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
Yes they're old, and if things had gone to plan they'd have been replaced by a largely rebuilt version. Old aircraft aren't that unusual - a good few of those shiny civvy passenger aircraft you see are old too!
M and a half
You really are a tad wearisome, and I didn’t particularly want to engage with you. But you’ve said two things that are plain wrong. Well, maybe more than two, but these two will do for the time being.
1.
If you had troubled to read what I said before disagreeing with it, you might have noticed that I said
2. You imply that I claim to be a Nimrod expert. I am not, and have not claimed to be. I have never flown in a Nimrod, and I am not an engineer.
But I do claim to be a reasonable observer, researcher and reporter. Also, I probably spent more time at the Nimrod Inquest than anyone except the families, their representatives and the Inquest staff. Were you there? I don’t think so, although I wouldn’t necessarily know. I was also present when the MoD presented its lengthy and rather strange briefing on the release of the BoI report.
airsound
You really are a tad wearisome, and I didn’t particularly want to engage with you. But you’ve said two things that are plain wrong. Well, maybe more than two, but these two will do for the time being.
1.
the report .... was used by Airsound to indicate a lack of attention to detail by those writing the report.
The report itself, unsurprisingly, has the id correct.
But I do claim to be a reasonable observer, researcher and reporter. Also, I probably spent more time at the Nimrod Inquest than anyone except the families, their representatives and the Inquest staff. Were you there? I don’t think so, although I wouldn’t necessarily know. I was also present when the MoD presented its lengthy and rather strange briefing on the release of the BoI report.
airsound
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, even 747s are pretty old in design now I guess, 1968 wasn't it? but the nimrods remind me of the old comet, probably because of the engine placement, don't get me wrong, I would love to see a nimrod fly overhead, as much as a P51 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is nothing wrong with the age as far as i can see, i did post some time ago saying that from where i saw it the problem was lack of money to allow the ground crew to be able to do their job correctly and give the aircraft the tlc they needed. Look at the B52 some of them are as old and yet you dont here of them falling out of the sky!
Duncan
Duncan
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of months since I've been able to contribute to this thread so some of the posts quoted below are quite old.
Chugalug2:
I understand this is not a view shared by Haddon-Cave (Nimrod Review). Apparently, he thinks JSP 553 is a bit of a mess (I agree). Incidentally, I have heard a rumour that legislation specifically to sort out military aviation safety/airworthiness is a possibility.
Chugalug2 (two months ago) also suggested a debate about "airworthiness" but nothing came of it, so I won't bite.
Tapper's Dad:
davejb:
I wonder if there's a misunderstanding over QQ's role in all of this. The primary reason QQ are retained by the MoD to provide advice is their independence (from the MoD and BAE, as the Design Organisation). Of course, to provide worthwhile advice, QQ have to be experts to some degree. But I agree with EdSett when he says they are not the definitive experts. The MoD & BAE hold that status. It is definitely the case that QQ do (and always will) make recommendations that for some reason or other (e.g., it could be ignorance of all the facts or sheer mistakes) are inappropriate. That's not a criticism, it's a fact of life (I think QQ do a very good job in general).
I think it would be entirely remiss of the MoD to retain QQ's (safety) services and then ignore their advice. But I'm not aware of that ever happening. In my experience, the MoD takes QQ's advice very seriously. Sometimes it discounts it but (again, in my experience) only after very serious consideration.
DaveyBoy:
I have always suspected that DaveyBoy's analysis is the correct one. Unfortunately, the MoD's ability, including Hickman's (as EdSett says), to explain this sort of thing is limited.
dunc0936:
Some relatively senior people involved with, e.g., Nimrod and Hercules certainly do keep an eye on the debates here on PPRune. Unfortunately, I get the impression they see it a cesspool. Of course, there's a load of crap posted here, but I think they should be able to wade through that and take account of much of the very good stuff.
Chugalug2:
If there were anything to learn from this and similar threads it is that the Regulations are sound enough, it is their implementation that is at fault.
Chugalug2 (two months ago) also suggested a debate about "airworthiness" but nothing came of it, so I won't bite.
Tapper's Dad:
Why don't the MOD ask the experts are the designers who put the ducts in the engine compartments then. Why spend thousands and thousands asking QQ to do reports to then turn round and say sorry we are ignoring your advice.
if the report is somehow 'wrong' due to QQ etc being numpties, then why were they asked to do the review in the first place? (Don't hire someone to investigate something then dismiss their report because it doesn't say what you wanted it to!)
I think it would be entirely remiss of the MoD to retain QQ's (safety) services and then ignore their advice. But I'm not aware of that ever happening. In my experience, the MoD takes QQ's advice very seriously. Sometimes it discounts it but (again, in my experience) only after very serious consideration.
DaveyBoy:
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?
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?
dunc0936:
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?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squidlord
I agree with what you say, I have printed off this whole thread and read it from start to finish, hence why I said in my post about some of the interested people and regular posters meeting up say in London for a chat of a drink to talk in person, I personally would find it interesting to meet the people behind the names......
As I have said I have nothing to do with the Nimrod other than a general interest, so I don't proclaim to even remotely understand the Nimrod fully, though I'm getting better understanding with all the doc's Im being supplied lol
Duncan
I agree with what you say, I have printed off this whole thread and read it from start to finish, hence why I said in my post about some of the interested people and regular posters meeting up say in London for a chat of a drink to talk in person, I personally would find it interesting to meet the people behind the names......
As I have said I have nothing to do with the Nimrod other than a general interest, so I don't proclaim to even remotely understand the Nimrod fully, though I'm getting better understanding with all the doc's Im being supplied lol
Duncan
Welcome back Squidlord and thanks for the mention! I would say that "airworthiness" has indeed been debated, if not here then on the Parliamentary Questions thread, since your last visit. Perhaps your concern rather is what is to be the future of UK Military Airworthiness Regulation? That indeed is a big debate. Should it continue under the MOD, where self regulation has been so tragically shown to have failed, or placed with a separate and independent MAA? The coroner's verdict on the Hercules accident, and the Nimrod Review (Mr Haddon-Cave QC)may well have views on that. Interesting though that you already have information on the QC's views re Airworthiness Regulations. Are there any other of his feelings that you can share with us?
Squidlord
No argument with much of what you say, but surely the classic example of MoD ignoring Boscombe Down airworthiness advice is Chinook, when the latter “grounded” the PE Fleet a matter of days before the Mull of Kintyre accident. MoD defends their decision to this day, even though the reasoning has never been explained.
Another example relates indirectly to the Tornado/Patriot accident in 2003, whereby the PE 2* in charge of Chinook (!*!*) ruled 4 years previously that it was sufficient for a system (IFF) to be physically safe, but Boscombe’s complaint that it was functionally unsafe could be ignored – thus leaving the aircraft vulnerable to “friendly fire”. Still the only example I’ve known of Boscombe being so exasperated they used the word “crap” to describe the system, in the draft MAR recommendation report. (Removed under pressure from PE’s non-technical/anti-safety beancounting brigade, who trotted out the old “safe in peacetime” argument; which rather ignores the mandated requirement for the a/c to have the functionality in order to train for warfighting. This is precisely the argument which proves that DEC and IPT are wholly involved in “fitness for purpose” – see Hercules thread. Can you imagine the politicians saying “Go to War” and 2Gp replying “OK, give us a couple of years while we scheme and embody a few hundred modifications into the simulator and kit you bought us 10 years ago for this purpose, then train the aircrew”?).
I can assure you the original decision was NOT taken after serious consideration. Even in hindsight, and following the criticism in the BoI report, PE/DPA 2* and 4* continued to uphold the underlying concept – functional safety can be ignored (i.e. trading out Performance) if it means Time and Cost can be maintained. Four successive Mins(AF) have also ruled this, in writing. Of course, it is not generally ignored, but my experience tells me never to assume both physical and functional safety have been satisfied, especially if the functionality is primarily used in wartime.
Oh, and unlike MoD who destroy all such records (the audit trail) after 5 years, people with airworthiness delegation are encouraged from an early age to retain evidence of their decisions for all time, in case the finger is pointed at a later date. The above example remains a simple matter of written record.
I think it would be entirely remiss of the MoD to retain QQ's (safety) services and then ignore their advice. But I'm not aware of that ever happening. In my experience, the MoD takes QQ's advice very seriously. Sometimes it discounts it but (again, in my experience) only after very serious consideration.
Another example relates indirectly to the Tornado/Patriot accident in 2003, whereby the PE 2* in charge of Chinook (!*!*) ruled 4 years previously that it was sufficient for a system (IFF) to be physically safe, but Boscombe’s complaint that it was functionally unsafe could be ignored – thus leaving the aircraft vulnerable to “friendly fire”. Still the only example I’ve known of Boscombe being so exasperated they used the word “crap” to describe the system, in the draft MAR recommendation report. (Removed under pressure from PE’s non-technical/anti-safety beancounting brigade, who trotted out the old “safe in peacetime” argument; which rather ignores the mandated requirement for the a/c to have the functionality in order to train for warfighting. This is precisely the argument which proves that DEC and IPT are wholly involved in “fitness for purpose” – see Hercules thread. Can you imagine the politicians saying “Go to War” and 2Gp replying “OK, give us a couple of years while we scheme and embody a few hundred modifications into the simulator and kit you bought us 10 years ago for this purpose, then train the aircrew”?).
I can assure you the original decision was NOT taken after serious consideration. Even in hindsight, and following the criticism in the BoI report, PE/DPA 2* and 4* continued to uphold the underlying concept – functional safety can be ignored (i.e. trading out Performance) if it means Time and Cost can be maintained. Four successive Mins(AF) have also ruled this, in writing. Of course, it is not generally ignored, but my experience tells me never to assume both physical and functional safety have been satisfied, especially if the functionality is primarily used in wartime.
Oh, and unlike MoD who destroy all such records (the audit trail) after 5 years, people with airworthiness delegation are encouraged from an early age to retain evidence of their decisions for all time, in case the finger is pointed at a later date. The above example remains a simple matter of written record.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KeepItTidy
Not at all I could tell you all about the meeting held to decide if the Nimrod was ALARP 1 month after Ainsworth said on the day of the Inquest verdict the a/c was ALARP
But I don't want you to get bored so I wil pass it on to those who are interested.
Are we finished yet ?
But I don't want you to get bored so I wil pass it on to those who are interested.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Aging Aircraft Audit Reports
Just read the Nimrod AAA reports, and whilst I am still concerned about the Nimrod's airworthiness, I have now become concerned about the standard of servicing across "the other side of the airfield"
XV236 had just completed a MAJOR servicing, and without going too deep below the surface we find:
(1) Corrosion on hydraulic couplings between locking wire and coupling.
(2) Out of spec scratches on pressure bulk-head
(3) Misalignment of heat shield on hot air duct.
(4) Lack of clearance between hot air pipes and fuel lines.
(5) Corrosion on earthing tags
(6) Crushed conduit
(7) Unclamped cables
(8) Damaged boot and oil contamination on electrical plug.
Perhaps there is a "typo" in the report. It should read pre Major, not post Major.
I note that in the QQ report of Feb 2006, it was recommended that a teardown be carried out on wing tank joints of Nimrods being returned for MK4 conversion. The objective being to assess the condition of several major primary features of the primary structure of the Nimrod wings. I wonder if that was ever carried out? Probably not, as it would be unlikely to support any airworthiness claim by MoD.
DV
XV236 had just completed a MAJOR servicing, and without going too deep below the surface we find:
(1) Corrosion on hydraulic couplings between locking wire and coupling.
(2) Out of spec scratches on pressure bulk-head
(3) Misalignment of heat shield on hot air duct.
(4) Lack of clearance between hot air pipes and fuel lines.
(5) Corrosion on earthing tags
(6) Crushed conduit
(7) Unclamped cables
(8) Damaged boot and oil contamination on electrical plug.
Perhaps there is a "typo" in the report. It should read pre Major, not post Major.
I note that in the QQ report of Feb 2006, it was recommended that a teardown be carried out on wing tank joints of Nimrods being returned for MK4 conversion. The objective being to assess the condition of several major primary features of the primary structure of the Nimrod wings. I wonder if that was ever carried out? Probably not, as it would be unlikely to support any airworthiness claim by MoD.
DV
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to see details of the meeting, Graham, and I'm sure that many other people who have an interest in the MR2 would be as well. I don't think you would bore anyone by posting them here, and I believe that KeepItTidy's comment referred to the people taking up space on this thread trading personal insults instead of sticking to what we should be discussing -- which is exactly the sort of thing you are talking about.
DV,
Not sure you have read the report correctly as it states:-
'The tear down aircraft XV236 arrived on 29 August having successfully completed a post-major servicing test flight'
Missing out test flight does make a difference!
Not sure you have read the report correctly as it states:-
'The tear down aircraft XV236 arrived on 29 August having successfully completed a post-major servicing test flight'
Missing out test flight does make a difference!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, I understand that MR2 is ALARP according to the RAF but that, wait for it, ALARP plus a new standard will be hitting the streets soon.
Hope it makes sense to someone.......
Hope it makes sense to someone.......
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A post-major test flight is indeed the test flight carried out immediately after a major. XV236 was made to carry out such a flight before being sent down for the forensic teardown. However, it had not recently completed major servicing.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XV236 was sent for teardown instead of a Major servicing. The Post Major Air Test was carried out to ensure that the aircraft was representative of the fleet with respect to its functionality. I understand that it passed the test.
Regards
Ed Sett
Regards
Ed Sett
Last edited by EdSett100; 24th Oct 2008 at 16:45.
Guest
Posts: n/a
XV236 was due to go into major but instead was torn down instead probably to save money. In reality it is unfair to judge the fleet on an aircraft that is 4 years from its last major servicing so like every aircraft that approaches that time its not exactley new and things like corrosion and normal wear and tear does exist. I think the MOD screwed up there as well without saying anything too much its made a bit more work that intended, but thats not for me to judge on.