Nimrod Information

[stickmonkeytamer]

If, God firbid, we lose another one in similar circumstances, would the thoughts of this thread show that the RAF personnel at the grass roots level were making it clear that there was real concerns, and as the higherarchy do read this thread (don't ask how I know...), would they be held responsible for not acting upon opinions/recommendations of the end users?

I lost a good friend whom I'd known for years on that aircraft. I'd been to his wedding and his funeral. It must not happen again. Why has no-one who can make a difference got the moral courage to do so? He/she would be applauded.

Tenuous link: I watched a programme on BFBS last night (which was probably on in the UK about a month ago) about a woman trying to get all Premiership footballers to give a days pay to the nurses charity. If all aircrew (not just the Nimrod fleet) refused to fly for one day in order to raise awareness of the Nimrod problem, would this work? All ground personnel could do the same... Not quite a mutiny or Union action, but who, higher up the chain, would actually step in and force people back to work??? We, the end users, must stand up...

SMT

[ShortFatOne]

WINCO

"Just off to the Far East for a few days, in an aircraft that is as safe as it is possible to make!"

Yes, within the financial constraints that were imposed the XXXX Aircraft Company (insert name of favourite aircraft manufacturer) finance department. If you seriously believe that Boing or Funbus make aircraft that are as safe as they can be, no matter what the financial implications are, why have there been so many accidents and incidents in commercial aircraft over the years, or is it just that they do not show the 'Aircrash Investigations' programme on your home planet?

[Tappers Dad]

ShortFatOne

"Why have there been so many accidents and incidents in commercial aircraft over the years."

Maybe its because there are more than 12 of them flying around .Well sometimes there are 12 not all flying though, well maybe 9 then.

Oh unless you mean the Comet because that took three fatal crashes between May 1953 and April 1954 for BOAC to withdraw its depleted fleet of Comet airliners.

[Safeware]

SFO,

I think what he meant to say was "in an aircraft that is as safe as required for certification"

But I agree with him about not wanting to fly in a Nimrod - so neither should anyone else have to do it.

sw

[hobie]

How many aircraft equivalent to the Nimrod, do the USAF currently operate ...

approx? ....

[ORAC]

None, the MRA role is carried out by the USN using the P-3 Orion. The P-3 was derived from the Electra, which entered service around the same time as the Comet. The difference being the USN is replacing their P-3s with new build P-8 Poseidons, based on the 737, by about 2013.

The ongoing P-3C airframe sustainment program inspects and repairs center and outer wings while reducing Fleet inventory to the mandated 130 aircraft by 2010. The P-3C fleet has experienced significant fatigue degradation over its operational life as quantified through the Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP). The Navy has instituted special structural inspections programs and replacement kits to refurbish aircraft structures to sustain airframe life. The 12 active patrol squadrons (down from 24 in 1991) operate P-3C AIP and Update III configured aircraft. Other P-3 variants still in service include one VP-3A executive transport, four NP-3C and eight NP-3D research and development, testing and evaluation and oceanographic survey aircraft. Numerous countries also fly the P-3 Orion, making it one of the more prevalent Navy aircraft available for foreign military sales and support.

[nigegilb]

The P-3 Orion was introduced to the fleet in the early 1960s. It is a derivative of the Lockheed Electra commercial airliner, which was not designed for survivability. More than 40 years later, it remains the Navy’s sole land-based multi-mission aircraft. Several studies were conducted by the Naval Weapons Center at China Lake in the 1980s to assess the survivability needs of the P-3. Those studies concluded that numerous enhancements were needed, including a missile warning system, a countermeasures dispenser, a radio-frequency (RF) jammer of some type, fuel tank protection, dry bay fire suppression, and flight control system hardening. The P-3’s infrared (IR) signature was in need of reduction, and an IR missile seeker jammer was required. Since its introduction, the P-3 has undergone a series of configuration changes to include several updates, the most recent of which addressed survivability with enhancements to the missile warning system, countermeasures dispensing system, and explosive suppressant foam to prevent fuel tank explosions.

[ORAC]

And for the P-8..... Boeing Team to Perform Navy P-8A MMA Fire- Suppression Tests

[JFZ90]

The P-8 is based on the Boeing 737.

I wonder if the P-8 still has only one rudder PCU unit, like all the other Boeing 737s built.

Like the 115 Boeing 737s that have crashed since it entered service, killing over 3200 people. Not all of these crashes were due to the inherent rudder design fault of course.

What was that someone said about "safe as possible"?

[hobie]

I did read recently of the P-8 program ....

To be fair to the P-8, the new aircraft will have the operating experience and design improvements generated on a cumulative 737 fleet of well over 3000 aircraft ..... 3/4 of which are still in operation .....

[AC Ovee]

and then when he has things explained to him, questions whether or not grain silos fly through the air at 200 kts!

Winco, you well know that I was commenting on the fact that grain silos are not subjected to 200 kts of airspeed, which is at the core of the point that was made by someone else: that a grain silo can be filled with extinguishant immediately.

I guess it can, but unlike a bomb bay, that extinguishant is not immediately sucked out of the silo.

I hope we've reached the point of no further discussion in this particular strand.

[The Swinging Monkey]

ShortFatOne

What a stupid thing to say.
Your comments simply confirm your ignorance.

Now let me see now, number of Nimrods = 12 ish, most u/s, flying only a very few hours.

Number of commercial airliners = f889king tens of thousands, all flying a great many hundreds of hours each month.

What a stupid and foolish thing to say, ha ha, what an idiot!!
TSM

ps I hope that when the winco gets back, he hits you with some acurate statistics. I can't stop laughing at you Short Fattie thing, HO HO, HA HA

[ShortFatOne]

TSM
Whateva....


Tapper's Dad

I am truly sorry for your loss. I did not know Ben but I knew many on the aircraft that day, some of them extremely well. I cannot begin to imagine the hurt and pain you feel and I truly hope, for you and your family's sake, that you find the answers you are looking for.

Good Luck

I feel no compunction to add anything further to this debate.

[Strato Q]

What a stupid thing to say.
Your comments simply confirm your ignorance.

TSM - you are showing your ignorance in a childish way. The Short Fat One is a highly experienced Nimrod operator. You can prove anything with statistics, but I do not see too many current operators making negative contributions. I would go back to the Nimrod fleet tomorrow - beats flying a desk.

[Safeware]

Actually, I think TSM is starting to show that he has some understanding:

Lots and lots of airliners flying millions and millions of passenger hours and he isn't worried about 115 crashes. Why? because the level of risk per flying hour is low enough for the acceptance of such risk.

At last!

sw

[AC Ovee]

"The Nimrod has a Good Safety Record"

"The Nimrod has a good safety record". This is one of the first statements confidently given by almost everyone representing the RAF when questioned about the Nimrod. Its not so much said, as pronounced, as though it is an indisputable fact.

I remember hearing those words just after Toronto, then again after the Moray Firth accident. Doubtless it was said when the Nimrod crashed into the woods and now we hear it yet again. Its as though its a shield handed along the line from spokesperson to spokesperson ("just say this and they will go away"). It appears that it is not questioned by the officers who are either briefed to say it, or feel it is a safe thing to say off their own back, and therefore pre-empt any criticism.

Is it a correct statement? Can we draw comfort from it?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Strato Q
I don't believ you Sir, if the shortlittle fat person was a 'highly experienced Nimrod operator' he wouldn't have said such a stupid thing. his comment was just plain stupid! As for going back to the fleet, yes I can't argue with that - I'de feel the same, but I think I'de be a little bit concerned about going back to fly Nimrods!

Safeware
Thanks for the compliment, although I'm sure it wasn't meant! Are you now seriously telling me that modern day airlines are not built to a better safety standard than MR2 WAS and MR4 WILL BE?


AC Ovee
I think it would be fair to say that the aircraft was safe (I have many thousands of hours to prove that) but is it safe today? hmm I think not.
Certainly some serious questions are now being asked, rightly I would suggest.
TSM

[Dave Angel]

"What a stupid and foolish thing to say, ha ha, what an idiot!!
TSM"

Mate, grow up.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

My understanding of fire suppressants is the same as AC Ovee's (Srl 541); oxygen starvation. My understanding is also that pyros and OTTO fuel will burn happily in the absence of any external oxygen. So adding lots of weight and expensive kit is not going to make any difference to an event involving the stores on their carriers. The only fire a weapon bay extinguisher would have any effect on is a fuel fire. As DA4orce observed at Srl 546, the solution would appear to be stopping uncontained fuel leaks. Isn't that what we should be concentrating our minds on? Remind me what the argument was against co-ax fuel lines with the outer chamber safely vented? What would happen if AAR was conducted with the weapon bay doors open (limiting speed beneath the AAR envelope?) until the lines were depressurised and purged?

The 4 options seem to be:

a. spend money (to the detriment of another Force Element elsewhere) and modify the aircraft to a higher safety standard.
b. limit AAR serials to essential operational
c. carry on regardless and embrace religion.
d. ground the aircraft until resources can be found to increase its safety

I'm sure that many of you are not working towards option d. but, to a politico, you may be making it look very attractive.

[Tappers Dad]

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

There is one more option.

STOP THE FUEL LEAKS !!!!!