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

[phanphix]

Question For Bill Rammell

The point made by Safeware is a critical one. I would be interested to know of all the Safety Cases constructed on legacy platforms following the introduction of the legislation, how many highlighted a fundamental design flaw, such as that which existed on Nimrod, and led to safety related modification action being taken. If the answer is zero, and I wouldn't put money against that being the case, are we to assume either all legacy platforms were designed perfectly or the cases are equally likely to have flaws?

[Rigga]

My Vote's with Safeware - a simple question that everyone will want to know the answer to.


Biggles,

Thanks for your reply - I don't doubt whatsoever that is what used to happen at CSDE - I remember asking for info from there too. But I can't even remember now, when CSDE closed? I once drove my daughter to Swanton Morley for her first driving lesson - on the airfield, via a broken gate! She was 17 then and is now 23.

As Mr H-C points out, there have been some huge changes, and not all for the better, since then.

[insty66]

wrt my #1687...

Given the H-C criticisms of the airworthiness system as a whole, how can the MOD demonstrate that any of its aircraft types are airworthy?

sw

Corrected that for you!

After all the cuts were applied across the IPT spectrum as a whole.

[Safeware]

Insty, thanks....

However, a satisfactory answer to your modification would only require demonstration that one aircraft type was airworthy.

My original does not allow a satisfactory answer without all being airworthy.

Semantics [ but formal methods do that to you ] but it is something a politician would gleefully jump on.

sw

[insty66]

Semantics [ but formal methods do that to you ] but it is something a politician would gleefully jump on.

Then I thank f**k I don't work with any (real) politicians.

'Tis a good question though.

[nigegilb]

Given that Bill Rammell has a majority of 97 I'd ask him what he intends to do when he loses his seat at the next election

Good luck Graham, give em what for..


"In the 2005 election, he had the 3rd smallest majority of any Labour MP, at just 97 votes. The result was so close that the final declaration had to be delayed 2 days after voting, in order to give exhausted counting officials time to rest."

[Tappers Dad]

Does anyone know how many safety cases have been carried out by BAE or are being carried out by them ?

[Tappers Dad]

Thanks for that info re Rammell Nige I see on theyworkforyou.com he
Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.

Might explain how he got the job.

[Safeware]

"Does anyone know how many safety cases have been carried out by BAE or are being carried out by them ?"

Could be a "How long is a piece of string? kind of question.

They will have one for each aircraft that they are Design Organisation. (Plus a 1/4 share in Typhoon)

But they will (or should!!!) also have a safety case for pieces of equipment that they produce. ie if they are responsible for providing missile x, targetting pod y, bomb z etc etc, then they should have a safety case that will allow the integrator (whoever that may be) to "inherit" the risks and mitigate them where required.

And I assume that you are only thinking about aircraft for the moment. But the need for a safety case covers all major military equipment. So, ships, submarines, vehicles, UAVs, artillery etc etc produced by BAES, should all have a safety case.

sw

[Boozydragon]

Courts Martial or Civilian Prosecution?

I would like to think that those responsible for the catalogue of errors which led to loss of XV230 both civilian and military will be dealt with either by Courts Martial and/or cases brough through the civilian legal system. Regardless of the incident, there always seems to be the attitude of 'it was like this when I got here Chief'.

Whilst it is true that the issues which culminated in the accident have been handed from Senior Officer/BAES employee/Government Minister, that does not excuse the continued malpractice. I suspect however that those responsible will be ushered off to retirement and the opportunity to grip this once and for all will be lost. I am not a fan of the litigation obsession we have inherited from the US, the fact that GB or BAES may be 'sorry' is simply not good enough and they should be held to account for their actions or lack thereof.

There are other personalities in the very recent past who by pure luck were not in post at the time of the loss of 120/3 who are equally culpable and are now breathing a sigh of relief, eg the previous Head of AV. Nothing would focus the minds of all of us involved in AW than a summons to appear in court.

[Tappers Dad]

My question to Bill Rammell + a bit of tension

My question to Bill Rammell this morning can be found here http://benknight.co.uk/D_Bill%20Ramm...20nov%2009.mp3 his answer and a bit of tension between the presenter and Bill Rammell.

[fincastle84]

Tapper's Dad, I just listened to BR on Radio Somerset. I don't know how you manage to restrain yourself when in the company of such a weasel as Bill Rammell & his boss Ainsworth.
Just rest assured that there are many like myself who hope that one day you achieve justice for the victims & closure & peace of mind for yourself.

[MrBernoulli]

Ye gods! Even the senior officers now sound like they have taken their 'PR lessons' from the same cunch of bunts as those that tutor the politicians! The same trite phrases and weasely-worded ****e that is used day-in, day-out by the inhabitants of that oversized playpen sited next to Parliament Square.

All of the blah and hot air that these mouth-pieces now use is designed only to take up airtime or column inches, whilst explaining nothing - absolutely nothing! Wuckfits, the lot of them!

Sorry ....... had to get it off my chest ...... I just can't abide it all .......

[helgar33]

I just listened to the interview with Bill Rammell (link posted above) and must say that he behaved in the same manner as he did with all of us last week. On the issue of a follow up meeting: - I am reluctant to believe that he will have ANY information for us as it has only been a week and he would not comment on the many issues we raised last week...I could just be being pessimistic but I am beginning to lose faith. I am sick of being spoken to as if I am part of military personnel and as a person who has not experienced the loss of a loved one and also of being shouted down. This interview gives those of you who were not allowed to attend the meeting a pretty good idea of the tone that Bill uses. There isn't any humility, compassion or indeed there wasn't even an apology for Chris Davies who arrived a little later than the main group (due to taxi's being late...which Bill's staff had organised). She said that all she wanted was an apology from him. Bill said he had already given one. When pressed he said he had given an apology at the start...in other words he wasn't going to repeat it. I expect him to apolgise until he is sick of apologising, but refusing to give an apology twice takes the biscuit! The thing that worries me the most is that Bill has exactly the sort of attitude that Haddon-Cave criticised.

On another matter I have been asked to put up a link on this post to my piece in the local paper today. They didn't use all my statement but the main parts are in there. I hope that some of you will be pleased that I passed on thoughts from this thread as well as my own opinion.
If you don't agree with what I've said...please be gentle with me. Ta. Helen.
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/news/Widow-speaks-budget-safety/article-1479386-detail/article.html

[Tappers Dad]

helgar33

If you think Bill Rammell was rude, Gordon brown was rattled today in PMQ's go to BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | The Full Story: PM's questions 30 mins in a question by Angus Robertson.
He couldn't say Nimrod correctly.

[helgar33]

Thanks for the link Graham.
The thing I can't get my head around is why Gordon Brown has been waiting for the Haddon-Cave report to be revealed before he would push our compensation claims forward? The BOI concluded that it was a design fault, the coroner also concluded on design faults...so why the wait? The end of next year is the date we have been given so far...hardly 'expeditious' as Des Browne had promised. These empty promises are disgraceful...especially after all we have been through..the future uncertainties are sickening and very worrying.

[Distant Voice]

Some Things that Haddon-Cave did not tell us.

34 cross-feed valves have been changed since January 2008. (Defective cross-feed valves result in high cross-feed temps, even when indicating "closed" on the flight deck)

Between June 2008 and May 2009 there were 13 fuel leaks from pipes and 29 from couplings (Includes 2 incident reports).


DV

[Distant Voice]

Why Attack the Coroner

Just read this on Mick Smith's blog

Mick Smith - Times Online - WBLG: Nimrod: Why Attack the Coroner?

[grousehunter]

Stats

Does anyone remember a number of years ago, perhaps even a few months before the crash that the RAF statisticians came to kinloss to give a presentation? I remember that they said at the time that "we (the RAF) were statistically due a large aircraft loss". At the time that gave me much food for thought, in fact it troubled me greatly. I had no idea what was to come. Was that dramatic wake up call acknowledged but then ignored?

All I can presume is that it was as I have not seen it in H C report. I just wondered what if any impact that department had on flight safety.

[tucumseh]

Does anyone remember a number of years ago, perhaps even a few months before the crash that the RAF statisticians came to kinloss to give a presentation? I remember that they said at the time that "we (the RAF) were statistically due a large aircraft loss". At the time that gave me much food for thought, in fact it troubled me greatly. I had no idea what was to come. Was that dramatic wake up call acknowledged but then ignored?

All I can presume is that it was as I have not seen it in H C report. I just wondered what if any impact that department had on flight safety.

All services are allowed, in fact required, by PUS to assume a given attrition rate for every aircraft. The rate is used to inform forward provisioning i.e. make EP bids to replace in advance. It is a peacetime device. These stats don’t say HOW an aircraft will be lost – part of the formula is life-ex.

This process has not been used for many years, despite being the subject of many a critical audit report. That is, the policy has moved from maintaining capability to adjusting capability or tasking to compensate for attrition. Now we are at war, the problem is exacerbated as tasking has increased despite attrition.


You ask what impact that department has on flight safety. I'm a civvy and that job was something you used to do before being allowed to manage a project. My terms of reference included a statement that I could overrule EP instructions using engineering judgment. It is a unique authority in MoD. Again, it is no longer implemented.



What is far more relevant is that in 2005 (before XV230 was lost) Adam Ingram was warned, in writing, that the airworthiness regulations were not being implemented properly, and had not been for some years. He denied it, in writing. The people who advised him to say this should be named and shamed before those in the H-C report.

Good post on Mick Smith’s blog.