Nimrod Information
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tec,
If I gave the impression to you and other readers that my use of "ground engineering officers" referred to OC NLS and other EngOs at Kinloss, then I apologise for a lack of clarity. I was referring to those individuals who accepted the analysis of the NSC. Anyone, regardless of organisation, branch or rank, with knowledge of the Nirmod who read the NSC and signed it off has to take some responsibility for allowing the flaws to remain. But, I do not believe there were lies. Assumptions, maybe. The QC will establish the truth.
If I gave the impression to you and other readers that my use of "ground engineering officers" referred to OC NLS and other EngOs at Kinloss, then I apologise for a lack of clarity. I was referring to those individuals who accepted the analysis of the NSC. Anyone, regardless of organisation, branch or rank, with knowledge of the Nirmod who read the NSC and signed it off has to take some responsibility for allowing the flaws to remain. But, I do not believe there were lies. Assumptions, maybe. The QC will establish the truth.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A word of hope for the future. IMO the RAF and MoD have forfeited the privilege of self-regulation. I picked up this point off Hansard at the end of Des Browne's announcement.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con): The Secretary of State is aware that Europe is trying to have a military aviation authority. Will he explain why Rolls-Royce, which has been pushing the Government to accept this standard for years, has been ignored? Will the Government sign up to the European military aviation authority, to bring military aircraft in line with civil aviation? If there is a problem, what is it? Will the Minister sign up to this as soon as possible?
Des Browne: I shall consider the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. I am not in a position today to give him a detailed response, but I shall write to him on it.
Des Browne has found it within himself to do the right thing once, I urge him to do the right thing a 2nd time.
No more Nimrods dodging airliners on goggles over the skies of Afghanistan without TCAS, external airworthiness checks, the only way ahead for a military that has lost its way.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con): The Secretary of State is aware that Europe is trying to have a military aviation authority. Will he explain why Rolls-Royce, which has been pushing the Government to accept this standard for years, has been ignored? Will the Government sign up to the European military aviation authority, to bring military aircraft in line with civil aviation? If there is a problem, what is it? Will the Minister sign up to this as soon as possible?
Des Browne: I shall consider the issue the hon. Gentleman raises. I am not in a position today to give him a detailed response, but I shall write to him on it.
Des Browne has found it within himself to do the right thing once, I urge him to do the right thing a 2nd time.
No more Nimrods dodging airliners on goggles over the skies of Afghanistan without TCAS, external airworthiness checks, the only way ahead for a military that has lost its way.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then Jimmy Jones should not have raised his head above the parapet and made comment on the subject without current knowledge, whilst giving the impression that he did. He was wrong about the fit as have been so many other contributors to this thread. My knowledge of the AAR fit is 6 years out of date, therefore I have refrained from commenting on the many entries made by people that are clearly out of date or do not understand the system or its use.
For those who read with interest but have no knowledge of Nimrod ac or ops, I would suggest you listen to those at ISK who KNOW the systems and its uses, and pay less attention (not ignore) to those who may be involved in the process of ac engineering, but do so from afar. You would be amazed at the number of decisions made about ac at IPT's by those who have never been near the ac let alone fly in it.
For those who read with interest but have no knowledge of Nimrod ac or ops, I would suggest you listen to those at ISK who KNOW the systems and its uses, and pay less attention (not ignore) to those who may be involved in the process of ac engineering, but do so from afar. You would be amazed at the number of decisions made about ac at IPT's by those who have never been near the ac let alone fly in it.
Well said AQAfive.
On a further JJ note, you've hit the nail on the head Nige when saying he left the RAF in 1978? Surely that makes his knowlege of the a/c and it's engineering aspects 30 years out of date...?
On a further JJ note, you've hit the nail on the head Nige when saying he left the RAF in 1978? Surely that makes his knowlege of the a/c and it's engineering aspects 30 years out of date...?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimmy Jones' first (unsolicited?) contribution to the media was his assertion that the aircraft was not designed for use in the hot climate of the Middle East and that it was required for use in the NATO theatre. He based his expertise on this subject because he was a member of the flight test team/unit that saw the aircraft into service.
Well, yes, we needed a LRMPA and the Nimrod met that need. What Jimmy Jones didn't tell us, as he surely would have known as an engineer on the test team, was that the aircraft was released into service with ground temperature limits of -26C to +45C at sea level. This was hard data that Jones would have known about. So, his statement that the jet wasn't designed for the Gulf is tosh. I would agree that it wasn't required in the Gulf but it was clearly designed to be able to operate worldwide.
Mick Smith, you have worked hard with the information you gleaned and I congratulate you for doing your job, well. It is unfortunate that your sources have been less than accurate. I blame the MoD in this respect, because of a slavish adherence to procedures that were clearly inappropriate in this case. Much of what you have been told could so easily have been clarified by controlled explanation by sanctioned MoD specialists. In this respect the MoD has shot itself in the foot and, more importantly, allowed bereaved families and relatives of current Nimrod aircrew to read and see media information that has not always been accurate. I agree that some info was accurate, but the public expects the quality media (BBC and the Times) to be better than that.
Regards
Ed Set
Well, yes, we needed a LRMPA and the Nimrod met that need. What Jimmy Jones didn't tell us, as he surely would have known as an engineer on the test team, was that the aircraft was released into service with ground temperature limits of -26C to +45C at sea level. This was hard data that Jones would have known about. So, his statement that the jet wasn't designed for the Gulf is tosh. I would agree that it wasn't required in the Gulf but it was clearly designed to be able to operate worldwide.
Mick Smith, you have worked hard with the information you gleaned and I congratulate you for doing your job, well. It is unfortunate that your sources have been less than accurate. I blame the MoD in this respect, because of a slavish adherence to procedures that were clearly inappropriate in this case. Much of what you have been told could so easily have been clarified by controlled explanation by sanctioned MoD specialists. In this respect the MoD has shot itself in the foot and, more importantly, allowed bereaved families and relatives of current Nimrod aircrew to read and see media information that has not always been accurate. I agree that some info was accurate, but the public expects the quality media (BBC and the Times) to be better than that.
Regards
Ed Set
Last edited by EdSet100; 7th Dec 2007 at 16:07.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed, I can't speak of Jimmy, but if you are talking of truths what do you make of Sir Glenn Torpy's assertion on the Panorama program that the Nimrod "is as safe as it needs to be."
Neither myself nor Mick can work out what has changed from then, when the Nimrod was cleared to AAR, to today, when it is not.
And, what do you make of Sir Glenn Torpy's advice to SoSDef this week that in his professional opinion the Nimrod is airworthy?
Should we believe him, or will the Nimrod fleet get grounded some time over the coming months?
Neither myself nor Mick can work out what has changed from then, when the Nimrod was cleared to AAR, to today, when it is not.
And, what do you make of Sir Glenn Torpy's advice to SoSDef this week that in his professional opinion the Nimrod is airworthy?
Should we believe him, or will the Nimrod fleet get grounded some time over the coming months?
Nigegilb
At a time when we are overstretched and short of cash I cannot believe that you would seriously consider lumbering us with another EU bureaucracy!!
If nothing else all our dealings with Europe provide evidence of how to slow things down, muddy the waters, work to the lowest common denominator etc. The MAR system worked perfectly well until a shortage of cash forced us to "lean" things. If anything is to be blamed here might I suggest might I suggest it is aimed at those who introduced civilian business, profit maximising processes to the military. We do not need another EU juggernaut!! 
Olddog
As LL says perhaps one of the best posts in 101 pages.
Isn't it time to lock this thread?
At a time when we are overstretched and short of cash I cannot believe that you would seriously consider lumbering us with another EU bureaucracy!!
If nothing else all our dealings with Europe provide evidence of how to slow things down, muddy the waters, work to the lowest common denominator etc. The MAR system worked perfectly well until a shortage of cash forced us to "lean" things. If anything is to be blamed here might I suggest might I suggest it is aimed at those who introduced civilian business, profit maximising processes to the military. We do not need another EU juggernaut!! Olddog
As LL says perhaps one of the best posts in 101 pages.
Isn't it time to lock this thread?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RP, believe me I am no great fan of european beaurocracy, but you said this,
The MAR system worked perfectly well until a shortage of cash forced us to "lean" things. It is the responsibility of the chiefs of staff to ensure funding is adequate for MAR. If they cannot do that, there is no alternative to having standards enforced by an outside agency. The Govt will soon cough up when it realises it can't continue to fight wars on the cheap.
The MAR system worked perfectly well until a shortage of cash forced us to "lean" things. It is the responsibility of the chiefs of staff to ensure funding is adequate for MAR. If they cannot do that, there is no alternative to having standards enforced by an outside agency. The Govt will soon cough up when it realises it can't continue to fight wars on the cheap.
Isn't it time to lock this thread?
The MAR system worked perfectly well until a shortage of cash forced us to "lean" things.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enough Already!
Waiting for the beer bottles and spitoons coming from the public bar I would like to congratulate olddog on bringing direction to this topic.
The Nimrod is an out of date airframe that is perpetuating 1940's technology and intelligence techniques. The time has come for the UK to stop, put down Clausewitz and look at the future direction of conflicts, and intelligence gathering from the position of a small Island nation between two powerful and diverging powers, Europe and the USA.
The future of servicing and maintenance often quoted will be like all military support functions privatized in the not so distant future. The direction of hardware will be towards easily replaced, and easily maintained equipment, based if possible on proven civilian platforms. The P-8A Poseidon is an example of the issues, and the commercial solution. Above all any platform must be scalable, capable of global sales, and global provision of spares from civilian stocks.
That aside these postings, and yes I have read them all, have mistakenly shown the Chinese and Russians that the the rank and file second guess, belittle, and ridicule their military and political leaders over a single, though regrettable incident in a military fiasco that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and will continue for decades.
We are standing in the middle of the road, arguing about the twisted frame on a bicycle and not noticing the 18 wheeled truck bearing down on us.
Buy the report, mutter in your beer, and close this thread!
The Nimrod is an out of date airframe that is perpetuating 1940's technology and intelligence techniques. The time has come for the UK to stop, put down Clausewitz and look at the future direction of conflicts, and intelligence gathering from the position of a small Island nation between two powerful and diverging powers, Europe and the USA.
The future of servicing and maintenance often quoted will be like all military support functions privatized in the not so distant future. The direction of hardware will be towards easily replaced, and easily maintained equipment, based if possible on proven civilian platforms. The P-8A Poseidon is an example of the issues, and the commercial solution. Above all any platform must be scalable, capable of global sales, and global provision of spares from civilian stocks.
That aside these postings, and yes I have read them all, have mistakenly shown the Chinese and Russians that the the rank and file second guess, belittle, and ridicule their military and political leaders over a single, though regrettable incident in a military fiasco that has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and will continue for decades.
We are standing in the middle of the road, arguing about the twisted frame on a bicycle and not noticing the 18 wheeled truck bearing down on us.
Buy the report, mutter in your beer, and close this thread!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot scheme for MIL 145 (JAR 145 Equiv, EASA etc) has been kicking around as far back as 2003.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...SchemeMaos.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...SchemeMaos.htm
- Organizations involved in the maintenance of military registered aircraft or components intended to be fitted to military registered aircraft shall be approved in accordance with the provisions of Mil Part 145.
- Organizations carrying out airworthiness management tasks shall be approved in accordance with the provisions of Mil Part M (sub Part G).
- Organizations involved in the training of certifying staff shall be approved in accordance with Mil Part 147.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from Geointel on this thread,
No military service has any "duty of care", just to carry out the orders of politicians, and that often means innocent people suffering.
Jees, no wonder he wants to close the thread and thinks we have all gone soft.
No military service has any "duty of care", just to carry out the orders of politicians, and that often means innocent people suffering.
Jees, no wonder he wants to close the thread and thinks we have all gone soft.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil Part M
Mary,
The problem is that to implement this the MoD needs to let go of self regulation.
It will not. The RAF seem to consider that civil type regs will lead to the operational task suffering.
Check out dispatch rates for civil airlines.
Check out accident rates for civil airlines.
Check out operating costs for civil airlines.
Check out maintenance standards for civil airlines.
Check out training standards for civil airlines.
Notice anything different?
The problem is that to implement this the MoD needs to let go of self regulation.
It will not. The RAF seem to consider that civil type regs will lead to the operational task suffering.
Check out dispatch rates for civil airlines.
Check out accident rates for civil airlines.
Check out operating costs for civil airlines.
Check out maintenance standards for civil airlines.
Check out training standards for civil airlines.
Notice anything different?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics -v- Civilian Safety Niceties
nigegilb:
Nice quote!
May I be so bold as to ask you this question? Take the potential scenario of Israel striking at Iranian Nuclear facilities, the US/UK politicians order everything into the air to protect the Strait of Hormuz, which they will.
The politicians have two choices, debate the niceties of Civilian Air Safety requirements, or order the highly vulnerable maritime reconnaissance resources "As-is" into the air to protect the Oil tankers, knowing full well that many, if not all will be destroyed.
Which one do you think the politicians will choose? Which option will the military follow, to respectfully point out the engineering flaws, EU civilian requirements, and the opinion of PPRuNe, and stay on the ground, or try and keep the Strait open at all costs, regardless of losses?
Sorry in the real world stupid politicians dictate the survival of the military, which is why the military should have the best tools and intelligence for the next job, and therefore like me the best chance of becoming a Pain in the Ass for politicians when they get older.
So tell us all what is incorrect in that statement during a war?
Nice quote!
May I be so bold as to ask you this question? Take the potential scenario of Israel striking at Iranian Nuclear facilities, the US/UK politicians order everything into the air to protect the Strait of Hormuz, which they will.
The politicians have two choices, debate the niceties of Civilian Air Safety requirements, or order the highly vulnerable maritime reconnaissance resources "As-is" into the air to protect the Oil tankers, knowing full well that many, if not all will be destroyed.
Which one do you think the politicians will choose? Which option will the military follow, to respectfully point out the engineering flaws, EU civilian requirements, and the opinion of PPRuNe, and stay on the ground, or try and keep the Strait open at all costs, regardless of losses?
Sorry in the real world stupid politicians dictate the survival of the military, which is why the military should have the best tools and intelligence for the next job, and therefore like me the best chance of becoming a Pain in the Ass for politicians when they get older.
So tell us all what is incorrect in that statement during a war?
GeoIntel
I think you’re missing the point. If - when - it all kicks off, perhaps in the way you suggest
of course the politicians are going to order everything into the air, single-skin leaking fuel pipes, hot bleed pipes etc, notwithstanding. And of course the boys and girls will go to war, just like they always have done.
The point is - they shouldn’t be asked to do it all the time, under less immediately urgent circumstances, in aircraft that are, and are known to be, a lot less safe than they would be if senior levels in the chain of command had done their duty.
airsound
I think you’re missing the point. If - when - it all kicks off, perhaps in the way you suggest
Israel striking at Iranian Nuclear facilities
The point is - they shouldn’t be asked to do it all the time, under less immediately urgent circumstances, in aircraft that are, and are known to be, a lot less safe than they would be if senior levels in the chain of command had done their duty.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 7th Dec 2007 at 19:50.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb said;
really...
..now your really taking the pi*s. 
edited to add;
Nigegild; you fuc*ing skate, you've removed the post!!!
true colours perhaps!
If you were CDS, how much faith should/would we have?
I have no prob sending up a dodgy Nimrod to do its duty for God and fellow countrymen,
If Glenn Torpy turned round tomorrow and said, hey guys, the Nimrod isn't totally safe but we need you to go up and do your duty, I would have a shed load more respect for him.
edited to add;
Nigegild; you fuc*ing skate, you've removed the post!!!
true colours perhaps!
If you were CDS, how much faith should/would we have?
Last edited by OilCan; 7th Dec 2007 at 20:25.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 2006 QinetiQ report sought to improve the way in which Fuel Tank repair work was carried out at Kinloss. The recent AAR incident concerned fuel 'spraying' from a fuel coupling, which is a completely different issue. AAR has therefore been quite rightly suspended until the cause can be identified and is the subject of an ongoing investigation. If the fault cannot be identified, then AAR may not resume. All engineers work to commonsense rules and do not 'mis-represent' or 'whitewash' the facts - unfortunately, a lot of 'information/facts' in this forum have been distorted and sensationalised.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tristan the BoI stated that problems with the fuel coupling increased fourfold. The crew made a point of noting that this was the first AAR sortie since the coupling had been changed. There is nothing new here. Last I checked the reason for the fuel spraying was not known. I don't know your background but
I have to take your post at face value.
What is more interesting is the response from the crew. In an aircraft that is supposed to be safe, in a bomb bay that has supposedly had all forms of ignition removed, the crew elected to Mayday to Kandahar. I learned the other day that the airfield at Kandahar can be too short in certain conditions.
Ballsy decision making, and I have total respect for the Captain.
However, I have no confidence that this aircraft is as safe as CAS assures us.
Edited for GF.
I have to take your post at face value.
What is more interesting is the response from the crew. In an aircraft that is supposed to be safe, in a bomb bay that has supposedly had all forms of ignition removed, the crew elected to Mayday to Kandahar. I learned the other day that the airfield at Kandahar can be too short in certain conditions.
Ballsy decision making, and I have total respect for the Captain.
However, I have no confidence that this aircraft is as safe as CAS assures us.
Edited for GF.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Dec 2007 at 22:04.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see any argument with the replies.
Politicians are a strange breed, with a very limited life span. They react in a self serving manner, which can be channeled by money and the media.
As regards mission, consider the name "Nimrod" should have been reserved for a Maritime aircraft, and never given to the "R" variants. Call them "Big Ears" or "Hertz Vacuums". Consequently the politicians can't distinguish between MR's or R's, and the UK politicians, eager to please Washington promise them "Unrealistic Expectations" to continue the myth of a Great Warrior Nation, with a seat at the Superpower table. In the meantime the world's oceans are becoming the playground for pirates, terrorists and Russian submarines, en route to China.
I would even say scrap the MR4 and buy the P8A, everyone else will. Use the money saved to develop a couple of squadrons of smaller, faster surveillance aircraft, based on existing civilian airframes that can patrol the waters around the UK, Med and Middle East. Stop looking for Soviet "Boomers" or planning to support Hong Kong and Singapore.
Yes, I believe it's time to say RIP to this thread, and open another to look ahead to future threats, future cost-effective platforms, and allow the able serving people to quietly correct the problems that caused this thread to be created. Give the politicos ideas for their speeches, not criticism of things they don't understand anyway!
Politicians are a strange breed, with a very limited life span. They react in a self serving manner, which can be channeled by money and the media.
As regards mission, consider the name "Nimrod" should have been reserved for a Maritime aircraft, and never given to the "R" variants. Call them "Big Ears" or "Hertz Vacuums". Consequently the politicians can't distinguish between MR's or R's, and the UK politicians, eager to please Washington promise them "Unrealistic Expectations" to continue the myth of a Great Warrior Nation, with a seat at the Superpower table. In the meantime the world's oceans are becoming the playground for pirates, terrorists and Russian submarines, en route to China.
I would even say scrap the MR4 and buy the P8A, everyone else will. Use the money saved to develop a couple of squadrons of smaller, faster surveillance aircraft, based on existing civilian airframes that can patrol the waters around the UK, Med and Middle East. Stop looking for Soviet "Boomers" or planning to support Hong Kong and Singapore.
Yes, I believe it's time to say RIP to this thread, and open another to look ahead to future threats, future cost-effective platforms, and allow the able serving people to quietly correct the problems that caused this thread to be created. Give the politicos ideas for their speeches, not criticism of things they don't understand anyway!