Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh come on you lot. Stop adopting the nanny-state pretence of mutual apologising and back slapping...Winco was WRONG in his postulation of MR2 QFIs, or the lack thereof. The end.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely enough, Zedder, PPRuNe is not the main topic of conversation in our crewroom either, and I think that covers all bases!
That is not to say that it this thread isn't occasionally mentioned in briefs to correct misinformation, of course, but that's a long way from the 'entire Squadron hanging on every word written here' image that some might imagine!
That is not to say that it this thread isn't occasionally mentioned in briefs to correct misinformation, of course, but that's a long way from the 'entire Squadron hanging on every word written here' image that some might imagine!
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco,
Despite the writings of others, here, regarding the QFI situation, I will reply to your post and hopefully close off some of your avenues of interest.
1. I stated in my previous message that I usually provide some detailed information. I do not profess, as you have just asserted, to answer fully every question in this discussion. So, when you and others asked me about my use of the word, "appropriate" when detecting leaks, that was the best word I could think of at the time without giving falsehoods. Anyway, I have now done the courtesy of finding the answer for you, TSM and Terry Rumble, whom I well remember from earlier days on the fleet. Incidentally, to close off one avenue, I didn't phone Kinloss, because I am here, and I took a short walk to speak with people who know the answer:
The first method of leak detection is done by the crew if they see (visually or on a gauge) or smell a fuel leak. The aircrew manual has some excellent guidance in this respect and if the leak is from a feed pipe it will be stopped in all cases. Hopefully the location of the leak will then be passed to the ground crew and the problem is resolved. A leak from the unpressurized refuel system or a fuselage tank is unlikely to be detected in the air. Wing tank leaks will be seen while airborne, but might not be stoppable without dumping from that tank, which can be done if fuel reserves permit. Any leak that is not detected by the crew will be discovered by the ground crew when they see drips or traces of fuel in the area of the source. On most occasions the pipework in that area will be pressurized and subject to flow and that should provide the source. If that fails, the visual search area will expand and more pipes will be pressurized. If, despite all this, the leak source still cannot be identified, the pipes will be examined for damage, alignment at couplings and torque settings at the couplings. If this doesn't give the answer, the couplings that are most likely to be the source will be disassembled and refitted with new seals. If fuel vapour is sensed throughout the aircraft during flight, there are a few known causes: back draft through the DMVC (engines at idle or depressurized flight), or an open beam window (aircraft depressurized) from a leak that is external to the cabin. We have 2 tanks within the pressure shell but they are double skinned with an overboard vent in case of a tank leak, so sensing a leak from either tank while airborne is not normally possible unless the backdraft occurs. Overall, I am content that we, the aircrew and the groundcrew, have the appropriate measures in place to detect fuel leaks. There is only one outstanding measure, that can be used only in extremis when everything I have mentioned has been already done and the aircraft leaks again during the next flight. This can only be caused by airborne flexing (more than 1 degree) of a serviceable coupling, which will give only a very small leak (otherwise we would have found it on the ground). In this very rare event, we have no choice but to wrap the suspect couplings in poly bags as rudimentary leak detectors and fly the aircraft for a short flight. Bearing in mind that everything else has been already been done, this is a very simple, yet efffective, method of both containing an insignificant leak and providing us with its location. Its use requires high level authority. I am not aware of its use on the Nimrod.
2. Please do not get hung up over who I might be. Its what I write that matters. Thank you for your comments in your 2nd paragraph, but I think you might have done my mates on the sqns a dis-service; one dog loving eng in particular.
I will continue my reply, particularly about 235 and 230, in another message later.
Regards
Ed
Despite the writings of others, here, regarding the QFI situation, I will reply to your post and hopefully close off some of your avenues of interest.
1. I stated in my previous message that I usually provide some detailed information. I do not profess, as you have just asserted, to answer fully every question in this discussion. So, when you and others asked me about my use of the word, "appropriate" when detecting leaks, that was the best word I could think of at the time without giving falsehoods. Anyway, I have now done the courtesy of finding the answer for you, TSM and Terry Rumble, whom I well remember from earlier days on the fleet. Incidentally, to close off one avenue, I didn't phone Kinloss, because I am here, and I took a short walk to speak with people who know the answer:
The first method of leak detection is done by the crew if they see (visually or on a gauge) or smell a fuel leak. The aircrew manual has some excellent guidance in this respect and if the leak is from a feed pipe it will be stopped in all cases. Hopefully the location of the leak will then be passed to the ground crew and the problem is resolved. A leak from the unpressurized refuel system or a fuselage tank is unlikely to be detected in the air. Wing tank leaks will be seen while airborne, but might not be stoppable without dumping from that tank, which can be done if fuel reserves permit. Any leak that is not detected by the crew will be discovered by the ground crew when they see drips or traces of fuel in the area of the source. On most occasions the pipework in that area will be pressurized and subject to flow and that should provide the source. If that fails, the visual search area will expand and more pipes will be pressurized. If, despite all this, the leak source still cannot be identified, the pipes will be examined for damage, alignment at couplings and torque settings at the couplings. If this doesn't give the answer, the couplings that are most likely to be the source will be disassembled and refitted with new seals. If fuel vapour is sensed throughout the aircraft during flight, there are a few known causes: back draft through the DMVC (engines at idle or depressurized flight), or an open beam window (aircraft depressurized) from a leak that is external to the cabin. We have 2 tanks within the pressure shell but they are double skinned with an overboard vent in case of a tank leak, so sensing a leak from either tank while airborne is not normally possible unless the backdraft occurs. Overall, I am content that we, the aircrew and the groundcrew, have the appropriate measures in place to detect fuel leaks. There is only one outstanding measure, that can be used only in extremis when everything I have mentioned has been already done and the aircraft leaks again during the next flight. This can only be caused by airborne flexing (more than 1 degree) of a serviceable coupling, which will give only a very small leak (otherwise we would have found it on the ground). In this very rare event, we have no choice but to wrap the suspect couplings in poly bags as rudimentary leak detectors and fly the aircraft for a short flight. Bearing in mind that everything else has been already been done, this is a very simple, yet efffective, method of both containing an insignificant leak and providing us with its location. Its use requires high level authority. I am not aware of its use on the Nimrod.
2. Please do not get hung up over who I might be. Its what I write that matters. Thank you for your comments in your 2nd paragraph, but I think you might have done my mates on the sqns a dis-service; one dog loving eng in particular.
I will continue my reply, particularly about 235 and 230, in another message later.
Regards
Ed
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buckie wifeys
Mad Mark
But you have been to Buckie and Ill wager you remember how hard it is to get a Taxi early in the morning
. You may even be lucky seeing Ricky Purkiss trying to blend in with the locals
.
The Sad state of the conspiracy inspired Sun/Mirror readers is to state your "expert" opinion and not even consider the impact or truth. QQ is not renowned for hiring the cream of UK science for the job, but more obsessed by budgets and the next report when I worked within the beast.
DV, Winco do you ever consider your direct impact on the people you claim to be looking out for? Because I feel your good has be outdone by your dramatic f'ups.
Just an opinion from a simple man not an "expert"
Charlie sends
But you have been to Buckie and Ill wager you remember how hard it is to get a Taxi early in the morning
. You may even be lucky seeing Ricky Purkiss trying to blend in with the locals.The Sad state of the conspiracy inspired Sun/Mirror readers is to state your "expert" opinion and not even consider the impact or truth. QQ is not renowned for hiring the cream of UK science for the job, but more obsessed by budgets and the next report when I worked within the beast.
DV, Winco do you ever consider your direct impact on the people you claim to be looking out for? Because I feel your good has be outdone by your dramatic f'ups.
Just an opinion from a simple man not an "expert"
Charlie sends
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the RAF Kinloss website
RAF Kinloss - History
Strange I thought had been another one since then.
RAF Kinloss - History
Since their introduction Nimrods have an excellent safety record, although two tragic accidents stand out in the memories of all service personnel. In 1980 two pilots Flight Lieutenant Anthony and Flying Officer Belcher were killed when their aircraft struck birds on take off and crashed in woods to the east of Kinloss airfield. The remainder of the crew survived. In 1995 at the Toronto Airshow, the entire Nimrod Display team were killed when their Nimrod crashed.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Scampton, Lincoln
Age: 69
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed,
Thank you for your reply and for the responce to my question about checking for fuel leaks on the aircraft, although I wish, with hindsight, that I hadn't bothered. It has clearly caused a degree of aggression and upset amongst some people, and for that I'm sorry.
I have no intention of taking sides here, but I would say that in my opinion, everyone is searching for the same ultimate goal. Some people are obviously more placid in the way they post, and certainly some others are far more 'forthright' shall we say, but at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion irrespective of what the rest of us might think. Calling our fellow aviators names is pointless, and serves no useful purpose at all.
So, maybe its time for us all just to take a step back, and cut each other a bit of slack as far as the name calling and open aggression is concerned? It will not do any of us any good whatsoever in our overwhelming single aim of getting a safer aircraft for you guys to fly.
Charlie,
I'm not sure if any of us think (before posting) about the direct impact any of our posts might have on the guys still on the fleet. That said, I do genuinly think that the majority of the stuff written here is meant with the very best of intentions, and not with malice in any way. I agree that it doesn't always come over that way, but I'm sure that it's all well meant. That's not the case as far as the name calling goes though, and I think it's time for it to stop, please.
Thanks once again Ed, and Best wishes to all at Kinloss
TKR
Thank you for your reply and for the responce to my question about checking for fuel leaks on the aircraft, although I wish, with hindsight, that I hadn't bothered. It has clearly caused a degree of aggression and upset amongst some people, and for that I'm sorry.
I have no intention of taking sides here, but I would say that in my opinion, everyone is searching for the same ultimate goal. Some people are obviously more placid in the way they post, and certainly some others are far more 'forthright' shall we say, but at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their opinion irrespective of what the rest of us might think. Calling our fellow aviators names is pointless, and serves no useful purpose at all.
So, maybe its time for us all just to take a step back, and cut each other a bit of slack as far as the name calling and open aggression is concerned? It will not do any of us any good whatsoever in our overwhelming single aim of getting a safer aircraft for you guys to fly.
Charlie,
I'm not sure if any of us think (before posting) about the direct impact any of our posts might have on the guys still on the fleet. That said, I do genuinly think that the majority of the stuff written here is meant with the very best of intentions, and not with malice in any way. I agree that it doesn't always come over that way, but I'm sure that it's all well meant. That's not the case as far as the name calling goes though, and I think it's time for it to stop, please.
Thanks once again Ed, and Best wishes to all at Kinloss
TKR
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
Oh dear, oh dear. There can be no acceptable reason for that error. I know someone who can get that changed asap. Something tells me that his section will be inundated with messages tomorrow. If its not corrected within a week, feel free to write to the Stn Cdr and it will then be done.
Ed
Oh dear, oh dear. There can be no acceptable reason for that error. I know someone who can get that changed asap. Something tells me that his section will be inundated with messages tomorrow. If its not corrected within a week, feel free to write to the Stn Cdr and it will then be done.
Ed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALARP or Not ALARP; That is the Question
Having re-read the transcript of Gp Capt Hickman's evidence at the inquest, it is clear that in the eyes of the IPTL the Nimrod was not ALARP in May and is still not ALARP.
HICKMAN: "In addition, we want to replace the hot air ducts that are still used, they are still hot and have not been switched off. Now these are measures we need to take to reduce the risk and we have not taken them yet and therefore we are not at ALARP."
As the replacement programme of hot air pipes will not be completed until mid-2009, it is clear where we are today regarding a/c safety.
DV
HICKMAN: "In addition, we want to replace the hot air ducts that are still used, they are still hot and have not been switched off. Now these are measures we need to take to reduce the risk and we have not taken them yet and therefore we are not at ALARP."
As the replacement programme of hot air pipes will not be completed until mid-2009, it is clear where we are today regarding a/c safety.
DV
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV,
It is true that the replacement programme is not yet complete. It is also true that there are pipes that are not switched off. These are the pipes that I referred to in an earlier post in that the worst case failure of any one of those old fully charged pipes is not catastrophic. IMHO the Gp Capt didn't represent the facts as well as he could. Although it is a fact that replacement pipes will reduce the risk of a blow out, the resultant effect of the programme is to place the aircraft in the most safe condition with respect to duct failures. Therefore, in theory, our risk of duct failures is not ALARP (ie. is not most safe). However, we don't require the most safe/lowest risk condition for the ducts (as previously explained) in order for us to continue flying during the replacement programme.
You haven't yet answered my earlier question about the scope of the QQ report that stated that a pipe failure is catastrophic. I haven't seen that particular report. Which pipes did they refer to?
Regards
Ed Sett
It is true that the replacement programme is not yet complete. It is also true that there are pipes that are not switched off. These are the pipes that I referred to in an earlier post in that the worst case failure of any one of those old fully charged pipes is not catastrophic. IMHO the Gp Capt didn't represent the facts as well as he could. Although it is a fact that replacement pipes will reduce the risk of a blow out, the resultant effect of the programme is to place the aircraft in the most safe condition with respect to duct failures. Therefore, in theory, our risk of duct failures is not ALARP (ie. is not most safe). However, we don't require the most safe/lowest risk condition for the ducts (as previously explained) in order for us to continue flying during the replacement programme.
You haven't yet answered my earlier question about the scope of the QQ report that stated that a pipe failure is catastrophic. I haven't seen that particular report. Which pipes did they refer to?
Regards
Ed Sett
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed,
Would it not be more accurate to say that, in terms of hot air ducts at least, the risk is currently ALARP because the risk from the old pipes is, as you say, tolerable, and it is neither reasonable nor practical to replace them all within a shorter time period than we are doing due to the 'down-time' and manpower that would require? Especially when we have to balance that against the need to keep aircraft available for operations.
Equally, by the middle of next year, will the risk not still be ALARP, because all the ducts will have been replaced, we will be at a lower risk state, and we will have reached that state in a time that was reasonable and practical given the resources and commitments we had?
Dave
Would it not be more accurate to say that, in terms of hot air ducts at least, the risk is currently ALARP because the risk from the old pipes is, as you say, tolerable, and it is neither reasonable nor practical to replace them all within a shorter time period than we are doing due to the 'down-time' and manpower that would require? Especially when we have to balance that against the need to keep aircraft available for operations.
Equally, by the middle of next year, will the risk not still be ALARP, because all the ducts will have been replaced, we will be at a lower risk state, and we will have reached that state in a time that was reasonable and practical given the resources and commitments we had?
Dave
Last edited by DaveyBoy; 13th Oct 2008 at 22:33. Reason: Punctuation
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave,
Yes, I would agree. ALARP uses the word, "practical", which brings in many factors, as explained in the JSP and mentioned by you, including the dreaded "cost-benefit analysis" As I said, the Gp Capt didn't do the aircraft many favours. Good point.
Regards
Ed
Yes, I would agree. ALARP uses the word, "practical", which brings in many factors, as explained in the JSP and mentioned by you, including the dreaded "cost-benefit analysis" As I said, the Gp Capt didn't do the aircraft many favours. Good point.
Regards
Ed
Before things get out of hand ... 
practical or practicable
If something is practical it is useful and likely to be successful; if it is practicable it can be carried out, or put into practice: You have made a practical suggestion, but I wonder if in this case it will be practicable?
© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.
Helicon Publishing LTD 2008.
All rights reserved
If something is practical it is useful and likely to be successful; if it is practicable it can be carried out, or put into practice: You have made a practical suggestion, but I wonder if in this case it will be practicable?
© From the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.
Helicon Publishing LTD 2008.
All rights reserved
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed Sett100.
Please obtain a print out from the Cassandra Hazard Log database for Hazard H66. This covers ducts in Zones 413 and 443.
Sometimes you remind me of the man who thought he had cancer. As long as he didn't go to the doctor to have it confirmed he was contented. Sometimes you have to face up to reality.
DV
Please obtain a print out from the Cassandra Hazard Log database for Hazard H66. This covers ducts in Zones 413 and 443.
Sometimes you remind me of the man who thought he had cancer. As long as he didn't go to the doctor to have it confirmed he was contented. Sometimes you have to face up to reality.
DV
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Northampton
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PRACTICABLE/PRACTICAL
Whilst following with interest the arguments regarding the differences between Practical and Practicable the term ALARP does not use either as a stand alone term, but is referring to Reasonably Practicable which has a different meaning.
Where the requirement comply is "so far as is Practicable" then compliance is required in the light of current knowledge and invention regardless of cost. (In every day speak - if it can be done it must be done).
Where the requirement is to comply "so far as Reasonably Practicable" this implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifices necessary to avert the risk in the other. If it can be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them -the risk being insignificant in relation to the cost then the person concerned has discharged their duties. This judgement must be made anterior to any accident or incident which arises.
The term Reasonably Practicable implies that an employer must undertake a risk assessment of his undertaking and put in place measures to ensure that risk is reduced to ALARP. this is also a requirement under the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999.
In the Coroners' Court the IPTL was forced to admit that the aircraft was not risk assessed ALARP but they were working towards it. It was also admitted that the hazard analysis by BAE systems was different to the results used, the likelyhood having been reduced making less urgent the response. The ITPL also admitted that he did not know what the requirements were on the employer under the Health and Safety at Work,etc Act 1974.
Whilst following with interest the arguments regarding the differences between Practical and Practicable the term ALARP does not use either as a stand alone term, but is referring to Reasonably Practicable which has a different meaning.
Where the requirement comply is "so far as is Practicable" then compliance is required in the light of current knowledge and invention regardless of cost. (In every day speak - if it can be done it must be done).
Where the requirement is to comply "so far as Reasonably Practicable" this implies that a computation must be made in which the quantum of risk is placed on one scale and the sacrifices necessary to avert the risk in the other. If it can be shown that there is a gross disproportion between them -the risk being insignificant in relation to the cost then the person concerned has discharged their duties. This judgement must be made anterior to any accident or incident which arises.
The term Reasonably Practicable implies that an employer must undertake a risk assessment of his undertaking and put in place measures to ensure that risk is reduced to ALARP. this is also a requirement under the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999.
In the Coroners' Court the IPTL was forced to admit that the aircraft was not risk assessed ALARP but they were working towards it. It was also admitted that the hazard analysis by BAE systems was different to the results used, the likelyhood having been reduced making less urgent the response. The ITPL also admitted that he did not know what the requirements were on the employer under the Health and Safety at Work,etc Act 1974.
Distant Voice:
While we brace ourselves for yet another trip down Semantics Lane could I remind us all that there is clear testimony on this and other threads that the mandated airworthiness protection of Nimrod and every other aircraft in the Military Fleets has been systematically and deliberately compromised over the last two decades by the MOD? Arguing about the pressure of water supplied to the Firefighters' hoses seems irrelevant to me if little or none of the water is aimed at putting out the fire devouring your house. The Nimrod was not the first, nor I fear the last, to suffer so tragically from this neglect. It may yet prove to not even being the one to suffer the greatest loss of life from this cause. The solution lies not in the rate of replacement of Nimrod plumbing, vital though that may be, but in the speedy removal of UK Military Airworthiness Authority from the MOD and into an independent MAA.
Sometimes you have to face up to reality.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV:
I'll do that, thank you.
Re your 2nd para: It is more a case that I am someone who has been told he has cancer, by someone one who reads a Family Health Encyclopedia. Can we stop this personal stuff, please? Its tiresome.
Its obvious that you and I do not agree, but that doesn't give either of us the right to submit personal criticisms. If you want me to agree that the aircraft is unsafe, you must do it by technical persuasion. You have offered Hazard H66. I will do you the courtesy of reading it.
Regards
Ed
Please obtain a print out from the Cassandra Hazard Log database for Hazard H66. This covers ducts in Zones 413 and 443.
Re your 2nd para: It is more a case that I am someone who has been told he has cancer, by someone one who reads a Family Health Encyclopedia. Can we stop this personal stuff, please? Its tiresome.
Its obvious that you and I do not agree, but that doesn't give either of us the right to submit personal criticisms. If you want me to agree that the aircraft is unsafe, you must do it by technical persuasion. You have offered Hazard H66. I will do you the courtesy of reading it.
Regards
Ed