft known as RC-135 Rivet Joints, along with listening technology. Some defence experts say this is a tacit admission that the British Nimrod – based on the 1950s Comet airframe – is beyond refurbishment.
Tim Ripley of Jane's Defence Weekly said the R1 had been due for an upgrade to see it through to 2025.
"The airframe is the same as the other Nimrods," he said. "They can't afford to get a new one, and can't keep them going, so they have to come up with a solution to replace the planes."
Craig Hoyle of Flight International magazine said it was becoming "politically unacceptable" to upgrade the Nimrod airframe. "The findings of the board of inquiry report into the crashed Nimrod reach over into the R1 fleet as well."
Firstly....'One Nimrod has also been taken out of service and stripped down to check for mechanical problems'......
Use of the word 'has' implies that it has actually happened. To the best of my knowledge it remains an intention. I asked the question before on 12th July, and (as with most of my questions) got no reply. But has the aircraft actually left Kinloss yet, or is it just 'going to' at some point!
As to the point regarding the R1, I believe that the reason it won't be kept going to 2025 is on the grounds of cost. When the MR2 goes, if the R1 was left to soldier on, then the cost of maintaining certain type specific items would be prohitbitive for a fleet of 3....
Use of the word 'has' implies that it has actually happened. To the best of my knowledge it remains an intention. I asked the question before on 12th July, and (as with most of my questions) got no reply. But has the aircraft actually left Kinloss yet, or is it just 'going to' at some point!
As to the point regarding the R1, I believe that the reason it won't be kept going to 2025 is on the grounds of cost. When the MR2 goes, if the R1 was left to soldier on, then the cost of maintaining certain type specific items would be prohitbitive for a fleet of 3....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Channel 4 had this as there headline news this evening.
Nimrod aircraft fuel fears revealed
Click on this link to watch it. Default Viral Title Player
Last Modified: 27 Jul 2008
By: Sue Turton
The safety of Britain's ageing fleet of Nimrod spy planes has been called into question.
A Ministry of Defence document revealed there have been almost three times as many fuel leaks in the past two years as previously thought.
Safety procedures on the Nimrod were reviewed after a crash in Afghanistan in 2006 which killed 14 servicemen.
Relatives of some of the dead expressed their surprise at the new figures and said it was further proof the decades-old aircraft are not airworthy.
Nimrod aircraft fuel fears revealed
Click on this link to watch it. Default Viral Title Player
Last Modified: 27 Jul 2008
By: Sue Turton
The safety of Britain's ageing fleet of Nimrod spy planes has been called into question.
A Ministry of Defence document revealed there have been almost three times as many fuel leaks in the past two years as previously thought.
Safety procedures on the Nimrod were reviewed after a crash in Afghanistan in 2006 which killed 14 servicemen.
Relatives of some of the dead expressed their surprise at the new figures and said it was further proof the decades-old aircraft are not airworthy.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the Ministry afraid of, a gross negligence manslaughter charge?
Just saw the ITV News piece, noticed in the MoD statement that there was no mention of the word airworthy, only that Nimrod was safe to fly. Funny that, still we have it on record that Ainsworth stated that Nimrod is airworthy. I wonder how many people in the UK believe him.
Just saw the ITV News piece, noticed in the MoD statement that there was no mention of the word airworthy, only that Nimrod was safe to fly. Funny that, still we have it on record that Ainsworth stated that Nimrod is airworthy. I wonder how many people in the UK believe him.
Last edited by nigegilb; 27th Jul 2008 at 21:16.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the SofS Said
In his statement to Parliament and to the Press on 4 December Des Browne said:
The BOI established the most probable cause of the fire and subsequent loss of XV230 and in doing so identified failings for which the MOD must take responsibility.
He then added:
My Department has taken a number of steps to ensure that a similar accident cannot occur again. (He did not mention that it almost had with the still, as far as I am aware, unknown cause fuel leak which led to the incident of 5 November 2007 - even though this had already happened.) We are learning the lessons from the accident and have already implemented many (but not all, and some are still incomplete) of the 33 recommendations of the BOI report. On the basis of these actions, the CAS's professional judgement is that the Nimod fleet is safe to fly. I have accepted his advice. I have, however, decided to put in place a review of the arrangements for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod MR2. (This is the Inquiry led by Mr Haddon Cave, which has yet to report its findings.)
So, until this independent Inquiry reports it would seem that whilst senior management are, led by CAS, saying the aircraft is safe (and is obviously being kept serviceable) they cannot, as yet, be assured that it is airworthy - perhaps somebody here knows differently or can comment further on progress with the Inquiry's findings and the availabilty of this "assurance".
There was a question as to where the BOI can be found - the link to the online version of the full BOI is at:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...odMr2Xv230.htm
JB
The BOI established the most probable cause of the fire and subsequent loss of XV230 and in doing so identified failings for which the MOD must take responsibility.
He then added:
My Department has taken a number of steps to ensure that a similar accident cannot occur again. (He did not mention that it almost had with the still, as far as I am aware, unknown cause fuel leak which led to the incident of 5 November 2007 - even though this had already happened.) We are learning the lessons from the accident and have already implemented many (but not all, and some are still incomplete) of the 33 recommendations of the BOI report. On the basis of these actions, the CAS's professional judgement is that the Nimod fleet is safe to fly. I have accepted his advice. I have, however, decided to put in place a review of the arrangements for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod MR2. (This is the Inquiry led by Mr Haddon Cave, which has yet to report its findings.)
So, until this independent Inquiry reports it would seem that whilst senior management are, led by CAS, saying the aircraft is safe (and is obviously being kept serviceable) they cannot, as yet, be assured that it is airworthy - perhaps somebody here knows differently or can comment further on progress with the Inquiry's findings and the availabilty of this "assurance".
There was a question as to where the BOI can be found - the link to the online version of the full BOI is at:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...odMr2Xv230.htm
JB
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of leaks found on an aircraft is irrelevant. Whether they are acceptable leaks or not is.
Stain, seep, run? Location?
Any aircraft will leak. Manufacture of fuel cells able to flex,vibrate, be subject to extremes of temperature and yet be structurally sound and fuel tight is extremely difficult.
A more interesting figure to speculate about would be the number of leaks recorded per aircraft of any airline of your choice vs the Nimrod.
Stain, seep, run? Location?
Any aircraft will leak. Manufacture of fuel cells able to flex,vibrate, be subject to extremes of temperature and yet be structurally sound and fuel tight is extremely difficult.
A more interesting figure to speculate about would be the number of leaks recorded per aircraft of any airline of your choice vs the Nimrod.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drustsonoferp
I thought I would take up your challenge re
So I just typed in aircraft fuel leaks into google and all that seemed to come up was stories on Nimrod.
I thought I would take up your challenge re
A more interesting figure to speculate about would be the number of leaks recorded per aircraft of any airline of your choice vs the Nimrod.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
So did I, and the no 2 story was a company that fixed fuel leaks - nothing to do with Nimrod. Admittedly no 1 was a bbc news story. In fact, only 3 of the top 10 stories related to Nimrod. I'm not convinced that this proves anything.
Duncs
So did I, and the no 2 story was a company that fixed fuel leaks - nothing to do with Nimrod. Admittedly no 1 was a bbc news story. In fact, only 3 of the top 10 stories related to Nimrod. I'm not convinced that this proves anything.
Duncs
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tappers Dad: So I just typed in aircraft fuel leaks into google and all that seemed to come up was stories on Nimrod.
This illustrates much of my point. XV230 was lost as the result of a fuel leak; this sets a precedent for reporting news of Nimrod fuel leaks as there is a greater public appetite for Nimrod fuel leaks than on an Airbus/Boeing transporting you across the ocean.
Notwithstanding the lack of reports on fuel leaks available open source via a google search, any aircraft will leak fuel, and part of the operating manuals will state what sort of leak rate is allowable, and where.
It might not be in the interests of public confidence in flight to inform potential passengers how many leaks their prospective aircraft has currently or in the recent past, which is not to say that leaks would necessarily be denied if an airline were asked directly. The results of such a question are more than likely to be akin to asking Tesco if they support underpaid workers in sweatshops in order to purchase cheap clothing.
This illustrates much of my point. XV230 was lost as the result of a fuel leak; this sets a precedent for reporting news of Nimrod fuel leaks as there is a greater public appetite for Nimrod fuel leaks than on an Airbus/Boeing transporting you across the ocean.
Notwithstanding the lack of reports on fuel leaks available open source via a google search, any aircraft will leak fuel, and part of the operating manuals will state what sort of leak rate is allowable, and where.
It might not be in the interests of public confidence in flight to inform potential passengers how many leaks their prospective aircraft has currently or in the recent past, which is not to say that leaks would necessarily be denied if an airline were asked directly. The results of such a question are more than likely to be akin to asking Tesco if they support underpaid workers in sweatshops in order to purchase cheap clothing.
I did a search for "aircraft fuel leak" in google, and came up with...
1.
Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2.
Passengers in mutiny over 'fuel leak' jet - Telegraph
3.
Al Jazeera English - Asia-Pacific - Fuel leak may have caused jet fire
4.
Pilot lands safely after fuel leak | Airline Industry Information | Find Articles at BNET
8.
Aviation Maintenance Magazine :: Fuel Leak From Human Error
9.
Fuel leak may have caused Taiwanese jet fire - USATODAY.com
First Nimrod story at number 10.
Fuel leak blamed for RAF Nimrod crash | UK news | guardian.co.uk
There are alot of Nimrod stories for sure, so I'm not having a go TD, but all aircraft can/do leak, not just Nimrod - lets not loose sight of that.
Then again there is always this story -
British Airways jet crash at Heathrow caused a masive fuel leak - mirror.co.uk
- interesting that the cause of this fuel leak has been deemed a flawed implementation in all Boeing 777s - I wonder if the changes demanded by the CAA/FAA in the aftermath of this have all been embodied or whether many 777s are still flying with the "not as safe as it could be" fuel 'stopcock' cockpit moding that contributed to causing this (fortunately not lethal) leak. PS I know this had no bearing on what caused the crash in the first place.
This is the real issue here, as I feared this has now got nothing to do with engineering and risk, and more to do with whether the Govt is seen to be "doing something about Nimrod, as its in the papers, and is damaging". Politics and airworthiness shouldn't mix, but they clearly are here.
1.
Air Transat Flight 236 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2.
Passengers in mutiny over 'fuel leak' jet - Telegraph
3.
Al Jazeera English - Asia-Pacific - Fuel leak may have caused jet fire
4.
Pilot lands safely after fuel leak | Airline Industry Information | Find Articles at BNET
8.
Aviation Maintenance Magazine :: Fuel Leak From Human Error
9.
Fuel leak may have caused Taiwanese jet fire - USATODAY.com
First Nimrod story at number 10.
Fuel leak blamed for RAF Nimrod crash | UK news | guardian.co.uk
There are alot of Nimrod stories for sure, so I'm not having a go TD, but all aircraft can/do leak, not just Nimrod - lets not loose sight of that.
Then again there is always this story -
British Airways jet crash at Heathrow caused a masive fuel leak - mirror.co.uk
- interesting that the cause of this fuel leak has been deemed a flawed implementation in all Boeing 777s - I wonder if the changes demanded by the CAA/FAA in the aftermath of this have all been embodied or whether many 777s are still flying with the "not as safe as it could be" fuel 'stopcock' cockpit moding that contributed to causing this (fortunately not lethal) leak. PS I know this had no bearing on what caused the crash in the first place.
Craig Hoyle of Flight International magazine said it was becoming "politically unacceptable" to upgrade the Nimrod airframe. "The findings of the board of inquiry report into the crashed Nimrod reach over into the R1 fleet as well."
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Craig Hoyle of Flight International magazine was quite right when he said "The findings of the board of inquiry report into the crashed Nimrod reach over into the R1 fleet as well."
this is lincolnshire- news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars
NIMRODS COULD BE SCRAPPED
08:00 - 29 July 2008
Nimrod spy planes that fly over the skies of Lincolnshire may be scrapped, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The MoD is considering axing three Nimrod spy planes based at RAF Waddington and replacing them with American RC-135 Rivet Joints.
The spy planes, operated by 52 Squadron, are due for an upgrade as part of a £3bn programme to refurbish the entire Nimrod fleet.
But the upgrades are now well behind schedule and millions over budget.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are considering a range of options to continue the capability currently provided by the Nimrod R1 until around 2025 - namely airborne electronic surveillance.
"As part of this work we are currently considering acquisition of the Rivet Joint system as an option to meet the capability requirement."
The decision to look at the future of all Nimrods follows an inquest where its aged design was blamed for a crash in Afghanistan which claimed the lives of 14 servicemen.
this is lincolnshire- news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars
NIMRODS COULD BE SCRAPPED
08:00 - 29 July 2008
Nimrod spy planes that fly over the skies of Lincolnshire may be scrapped, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The MoD is considering axing three Nimrod spy planes based at RAF Waddington and replacing them with American RC-135 Rivet Joints.
The spy planes, operated by 52 Squadron, are due for an upgrade as part of a £3bn programme to refurbish the entire Nimrod fleet.
But the upgrades are now well behind schedule and millions over budget.
An MoD spokesman said: "We are considering a range of options to continue the capability currently provided by the Nimrod R1 until around 2025 - namely airborne electronic surveillance.
"As part of this work we are currently considering acquisition of the Rivet Joint system as an option to meet the capability requirement."
The decision to look at the future of all Nimrods follows an inquest where its aged design was blamed for a crash in Afghanistan which claimed the lives of 14 servicemen.
TD dont just think that it is the Nimrod that suffers from fuel leaks......I have flown the Nimrod, Dominie and C130 in the RAF and all suffered from fuel leaks...I have flown C130 in the middle east for RAFOman and guess what they leaked as well......I have flown Tristar in civvy street for 4 different airlines -1,-50,-100,-150,-200 and the -500 and guess what they all leaked fuel. What happened to 230 may well have been caused by a massive fuel leak mixing with hot air I dont know but dont let the fact that there have been 300 fuel leaks in 2 years throw you as someone has alteady said what classification of fuel leak were they.....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer
You are quite correct in what you say, but.................
how many of those aircraft that you quote have been lost due to a massive fuel leak?
I think thats the point TD is making.
You are quite correct in what you say, but.................
how many of those aircraft that you quote have been lost due to a massive fuel leak?
I think thats the point TD is making.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Gem from Gp Cpt Hickman
During the course of the Coroner inquest into the loss of VX230, MOD stated that a hot air duct replacement program was to be undertaken in the engine bay areas. These ducts are by the way the same items that BAE Systems declared life expired and in need of replacement back in June 2005. The transcript records the following;
Mr Evans (Mod barrister); You are also aiming to replace all ducts in the engine bays and the hope is that should be done by the end of this year.
Gp Cpt Hickman; Yes, that is correct.
It now transpires that Gp Cpt Hickman meant the end of the financial year (March 2009), and not the end of this year (December 2008).
On the subject of ducts, it is reported that a second duct failure happened around March 2006. QinetiQ's view on this is that the risk associated with this system should now be regarded as a being "Occasional/Catastrophic". This according to my Hazard Risk Index table puts it as being an A (Intolerable Risk).
NB. The duct replacement program not only covers the engine bay areas, but the cross-feed system as well (including the 5-way junction)
Mr Evans (Mod barrister); You are also aiming to replace all ducts in the engine bays and the hope is that should be done by the end of this year.
Gp Cpt Hickman; Yes, that is correct.
It now transpires that Gp Cpt Hickman meant the end of the financial year (March 2009), and not the end of this year (December 2008).
On the subject of ducts, it is reported that a second duct failure happened around March 2006. QinetiQ's view on this is that the risk associated with this system should now be regarded as a being "Occasional/Catastrophic". This according to my Hazard Risk Index table puts it as being an A (Intolerable Risk).
NB. The duct replacement program not only covers the engine bay areas, but the cross-feed system as well (including the 5-way junction)
Last edited by Distant Voice; 9th Aug 2008 at 14:35.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's be absolutely clear here. Nimrod XV230 exploded because of an abysmal failure to implement airworthiness regulations. This failure to implement airworthiness regulations is directly linked to a reduction in funding since the 90's which has led to inexperienced and poorly qualified personnel tasked with the responsibility to maintain the build standard. Nimrod XV230 should have had dry bay protection but didn't. Nimrod Xv230 should have had bomb bay fire protection and fuel tank protection, but didn't. Neither does its replacement MRA4. Nimrod XV230 should have had its safety case reconsidered following its change of use to overland ops, but didn't.
Let's not get overly focussed on fuel leaks. MoD would probably prefer us to do this, it facilitates a "one-off" argumentation used consistently by MoD drones.
This is a very big argument with as many as 6 fatal crashes interlinked, possibly more. Big events are coming up, regarding Chinook and C130 Herc. Keep a close eye on the Puma inquest. An Inquest where DSF tried to impose censorship unheard of in the UK.
Cave will report in time on airworthiness failures. As someone who I trust implicitly said to me, "time to move on."
Let's not get overly focussed on fuel leaks. MoD would probably prefer us to do this, it facilitates a "one-off" argumentation used consistently by MoD drones.
This is a very big argument with as many as 6 fatal crashes interlinked, possibly more. Big events are coming up, regarding Chinook and C130 Herc. Keep a close eye on the Puma inquest. An Inquest where DSF tried to impose censorship unheard of in the UK.
Cave will report in time on airworthiness failures. As someone who I trust implicitly said to me, "time to move on."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Go to giggle at that report there from the lincolshire paper . they say 52 Squadron , cant even get the squadron number correct.
Im sure this news has been on PPrune for last few months about replacement for the Nimrod R1, the Rivet Joint is on another thread so its not new news just to confirm that one.
and I not sure if this is 100% fully correct , the Nimrod R1 has more airframe hours than the MR2 and would make sense to be looking for replacement quicker than the MR2 that may be the reason.
Im sure this news has been on PPrune for last few months about replacement for the Nimrod R1, the Rivet Joint is on another thread so its not new news just to confirm that one.
and I not sure if this is 100% fully correct , the Nimrod R1 has more airframe hours than the MR2 and would make sense to be looking for replacement quicker than the MR2 that may be the reason.