Nimrod Information
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kandahar is too short for normal landing performance
For info. http://www.motca.gov.af/doc/Kandahar_MACA_Pamphlet.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
may I refer the honourable gentlemen to the post I made a short while ago...
...so it's alright as long as it's your decision? 
nigegilb said;
Quote:
I have no prob sending up a dodgy Nimrod to do its duty for God and fellow countrymen,
really...
Quote:
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.
..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?
Quote:
I have no prob sending up a dodgy Nimrod to do its duty for God and fellow countrymen,
really...
Quote:
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.
..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?
GeoIntel
You’re still totally missing the point. What you suggest is great. Probably you should start a new thread all about it. This thread is about Nimrod. And because of our “strange breed” politicians - possibly even stranger than yours, although that might be hard to imagine - we’re stuck with that same Nimrod for at least another three to five years. And it needs to be safer. That’s what this thread is about.
airsound
You’re still totally missing the point. What you suggest is great. Probably you should start a new thread all about it. This thread is about Nimrod. And because of our “strange breed” politicians - possibly even stranger than yours, although that might be hard to imagine - we’re stuck with that same Nimrod for at least another three to five years. And it needs to be safer. That’s what this thread is about.
airsound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Can, I answered the question in the context that Geo had phrased it. You took my answer out of context and quoted selectively, I removed my post.
I am not interested in playing games.
Edited to add, GF the info came direct from Nimrod aircrew.
Either way, the Mayday was made from a crew that were hopefully aware of the reasons for the safety changes to the aircraft since the crash.
I don't blame them, I would have done the same.
I am not interested in playing games.
Edited to add, GF the info came direct from Nimrod aircrew.
Either way, the Mayday was made from a crew that were hopefully aware of the reasons for the safety changes to the aircraft since the crash.
I don't blame them, I would have done the same.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Dec 2007 at 23:13.
GeoIntel, so your suggesting cancelling the MRA4 and buying the P8A Poseidon, which is based on a 1967 737 passenger aircraft (I know it is the 737-800 model now) and converted to military use that would cost UK MOD for say 12 about £2 billion on current costs and exchange rates, would not get any untill at least 2018 after the US navy get their 108. Then add the cost of technology transfer (oh we don't get that, so we have to rely on America to support it at cost) publications, ground support equipment, spares etc all at considerable extra expense on top of the above price for the aircraft itself. Couple that with having to spend even more on the MR2 to keep it going untill we get the P8A, that is really going to work and save UK MOD a shed load of money and grief, not.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigegilb
if you hadn't removed your post, readers of this thread could judge for themselves whether I'd quoted you out of context or not!
..selective quotations seems to be the foundation of this whole thread -
As Olddog said;
Manipulation of the facts is a game played by some - usually viewed from a limited perspective and devoid of ultimate responsibility - with little regard for those who suffer in the process. 
if you hadn't removed your post, readers of this thread could judge for themselves whether I'd quoted you out of context or not!
..selective quotations seems to be the foundation of this whole thread -
As Olddog said;
Before posting further, please think.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Can, my basic point came down to honesty, a point that you yourself are now making. With that I think we can agree.
I also agree that for now this thread has probably run its course.
The CoC does deserve time to sort things out.
I am happy to bow out for the moment. Where I am sure we disagree is the role this thread has played in the decisions taken earlier this week. But we could argue about that forever and we will never know for sure.
Good luck and safe flying to the crews.
I also agree that for now this thread has probably run its course.
The CoC does deserve time to sort things out.
I am happy to bow out for the moment. Where I am sure we disagree is the role this thread has played in the decisions taken earlier this week. But we could argue about that forever and we will never know for sure.
Good luck and safe flying to the crews.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigegilb
I'm not sure I agree, that we would disagree on your final point.
Cheers
Oilcan
I'm not sure I agree, that we would disagree on your final point.
Cheers
Oilcan
Last edited by OilCan; 7th Dec 2007 at 22:13. Reason: spelling/pished
GeoIntel wrote:
Far be it from me to suggest that you are being deliberately obtuse, GeoIntel, but are you? Even in my safe featherbedded cuddly cold war days the CinC, etc, had the option to throw the book out of the window and declare Operational Conditions. Of course he would have to justify it if he had done, else he might simply declare a State of Emergency to fly in a plane load of earth for his roses. Would never happen of course, but you'll catch my drift. It seems that one has to dot the i's and cross the t's these days. The military point of airworthiness in particular, and Flight Safety in general, is Force Preservation, ie not losing Tornados, Chinooks, Hercules, Nimrods etc, and their crews to avoidable accidents but preserving them for throwing at the enemy if needs be. XV230 came down without any input from the enemy, all that was needed was the Gross Negligence (familiar phrase?) of the MOD. That is endemic, cannot be quietly 'fixed', but needs root and branch reform and the creation of an independent MAA, well away from the MOD.
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......
So tell us all what is incorrect in that statement during a war?
So tell us all what is incorrect in that statement during a war?
Far be it from me to suggest that you are being deliberately obtuse, GeoIntel, but are you? Even in my safe featherbedded cuddly cold war days the CinC, etc, had the option to throw the book out of the window and declare Operational Conditions. Of course he would have to justify it if he had done, else he might simply declare a State of Emergency to fly in a plane load of earth for his roses. Would never happen of course, but you'll catch my drift. It seems that one has to dot the i's and cross the t's these days. The military point of airworthiness in particular, and Flight Safety in general, is Force Preservation, ie not losing Tornados, Chinooks, Hercules, Nimrods etc, and their crews to avoidable accidents but preserving them for throwing at the enemy if needs be. XV230 came down without any input from the enemy, all that was needed was the Gross Negligence (familiar phrase?) of the MOD. That is endemic, cannot be quietly 'fixed', but needs root and branch reform and the creation of an independent MAA, well away from the MOD.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger:
You make a very good point, and as it was pointed out in discussions this evening we don't know if the P8 will perform as promised. Better conserve what you have, just in case the salesman can't deliver.
Chugalug2:
Far too many sophisticated computers working on political, military and terrorism scenarios around the world, past, present and future to be obtuse. Just want the upcoming draconian military cutbacks to not leave us in the same situation as before WWII. Maybe it's time to stop looking at the "Big Picture" and move to a quiet corner of Florida. When the ship hit's the iceberg it'll be on the evening news, after the Britney Spears story.
You make a very good point, and as it was pointed out in discussions this evening we don't know if the P8 will perform as promised. Better conserve what you have, just in case the salesman can't deliver.
Chugalug2:
Far too many sophisticated computers working on political, military and terrorism scenarios around the world, past, present and future to be obtuse. Just want the upcoming draconian military cutbacks to not leave us in the same situation as before WWII. Maybe it's time to stop looking at the "Big Picture" and move to a quiet corner of Florida. When the ship hit's the iceberg it'll be on the evening news, after the Britney Spears story.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational Task
OilCan,
That is the exact point. What was the operational task that prevented the Nimrod MR2 being maintained and operated to an equivalent civil standard. It has been established by the BOI that the "as maintained" configuration was not safe.
I would ask the critics on here to clarify what is the difference between an operational task and a civil sector. Both require the aircraft to depart at the planned time. In fact as the civil sector will have financial implications to the owner, and they do not have spare frames, I would suggest the pressure to acheive the "operational task" is greater. The difference is proper investment in maintenance is mandated.
I would suggest that most modern warfare requires pre-planned sorties as part of packages, and the concept of running to the aircraft, mid maintenance, because the bad guys are coming is bo**ocks.
The bottom line is that to meet the operational task, the correct funding needs to be available, and independent oversight of standards and practises needs to carry a big stick.
That is the exact point. What was the operational task that prevented the Nimrod MR2 being maintained and operated to an equivalent civil standard. It has been established by the BOI that the "as maintained" configuration was not safe.
I would ask the critics on here to clarify what is the difference between an operational task and a civil sector. Both require the aircraft to depart at the planned time. In fact as the civil sector will have financial implications to the owner, and they do not have spare frames, I would suggest the pressure to acheive the "operational task" is greater. The difference is proper investment in maintenance is mandated.
I would suggest that most modern warfare requires pre-planned sorties as part of packages, and the concept of running to the aircraft, mid maintenance, because the bad guys are coming is bo**ocks.
The bottom line is that to meet the operational task, the correct funding needs to be available, and independent oversight of standards and practises needs to carry a big stick.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would happily start a thread about the implementation of civil airwirthiness standards to military aviation (something which is currenty happening to the RAF), but you seem to be missing the point.
The future of the RAF lies in accepting the change, dare I say embracing the change.
The Mil Part M and Mil Part 145 could easily be rolled out in a way that industry is a provider of such services and the military component is aircrew, ala Hertz or Avis etc (other good rental companies are out there too).
The perceived reluctance in the RAF to accept change of this nature cannot be overlooked. Lets face it why did the Nimrod crash? Becuase the safety interlocks in the process were overlooked for operational reasons. Had this been highlighted, yes. Therefore the aircraft nor the crew should have been put in that situation.
Is the individual who approved that decision going to face the consequences?
Is the purpose of ending the thread so that we will not have to see the obvious changes needed, is that not the same as ignoring the QQ or BAES report?
The only reason that the MoD was forced to think about these events was due to the efforts of TD and others, maybe it is time to see this through to the end state.
In my eyes that is military aircraft that are safe for those who fly in them and those that have to live with them flying overhead (but not the talitubbies).
The future of the RAF lies in accepting the change, dare I say embracing the change.
The Mil Part M and Mil Part 145 could easily be rolled out in a way that industry is a provider of such services and the military component is aircrew, ala Hertz or Avis etc (other good rental companies are out there too).
The perceived reluctance in the RAF to accept change of this nature cannot be overlooked. Lets face it why did the Nimrod crash? Becuase the safety interlocks in the process were overlooked for operational reasons. Had this been highlighted, yes. Therefore the aircraft nor the crew should have been put in that situation.
Is the individual who approved that decision going to face the consequences?
Is the purpose of ending the thread so that we will not have to see the obvious changes needed, is that not the same as ignoring the QQ or BAES report?
The only reason that the MoD was forced to think about these events was due to the efforts of TD and others, maybe it is time to see this through to the end state.
In my eyes that is military aircraft that are safe for those who fly in them and those that have to live with them flying overhead (but not the talitubbies).
Last edited by DEL Mode; 8th Dec 2007 at 17:40. Reason: Incorrect reference to other post
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operating Temps
EdSet100: Not sure where you got your data from, but I will assume it is correct until I get the RTS document. However, for your information temperatures in Basra and Seed tend to be higher at certain times of the year than +45, with high humidity. A little warmer than Findhorn. Of course, with regards to AAR system, this was never trials tested at any temperture. When I say "trials tested", I mean controlled trials, the Boscombe Down way, not simple functional tests.
DV
DV
DV I cannot state how other aircraft are tested but this is what the MRA4 went through, if it is of interest:
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida - The new BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 has touched down at Eglin Air Force base in Florida, USA after its first transatlantic flight.
During a six week visit the aircraft, which is taking part in its first deployment outside of Europe, will be subjected to rigorous environmental trials, undergoing a series of intensive tests in extreme temperatures, ranging from -40OC to +45 OC.
Trials are being undertaken at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory, owned by the US Department of Defense and operated on a 24/7 basis by BAE Systems. Its main test chamber is the largest facility of its kind in the world. During testing, Nimrod MRA4 will be positioned on jacks and chained to the ground while its engines are run, to create the optimum conditions for work being carried out.
Using the McKinley Climatic Laboratory allows testing of Nimrod MRA4 systems at any temperature, simply by programming a computer. Conditions ranging from the bitter cold of Alaska to hot dry desert heat of Arizona or anything in between can be simulated. Engineers will also be running simulations of day/night cycles as well as testing under high humidity and solar radiation conditions.
Joe Harland, Managing Director of the Nimrod MRA4 programme at BAE Systems states: ““This is by far the most challenging deployment Nimrod MRA4 has undertaken. Our key objective is to demonstrate to our customer, the UK MoD, the maturity and reliability of the MRA4 at extremes of temperature.”
During a six week visit the aircraft, which is taking part in its first deployment outside of Europe, will be subjected to rigorous environmental trials, undergoing a series of intensive tests in extreme temperatures, ranging from -40OC to +45 OC.
Trials are being undertaken at the McKinley Climatic Laboratory, owned by the US Department of Defense and operated on a 24/7 basis by BAE Systems. Its main test chamber is the largest facility of its kind in the world. During testing, Nimrod MRA4 will be positioned on jacks and chained to the ground while its engines are run, to create the optimum conditions for work being carried out.
Using the McKinley Climatic Laboratory allows testing of Nimrod MRA4 systems at any temperature, simply by programming a computer. Conditions ranging from the bitter cold of Alaska to hot dry desert heat of Arizona or anything in between can be simulated. Engineers will also be running simulations of day/night cycles as well as testing under high humidity and solar radiation conditions.
Joe Harland, Managing Director of the Nimrod MRA4 programme at BAE Systems states: ““This is by far the most challenging deployment Nimrod MRA4 has undertaken. Our key objective is to demonstrate to our customer, the UK MoD, the maturity and reliability of the MRA4 at extremes of temperature.”
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next Monday's edition of Flight International has as its poll question for the week: "Should the RAF ground its remaining Nimrods?" If anyone is interested in registering their vote they can do so now via the flightglobal.com website:
http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspx
There's only a yes or no option, but it's a chance for PPRuNers to get their views across. The magazine's comment page will also include some views on the loss of XV230.
Moose
http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspx
There's only a yes or no option, but it's a chance for PPRuNers to get their views across. The magazine's comment page will also include some views on the loss of XV230.
Moose
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger; at last, someone being positive about the new aeroplane (forget the '50s design bollox).
I can quite understand why everyone is giving CAS rocks for the capability he's been told to make the best of. What I can't understand is why CDL isn't getting a hard time for the capability he's supposed to give to CAS. CDL has General's pips on his shoulder. Shouldn't he be earning them?
I can quite understand why everyone is giving CAS rocks for the capability he's been told to make the best of. What I can't understand is why CDL isn't getting a hard time for the capability he's supposed to give to CAS. CDL has General's pips on his shoulder. Shouldn't he be earning them?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Somebody said
"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."
Just to clarify a wee bit on that , checks are carried out to the relevent AP which as you know is our bible to working on aircraft. Also extra things are checked if you have a sound knowledge of the system. If no fault can be reproduced to what the given AP says then its handed up the chain for somebody higher than the engineers who do the job to make a decision. I just like to clarify this , if some people who are not familiar with the RAF , this is how decisions are based. Dont want you all to think us techies have the power to decide everything
in other words somebody with a bigger wage packet makes the call then and may ask for further checks to be carried out
"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."
Just to clarify a wee bit on that , checks are carried out to the relevent AP which as you know is our bible to working on aircraft. Also extra things are checked if you have a sound knowledge of the system. If no fault can be reproduced to what the given AP says then its handed up the chain for somebody higher than the engineers who do the job to make a decision. I just like to clarify this , if some people who are not familiar with the RAF , this is how decisions are based. Dont want you all to think us techies have the power to decide everything
in other words somebody with a bigger wage packet makes the call then and may ask for further checks to be carried out