E-3D Storm Damage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E-3D Storm Damage
Found these pic's on another website today. Looks like the storms managed to cause a bit damage to one of Waddo's E-3D's. Maybe the greound equipment should have been tied down, doh 
It is an 'aircraft simulator' used for towing practice, it was chocked but the high winds caused it to jump the chocks and it set of down the pan and stopped where it is shown in the pictures.
I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.
I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.
It is still being assessed by RAF & Northrop Grumman (who are now the Design authority for the aircraft), then it will be decided who is to repair it, when and how long it will take. If I find out I will post info, unless someone here beats me to it or I am spoken to (see comment in my previous post).
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is an 'aircraft simulator' used for towing practice, it was chocked but the high winds caused it to jump the chocks and it set of down the pan and stopped where it is shown in the pictures.
I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.
I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.
Take cover!
TheWizard
don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!!
Sorry, I never thought to find the original site to see if I know who it was, but I am intrigued so will look.
don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!!
Sorry, I never thought to find the original site to see if I know who it was, but I am intrigued so will look.
No joy so far, so not very good at the old sleuthing business.
Jumpseater: Most of the station was there around those times with more than one digital camera being used to record the event for prosperity.
Jumpseater: Most of the station was there around those times with more than one digital camera being used to record the event for prosperity.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've said on another forum,this is exactly the type of publicity that the recent DIN about capturing images was supposed to prevent.
Chances are though the guy who took the pic will just plead ignorance and be given a caution.
Chances are though the guy who took the pic will just plead ignorance and be given a caution.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the witch hunting culture is rearing its ugly head again. What happened to the "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." environment that the military were trying to foster?
Or is it due to the shiney ar$ed office types who will be baying for blood because their entire 2007- 2008 budget has just been swallowed by an E-3D?
TW
Or is it due to the shiney ar$ed office types who will be baying for blood because their entire 2007- 2008 budget has just been swallowed by an E-3D?
TW
I did not think that my comments were taken as meaning that it is the start of a witch hunt by me when I get back to work, I was merely intrigued as to wether it was someone I knew. As to "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." that is the culture in the RAF that I was used to during the latter part of my career, and is normally what I find in inustry since I have left, unfortunately Planet Waddington is in a time warp and they have yet to catch up with the rest of the RAF.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger.
Certainly wasn't a jibe at yourself. Sorry if you if you took my comment badly.
It was merely an observation and my own opinion of the event and the whole tone of the thread.
TW
Certainly wasn't a jibe at yourself. Sorry if you if you took my comment badly.
It was merely an observation and my own opinion of the event and the whole tone of the thread.
TW
There were actually two aircraft damaged! Still, it won't make any impact on current Ops as the E3-D don't do Ops; only exercises. They are, however, still very, very important so they keep telling us (especially those ground trades in a temporary flying role who think they are aircrew).
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 116 Likes
on
83 Posts
Despite the apparent damage shown on the photo's, I will stick my neck out and say it's probably nowhere near as bad as it appears. Think of like a head wound---lots of mess, but when you clean up there's usually very little real damage.
Mr Boeing's skins are not that thick really ( based on personal experience with 707 / 737 / 757 types ) and the structures are equally, comparatively speaking "flimsy" to save weight as I recall. Hence, when you get a crimp, they tend to look far worse than they are. What damage has been done to any systems behind the skin is another matter of course.
I am sure though, that the anal palpitations of the beany brigade will reduce in intensity once it is assessed. Who does the repair will be interesting though---CWP from Boeing perhaps ?.
Shame the powers that be decided it was a good idea to get rid of the deep repair and maintenance capability---or MU's in another time and place-because, whilst they may not have been able to do the complete repair, much of the nitty gritty and clean up / rectification would certainly have been within their capability. As it is, I bet this all goes on the bill.
Mr Boeing's skins are not that thick really ( based on personal experience with 707 / 737 / 757 types ) and the structures are equally, comparatively speaking "flimsy" to save weight as I recall. Hence, when you get a crimp, they tend to look far worse than they are. What damage has been done to any systems behind the skin is another matter of course.
I am sure though, that the anal palpitations of the beany brigade will reduce in intensity once it is assessed. Who does the repair will be interesting though---CWP from Boeing perhaps ?.
Shame the powers that be decided it was a good idea to get rid of the deep repair and maintenance capability---or MU's in another time and place-because, whilst they may not have been able to do the complete repair, much of the nitty gritty and clean up / rectification would certainly have been within their capability. As it is, I bet this all goes on the bill.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, I dont see what the problem is? If you have read through the DIN with regards to photography you will notice two things. One, its total b
k's and virtually stops you taking any photographs of military aircraft on an RAF base whilst you are serving in the RAF. Two, its clearly been written for the muppets who insist on going OOA and taking pictures of dead bodies, POW's etc.
What harm has posting these pictures done?
k's and virtually stops you taking any photographs of military aircraft on an RAF base whilst you are serving in the RAF. Two, its clearly been written for the muppets who insist on going OOA and taking pictures of dead bodies, POW's etc.What harm has posting these pictures done?
samuraimatt:
I was not particulary looking for anyone, I happened to mention to my partner, after it happened, that I wonder if any photos would end up on the web and then on here. When they did appear here I was merely wondering out loud, so to speak, who of the people I know who took photos it might have been. Nothing sinister, but as it seems that my comments have been taken to mean I am fishing for information to report them on Monday, I will not make any further attempt to find out. Nor will I be shouting guess what I know, please sir, me sir on monday either.
As might be apparent, I work there so know what happened and that another aircraft recieved a glancing blow on the nose as the equipment travelled past at approx 30 mph (rumour estimate) before embedding itself into the other aircraft, there was a fuel loss as well.
Amended to add that I do not believe any harm has been done in posting these pictures.
I was not particulary looking for anyone, I happened to mention to my partner, after it happened, that I wonder if any photos would end up on the web and then on here. When they did appear here I was merely wondering out loud, so to speak, who of the people I know who took photos it might have been. Nothing sinister, but as it seems that my comments have been taken to mean I am fishing for information to report them on Monday, I will not make any further attempt to find out. Nor will I be shouting guess what I know, please sir, me sir on monday either.
As might be apparent, I work there so know what happened and that another aircraft recieved a glancing blow on the nose as the equipment travelled past at approx 30 mph (rumour estimate) before embedding itself into the other aircraft, there was a fuel loss as well.
Amended to add that I do not believe any harm has been done in posting these pictures.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.
If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.
Rules are rules?!!
I always thought they were for the guidance of wise men and adherance by idiots.
There is a massive difference between doing things right and doing the right thing and attitudes that 'Rules are Rules' and must be obeyed have contributued to the downfall of this once fine service.
I always thought they were for the guidance of wise men and adherance by idiots.
There is a massive difference between doing things right and doing the right thing and attitudes that 'Rules are Rules' and must be obeyed have contributued to the downfall of this once fine service.
I do not think fantaman, and I certainly did not think that this thread would turn into what was intimated by others. fantaman posted the pictures from else where as a point of interest, I merely mentioned a few facts behind the pictures and was not expecting it to turn into anything else.
Maybe the moderators would consider removing the thread as it seems it may get blown up out of proportion.
I do not believe this is a sacking/disciplinary offence either especially when it is considered the other threads on this site that are discussed in minute and accurate detail of what is currently going on within the services.
Maybe the moderators would consider removing the thread as it seems it may get blown up out of proportion.
I do not believe this is a sacking/disciplinary offence either especially when it is considered the other threads on this site that are discussed in minute and accurate detail of what is currently going on within the services.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not?
Are you setting up the if, no and but, argument to a Witchfinder general type of outfit?
If you are, you should be ducked at the stake whilst wearing a parsnip for a nose.
You should note my point though.
TW