Nimrod Information
Guest
Posts: n/a
Top Cover
The use of a Nimrod to act as Top Cover (or Aircraft Coordination) in Large Scale Disaster situations is recognised as 'needed' not just 'desirable'. This allows the SAR helo crews to do their job with the Nimrod crew providing procedural coordination (not control).
The Piper Alpha incident was an example of this, where further risk to the rescue services involved was minimised by coordinating action from the On-scene Commander, a Nimrod.
The relatively short PLE of helos can also be used to greatest efficiency by employing Nimrod in the initial location of those in distress.
I'm pretty convinced that a closer look at previous SAR incidents will confirm this efficient use of resources. I'm sure the ARCC will put you right Strato Q.
The Piper Alpha incident was an example of this, where further risk to the rescue services involved was minimised by coordinating action from the On-scene Commander, a Nimrod.
The relatively short PLE of helos can also be used to greatest efficiency by employing Nimrod in the initial location of those in distress.
I'm pretty convinced that a closer look at previous SAR incidents will confirm this efficient use of resources. I'm sure the ARCC will put you right Strato Q.
Guest
Posts: n/a
strato q do you remember the incident recently where a rig anchoring vessel in the North Atlantic was pulled under and sunk killing most on board including a father and son? that was a nimrod job giving top cover to helo's as well as comms relay and control.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many times has topcover actually been needed, not just provided? Never as far as I can remember. Although a nice comfort blanket for the SAR Force it is an inefficient use of resources.
Sea King engines DO fail, but we've been lucky in recent years that it hasn't been at long range. Would you be happy in an aircraft with just one engine and no ejection seat whilst 240 miles offshore?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV
On the 12th of May you said you thought "Kapton wiring has been used for additional equipment fits such as Yellowgate".
I have been told on good authority that Kapton cabling was used in the creation of Yellowgate wiring looms. And Kapton has been used in loom repairs.
Hope this helps DV
On the 12th of May you said you thought "Kapton wiring has been used for additional equipment fits such as Yellowgate".
I have been told on good authority that Kapton cabling was used in the creation of Yellowgate wiring looms. And Kapton has been used in loom repairs.
Hope this helps DV
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kapton Wiring
TD: Many thanks for that information. I have arranged for a PQ to be tabled, so we will see what the Sec of State for Defense has to say.
LJ: Yes I take your point. Just as well Joe Public does not know that Kapton wiring is highly dangerous.
DV
LJ: Yes I take your point. Just as well Joe Public does not know that Kapton wiring is highly dangerous.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 10th Jun 2007 at 09:34.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
If you all trawl back through the posts you will see where Kapton and Yellowgate was discussed and the same things were said before. You will also see bits on civil aviation and kapton together with the appropriate links.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LJ
Perhaps if you were to read .
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/91213-03.htm
And
http://www.fourfax.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=96
And
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Conc...9/270fire.html
You may then understand some peoples concern re Kapton wiring.
Can anyone tell me how long it would have taken the Nimrod to have descended from 23,00ft to 3,000 ft given they were in an emergency situation. In other words what is that maximum rate of descent in ft per min ?
Perhaps if you were to read .
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/91213-03.htm
And
http://www.fourfax.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=96
And
http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Conc...9/270fire.html
You may then understand some peoples concern re Kapton wiring.
Can anyone tell me how long it would have taken the Nimrod to have descended from 23,00ft to 3,000 ft given they were in an emergency situation. In other words what is that maximum rate of descent in ft per min ?
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 10th Jun 2007 at 10:38. Reason: Question added
TD
You obviously know far more about the incident than I ever will, but here is a thought.
Why would they necessarily be descending at the maximum rate? From what I have read here people say they only put out a Pan call, not a Mayday. Suppose the incident happened 70 miles from the airfield (I don't know the specifics as I have said). Would you want to descent at a maximum rate down to say 3,000 ft, and fly 30 miles to the airfield at lowish level, in a country where people are potentially trying to shoot things at you.....or would you balance your rate of descent to get down to a specific height at a specific distance from the airfield? You would want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, and you can travel faster at a greater height. Just a couple of thoughts.....
As I hope you can see there are probably a lot of variables involved.
You obviously know far more about the incident than I ever will, but here is a thought.
Why would they necessarily be descending at the maximum rate? From what I have read here people say they only put out a Pan call, not a Mayday. Suppose the incident happened 70 miles from the airfield (I don't know the specifics as I have said). Would you want to descent at a maximum rate down to say 3,000 ft, and fly 30 miles to the airfield at lowish level, in a country where people are potentially trying to shoot things at you.....or would you balance your rate of descent to get down to a specific height at a specific distance from the airfield? You would want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, and you can travel faster at a greater height. Just a couple of thoughts.....
As I hope you can see there are probably a lot of variables involved.
Last edited by Biggus; 10th Jun 2007 at 19:19.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus
I am trying to get some idea of the time scale from the fire breaking out at 23,000 ft to when it exploded. I know the BOI will have this in their report but I was keen to find out.
Also can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction what fire fighting epuipment is there onboard a Nimrod. Hand held/Automatic/Mechanical.
Can anyone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Nimrod Safety Case with reference to Def Stan 00-56 issue 3??
I am trying to get some idea of the time scale from the fire breaking out at 23,000 ft to when it exploded. I know the BOI will have this in their report but I was keen to find out.
Also can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction what fire fighting epuipment is there onboard a Nimrod. Hand held/Automatic/Mechanical.
Can anyone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Nimrod Safety Case with reference to Def Stan 00-56 issue 3??
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 11th Jun 2007 at 09:50. Reason: Inserted additional question
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Safety Case Question
TD
The IPT should certainly have a Safety case for the aircraft. All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was. The quality of these safety cases differed between IPTs, some very good, normally when developed using outside help, some very poor, both developed internally and some of those using outside help. It would be interesting to see if the Nimrod Safety Case has been independently assessed, and by whom ?
I am not sure whether the case will be classified, I think that varies between IPTs.
Issue 3 of 00-56 is relatively new, and the Nimrod Safety Case will not be developed against that standard.
The IPT Safety Case should demonstrate the safety of the aircraft in all operational scenarios, not just peacetime. It wouldn't really be much good would it, if restricted to peacetime.
It should also be more than just a set of glib claims amounting to an argument that 'the aircraft has proved to be safe so far, so will be alright in the future', an attitude that exists in many IPTs, and not just the aviation ones.
Remember the old safety adage:
absence of evidence (of failure) is not the same as evidence of absence
I think you could read this across to several other safety threads on here.
Hope this helps.
S_H
The IPT should certainly have a Safety case for the aircraft. All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was. The quality of these safety cases differed between IPTs, some very good, normally when developed using outside help, some very poor, both developed internally and some of those using outside help. It would be interesting to see if the Nimrod Safety Case has been independently assessed, and by whom ?
I am not sure whether the case will be classified, I think that varies between IPTs.
Issue 3 of 00-56 is relatively new, and the Nimrod Safety Case will not be developed against that standard.
The IPT Safety Case should demonstrate the safety of the aircraft in all operational scenarios, not just peacetime. It wouldn't really be much good would it, if restricted to peacetime.
It should also be more than just a set of glib claims amounting to an argument that 'the aircraft has proved to be safe so far, so will be alright in the future', an attitude that exists in many IPTs, and not just the aviation ones.
Remember the old safety adage:
absence of evidence (of failure) is not the same as evidence of absence
I think you could read this across to several other safety threads on here.
Hope this helps.
S_H
S-H
“All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was”.
I do not doubt this for one minute, but it merely demonstrates the complete disconnect between elements of MoD. At precisely the same time, CDP and Ministers were still upholding numerous previous rulings that safety (in general, including airworthiness) and adherence to Defence Standards (for example, 05-123) was optional, both for MoD employees and industry – the latter regardless of what their contracts said. And have continued to. These written rulings were made in the context of project managers appealing against criticism in annual reports for (allegedly) wasting time and money by striving for airworthiness and safety in various helicopters and their equipment, in accordance with said Def Stans.
It is also important to note that, while a Safety Case may exist, it has to be relevant to the aircraft build standard at any given time. It is one thing to deliver safety in the first place, but maintaining safety through life is grossly underfunded and considered a “waste of money” by many IPTs, presumably in sympathy with these CDP/Ministerial rulings.
S-H – I think I prefer your way!
“All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was”.
I do not doubt this for one minute, but it merely demonstrates the complete disconnect between elements of MoD. At precisely the same time, CDP and Ministers were still upholding numerous previous rulings that safety (in general, including airworthiness) and adherence to Defence Standards (for example, 05-123) was optional, both for MoD employees and industry – the latter regardless of what their contracts said. And have continued to. These written rulings were made in the context of project managers appealing against criticism in annual reports for (allegedly) wasting time and money by striving for airworthiness and safety in various helicopters and their equipment, in accordance with said Def Stans.
It is also important to note that, while a Safety Case may exist, it has to be relevant to the aircraft build standard at any given time. It is one thing to deliver safety in the first place, but maintaining safety through life is grossly underfunded and considered a “waste of money” by many IPTs, presumably in sympathy with these CDP/Ministerial rulings.
S-H – I think I prefer your way!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BAE Systems
Thanks SH and tucumseh
I have emailed BAE Systems asking for a copy of the Safety Case.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B5810...ws38_oct05.pdf
Page 9 October 2005
The Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems and the Nimrod Integrated Project Team (IPT), recently won a bronze award under the pan-BAE Systems chairman's award for innovation scheme.
All IPTs must have a robust safety case and hazard log that can be fully
audited. The joint team, led by the Nimrod IPT, took the pragmatic
approach that past history and a range of traditional methods
(certification and continued integrity testing) gave an intrinsic high level of confidence in the level of safety of the aircraft. A top down approach,
identifying potential hazards, was then taken. This was followed by a
review of previous accidents and incidents to prove that the aircraft
was within acceptable safety bands (What ever that means).The approach taken to prove the safety of the Nimrod fleet is now being adopted by BAE Systems across other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights.
Thats Ok then then so after they reviewed all the accidents and incidents it was within accepable safety bands.
I have emailed BAE Systems asking for a copy of the Safety Case.
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B5810...ws38_oct05.pdf
Page 9 October 2005
Nimrod safety case scoops innovation award
The Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems and the Nimrod Integrated Project Team (IPT), recently won a bronze award under the pan-BAE Systems chairman's award for innovation scheme.
All IPTs must have a robust safety case and hazard log that can be fully
audited. The joint team, led by the Nimrod IPT, took the pragmatic
approach that past history and a range of traditional methods
(certification and continued integrity testing) gave an intrinsic high level of confidence in the level of safety of the aircraft. A top down approach,
identifying potential hazards, was then taken. This was followed by a
review of previous accidents and incidents to prove that the aircraft
was within acceptable safety bands (What ever that means).The approach taken to prove the safety of the Nimrod fleet is now being adopted by BAE Systems across other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights.
Thats Ok then then so after they reviewed all the accidents and incidents it was within accepable safety bands.
Perhaps I’m being unfair, but this seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog.
“Top down”? I hope they reached the aircraft equipment and ensured it was safe.
“other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights”. They don’t “hold the Design Authority rights” – they are appointed Design Authority or Custodian by MoD. And that appointment can be withdrawn.
The phrase “other legacy equipment” seems a little dismissive to me. By definition, everything in our inventory is legacy, to varying degrees. Hope they’re not too interested in big bucks for future kit to worry about maintaining the build standard of “legacy” kit.
“Top down”? I hope they reached the aircraft equipment and ensured it was safe.
“other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights”. They don’t “hold the Design Authority rights” – they are appointed Design Authority or Custodian by MoD. And that appointment can be withdrawn.
The phrase “other legacy equipment” seems a little dismissive to me. By definition, everything in our inventory is legacy, to varying degrees. Hope they’re not too interested in big bucks for future kit to worry about maintaining the build standard of “legacy” kit.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topcover
toddbabe & XferSymbol
Without getting in to a pi55ing contest with you, "topcover" has nothing to do with On Scene Commander or Aircaft Co-ordination duties, where of course a Nimrod provides a valuable contribution - Piper Alpha being an excellent example. Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore.
Mr Point - no I would not be happy on one engine 240 nm from the shore, that is why I tend to have 4.
Without getting in to a pi55ing contest with you, "topcover" has nothing to do with On Scene Commander or Aircaft Co-ordination duties, where of course a Nimrod provides a valuable contribution - Piper Alpha being an excellent example. Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore.
Mr Point - no I would not be happy on one engine 240 nm from the shore, that is why I tend to have 4.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Top Cover
Strato Q
The term Top Cover actually covers more than one task. With a Sea King at the limit of range, the last things it need is to go searching for a vessel that requires its assistance. Therefore the main purpose is for the Nimrod to locate said vessel and home the helo to its position, at the same time acting as a comms relay to the vessel to speed the operation. In addition passing weather reports also helps the helos.(because it always occurs during bad weather and 90 kt headwinds!) It is also a better comms platform to maintain contact with the RCC, removing one other job for the Helo. As a bonus the Nimrod is there should anything go amis.
As far as the Nimrod crew is concerned, it is routine job and seldom taxing. To the Sea King crew it makes a very difficult job that little bit easier; I have never known a crew to be anything other than greatful for the company.
The term Top Cover actually covers more than one task. With a Sea King at the limit of range, the last things it need is to go searching for a vessel that requires its assistance. Therefore the main purpose is for the Nimrod to locate said vessel and home the helo to its position, at the same time acting as a comms relay to the vessel to speed the operation. In addition passing weather reports also helps the helos.(because it always occurs during bad weather and 90 kt headwinds!) It is also a better comms platform to maintain contact with the RCC, removing one other job for the Helo. As a bonus the Nimrod is there should anything go amis.
As far as the Nimrod crew is concerned, it is routine job and seldom taxing. To the Sea King crew it makes a very difficult job that little bit easier; I have never known a crew to be anything other than greatful for the company.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StratoQ
Don't know what you do, but I do know, YOU, know sod all about Nimrod SAR
I have at least 50 Top Cover entries in my log book for SeaKing, Dauphin, SR61, plus umpty SAR Trails etc,etc
The advantage of Nimrod on Top Cover is it can locate and mark the casualty day and night in all weather enabling the helo to go in and lift at extreme range when on tight fuel and lift time criteria - plus being a real time comms link to ARCC
It also gives the helo crew a nice warm feeling when at extreme range over hostile conditions that someone is watching and there to help if they get into trouble
I previously posted details of the La Parrane incident in Feb 2002 where a SeaKing lifted 22 fishermen in 17 mins at extreme range (240nm) in the north atlantic, but for some reason my post was removed
That was a classic example of Top Cover - talk to the guys at Lossie
Don't know what you do, but I do know, YOU, know sod all about Nimrod SAR
I have at least 50 Top Cover entries in my log book for SeaKing, Dauphin, SR61, plus umpty SAR Trails etc,etc
The advantage of Nimrod on Top Cover is it can locate and mark the casualty day and night in all weather enabling the helo to go in and lift at extreme range when on tight fuel and lift time criteria - plus being a real time comms link to ARCC
It also gives the helo crew a nice warm feeling when at extreme range over hostile conditions that someone is watching and there to help if they get into trouble
I previously posted details of the La Parrane incident in Feb 2002 where a SeaKing lifted 22 fishermen in 17 mins at extreme range (240nm) in the north atlantic, but for some reason my post was removed
That was a classic example of Top Cover - talk to the guys at Lossie
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StratoQ me thinks Buoy15 must have been crewed with you
, you have even earned a lecture from a really old wetty and not for the first time.
Gentlemen start your bladders
Charlie sends
, you have even earned a lecture from a really old wetty and not for the first time.Gentlemen start your bladders
Charlie sends