Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdSett100
did you view my comments/questions about the ac, as i said I'm in no position to critises anyone say for the Government and maybe the heads of the MOD etc, even though I have never served and am trying to learn this as an outsider I have total repsect for the Ground and aircrews and would find it very hard to accept that the ac is less safe now than it was before the tragic loss of XV230. I personally want to just keep the pressure on the government over funding of the armed forces and to me this is a good case of what happens when funding is cut
Regards
Duncan
did you view my comments/questions about the ac, as i said I'm in no position to critises anyone say for the Government and maybe the heads of the MOD etc, even though I have never served and am trying to learn this as an outsider I have total repsect for the Ground and aircrews and would find it very hard to accept that the ac is less safe now than it was before the tragic loss of XV230. I personally want to just keep the pressure on the government over funding of the armed forces and to me this is a good case of what happens when funding is cut
Regards
Duncan
davejb:
Sorry dave, but I can't agree with you there;
1. When a Senior Officer hounds a subordinate and attempts to get him dismissed for carrying out his legal obligations to enforce the MOD's own Airworthiness Regulations because he has ruled that it is an offence to comply with the mandated rules that ensure compliance with JSP 553 (Military Airworthiness Regulations), I call that malice.
2. The Fairey Battles were shot down in their droves because they were no match for the Me109s given that there is only so much that one LAC gunner armed with a Lewis gun can achieve, not because they lacked for airworthiness per se. Oh, and there were no gongs either for said LAC gunners, as I was bitterly reminded by one at a Squadron reunion recently!
3. Agree your point about the Internet though, thank God for that and also for the 800 year old institution of HM Coroners.
Ultimately this is about money and backbone - nobody failed to do things through malice, although stupidity is another matter....
Historically this isn't really that unusual - it's only the advent of instant worldwide chat via the internet that has allowed the dirty washing to be displayed so readily and that has allowedgeneral revulsion to be expressed at the apparently callous attitude to the loss of life...the guys bombing the Belgian bridges in Fairey Battles got a few gongs and the odd barrack block named after them...
Historically this isn't really that unusual - it's only the advent of instant worldwide chat via the internet that has allowed the dirty washing to be displayed so readily and that has allowedgeneral revulsion to be expressed at the apparently callous attitude to the loss of life...the guys bombing the Belgian bridges in Fairey Battles got a few gongs and the odd barrack block named after them...
1. When a Senior Officer hounds a subordinate and attempts to get him dismissed for carrying out his legal obligations to enforce the MOD's own Airworthiness Regulations because he has ruled that it is an offence to comply with the mandated rules that ensure compliance with JSP 553 (Military Airworthiness Regulations), I call that malice.
2. The Fairey Battles were shot down in their droves because they were no match for the Me109s given that there is only so much that one LAC gunner armed with a Lewis gun can achieve, not because they lacked for airworthiness per se. Oh, and there were no gongs either for said LAC gunners, as I was bitterly reminded by one at a Squadron reunion recently!
3. Agree your point about the Internet though, thank God for that and also for the 800 year old institution of HM Coroners.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Where the sun don't shine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdSett,
I appreciate that your post was written at midnight but if you re-read my comments you will see that I am not contradicting myself but stating a fact:
The safety case is being re-written but had not been re-written. The fact that there have been a number of fuel leaks due to technical or engineering failures and also a number hot air leaks for the same reason, coupled with a flawed original safety case leave me not completely happy.
I am, however, content that the aircraft is safe enough for me to continue flying. I have read all of the incident reports, the QQ reports and, of course, the BoI, and am fully aware of the background and potential implications of them all.
It is the fact that information has been hidden from those that need it that worries me most. I understand that there are a number of reasons why details need to be kept away from the public domain but the FoI Act removes those arguments. Keeping crews in the dark leads to mistrust.
I appreciate that hindsight is a lovely thing but please explain why I should have complete confidence in a system that approved the reinstatement of the SCP with the catastrophic results that followed.
If you are in a currently in a flying tour and are saying that you are completely happy with the safety of the aircraft then I am pleased for you. I am also currently on a Nimrod squadron and believe there is still work to be done, and I am certainly not alone.
I appreciate that your post was written at midnight but if you re-read my comments you will see that I am not contradicting myself but stating a fact:
They are not completely happy with the safety of the aircraft but do not think that they are taking unacceptable risk by flying the Nimrod.
I am, however, content that the aircraft is safe enough for me to continue flying. I have read all of the incident reports, the QQ reports and, of course, the BoI, and am fully aware of the background and potential implications of them all.
It is the fact that information has been hidden from those that need it that worries me most. I understand that there are a number of reasons why details need to be kept away from the public domain but the FoI Act removes those arguments. Keeping crews in the dark leads to mistrust.
I appreciate that hindsight is a lovely thing but please explain why I should have complete confidence in a system that approved the reinstatement of the SCP with the catastrophic results that followed.
If you are in a currently in a flying tour and are saying that you are completely happy with the safety of the aircraft then I am pleased for you. I am also currently on a Nimrod squadron and believe there is still work to be done, and I am certainly not alone.
Last edited by Hugh S; 1st Oct 2008 at 20:00. Reason: Added final paragraph
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why I should have complete confidence in a system that approved the reinstatement of the SCP with the catastrophic results that followed
Duncan
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdSett100
I would agree with you that the majority of those critics of Nimrod safety are 'ex' Nimrod operators like myself, however, that is not a sufficiently sound reason to simply just ignore us all and dismiss what we say. Many of us have a lot of experience in aviation, including a considerable amount of time on Nimrod, and I think that our genuine concern for the safety of our fellow aviators is worthy of comment, irrespective of whether it agrees with you or not.
The one thing that you cannot argue against is the fact that one aircraft and crew was lost, and one aircraft came pretty close to following it. And yet all you can say (and keep on saying) is that the aircraft is safe and that the aircrew are happy to fly it. Hugh S certainly dosn't appear to share your views does he? Or is he a 'one off?'
I would suggest to you that many aircrew were certainly NOT happy to fly it, and some are still not happy to fly it!
Now, you can argue all day and all night long about how safe YOU believe the aircraft to be and you can try your best to convince us that the majority of your colleagues feel the same however, truthfully................
How many current aircrew have reservations about the aircrafts safety?
How many QFIs left, as a direct result of the loss of 230?
How many Navs, AEOs and AEOps left following the loss of 230?
And finally, how many aircrew have expressed serious concerns over the aircrafts safety and/or asked to be taken off Nimrod flying duties?
You claim that there is not a problem amongst the aircrew at Kinloss because nobody (from Kinloss anyway) has come onto this forum and disagreed with you, therefore you must be correct. Maybe your right, I don't know. However, by the very same argument, I don't see dozens of aircrew from Kinloss coming on this forum agreeing with you either!
The Winco
I would agree with you that the majority of those critics of Nimrod safety are 'ex' Nimrod operators like myself, however, that is not a sufficiently sound reason to simply just ignore us all and dismiss what we say. Many of us have a lot of experience in aviation, including a considerable amount of time on Nimrod, and I think that our genuine concern for the safety of our fellow aviators is worthy of comment, irrespective of whether it agrees with you or not.
The one thing that you cannot argue against is the fact that one aircraft and crew was lost, and one aircraft came pretty close to following it. And yet all you can say (and keep on saying) is that the aircraft is safe and that the aircrew are happy to fly it. Hugh S certainly dosn't appear to share your views does he? Or is he a 'one off?'
I would suggest to you that many aircrew were certainly NOT happy to fly it, and some are still not happy to fly it!
Now, you can argue all day and all night long about how safe YOU believe the aircraft to be and you can try your best to convince us that the majority of your colleagues feel the same however, truthfully................
How many current aircrew have reservations about the aircrafts safety?
How many QFIs left, as a direct result of the loss of 230?
How many Navs, AEOs and AEOps left following the loss of 230?
And finally, how many aircrew have expressed serious concerns over the aircrafts safety and/or asked to be taken off Nimrod flying duties?
You claim that there is not a problem amongst the aircrew at Kinloss because nobody (from Kinloss anyway) has come onto this forum and disagreed with you, therefore you must be correct. Maybe your right, I don't know. However, by the very same argument, I don't see dozens of aircrew from Kinloss coming on this forum agreeing with you either!
The Winco
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco:
No, that is not ALL I say. Yes, I do constantly re-iterate my firm belief that it has been safe since the accident, but I usually provide some detailed information why this is this case. I have explained why a worst case HP duct failure is not catastrophic. DV will tell you that if its not deemed "catastrophic" it doesn't meet the unsafe criteria. I have referred to the QQ combustion analysis commissioned by the BOI to prove that AVTUR does not ignite on surfaces at moderate temperatures thus proving that the fuel leak on XV235 did not warrant an emergency landing and it was not similar to XV230. I don't make this stuff up (others have done the work) to prove my point.
I don't dismiss you, and I think you are being unfair by suggesting that I do. I do, however, dismiss pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. I've known for some time that you are ex-Nimrod, and you are a very experienced pilot, but these facts alone are not a qualification to enter into a debate about current safety issues. Bring some technical input to the table and I will answer you. By all means ask questions, but do not say I am wrong when I give factual answers:
I don't know and none of us can know for sure, but they are not showing it to me, casually as a colleague, or their execs, properly. Crewroom chat should be taken further if it represents real unease. I cannot believe that junior officers have not got the guts to go to their execs with their worries. So, I can only presume that, in general, there is an air of confidence about safety. I do accept that the flow of information to the aircrew (and their families) could and should be better and the crewroom chat that I have witnessed has been more about those communication failings than the core issue of safety itself.
A few have left since Sep 06. I believe there might be one or two more, soon. Unless they are duplicitous, which I doubt, their stated reasons for leaving were not about safety. Netjets.
I don't know the answer to either question. Do you? Anyway, safety is not established by popular opinion. It doesn't matter a jot how many people agree with me or you. Technical analysis provides the answer and this has been done. It could be communicated better, though.
Regards
Ed
And yet all you can say (and keep on saying) is that the aircraft is safe
I don't dismiss you, and I think you are being unfair by suggesting that I do. I do, however, dismiss pointless rhetoric and personal attacks. I've known for some time that you are ex-Nimrod, and you are a very experienced pilot, but these facts alone are not a qualification to enter into a debate about current safety issues. Bring some technical input to the table and I will answer you. By all means ask questions, but do not say I am wrong when I give factual answers:
How many current aircrew have reservations about the aircrafts safety?
How many QFIs left, as a direct result of the loss of 230?
How many Navs, AEOs and AEOps left following the loss of 230?
And finally, how many aircrew have expressed serious concerns over the aircrafts safety and/or asked to be taken off Nimrod flying duties?
And finally, how many aircrew have expressed serious concerns over the aircrafts safety and/or asked to be taken off Nimrod flying duties?
Regards
Ed
"it has been safe since the accident"
While the MoD may be correct in saying it is safer since the accident, I very much doubt if they have had the time or resources to get to the point where they can demonstrate this in accordance with their regulations. I have noted here, on many threads, that a key component and long standing MoD weakness is the requirement to maintain the build standard, as the current BS and use MUST be reflected in the Safety Case. If it is not, then how can MoD demonstrate compliance?
I do note however, that the only Defence Standard describing the procedures has recently been placed (in part) on the D/Stan website. This, 14 years after it was announced it was to be cancelled and not replaced. (Which illustrates the mentality we're dealing with. Beancounter - "What's the purpose of this Def Stan?". Engineer - "It's the bible on maintaining airworthiness". BC - "Ditch it". Result? Last update, 1991). The Standard remains valid(ish) but, laughably, MoD cannot find the 20 specifications it calls up (which form a book bigger than the Def Stan itself); without which efficient and timely implementation can only be carried out by some old dinosaur who knows (or wrote) the specs. In practice, what happens is that someone with no training whatsoever tries to make it up as he goes along. Yet this is a discipline that, 20 years ago, you weren't allowed to go near unless you'd (a) worked hands-on with the subject equipment or aircraft, (b) been an engineering project manager on scores of projects and (c) proven yourself capable of making good decisions. In short, these people were hand-picked as airworthiness was deemed rather important. Which leads us to the competence, experience and corporate knowledge components of airworthiness.
And it is in the application of airworthiness regulations that MoD criticised itself . Some posters on pprune agreed, many disagreed. But focussing on the "It's safe now" mantra only diverts attention away from the BoI comments and the QC's remit. I suspect such diversion is the remit or agenda of those seconded to the review. They certainly don't seem to be doing much about ACM Loader's 2nd statement, that the wider impact of these failures across other aircraft fleets be assessed.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EdSet100
I have come to the conclusion that you are NOT who you say you are on this forum, and I'll tell you why.
You say that whenever a technical point is brought to the table, you answer it. So let me put this to you;
In post 1233 You were asked by TSM what method of leak detection was used at Kinloss on the Nimrod.
In post 1238 you were asked the same by myself.
In post 1258 I asked you again.
In post 1292 Terry K Rumble asked you exactly the same.
Any idea why you have NOT replied to any of those requests?
Could it be that you don't know and to get on the phone to someone at Kinloss is a bit difficult? Maybe it is too embarrassing to disclose what (if any) methods are currently used or were being used when 230 was lost. So what is to be Ed?
The other thing is that you have displayed an unbelievable degree of knowledge on this forum regarding the Nimrod. Indeeed, I and many others, have applauded you for it, and I would go as far as to say that I do regard you as an expert on the aircraft, but too much of an expert to be on a flying sqn at Kinloss. The thing is, you seem to know just a little bit too much frankly. The average B cat on the squadron is a pretty clued up chap. An A cat is considerably better and knows considerably more, but you exceed all of them, and thats why I don't believe you are just a 'normal sqn shag!' You know too much Ed!
You constantly refer to reports by civilian agencies when it suits your cause, and yet you dismiss the same company when they produce a report that doesn't assist you in your cause. QQ is a classic case. Most people know that AVTUR on its own won't ignite - indeed, unless you have the right conditions it's a bu**er to ignite, we don't need telling that. However, spray it under pressure out into a mist, mix it something pretty hot and whilst it might not be the ideal conditions, there is a strong possibility that it will go bang! But, because you cannot 'technically' prove that on 230, you dismiss it. Wrong.
Your comment about the crew of 235 sickens me frankly, and I regard it as an insult to the captain and his crew. I have not spoken to anyone who disagrees with his/their actions during this incident. They did exactly the right thing, declared an emergency and landed the jet quickly, perfect, and I take my hat off to them all. I would have done the exact same thing. Whoever feels it necessary to criticise them clearly knows little, if anything, about flying aircraft.
So, you are on a Nimrod squadron and you don't know how many QFIs you have left the fleet? It has been common knowledge for some time that the Nimrod fleet does not any QFIs left, and if you don't know that, then you cannot be who you say. Everyone knows! It's even been in the press! The same goes for the rest of the aircrew. You don't know how many have quit or expressed concern over the aircrafts safety? I wonder where do spend all your days at Kinloss?
The one point I agree with you is when you say 'safety is not established by popular opinion' You are of course totally correct. However, safety is not established or improved by shoving your head up your arse and hoping it goes away either!
So, who are you? Well, I think you are probably someone working for the MOD or perhaps a staff officer working for someone close to the top of the food chain, desperately trying to push out the 'official views' onto the rest of us. Sorry Ed, it hasn't worked with me, and I think most people on here will soon reach the same conclusion as I have about your true identity.
The Winco
I have come to the conclusion that you are NOT who you say you are on this forum, and I'll tell you why.
You say that whenever a technical point is brought to the table, you answer it. So let me put this to you;
In post 1233 You were asked by TSM what method of leak detection was used at Kinloss on the Nimrod.
In post 1238 you were asked the same by myself.
In post 1258 I asked you again.
In post 1292 Terry K Rumble asked you exactly the same.
Any idea why you have NOT replied to any of those requests?
Could it be that you don't know and to get on the phone to someone at Kinloss is a bit difficult? Maybe it is too embarrassing to disclose what (if any) methods are currently used or were being used when 230 was lost. So what is to be Ed?
The other thing is that you have displayed an unbelievable degree of knowledge on this forum regarding the Nimrod. Indeeed, I and many others, have applauded you for it, and I would go as far as to say that I do regard you as an expert on the aircraft, but too much of an expert to be on a flying sqn at Kinloss. The thing is, you seem to know just a little bit too much frankly. The average B cat on the squadron is a pretty clued up chap. An A cat is considerably better and knows considerably more, but you exceed all of them, and thats why I don't believe you are just a 'normal sqn shag!' You know too much Ed!
You constantly refer to reports by civilian agencies when it suits your cause, and yet you dismiss the same company when they produce a report that doesn't assist you in your cause. QQ is a classic case. Most people know that AVTUR on its own won't ignite - indeed, unless you have the right conditions it's a bu**er to ignite, we don't need telling that. However, spray it under pressure out into a mist, mix it something pretty hot and whilst it might not be the ideal conditions, there is a strong possibility that it will go bang! But, because you cannot 'technically' prove that on 230, you dismiss it. Wrong.
Your comment about the crew of 235 sickens me frankly, and I regard it as an insult to the captain and his crew. I have not spoken to anyone who disagrees with his/their actions during this incident. They did exactly the right thing, declared an emergency and landed the jet quickly, perfect, and I take my hat off to them all. I would have done the exact same thing. Whoever feels it necessary to criticise them clearly knows little, if anything, about flying aircraft.
So, you are on a Nimrod squadron and you don't know how many QFIs you have left the fleet? It has been common knowledge for some time that the Nimrod fleet does not any QFIs left, and if you don't know that, then you cannot be who you say. Everyone knows! It's even been in the press! The same goes for the rest of the aircrew. You don't know how many have quit or expressed concern over the aircrafts safety? I wonder where do spend all your days at Kinloss?
The one point I agree with you is when you say 'safety is not established by popular opinion' You are of course totally correct. However, safety is not established or improved by shoving your head up your arse and hoping it goes away either!
So, who are you? Well, I think you are probably someone working for the MOD or perhaps a staff officer working for someone close to the top of the food chain, desperately trying to push out the 'official views' onto the rest of us. Sorry Ed, it hasn't worked with me, and I think most people on here will soon reach the same conclusion as I have about your true identity.
The Winco
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco.
Not sure why you feel the need to stir it again. ALL the QFIs that left in the last while did NOT leave due to 230. They all have their reasons, but 230 was not one of them. They are all personal friends of mine. The end.
BS
Not sure why you feel the need to stir it again. ALL the QFIs that left in the last while did NOT leave due to 230. They all have their reasons, but 230 was not one of them. They are all personal friends of mine. The end.
BS
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Winco.
There are no Nimrod MR2 QFIs? "I think you will find" there are 5, yes 5 at Kinloss presently. Your lack of awereness on this worries me in the respect that does this mean all your other arguments are premised on inconsistencies? I'll leave the readership to decide...
BS
There are no Nimrod MR2 QFIs? "I think you will find" there are 5, yes 5 at Kinloss presently. Your lack of awereness on this worries me in the respect that does this mean all your other arguments are premised on inconsistencies? I'll leave the readership to decide...
BS
Last edited by betty swallox; 7th Oct 2008 at 12:59.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's forget about QFI's for a moment and talk about actions to bring the fleet to ALARP. Gp Capt Hickman stated at the inquest that in the move towards ALARP several hot air ducts (37) were to be replaced in each aircraft by the end of the year (now known to be the financial year). Can someone tell me how many aircraft have had their ducts replaced as part of this programme, to date?
DV
DV
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed - I agree with you (well most of what you say).
Winco - You're a tw@!
DV - Are you trying to divert the readers attention away from one of your supporters when he has been proved to be spouting ****e? This joins a lot of the other ****e that he, you and the others that are not Nimrod crew, groundies or even at ISK have been spouting. Your cause for us and the aircraft is valiant, but it is gravely damaged, as are your reputations, amongst many of us with daily contact with the Mighty Hunter when you constantly post 'facts' that are completely wrong.
As has been said above, if we have no QFI's here then who in hell is training all the student pilots going through 42 at the moment? If there are so many aircrew leaving the fleet because of the aircraft then how come I know of so few? Most are leaving for many other reasons, those I know of that are leaving or have left due to 'aircraft safety' concerns can be counted on fewer fingers than I have on one hand - and no, I'm not from Buckie so I only have the normal number of fingers per hand!
MadMark!!!
Winco - You're a tw@!
DV - Are you trying to divert the readers attention away from one of your supporters when he has been proved to be spouting ****e? This joins a lot of the other ****e that he, you and the others that are not Nimrod crew, groundies or even at ISK have been spouting. Your cause for us and the aircraft is valiant, but it is gravely damaged, as are your reputations, amongst many of us with daily contact with the Mighty Hunter when you constantly post 'facts' that are completely wrong.
As has been said above, if we have no QFI's here then who in hell is training all the student pilots going through 42 at the moment? If there are so many aircrew leaving the fleet because of the aircraft then how come I know of so few? Most are leaving for many other reasons, those I know of that are leaving or have left due to 'aircraft safety' concerns can be counted on fewer fingers than I have on one hand - and no, I'm not from Buckie so I only have the normal number of fingers per hand!
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Where the sun don't shine
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the Winco hasn't really thought through his previous post I think tw@! is a little extreme; "Muppet" would have sufficed.
His comments regarding QFIs are about 12 months out of date: at one stage there was a serious potential problem due to the exodus of QFIs but what the PVR taketh, the CFS giveth back.
As outsiders TD, Winco, DV etc. cannot be in possession of all the current facts but ultimately they are not stirring the sh*t out of malice. If their perseverance puts pressure on the MoD to ensure that aircraft is made as safe as possible and the risk ALARP then how can it be a bad thing?
For the record, I also agree with MOST of EdSett's comments. However, I am still concerned about the safety of the aircraft, despite EdSett's reassurances and my own experience with thousands of hours on type. My worries are based as much on the MoD's lack of transparency and apparent attempts to hide the truth as the physical problems that we already know about.
His comments regarding QFIs are about 12 months out of date: at one stage there was a serious potential problem due to the exodus of QFIs but what the PVR taketh, the CFS giveth back.
As outsiders TD, Winco, DV etc. cannot be in possession of all the current facts but ultimately they are not stirring the sh*t out of malice. If their perseverance puts pressure on the MoD to ensure that aircraft is made as safe as possible and the risk ALARP then how can it be a bad thing?
For the record, I also agree with MOST of EdSett's comments. However, I am still concerned about the safety of the aircraft, despite EdSett's reassurances and my own experience with thousands of hours on type. My worries are based as much on the MoD's lack of transparency and apparent attempts to hide the truth as the physical problems that we already know about.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Hugh S.
Occasionally people get carried away - that doesn't mean they're bad people, or that everything they say is wrong...we all spout balls now and then.
(Granted some of us make a hobby of it).
Dave
Occasionally people get carried away - that doesn't mean they're bad people, or that everything they say is wrong...we all spout balls now and then.
(Granted some of us make a hobby of it).
Dave
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But guys, Winco is getting all his gen from a mate on the 'coal face':
As we all know, the pool of Sqn Ldr Navs at Kinloss, let alone on the 'coal face' is actually pretty small. Given that 1 got posted down South a couple of weeks ago, and that 1 is female, that leaves quite a small number even if you interpret 'coal face' in the loosest terms. I know for a fact that PPrune is not the main topic of conversation in our crewroom, so that reduces the list by 3. I'm also assured that it is not the main topic of conversation on the painting by numbers Sqn, so another 3 off the list. That leaves a very small list, most of whom I've talked to.
Now how big is the pool of Wg Cdr Nimrod Pilots who left the fleet in 1996 and that now fly for BA and come from Geordie Land?
EdSett,
I spoke to a Sqn Ldr (aircrew) mate at Kinloss last night, and we discussed your comment about nobody in the crew rooms interested in PPrune. Well, I'm not sure what crewroom you visit, but on his squadron, it is still the main topic of conversation. (He is a Nav, but hey, he is still at the coal face) Are you sure you aren't the CAS??!!
I spoke to a Sqn Ldr (aircrew) mate at Kinloss last night, and we discussed your comment about nobody in the crew rooms interested in PPrune. Well, I'm not sure what crewroom you visit, but on his squadron, it is still the main topic of conversation. (He is a Nav, but hey, he is still at the coal face) Are you sure you aren't the CAS??!!
Now how big is the pool of Wg Cdr Nimrod Pilots who left the fleet in 1996 and that now fly for BA and come from Geordie Land?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh...
My feelings about Winco are not based solely on his last post but on his posting history, and I stand by them. He may well be a very nice chap, but that is not how he comes across to me. I am sure that some of you may think the same of me, we are all entitled to our personal opinions.
MadMark!!!
Although the Winco hasn't really thought through his previous post I think tw@! is a little extreme; "Muppet" would have sufficed.
MadMark!!!