Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th Oct 2008, 22:53
  #1441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...advantage Edset..


..new balls please..

OilCan is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2008, 08:50
  #1442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: RAF Kinloss
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ahh yes - Ed Balls...
RAF_Techie101 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2008, 21:49
  #1443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If anyone wants to read the 1st report on the stripdown of the MR2 by QQ it waa posted here todaay. Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Air Safety and Aviation Publications | Flight Safety

QinetiQ: Nimrod Ageing Aircraft Systems Audit

These reports concern the Nimrod Ageing Aircraft Audit during the period from contract award on 1st August to 1st September 2008. The first report details the Audit, while the second report summarises the sentencing undertaken by engineering maintenance specialists to investigate the 19 example observations reported in the Audit.



Tappers Dad is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2008, 08:22
  #1444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unrecorded faults on spy plane

The Press Association: Unrecorded faults on spy plane
8.40am

An inspection of an operational Nimrod spy plane revealed "a number of faults" which had not been recorded in its maintenance documents, the MoD said.
Tappers Dad is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2008, 09:43
  #1445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: North...ish
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unrecorded faults...

Without knowing the exact details in the case of the Nimrod, I have to say that I would not be at all surprised. The state of an old fleet probably means that the aircraft documentaion would be a foot thick if everything got recorded and then people would become quite blase about it!! The tolerance level of what needs recording and what does not is down to professional judgement of the technicians and engineers maintaining the aircraft, iaw approved data, whom I have absolutely no doubt will not ignore significant 'faults' dents. scratches etc. Have a look at any current fleet (Typhoon included)and you would probably find the same..... no sensationalism here I'm afraid.

NIP
Nobody In Particular is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2008, 09:56
  #1446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
The report notes the following DEFECTS.

  • Corroded earthing straps.
  • Broken earthing straps.
Oh dear. But never fear, Mins(AF) have already ruled that such defects (meaning the quality of the design is the root cause, as opposed to servicing problems) are of no consequence. Wonder what BAeS think of this?

You may as well ditch engineers and place administrators in charge of engineering and airworthiness decisions. Oh, wait a minute……….
tucumseh is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2008, 12:04
  #1447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
just a question, this thread has been going for a long time now, with lots of very well informed people contributing, do we have any idea if the top brass or MOD are reading or listening to any of this, is there a campaign group for the minrod?

Duncan
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2008, 12:15
  #1448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dunc0936. There seems to be a very vocal campaign group for permanently grounding (no pun on bonding braids intended) the aeroplane.
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2008, 12:35
  #1449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
true, i personally dont want to see them grounded, from the little knowledge i have gained there is no need, what i meant was just to make sure the money is there to maintain them correctly and let the crews do their jobs correctly without the bean counters telling them no.

Duncan
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2008, 18:44
  #1450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

For rSake ?

I personally have had enough of the slanging matches re the Rod.

Time to move on people. Surely there is more to your life than this.

bong-bing is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2008, 20:03
  #1451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bong-Bing
You have only done two posts and yet you say
I personally have had enough of the slanging matches re the Rod.
Then stop reading them .
Tappers Dad is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 08:39
  #1452 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,018
Received 18 Likes on 8 Posts
TD, thanks as ever for your continuing vigilance in keeping us up to date
If anyone wants to read the 1st report on the stripdown of the MR2 by QQ it waa posted here todaay. Ministry of Defence | About Defence | Corporate Publications | Air Safety and Aviation Publications | Flight Safety
When I followed that link, I noted with some amusement the item above the Qinetiq audit, which the dear old Ministry had titled
Nimrod VX235 Flight Safety Investigation Report
so I followed that, to find (increased font size is mine)
Nimrod VX235 Flight Safety Investigation Report
Due to continuing public interest in Nimrod airworthiness, it has been decided that the final Flight Safety Investigation Report into the fuel leak that occurred on Nimrod MR2 XV235 on 5 November 2007 will be released.
The report itself, unsurprisingly, has the id correct.

I asked myself - how can they be so totally inattentive to important detail?

But then I remembered the recent evidence at the Hercules inquest from Chris Protheroe, a senior Accident Inspector at the AAIB. He was obliged to tell the Coroner that the rather important word 'not' had been missed out of two significant conclusions in his written report - causing the Coroner to remark that Mr Protheroe might be an expert on accidents, but was clearly not expert on proof-reading.

Seems you can't take anything at face value.....

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 09:15
  #1453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
goes back to my last post, not the one that got deleted, clearly, we are better at getting the fact right than some at the MOD lol
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 09:39
  #1454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is that it Airsound? A typo? Nothing else? You're hanging onto a typo?

Beggars belief really.
Not only is this just a typo but it was probably made by a civilian web-minor (not even a web-master) that knows nothing of the RAF let alone the Nimrod or the particular incident!

Come on Airsound, you really are clutching at tiny straws with which to have a go at authority/MOD with

MadMark!!!
Mad_Mark is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 09:39
  #1455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No on that point I do agree with you, ok you could argue that with something as important as this then perhaps proof reading first might not have been a bad idea, but there are bigger and more important issues we as a group are trying to deal with here (you included)

I was just wondering yesterday weather or not it might be interesting for those who wanted to, to meet up, put faces to names and discuss this over a few drinks. There some very well informed people on here.... I leave myself out of that as I’m still learning. But this safety issue might not be a bad thing to look at right across the RAF and help out the ground crews when they hit a wall due either to money or bureaucracy.

What do people think?

Duncan
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 11:16
  #1456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ha ha yes supposed i deserve that one. Though i will say i have never tried to proclaim to be even remotely an expect in the subject just asking i hope some sensible questions from an outsiders point of view

Duncan
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 11:59
  #1457 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bourton-on-the-Water
Posts: 1,018
Received 18 Likes on 8 Posts
Thanks M+0.5 and MM - I knew I could count on you. But I'd forgotten just how quick your QRA was. Keep up the good work.

airsound
airsound is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 12:32
  #1458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
yes indeed a list would be good, there are some people on here i have a lot of respect for. But you might know the true experts better than me?


Duncan
dunc0936 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 12:59
  #1459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
They made a typo? So what?
As someone with airworthiness delegation, I always preferred Boscombe Down to get it right when they said “the aircraft is safe” or “the aircraft is not safe”.

However, I concede that this matters not a jot, following 2* and 4* rulings that (a) Boscombe can be completely ignored if they say “not” and (b) the aircraft can be delivered and contract paid off in the full knowledge that it is neither airworthy nor fit for purpose. Thus leaving the RTSA completely in the clag, forcing him to either delay RTS (career limiting) or sign a hefty wad of Service Deviations in which the terms “Operational Constraint / Limitation” and “safety” feature heavily.

As I said, I disagreed with the rulings, but I know there are many here who seemingly agree.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2008, 13:25
  #1460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't Nimrods about forty years old or somthing? I didn't think they operated them in this day and age? I remember watching doco's when I was a little kid with them in and they were old then!
MerlinV8 is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.