Nimrod Information
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
Usually an aircraft at "3,000" heading towards a runway at 1,234 ft above sea level, as possibly reported in broad terms in newspapers, would normally be in the approach phase of the flight. The pilot, in most places in the world, would have his altimeter adjusted such that would it read 1,234 ft on touchdown at that airfield.
So, yes, you're right. The aircraft would be in atmospheric pressure at sea level minus the pressure associated with the reported height. If you're interested in cabin pressurization, the aircraft at that phase of flight would be set to depressurize upon landing at the airfield, so the pressure difference on the approach is not related to the height above sea level but the height above the ground.
Hope this helps
Usually an aircraft at "3,000" heading towards a runway at 1,234 ft above sea level, as possibly reported in broad terms in newspapers, would normally be in the approach phase of the flight. The pilot, in most places in the world, would have his altimeter adjusted such that would it read 1,234 ft on touchdown at that airfield.
So, yes, you're right. The aircraft would be in atmospheric pressure at sea level minus the pressure associated with the reported height. If you're interested in cabin pressurization, the aircraft at that phase of flight would be set to depressurize upon landing at the airfield, so the pressure difference on the approach is not related to the height above sea level but the height above the ground.
Hope this helps
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks AC that was useful.
Now I have a harder questionfor everyone Would the crew have been strapoped in for landing or would they have still been fire fighting.
Sorry its a sh@@ question to ask anyone and propable no-one has the answer right now but it may help us understand their last few minutes.
Now I have a harder questionfor everyone Would the crew have been strapoped in for landing or would they have still been fire fighting.
Sorry its a sh@@ question to ask anyone and propable no-one has the answer right now but it may help us understand their last few minutes.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The sandpit
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tapper's Dad,
I'm aircrew at Kinloss and I'm sure that is a question that most of us have asked ourselves, unfortunately as you have stated it is purely speculation. Knowing the crew, I know they would have done all they could and am sure some of them would have still been fighting it during the rapid descent. Thoughts are with yourself and your family Mr Knight and other friends/family of those who were taken from us on that horrible day. RIP 120 -3
I'm aircrew at Kinloss and I'm sure that is a question that most of us have asked ourselves, unfortunately as you have stated it is purely speculation. Knowing the crew, I know they would have done all they could and am sure some of them would have still been fighting it during the rapid descent. Thoughts are with yourself and your family Mr Knight and other friends/family of those who were taken from us on that horrible day. RIP 120 -3
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, we strap in for landings to cater for the odd heavy one, or the even rarer case of the aircraft leaving the runway. I don't know the stats, but I believe that a typical airman can stand up in an aircraft for every landing in his career and not get seriously injured. So, if I had a choice of either sitting down and strapping in to cater for a very rare event, or to remain standing and fight a fire or tend to an injured person, I know that I would choose the latter. This kind of decision is not in the manuals. Every case is different.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD
I think that with the exception of those up at the front, most of the guys down the back would have been doing their damndest to fight the fire and look after each other, especially taking care of some of the less experienced guys.
My thoughts are still very much with you TD and indeed all the families and friends of CXX Crew 3. We had a few friends round last night and were all raising a few toasts and recalling happy times with them all. RIP guys.
TSM
I think that with the exception of those up at the front, most of the guys down the back would have been doing their damndest to fight the fire and look after each other, especially taking care of some of the less experienced guys.
My thoughts are still very much with you TD and indeed all the families and friends of CXX Crew 3. We had a few friends round last night and were all raising a few toasts and recalling happy times with them all. RIP guys.
TSM
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Panorama taster
Thanks for your kind words TSM
Here is a taster of tomorrows Panorama programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6710000/newsid_6715900?redirect=6715909.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&n bwm=1&bbwm=1
And a write up here> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6716003.stm
Its also in todays Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1875265.ece
Here is a taster of tomorrows Panorama programme
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6710000/newsid_6715900?redirect=6715909.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&n bwm=1&bbwm=1
And a write up here> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6716003.stm
Its also in todays Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1875265.ece
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 3rd Jun 2007 at 09:39. Reason: Additional information
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: GB
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, ref your query
Fyi - Military Aircraft Accident Summaries of RAF Board of Enquiries can be found at
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E8F52...39_2sept95.pdf
not all summaries of BOIs are there but some are, including XV239.
Fyi - Military Aircraft Accident Summaries of RAF Board of Enquiries can be found at
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E8F52...39_2sept95.pdf
not all summaries of BOIs are there but some are, including XV239.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BBC Pamorama website now has more information on about tonights programme.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/6716645.stm
On a Wing and a Prayer
An RAF whistleblower has told BBC Panorama about deep concerns among servicemen about the state of the UK's fleet of Nimrod spyplanes.
The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience, revealed a number of technical problems and fuel leaks, including an incident during a UK flight in November 2004 that he believed could have brought down the plane.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals.
Panorama also uncovers details of two major fuel leaks, the first of which, according to former Nimrod engineer Jimmy Jones, could have caused the loss of another crew.
In November last year, just eight weeks after the Kandahar crash, a fuel pipe coupling was found to be leaking after air-to-air refuelling.
The crew thought it so serious that an air incident report was filed and mid-air refuelling procedures were changed.
Asked how serious he thought the incident was, Jones warned that it could have been a "replication" of the situation in September.
In December, sources told Panorama, a crew on another plane filed an incident report after leaks caused "pools of fuel" to form in the bomb bay and fuel covered flares.
Retired Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson told the programme that operations in the Middle East were having a huge impact on the Nimrods.
He said: "They are doing a full pint job with a half pint of resources. That can't go on, it has to change."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...ma/6716645.stm
On a Wing and a Prayer
An RAF whistleblower has told BBC Panorama about deep concerns among servicemen about the state of the UK's fleet of Nimrod spyplanes.
The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience, revealed a number of technical problems and fuel leaks, including an incident during a UK flight in November 2004 that he believed could have brought down the plane.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals.
Panorama also uncovers details of two major fuel leaks, the first of which, according to former Nimrod engineer Jimmy Jones, could have caused the loss of another crew.
In November last year, just eight weeks after the Kandahar crash, a fuel pipe coupling was found to be leaking after air-to-air refuelling.
The crew thought it so serious that an air incident report was filed and mid-air refuelling procedures were changed.
Asked how serious he thought the incident was, Jones warned that it could have been a "replication" of the situation in September.
In December, sources told Panorama, a crew on another plane filed an incident report after leaks caused "pools of fuel" to form in the bomb bay and fuel covered flares.
Retired Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson told the programme that operations in the Middle East were having a huge impact on the Nimrods.
He said: "They are doing a full pint job with a half pint of resources. That can't go on, it has to change."
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is as safe as necessary?
I thought CAS was interesting yesterday when he commented that he was satisfied that Nimrod air to air refuelling was "as safe as necessary" - what does that mean? The underlying design weaknesses for what was, I understand, meant to be a temporary fit are still there so how are they getting round this or does as safe as necessary mean that they have calculated what they see as an acceptable chance of an accident - if so then surely the crews should be told what it is.
A few years ago both Nimrod and VC10 major servicings were consuming more manhours than it took to build the aircraft in the first place - is this still the case? Given that no inspection based servicing, even a major, can provide 100% cover then surely this is also a measure of the underlying airworthiness problems of these old aircraft that should have been parked in the Mojave Desert a long time ago!
It has always sruck me as odd, given that there are acceptable modern alternatives available, that we expect our aircrew to fight in airframes that would probably be difficult to get on the register of even a Third World nation's Regulatory Authority - but then neither the Treasury nor the MOD planners (anyway totally emasculated by the Treasury) can be expected to think like Mr O'Reilly! Perhaps that is also because nobody has yet pushed the "Duty of Care" arguments to the Courts as they would if a Ryanair jet was flown in an underlying unairworthy condition! Just a thought!
JB
A few years ago both Nimrod and VC10 major servicings were consuming more manhours than it took to build the aircraft in the first place - is this still the case? Given that no inspection based servicing, even a major, can provide 100% cover then surely this is also a measure of the underlying airworthiness problems of these old aircraft that should have been parked in the Mojave Desert a long time ago!
It has always sruck me as odd, given that there are acceptable modern alternatives available, that we expect our aircrew to fight in airframes that would probably be difficult to get on the register of even a Third World nation's Regulatory Authority - but then neither the Treasury nor the MOD planners (anyway totally emasculated by the Treasury) can be expected to think like Mr O'Reilly! Perhaps that is also because nobody has yet pushed the "Duty of Care" arguments to the Courts as they would if a Ryanair jet was flown in an underlying unairworthy condition! Just a thought!
JB
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as safe as necessary
The contractual way for dealing with this (based on my experience with far newer aircraft) is to caveat every contract with something like “The (MoD) acknowledges the aircraft were built to standards of the day, which are not necessarily applicable or suitable today…….” . The aircraft is deemed safe at its induction build standard and as long as the contractor (normally the Aircraft Design Authority) flags up any deviation from current standards while the aircraft is held on his charge, then liability rests with MoD. This is necessary for two main reasons. 1. Lack of investment to maintain the build standard (which includes safety). 2. Service Engineered Mods.
As for the MoD staff responsibilities, I note again the ruling by successive regimes (PE, DPA, DLO, DE&S etc) that, even if a contract requires the output (aircraft or equipment) to be safe and airworthy, the PM is permitted to sign-off and make full payment if he, or the contractor, decides not to deliver safety or airworthiness. (Thus dropping the poor sod who has to sign the Release to Service in the clag).
Safe as necessary, but for whose purpose?
As for the MoD staff responsibilities, I note again the ruling by successive regimes (PE, DPA, DLO, DE&S etc) that, even if a contract requires the output (aircraft or equipment) to be safe and airworthy, the PM is permitted to sign-off and make full payment if he, or the contractor, decides not to deliver safety or airworthiness. (Thus dropping the poor sod who has to sign the Release to Service in the clag).
Safe as necessary, but for whose purpose?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toronto Crash
Nimman, many thanks for that information.
Blame is put on the pilot, but I note that the report says "Some deficiencies in the regulations pertaining to Nimrod display and inadequate advice on stall warning speeds in the aircraft documentaion" (probably Release to Service). I have heard that the stall speed in the "documentaion" was set at 120 knts, the aircraft was at 122 knts, and shortly after the accident the stall speed was increased to 150 knts. The report says that aircraft was being operated below the recommended speed of 150 knts. Bit hard on the pilot if the 150 limit did not come into being until after the accident.
Perhaps that is why the BOI were sent back to adjust their report.
DV
Blame is put on the pilot, but I note that the report says "Some deficiencies in the regulations pertaining to Nimrod display and inadequate advice on stall warning speeds in the aircraft documentaion" (probably Release to Service). I have heard that the stall speed in the "documentaion" was set at 120 knts, the aircraft was at 122 knts, and shortly after the accident the stall speed was increased to 150 knts. The report says that aircraft was being operated below the recommended speed of 150 knts. Bit hard on the pilot if the 150 limit did not come into being until after the accident.
Perhaps that is why the BOI were sent back to adjust their report.
DV
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: lincoln
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience, revealed a number of technical problems and fuel leaks, including an incident during a UK flight in November 2004 that he believed could have brought down the plane.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals"
I have first hand experience of said incident as I was on shift at the time. As a result of the pipe rupturing, (it was never ascertained during which stage of flight the failure occurred) that particular system was isolated and not reinstated for a good few months until inspections and/or replacement pipes were fitted. It eventually led to that particular ac being withdrawn from service (after sitting in a shed for a good few months whilst the lords and masters decided what to do with it) and sent to be chopped up at Woodford.
It was only when they landed that the damage was discovered
In the incident, he said, a hot-air pipe had ruptured below fuel tanks and superheated air had "blasted out", melting the seals"
I have first hand experience of said incident as I was on shift at the time. As a result of the pipe rupturing, (it was never ascertained during which stage of flight the failure occurred) that particular system was isolated and not reinstated for a good few months until inspections and/or replacement pipes were fitted. It eventually led to that particular ac being withdrawn from service (after sitting in a shed for a good few months whilst the lords and masters decided what to do with it) and sent to be chopped up at Woodford.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I have heard that the stall speed in the "documentaion" was set at 120 knts, the aircraft was at 122 knts, and shortly after the accident the stall speed was increased to 150 knts. The report says that aircraft was being operated below the recommended speed of 150 knts."
DV,
Documented stall speeds don't change without extensive re-testing incurred by airframe changes. The report states a 'minimum speed for the manoeuvre' incorporating margin above the (predicted turning) stall speed - that didn't change.
No story here.
DV,
Documented stall speeds don't change without extensive re-testing incurred by airframe changes. The report states a 'minimum speed for the manoeuvre' incorporating margin above the (predicted turning) stall speed - that didn't change.
No story here.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
<<Retired Air Vice-Marshal Brian Robinson >>
Would that be Robby Robinson? I only ask because Robby Robinson seems to crop up in a number of books and articles with 'authority' attached to rank.
Generally, while a senior officer may well have very authritative views they are frequently less experienced in aircraft operations than spec aircrew or NCA.
In the quotes I have seen by RR I could pick holes in some of them. His views are not as I recall them.
Would that be Robby Robinson? I only ask because Robby Robinson seems to crop up in a number of books and articles with 'authority' attached to rank.
Generally, while a senior officer may well have very authritative views they are frequently less experienced in aircraft operations than spec aircrew or NCA.
In the quotes I have seen by RR I could pick holes in some of them. His views are not as I recall them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snow Dog, I am not looking for a story, I just hear conflicting stories about the accident.
You tell, if you can, what was the "documented" stall speed prior to the accident and what is it now?
Having spent several years at Boscombe Down I am familar with the Release to Service document and what is required to cahange it.
DV
You tell, if you can, what was the "documented" stall speed prior to the accident and what is it now?
Having spent several years at Boscombe Down I am familar with the Release to Service document and what is required to cahange it.
DV
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The insider, an airman with 20 years' experience
Who is this guy anyone? I've only been an AGE at Kinloss for 6 years (smallie for Kinloss) but I have never clapped eyes on this guy, so much for insider 'recent' knowledge (more like "a guy I met in the Abbey said" journalism to me).
The timing of this prog is very sad. I have personally been approached by several jurnos on this subject but have kept my opinion to myself and refered them to the press office and the need to wait until the BOI has been released.
This is pretty gaulling when we are slogging our guts out to keep these jets flying in a safe condition, progs like this come out and they could still put the blame on the ground crew. None of these people have thought about that.
RIP CXX/3
Who is this guy anyone? I've only been an AGE at Kinloss for 6 years (smallie for Kinloss) but I have never clapped eyes on this guy, so much for insider 'recent' knowledge (more like "a guy I met in the Abbey said" journalism to me).
The timing of this prog is very sad. I have personally been approached by several jurnos on this subject but have kept my opinion to myself and refered them to the press office and the need to wait until the BOI has been released.
This is pretty gaulling when we are slogging our guts out to keep these jets flying in a safe condition, progs like this come out and they could still put the blame on the ground crew. None of these people have thought about that.
RIP CXX/3
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Angel and MH Age. Just a clarification. Having seen the script ahead of writing an article on it for the Sunday Times, you seem to be mixing two different interviewees up. The whistleblower is not identified in any way for obvious reasons so you could not have heard of him because there is no name given, other than a "John" which may or may not be his first name, while his words are spoken by an actor.