Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV
I noticed this in the review:
The BOI took a copy of the list of destroyed documents and determined that there was nothing within them that could be immediately relevant to their investigation. Indeed, over the months that followed none of the documents was required by the BOI. The file was unlikely to contain anything of direct relevance to the loss of XV230 and it could, in the main, have been reconstituted if required.
Now I am pretty sure I saw a FOI that said they could NOT be reconstituted, correct me if I am wrong.
I noticed this in the review:
The BOI took a copy of the list of destroyed documents and determined that there was nothing within them that could be immediately relevant to their investigation. Indeed, over the months that followed none of the documents was required by the BOI. The file was unlikely to contain anything of direct relevance to the loss of XV230 and it could, in the main, have been reconstituted if required.
Now I am pretty sure I saw a FOI that said they could NOT be reconstituted, correct me if I am wrong.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Oxford
Age: 44
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a very sobering read especially if you currently have a job with delegated airworthiness responsibilities!
If the rumoured 'issues' surrounding this particular white elephant are to be believed, I for one, would think long and hard before authorising a Release to Service in order to satisfy the political pressure to finally get the aircraft flying. Just because the 'reversion' programme was heralded as a means to deliver the 8 ac into service within 2 years (from Mar 2007!) I would hope that the H-C report will prevent a re-occurrence of the rushed Chinook Mk2 introduction.
Hopefully the H-C report will indeed prevent the possibility of a repeat of the Nimrod tragedy.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, saw you earlier on Politics Show South West.
Brilliant comments by some ex-army star rank, including a comment that the report didnt go far enough in blaming up the command structure, IE Gordon, Tony and former defence secs were all culpable in his view. I would sincerely agree.
Also commented on conflict of interest in terms of risks to troops associated with drops in Air Force Op capability... This for me has always been the big issue, with boys and girls having to go flying in unservicable aircraft, anything other being seen as "LMF" by hierarchy and a major moral issue for those put in that situation. This lack of management needs changing.
We should never again put our people in a situation where risk assessment that needs to be taken at star level is taken by guys at the coalface, on far less pay and suffer the consequences of flying unservicable aircraft.
Those due to retire on 100% pay should bow their heads in shame. There were numerous calls for falling on swords,to raise public awareness, yet it never happened. Air power doesnt come cheap. If you dont have the cash or resource to support an Op requiring extensive Air effects, we shouldnt commit to the Op. Its as simple as that.
BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show South West: 01/11/2009
Brilliant comments by some ex-army star rank, including a comment that the report didnt go far enough in blaming up the command structure, IE Gordon, Tony and former defence secs were all culpable in his view. I would sincerely agree.
Also commented on conflict of interest in terms of risks to troops associated with drops in Air Force Op capability... This for me has always been the big issue, with boys and girls having to go flying in unservicable aircraft, anything other being seen as "LMF" by hierarchy and a major moral issue for those put in that situation. This lack of management needs changing.
We should never again put our people in a situation where risk assessment that needs to be taken at star level is taken by guys at the coalface, on far less pay and suffer the consequences of flying unservicable aircraft.
Those due to retire on 100% pay should bow their heads in shame. There were numerous calls for falling on swords,to raise public awareness, yet it never happened. Air power doesnt come cheap. If you dont have the cash or resource to support an Op requiring extensive Air effects, we shouldnt commit to the Op. Its as simple as that.
BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show South West: 01/11/2009
Last edited by VinRouge; 1st Nov 2009 at 14:45.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Destruction of Documents
TD, you are correct, and the FOI reply reads as follows:
"This means that the enclosure titles on this list may not be exact original document titles but may be recorded with an informal title, or an abbreviated form of the original tiltle. Without knowing the original document titles it is almost impossible to identify with absolute certainty which documents some of them may have been. Furthermore it means that being able to identify the originator of the documents(to ascertain if anaother copy even still exists) is also almost impossible"
Based on this statement I am not sure how the BOI and the review came to the conclusions they did. A bit like the source of fuel.
DV
"This means that the enclosure titles on this list may not be exact original document titles but may be recorded with an informal title, or an abbreviated form of the original tiltle. Without knowing the original document titles it is almost impossible to identify with absolute certainty which documents some of them may have been. Furthermore it means that being able to identify the originator of the documents(to ascertain if anaother copy even still exists) is also almost impossible"
Based on this statement I am not sure how the BOI and the review came to the conclusions they did. A bit like the source of fuel.
DV
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV/TD
The review's main advisers were the board chairman and the engineering officer who sat on the board, what do you expect! They have spent a lot of time concluding one thing, they arent going to suggest it might be another.
Excellent though the review was in many ways, it was very sad to see the criticism of a coroner, who did his job as well as could be expected and came far closer than anyone else to giving the families closure, until Wednesday that is.
At one point H-C slams Walker for saying one thing when if he actually read what he said properly they would have realised he was saying the exact opposite.
It was also sad, given the power he had, that he didnt question ministers. I would have loved to hear Buff's defence!
The review's main advisers were the board chairman and the engineering officer who sat on the board, what do you expect! They have spent a lot of time concluding one thing, they arent going to suggest it might be another.
Excellent though the review was in many ways, it was very sad to see the criticism of a coroner, who did his job as well as could be expected and came far closer than anyone else to giving the families closure, until Wednesday that is.
At one point H-C slams Walker for saying one thing when if he actually read what he said properly they would have realised he was saying the exact opposite.
It was also sad, given the power he had, that he didnt question ministers. I would have loved to hear Buff's defence!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
I am still of the opinion that the 'Stop Press' is a red herring. There is plenty about for you to get your teeth into. Returning to the SP would IMHO be a waste of your effort.
Duncs
I am still of the opinion that the 'Stop Press' is a red herring. There is plenty about for you to get your teeth into. Returning to the SP would IMHO be a waste of your effort.
Duncs
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick Smith, well said. Their understanding of the coroner's source of fuel is a classic.
The discrediting of the of the Coroner's finding (Chapter 16) is in marked contrast with "Didn't the BOI do well" (Chapter 15). So many things have been done "As recommended by the BOI". Not so. The claim that "As a result of a further key BOI recommendation, a Hot Air Duct Replacement Programme was initiated", really is pushing it a bit too far. The programme was initiated by the XV227 investigation team. From their recommendation to examine the likelihood of other ducts being in a similar condition to that which failed, BAE generated reports in Jan 05, June 05 and Feb 2007, which idendified the ducts we are now replacing. Although these reports were available under FOI, they were not requested or seen by the BOI.
Nick and John, you have done a great job and I am sure that there will be rewards in the "New Years" list for you both. There is no need to discredit the Coroner, because he did not agree with you, or lay claims to things you did not uncover.
DV
The discrediting of the of the Coroner's finding (Chapter 16) is in marked contrast with "Didn't the BOI do well" (Chapter 15). So many things have been done "As recommended by the BOI". Not so. The claim that "As a result of a further key BOI recommendation, a Hot Air Duct Replacement Programme was initiated", really is pushing it a bit too far. The programme was initiated by the XV227 investigation team. From their recommendation to examine the likelihood of other ducts being in a similar condition to that which failed, BAE generated reports in Jan 05, June 05 and Feb 2007, which idendified the ducts we are now replacing. Although these reports were available under FOI, they were not requested or seen by the BOI.
Nick and John, you have done a great job and I am sure that there will be rewards in the "New Years" list for you both. There is no need to discredit the Coroner, because he did not agree with you, or lay claims to things you did not uncover.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 1st Nov 2009 at 18:54.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD'S: You are missing TD's point. Its not about the contents of the "Stop Press" folder, it is about how the facts can be "twisted" to suit someones case.
DV
DV
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV,
I take your point. However, H-C states that the SP could 'in the main' be reconstructed and the FOI response mentions 'absolute certainty'; I would argue both are correct - one is a bit of a cop out however!
Duncs
I take your point. However, H-C states that the SP could 'in the main' be reconstructed and the FOI response mentions 'absolute certainty'; I would argue both are correct - one is a bit of a cop out however!
Duncs
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV
I didn't think it needed pointing out but yes, either the MOD were not truthfull to Mr HC or they weren't truthful in their answer to an FOI request.
The eaarlier link to the politics show was incorrect this is it BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show West: 01/11/2009 it starts after about 30 mins.
I didn't think it needed pointing out but yes, either the MOD were not truthfull to Mr HC or they weren't truthful in their answer to an FOI request.
The eaarlier link to the politics show was incorrect this is it BBC iPlayer - The Politics Show West: 01/11/2009 it starts after about 30 mins.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 1st Nov 2009 at 18:40. Reason: Link added
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near a former secret airbase somewhere in Wiltshire
Age: 77
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD
Graham, I can only echo what has already been said, firstly, my continuing condolence for your loss, as ineffectual as that condolence may be.
Secondly my congratulations on your determination and tenacity in pursuing the matter, in getting the inquiry conducted and the report published and thirdly, but not least, the dignity that you and your whole family have shown throughout, for what it's worth, all of you have my respect.
I was in the fleet for some 20 years, on MR1s and MR2s (including a tour on 120) and I loved the aircraft, loved the job and trusted both my aircrew colleagues and the people who serviced the aircraft, I never knew Ben, he came to the fleet long after I had left but I suspect that he felt pretty much the same.
Had I known the design flaws that the report has highlighted would I have wished to continue doing the job? The answer is an almost unequivocal YES, but that is purely my feelings about the job that I did and the era in which I did it.
Am I surprised at the ostrich mentality of the military/political/MoD/industrial consortium? Not in the least - I am reminded of a phrase that one of my early day mentors used "Those that have the bottle don't have the power and those that have the power don't have the bottle, just make the best of it - never forget that".
That those who have been named and shamed are not the ones solely responsible is, to a large extent, irrelevant, the problem goes way back beyond their tenure BUT, if you were to ask a Very Senior Officer/Senior Civil Servant/Minister/Captain of Industry what their job is he (or she) would likely reply "Well, I'm responsible for.....", (I know because I've asked that question - the damage to my career was short lived, after all they're only in post for 2 years).
OK, well, it happened on their watch so time for them to accept the responsibility for which they have been so well paid all these years, just as I and my colleagues and many others accepted the risks of military aviation at their behest, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.
If you follow the profession of arms, you accept that there is risk, but unnecessary risk, uncaring risk, thoughtless risk, greedy risk, is simply unacceptable, it's nothing new, it's just unacceptable.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, Crew 3 paid the price for the pernicious penny-pinching of a government who would rather spend OUR money on political correctness training, allied to a promotion system that has, all too often, rewarded the "yes" men - consider this (I'm sure you have), faced with a choice of promotion to a senior or very senior position, who is more likely to get it, the person who stands up and says "we can't do it like that" or the person who says "my men will cope"? Hmm difficult eh?
The fact is that most "leaders" are leaders purely by virtue of the sheer professionalism of those that they "lead" and that is true of the military, the MoD and industry.
The final blame must lie with the Scrooges in the Treasury, successive Governments who willingly bend the knee (as long as it doesn't compromise their expenses), the LMF of the majority of the senior armed force hierarchy, senior civil servants who, at best don't understand the question and at worst are only interested in a knighthood, and a defence industry that has grown up thinking that it can milk the system for all it's worth and never take the consequences.
US President Harry S Truman clearly defined where the buck stops, who in the British political system will stand up and be counted? Is that an eerie silence I hear?
If I sound cynical, well, one man's cynicism is another man's reality check, I make no apologies.
TPD
Graham, I can only echo what has already been said, firstly, my continuing condolence for your loss, as ineffectual as that condolence may be.
Secondly my congratulations on your determination and tenacity in pursuing the matter, in getting the inquiry conducted and the report published and thirdly, but not least, the dignity that you and your whole family have shown throughout, for what it's worth, all of you have my respect.
I was in the fleet for some 20 years, on MR1s and MR2s (including a tour on 120) and I loved the aircraft, loved the job and trusted both my aircrew colleagues and the people who serviced the aircraft, I never knew Ben, he came to the fleet long after I had left but I suspect that he felt pretty much the same.
Had I known the design flaws that the report has highlighted would I have wished to continue doing the job? The answer is an almost unequivocal YES, but that is purely my feelings about the job that I did and the era in which I did it.
Am I surprised at the ostrich mentality of the military/political/MoD/industrial consortium? Not in the least - I am reminded of a phrase that one of my early day mentors used "Those that have the bottle don't have the power and those that have the power don't have the bottle, just make the best of it - never forget that".
That those who have been named and shamed are not the ones solely responsible is, to a large extent, irrelevant, the problem goes way back beyond their tenure BUT, if you were to ask a Very Senior Officer/Senior Civil Servant/Minister/Captain of Industry what their job is he (or she) would likely reply "Well, I'm responsible for.....", (I know because I've asked that question - the damage to my career was short lived, after all they're only in post for 2 years).
OK, well, it happened on their watch so time for them to accept the responsibility for which they have been so well paid all these years, just as I and my colleagues and many others accepted the risks of military aviation at their behest, both in peacetime and in times of conflict.
If you follow the profession of arms, you accept that there is risk, but unnecessary risk, uncaring risk, thoughtless risk, greedy risk, is simply unacceptable, it's nothing new, it's just unacceptable.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, Crew 3 paid the price for the pernicious penny-pinching of a government who would rather spend OUR money on political correctness training, allied to a promotion system that has, all too often, rewarded the "yes" men - consider this (I'm sure you have), faced with a choice of promotion to a senior or very senior position, who is more likely to get it, the person who stands up and says "we can't do it like that" or the person who says "my men will cope"? Hmm difficult eh?
The fact is that most "leaders" are leaders purely by virtue of the sheer professionalism of those that they "lead" and that is true of the military, the MoD and industry.
The final blame must lie with the Scrooges in the Treasury, successive Governments who willingly bend the knee (as long as it doesn't compromise their expenses), the LMF of the majority of the senior armed force hierarchy, senior civil servants who, at best don't understand the question and at worst are only interested in a knighthood, and a defence industry that has grown up thinking that it can milk the system for all it's worth and never take the consequences.
US President Harry S Truman clearly defined where the buck stops, who in the British political system will stand up and be counted? Is that an eerie silence I hear?
If I sound cynical, well, one man's cynicism is another man's reality check, I make no apologies.
TPD
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus Are you saying I should trust what I am being told by N0 2 Group ? Let me think er NO I don't take anything as being true I am told until I am sure it is so. ------------------------------------------------ FYI baber was moved sharply across to head of the customer support team for chief of material Air within DES now. If you look at page 389 of HCs report - figure 13.6, you'll get an idea (if you can make out the references to safety in the CofM's roles) of that departments theoretical role. (i say that because the CofM role is different across the domains - and i haven't had a great deal of sight of what CofM(Air) get's up to regarding safety. However the main purpose of the role was meant to address issues across the DES and forces 'boundary' - including safety)
With regard to 'just culture' & a workable error management system,there is a programme being rolled out across the RAF.Its based on the EASA model,
it's a good system ,if its allowed to work!
While I share the view that government spending cuts played a great part,these were accepted and administered by a series of CDS/CAS.
I don't remember any resignations or major war's of words,so should they also bear some responsability?
it's a good system ,if its allowed to work!
While I share the view that government spending cuts played a great part,these were accepted and administered by a series of CDS/CAS.
I don't remember any resignations or major war's of words,so should they also bear some responsability?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: W Sussex
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Rigga, I think I have to disagree with you. So this is me in my antique CDSE hat, quite prepared to be told 'But we dont do it that way any more'.
To the mods, I apologise for any thread drift.
"760/765 systems are probably still under-resourced, and lack any real flow, sometimes taking years before any action is seen and with no feedback to originators as to how they are progressing (probably because they dont progress) So staff will become used to seeing the wrong info in maitenance procedures and may not use them because they have no faith in them, and "guessing" (in that can-do attitude) what should be done because there is no feedback of what they should do."
There was always a way to request change to an AP or MP, F765, and it's a laid down procedure. (Can't exactly remember where now). Yes, they are resource intensive, but once analyzed and trialled feedback was always made to the originator, with reasons for and against as applicable, and the Procedure was amended if necessary. I dont think that regular updates, although a good idea, would fit with todays policy and/or manning levels. In my day there was a line open for anyone on the shop floor to communicate with CSDE Schedules directly and speak to an author or analyst if they had a problem with a servicing procedure. This was not vetted, and we didnt usually tell the station heirachy, because it worried them that they didn't control it!
I wholly agree with you about the unofficial 'filter' - I remember one OCEng 'sausage side' who wouldn't pass them up the system because they weren't written in 'schedulese', and he had a filing cabinet full of them! I'm sure he wasn't the only one either. That's what's happened to your 765s in many cases, and its bloody disgraceful.
760s were a different beastie, because quite often it took input from the manufacturer before anything much could be done, and that takes time, especially as theres no kudos in contracting to the Royal Air Force any more.
Please don't think that just because nothing apparent has been happening, it isn't going to, its a bit like a swan, calm on top and going like hell underneath. I promise you.
To the mods, I apologise for any thread drift.
"760/765 systems are probably still under-resourced, and lack any real flow, sometimes taking years before any action is seen and with no feedback to originators as to how they are progressing (probably because they dont progress) So staff will become used to seeing the wrong info in maitenance procedures and may not use them because they have no faith in them, and "guessing" (in that can-do attitude) what should be done because there is no feedback of what they should do."
There was always a way to request change to an AP or MP, F765, and it's a laid down procedure. (Can't exactly remember where now). Yes, they are resource intensive, but once analyzed and trialled feedback was always made to the originator, with reasons for and against as applicable, and the Procedure was amended if necessary. I dont think that regular updates, although a good idea, would fit with todays policy and/or manning levels. In my day there was a line open for anyone on the shop floor to communicate with CSDE Schedules directly and speak to an author or analyst if they had a problem with a servicing procedure. This was not vetted, and we didnt usually tell the station heirachy, because it worried them that they didn't control it!
I wholly agree with you about the unofficial 'filter' - I remember one OCEng 'sausage side' who wouldn't pass them up the system because they weren't written in 'schedulese', and he had a filing cabinet full of them! I'm sure he wasn't the only one either. That's what's happened to your 765s in many cases, and its bloody disgraceful.
760s were a different beastie, because quite often it took input from the manufacturer before anything much could be done, and that takes time, especially as theres no kudos in contracting to the Royal Air Force any more.
Please don't think that just because nothing apparent has been happening, it isn't going to, its a bit like a swan, calm on top and going like hell underneath. I promise you.
Last edited by Biggles225; 2nd Nov 2009 at 14:03. Reason: Apology for thread drift
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Poison Dwarf
Sir,
In your post above YOU state...
"Had I known the design flaws that the report has highlighted would I have wished to continue doing the job? The answer is an almost unequivocal YES"
I don't know if you are a pilot, but assuming that you are, are you really telling us that you would have happily flown an aircraft knowing it had a design fault/flaw?? Honestly?
I flew Nimrod Mk1 and Mk2 for quite a few years, and I can tell you that had I known those facts, then I hope I would have had the balls to say that I wasn't prepared to risk the lives of my crew until they were sorted out. It might well have cut my career short, but I would have peace of mind.
(The rest of your posting I agree with 100% by the way!)
Winco
Sir,
In your post above YOU state...
"Had I known the design flaws that the report has highlighted would I have wished to continue doing the job? The answer is an almost unequivocal YES"
I don't know if you are a pilot, but assuming that you are, are you really telling us that you would have happily flown an aircraft knowing it had a design fault/flaw?? Honestly?
I flew Nimrod Mk1 and Mk2 for quite a few years, and I can tell you that had I known those facts, then I hope I would have had the balls to say that I wasn't prepared to risk the lives of my crew until they were sorted out. It might well have cut my career short, but I would have peace of mind.
(The rest of your posting I agree with 100% by the way!)
Winco
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have beeen asked to go on the radio tomorrow, following my interview one queston I have asked will be put to Bill Rammell in an interview with him. If you were me what one question would you ask ?
Sensible replies only please.
Sensible replies only please.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
wrt my #1687...
Given the H-C criticisms of the airworthiness system as a whole, how can the MOD demonstrate that all of its aircraft types are airworthy?
sw
wrt my #1687...
Given the H-C criticisms of the airworthiness system as a whole, how can the MOD demonstrate that all of its aircraft types are airworthy?
sw