Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Pipe Alignment
This is a question for you guys who service the Nimrod aircraft. Do you have a procedure for aligning fuel couplings to 1 degree? If you do, what is it?
DV
DV
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hazard H66
Ed Sett.
It is now several weeks since we discussed Hazard H66 and the QQ letter, do you now have all the informnation? If you do, how do you rate it?
DV
It is now several weeks since we discussed Hazard H66 and the QQ letter, do you now have all the informnation? If you do, how do you rate it?
DV
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base
www.kansascity.com | 11/29/2008 | Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base
George Sarris, a senior civilian aircraft mechanic at Offutt with more than 30 years experience, told The Kansas City Star that he has been waging a years-long battle to bring maintenance concerns to light about the RC-135 fleet and became so frustrated that he decided to go public.
“I have found inspections that are 17 years past due, hydraulic and fuel hoses that should have been changed 15 years ago, and recently several emergency system hoses that were 30-plus years past time change,” Sarris said, adding that he believes at least one landing gear assembly also was improperly installed
Another scandal in the making?
http://iagblog.*************/2008/12...in-making.html
If USAF staffers pay attention, they had better be careful with this news. The USAF cannot afford a Nimrod event. Look here. Perhaps air forces the world over just don't give these planes the attention they deserve. Fighters and bombers get attention. But its the work done before, during and after destructive missions that really matter. Electronic eyes and ears keep the rest of the attack fleet safe after all.
Reading this story sounds so much like the RAF people going on about how safe the Nimrod was and how they were doing excellent maintenance. And then one blew up in flight and the RAF lost some irreplaceable talent. Its time the USAF started putting its fancy technology into newer planes. Even if they are able to keep 40 plus year old designs flying, there comes a time when these planes are too old. Moreover, with wars going on, these planes are being used more than than ever.
I hope the MOD read these stories before buying the RC-135 to replace the Nimrod MR1
www.kansascity.com | 11/29/2008 | Whistleblower raises maintenance concerns of aging aircraft at Air Force base
George Sarris, a senior civilian aircraft mechanic at Offutt with more than 30 years experience, told The Kansas City Star that he has been waging a years-long battle to bring maintenance concerns to light about the RC-135 fleet and became so frustrated that he decided to go public.
“I have found inspections that are 17 years past due, hydraulic and fuel hoses that should have been changed 15 years ago, and recently several emergency system hoses that were 30-plus years past time change,” Sarris said, adding that he believes at least one landing gear assembly also was improperly installed
Another scandal in the making?
http://iagblog.*************/2008/12...in-making.html
If USAF staffers pay attention, they had better be careful with this news. The USAF cannot afford a Nimrod event. Look here. Perhaps air forces the world over just don't give these planes the attention they deserve. Fighters and bombers get attention. But its the work done before, during and after destructive missions that really matter. Electronic eyes and ears keep the rest of the attack fleet safe after all.
Reading this story sounds so much like the RAF people going on about how safe the Nimrod was and how they were doing excellent maintenance. And then one blew up in flight and the RAF lost some irreplaceable talent. Its time the USAF started putting its fancy technology into newer planes. Even if they are able to keep 40 plus year old designs flying, there comes a time when these planes are too old. Moreover, with wars going on, these planes are being used more than than ever.
I hope the MOD read these stories before buying the RC-135 to replace the Nimrod MR1
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Action against MOD
For those who have not already seen it this link will be of interest:
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod victims' families sue MoD
JB
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod victims' families sue MoD
JB
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod XV249 Fire
Does anyone know if the recommendations of the XV 249 Flight Investigation Report have ever been carried out? In particular the recommendation to protect the cross-feed selection switch.
DV
DV
DV, hopefully your question has been answered today by the MOD who have announced the grounding of those aircraft yet to be modified and thus presumably made airworthy. Given past form by this reluctant Airworthiness Authority I presume motives other than the airworthiness of their aircraft are in play.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV:
I don't know about the other recommendations, but I understand that the follow up action about the crossfeed switch is a decision that the switch does not need to be guarded. IMHO, and that of other aircrew, it is the correct decison.
In anticipation of your question, "why is it the correct decision?", the answer is that the switch is not easily accesible to stray hand movement. In fact, once the engines have been started, there is no requirement for a hand to be anywhere near the switch for any purpose. Furthermore, it also requires a positive effort to move it. I, and all other aircrew who have been asked about this, have never heard of it being moved unintentionally. It was moved intentionally during a protracted ground test on XV249. The investigation into that incident drew a blank on how the switch ended up in the wrong position, because the individual who moved it, either could not remember doing so (understandable) or chose not to admit to leaving it open after engine start (not understandable). Either way, we do not require a guard on the switch. Better procedures might be required, and this has been addressed in the operating manuals and the RTS.
Ed Sett
Does anyone know if the recommendations of the XV 249 Flight Investigation Report have ever been carried out? In particular the recommendation to protect the cross-feed selection switch.
In anticipation of your question, "why is it the correct decision?", the answer is that the switch is not easily accesible to stray hand movement. In fact, once the engines have been started, there is no requirement for a hand to be anywhere near the switch for any purpose. Furthermore, it also requires a positive effort to move it. I, and all other aircrew who have been asked about this, have never heard of it being moved unintentionally. It was moved intentionally during a protracted ground test on XV249. The investigation into that incident drew a blank on how the switch ended up in the wrong position, because the individual who moved it, either could not remember doing so (understandable) or chose not to admit to leaving it open after engine start (not understandable). Either way, we do not require a guard on the switch. Better procedures might be required, and this has been addressed in the operating manuals and the RTS.
Ed Sett
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defence Management - Nimrod problems continue
New MoD statistics out Monday showed that already this year there have been 20 fuel leaks on the aircraft through the end of March. Last year there were 146 fuel leaks, 278 in 2007 and 170 in 2006.
I suppose I have to be prepared for the when is a leak not a leak argument.
New MoD statistics out Monday showed that already this year there have been 20 fuel leaks on the aircraft through the end of March. Last year there were 146 fuel leaks, 278 in 2007 and 170 in 2006.
I suppose I have to be prepared for the when is a leak not a leak argument.
And why shouldnt you wait for that argument.......and its not argument its fact.......Do you still fly on your holidays.....well the aircraft that you fly in will no doubt be flying with fuel leaks......the bus that you take will probably have a fuel leak, they are a fact of life. Any aircraft whose wings flex that much when getting airbourne will get fuel lleaks. Proffesional aircrew will find these fuel leaks at various stages in their career...professional groundcrew will also find them and will fix them if and when they get to a stage deemed dangerous. You sir have suffered a loss.....I lost friends on the aircraft and on other aircraft but if I were still serving would make my own decision on wether to fly not listen to your ramblings......You have had your time please let the guys get on with what they know and let them fly in what they consider a safe aircraft. I had 25 years flying RAF aircraft and flew for 4 civillian airlines......all had fuel leaks all professional people assessing them and all had decisions to make, they still do. Let it rest.
Fergineer
Well said
Every single type I have flown in the RAF (some 11 different types) have leaked fuel at some point. 3 of my civil aircraft types have had leaks as well.
Furthermore, 3 of my cars have had fuel leaks (both diesel and petrol
) at some point - from Triumph to Ford via BMW.
Well said
Every single type I have flown in the RAF (some 11 different types) have leaked fuel at some point. 3 of my civil aircraft types have had leaks as well.
Furthermore, 3 of my cars have had fuel leaks (both diesel and petrol
) at some point - from Triumph to Ford via BMW.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer
Ramblings? I was not aware I was rambling just infoming people of facts and letting them make their own minds up with full knowledge. My son and all those on board XV230 did not have full knowledge. they were not aware the aircraft had not been airworthy for 30 odd years( Bob Ainsworth is on record saying this). The were not aware that there were un-insulated pipes in dry bay 7, fuel leaks had quadrupled over a five year period etc..etc....
I am pleased you enjoyed your RAF career, my son had his cut short by one of these fuel leaks that you appear to trivialise.
Leon Jabachjabicz
I have never had a car with a fuel leak but if I did I would take it straight to a garage and get it fixed before I drove it again.
Why people continue to defend the MOD/RAF over safety and airwothiness when two thirds of the fleet are grounded and the MoD have admitted they failed in their duty of care and were negligent defies comprehension
Ramblings? I was not aware I was rambling just infoming people of facts and letting them make their own minds up with full knowledge. My son and all those on board XV230 did not have full knowledge. they were not aware the aircraft had not been airworthy for 30 odd years( Bob Ainsworth is on record saying this). The were not aware that there were un-insulated pipes in dry bay 7, fuel leaks had quadrupled over a five year period etc..etc....
I am pleased you enjoyed your RAF career, my son had his cut short by one of these fuel leaks that you appear to trivialise.
Leon Jabachjabicz
I have never had a car with a fuel leak but if I did I would take it straight to a garage and get it fixed before I drove it again.
Why people continue to defend the MOD/RAF over safety and airwothiness when two thirds of the fleet are grounded and the MoD have admitted they failed in their duty of care and were negligent defies comprehension
TD. I started flying the Nimrod 30 odd years ago and having been taught by some of the best instructors that I have had the privilage to meet was fully aware of the good and bad points of the aircraft that I flew in. As a trade the Air Engineer prides himself on his or her technical knowledge of their given aircraft and many a visit to NMSU by the training people ensured that we were kept up to date with what was going on with the aircraft......I am sure the same thing goes on today......the rest of the crew were specialists in their fields and pilots very often chipped in with their knowledge of the aircraft systems too so saying that crews did not fly with the full knowledge of what was going on shows just what you think of the crews that flew and are still flying the Nimrod. They are out and out professionals who would stand shoulder to shoulder with the best. Dont degrade their skills by saying they dont know or understand the aircraft ....they trust me know a lot more than you are being led to believe.
As for trivalising fuel leaks......who has said that is what I am trying to do, it is you who is throwing out the statistics without knowing what type of fuel leak that has been reported so I think you are using the wrong word there. I have had an aircraft full of fuel when the basket fell off a trailled hose....we could have had more problems but we didnt maybe we were lucky, what did we do the ground crew fixed the aircraft we flew it again in full knowledge that the same thing could happen again, same as the next Nimrod and subsequent crews have done since the day your son died.
We all choose the career that we do and in full knowledge of what could happen, we know that the aircraft that we are flying are old and really do need replacing but at the moment they are staying and as a profession we do our jobs......if the aircraft were as bad as you make them out trust me they would not fly them there are many ways of getting out of flying if they wanted too.
You are on a crusade for your son I can understand that but dont try and take the professionalism out of the crews in doing so. Let you son be remembered for who he was and not for what his father did.
As for trivalising fuel leaks......who has said that is what I am trying to do, it is you who is throwing out the statistics without knowing what type of fuel leak that has been reported so I think you are using the wrong word there. I have had an aircraft full of fuel when the basket fell off a trailled hose....we could have had more problems but we didnt maybe we were lucky, what did we do the ground crew fixed the aircraft we flew it again in full knowledge that the same thing could happen again, same as the next Nimrod and subsequent crews have done since the day your son died.
We all choose the career that we do and in full knowledge of what could happen, we know that the aircraft that we are flying are old and really do need replacing but at the moment they are staying and as a profession we do our jobs......if the aircraft were as bad as you make them out trust me they would not fly them there are many ways of getting out of flying if they wanted too.
You are on a crusade for your son I can understand that but dont try and take the professionalism out of the crews in doing so. Let you son be remembered for who he was and not for what his father did.
The way I read TD’s posts, he is emphasising the fact that MoD continually maintained that the previous rate of leaks on the aircraft was acceptable, and did little or nothing about it; a position that is now seen to be untenable following the Coroner’s damning verdict.
This is supported by the ongoing modification / amelioration programme which, as he says, has reduced this rate.
If I were in his position, I’d be consumed by anger that it took a non-MoD civilian (himself) and a Coroner to force MoD to implement their own regulations – which they had criminally and steadfastly refused to do for many years. I maintain that any ire should be directed toward those who failed in this duty of care. They are well known, although I concede the main perpetrators are now retired. (Thankfully). But it is important to understand this background and who they are, because they wilfully ignored direct warnings that Airworthiness was being compromised across all fleets. The common factors between Nimrod, C130, Chinook, Sea King and the rest demonstrate that beyond all doubt, and their legacy still lives on. That is why it is important that Mr Haddon-Cave’s review addresses these wider problems; not just Nimrod.
TD doesn’t benefit. Current and future aircrew do, aircrew I have never once seen or heard him denigrate. I think he will be remembered for the good he did (but I concede the anti-airworthiness brigade will hate him with a vengeance while they play their tennis). Time will pass and the detail will be forgotten. But perhaps at least the Nimrod community will always recall their world was made a safer place by one mans actions.
This is supported by the ongoing modification / amelioration programme which, as he says, has reduced this rate.
If I were in his position, I’d be consumed by anger that it took a non-MoD civilian (himself) and a Coroner to force MoD to implement their own regulations – which they had criminally and steadfastly refused to do for many years. I maintain that any ire should be directed toward those who failed in this duty of care. They are well known, although I concede the main perpetrators are now retired. (Thankfully). But it is important to understand this background and who they are, because they wilfully ignored direct warnings that Airworthiness was being compromised across all fleets. The common factors between Nimrod, C130, Chinook, Sea King and the rest demonstrate that beyond all doubt, and their legacy still lives on. That is why it is important that Mr Haddon-Cave’s review addresses these wider problems; not just Nimrod.
TD doesn’t benefit. Current and future aircrew do, aircrew I have never once seen or heard him denigrate. I think he will be remembered for the good he did (but I concede the anti-airworthiness brigade will hate him with a vengeance while they play their tennis). Time will pass and the detail will be forgotten. But perhaps at least the Nimrod community will always recall their world was made a safer place by one mans actions.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
TD doesn’t benefit. Current and future aircrew do
Nimrod families may get 'close to £1m' compensation - Telegraph
Quote:
Originally Posted by tucumseh
TD doesn’t benefit. Current and future aircrew do
Sorry, you're right: we keep forgettihg that.
Nimrod families may get 'close to £1m' compensation - Telegraph
Originally Posted by tucumseh
TD doesn’t benefit. Current and future aircrew do
Sorry, you're right: we keep forgettihg that.
Nimrod families may get 'close to £1m' compensation - Telegraph
Nice.
Go home tonight and ask the wife and family - Who do you think is the better man? Graham Knight, who lost a son and fought the MoD's refusal to apply its own airworthiness regs, or the halfwits who ruled, year after year, that airworthiness was optional and/or a waste of money.
Then ask her what amount of money would compensate for the loss of your child.
Then duck, because if she's got an ounce of decency she'll smack you one.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: wherever
Age: 55
Posts: 1,616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This crusade dishonours all those who have fought and died in the armed services. Most of us joined because we wished to SERVE queen and country. We all pledged to do so on day one. If that means operating outside of civilian standards, using our own judgement as to what is acceptable risk for the task at hand, accepting that sometimes there are greater needs than the self then that's what we joined up for and took pride in being part of. It's what separates servicemen from the civilian population.
Last edited by FE Hoppy; 22nd May 2009 at 11:53.