Nimrod Information
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Swinging Monkey.
May I refer you to PPRuNe Forum Rules, reference your inappropriate post 593.
"Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack."
Many thanks
May I refer you to PPRuNe Forum Rules, reference your inappropriate post 593.
"Be Courteous!
Don't attack others. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully... without insult and personal attack."
Many thanks
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Shadow
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM
The SFO IS a highly experienced Nimrod pilot, one of only few Nimrod QFIs left. His input into the MRA4 programme is (and has been) invaluable. You TSM have shown yourself to be an idiot of the highest order and statements such as yours serve no purpose other than to upset the people (MoD / Indusrty) responsible for trying their best (under adversity) to ensure the safety of the Nimrod fleet.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GBZ, I think, and it is years since, that speed would not be an issue with AAR and bomb bay doors open. IIRC the bomb door limit is 250kts. At height refuelling heights I suspect the IAS will be less than this.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to all the guys who are giving me a slagging over my comments about the SFO, but you really should read what he said first. His comments about civilan airliners were stupid, wrong and probably liabelous, and as for personal abuse, advise him of the rules also would you please.
I am truly astonished if, as has been pointed out here, that SFO is a 'highly experienced Nimrod pilot, one of only few Nimrod QFIs left'
I am genuingly astonished that someone who would clearly has a great deal of experience, should come out with such a statement concerning the civilain airliner fleet. I hope someone from Boeing or Airbus has read his comments and has the balls to come on here and explain some facts to him.
Now you can say what ever you want to me, I really don't care. I'm here because I feel passionately about the current safety (or lack of it) on the Nimrod fleet and the potential lack of safety on the MR4. Not one of you have come back with a reasonable explanation as to why the MR4 is NOT being fitted with a fire suppressant systen in the bomb bay. Not one of you have explained why the aircraft will be using a single-skinned AAR sytem, almost identical one to that fitted to the MR2 fleet. Why is that?
The reason for your lack of responce? because you, me, Tappers Dad and everyone else all know that at the end of the day, there is NO MONEY to replace/upgrade systems on the existing fleet or on the new one.
Thats NOT you fault, and I in no way blame you. But please don't sit there and try to justify it to me and others, or come up with sad and lame excuses as to why the RAF can have a state of the art aircraft as far as sensors and avionics are concerned, but a 25 year old system for the AAR, and a 50 year old system for the bomb bay. It all comes down to £££££££ or lack of them!
TSM
I am truly astonished if, as has been pointed out here, that SFO is a 'highly experienced Nimrod pilot, one of only few Nimrod QFIs left'
I am genuingly astonished that someone who would clearly has a great deal of experience, should come out with such a statement concerning the civilain airliner fleet. I hope someone from Boeing or Airbus has read his comments and has the balls to come on here and explain some facts to him.
Now you can say what ever you want to me, I really don't care. I'm here because I feel passionately about the current safety (or lack of it) on the Nimrod fleet and the potential lack of safety on the MR4. Not one of you have come back with a reasonable explanation as to why the MR4 is NOT being fitted with a fire suppressant systen in the bomb bay. Not one of you have explained why the aircraft will be using a single-skinned AAR sytem, almost identical one to that fitted to the MR2 fleet. Why is that?
The reason for your lack of responce? because you, me, Tappers Dad and everyone else all know that at the end of the day, there is NO MONEY to replace/upgrade systems on the existing fleet or on the new one.
Thats NOT you fault, and I in no way blame you. But please don't sit there and try to justify it to me and others, or come up with sad and lame excuses as to why the RAF can have a state of the art aircraft as far as sensors and avionics are concerned, but a 25 year old system for the AAR, and a 50 year old system for the bomb bay. It all comes down to £££££££ or lack of them!
TSM
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
Further to my last, I've just been sent this link ref airliners, accidents and fatalities. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm
For the benifit of us all, but especially those of you who question civilan accident rates, especially the short fat chap, please take a close look at them. Especially in regard to your statement about I think you might be surprised, and even a little embarrassed at your previous post that I laughed at. You can read the stats as well as I can, so I won't bore you with them, but may I just read you one statistic from the openig paragraph, it says...
'Accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would be approximately 22,000 years before he or she would be killed.'
22,000 years is a hell of a long time and I know someone will come back and say that you can make stats look and say whatever you want, but these are the facts. It's no consolation of course if you are in that minute % that make the statistics, but just think about that SFO, 22,000 years.
Now, given that, do you still think that MR2 and MR4 have an 'acceptable risk' factor, and would you consider amending your commenst about airliners?
TSM
Further to my last, I've just been sent this link ref airliners, accidents and fatalities. http://www.planecrashinfo.com/rates.htm
For the benifit of us all, but especially those of you who question civilan accident rates, especially the short fat chap, please take a close look at them. Especially in regard to your statement about I think you might be surprised, and even a little embarrassed at your previous post that I laughed at. You can read the stats as well as I can, so I won't bore you with them, but may I just read you one statistic from the openig paragraph, it says...
'Accidents are extremely rare, with the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one. If a passenger boarded a flight at random, once a day, everyday, it would be approximately 22,000 years before he or she would be killed.'
22,000 years is a hell of a long time and I know someone will come back and say that you can make stats look and say whatever you want, but these are the facts. It's no consolation of course if you are in that minute % that make the statistics, but just think about that SFO, 22,000 years.
Now, given that, do you still think that MR2 and MR4 have an 'acceptable risk' factor, and would you consider amending your commenst about airliners?
TSM
“the probability of a passenger being killed on a single flight at approximately eight million-to-one”.
To even begin attempting a like for like comparison, ask any commercial aircraft manufacturer what these figures would be if he were to factor in something simple; like routinely flying over a war zone and carrying out AAR with a system which (it would appear) does not meet today’s standards. The risk may become less than acceptable, so he may mitigate it with, say, a DAS. However, the act of fitting and integrating (two different things, something the MoD and I differ on) a DAS produces positives and negatives. It provides a degree of protection, but there is a weight and power penalty (which, to him, merely means loss of income; but to us means more a/c required to sustain operational effectiveness). And so on, and on….. Sorry, the process of designing a civilian airliner and a military aircraft coincide at a theory of flight and basic engineering level (sometimes not even then) and diverge almost immediately. I don’t think this a line of argument worth pursuing.
I believe the important thing here, and in other incidents (Mull, C130, Tornado, AEW and more), is that the MoD’s approach to maintaining safety (and in some cases delivering safety in the first place) has been criminally negligent for, at least, 16 years. This figure is based on my own personal experiences of being told to ignore safety issues (instructions I completely ignored); others may think it longer. 16 years is not a great length of time in acquisition terms (so the effects take a while to become apparent); but it is many generations of MoD staffs, both Service and civilian, who have been brought up on a system which regards maintaining safety as a waste of money. Otherwise, why would they (the RAF in particular – sorry but it’s a simple, verifiable fact, as you controlled air support funding in 1991) slash the budgets and cancel contracts whose sole purpose were to maintain the build standard (including safety). Those who know the “system” well will understand that, regrettably, when you offer up money as a savings measure (as the RAF did in 1991) it is nigh on impossible to get it back. As the years pass, the argument becomes “We haven’t had too many losses, so why do you want to regress to routinely maintaining safety?” Give me a gun please.
To even begin attempting a like for like comparison, ask any commercial aircraft manufacturer what these figures would be if he were to factor in something simple; like routinely flying over a war zone and carrying out AAR with a system which (it would appear) does not meet today’s standards. The risk may become less than acceptable, so he may mitigate it with, say, a DAS. However, the act of fitting and integrating (two different things, something the MoD and I differ on) a DAS produces positives and negatives. It provides a degree of protection, but there is a weight and power penalty (which, to him, merely means loss of income; but to us means more a/c required to sustain operational effectiveness). And so on, and on….. Sorry, the process of designing a civilian airliner and a military aircraft coincide at a theory of flight and basic engineering level (sometimes not even then) and diverge almost immediately. I don’t think this a line of argument worth pursuing.
I believe the important thing here, and in other incidents (Mull, C130, Tornado, AEW and more), is that the MoD’s approach to maintaining safety (and in some cases delivering safety in the first place) has been criminally negligent for, at least, 16 years. This figure is based on my own personal experiences of being told to ignore safety issues (instructions I completely ignored); others may think it longer. 16 years is not a great length of time in acquisition terms (so the effects take a while to become apparent); but it is many generations of MoD staffs, both Service and civilian, who have been brought up on a system which regards maintaining safety as a waste of money. Otherwise, why would they (the RAF in particular – sorry but it’s a simple, verifiable fact, as you controlled air support funding in 1991) slash the budgets and cancel contracts whose sole purpose were to maintain the build standard (including safety). Those who know the “system” well will understand that, regrettably, when you offer up money as a savings measure (as the RAF did in 1991) it is nigh on impossible to get it back. As the years pass, the argument becomes “We haven’t had too many losses, so why do you want to regress to routinely maintaining safety?” Give me a gun please.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate to watch this thread is turning into a mud slinging contest on what constitutes a safe or unsafe ac. A safe ac is one that doesn’t fly. A lot of PPruners give the impression that the management are sending ac airborne not caring if they are safe or not. Do you really believe that? Each ac is checked before it goes flying and if it is deemed unsafe it does not go. Remember they are called ACCEPTABLE deferred defects and limitations and there are rules as to what is acceptable.
If the need for the ac wasn’t so great, I’m sure AAR would cease. Military flying by its nature is risky, that’s why the safety issue cannot be compared with civil ac. Of course cost is an issue, what makes it worse is you cannot recover those costs by selling more ac, therefore, a risk assessment has to be carried out.
Also, there is a lot of duff gen concerning current and future ac floating around on this thread, no doubt some would like to correct but owing to the open forum feel they cannot. So don’t get too excited and rude to people, put forward your views but be wary of ‘facts’ that are second hand.
Why don’t I correct these ‘facts’? Because I ceased to be in the employ of Her Majesty earlier this year and my ‘facts’ may well be out of date.
Historical issues, on the other hand, I am willing to discuss
TSM
I read the link and found it interesting. I compared Nimrod figures and placed them in the table; that backed up your argument mainly because of too few sorties to make the comparison meaningful. However, I did notice the figures quoted only started in 1986, it would be interesting to see what the table was like if we went back to the 60’s.
Too early for cocoa, afternoon tea perhaps.
If the need for the ac wasn’t so great, I’m sure AAR would cease. Military flying by its nature is risky, that’s why the safety issue cannot be compared with civil ac. Of course cost is an issue, what makes it worse is you cannot recover those costs by selling more ac, therefore, a risk assessment has to be carried out.
Also, there is a lot of duff gen concerning current and future ac floating around on this thread, no doubt some would like to correct but owing to the open forum feel they cannot. So don’t get too excited and rude to people, put forward your views but be wary of ‘facts’ that are second hand.
Why don’t I correct these ‘facts’? Because I ceased to be in the employ of Her Majesty earlier this year and my ‘facts’ may well be out of date.
Historical issues, on the other hand, I am willing to discuss
TSM
I read the link and found it interesting. I compared Nimrod figures and placed them in the table; that backed up your argument mainly because of too few sorties to make the comparison meaningful. However, I did notice the figures quoted only started in 1986, it would be interesting to see what the table was like if we went back to the 60’s.
Too early for cocoa, afternoon tea perhaps.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AQAfive & tucumseh
Yes I know and agree with you gentlemen. The purpose of posting the info was to show the Little short fat chap that his comment about 'recent' airline incidents/accidents was simply not correct.
TSM
Yes I know and agree with you gentlemen. The purpose of posting the info was to show the Little short fat chap that his comment about 'recent' airline incidents/accidents was simply not correct.
TSM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 49
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM
A classic case of CDD. TSM you suffer from Clue Deficieny Disorder. Put simply, you haven't got a scoobie!
I have read what SFO posted. He is quite correct. He makes the point that money counts... which of course it does. If money was no object, would there never be another aircraft crash (military / civil)? As many people have pointed out the safest option is to keep the aircraft in the hangars, but they have a job to do, so at some point their life and that of their crew is put at a higher level of risk by parting company with terra firma. No doubt safeware has sat in many more safety reviews than I. He tried to explain the complex process of risk identification, review and subsequent mitigation only to be harranged by others suffering from CDD. Risk management is similar throughout companies worldwide and across the military - civil divide, it is not exclusive to the avaiation industry but wherever the principles of risk management are applied, cost is always a consideration..... which is the point I believe SFO was making.
I have read what SFO posted. He is quite correct. He makes the point that money counts... which of course it does. If money was no object, would there never be another aircraft crash (military / civil)? As many people have pointed out the safest option is to keep the aircraft in the hangars, but they have a job to do, so at some point their life and that of their crew is put at a higher level of risk by parting company with terra firma. No doubt safeware has sat in many more safety reviews than I. He tried to explain the complex process of risk identification, review and subsequent mitigation only to be harranged by others suffering from CDD. Risk management is similar throughout companies worldwide and across the military - civil divide, it is not exclusive to the avaiation industry but wherever the principles of risk management are applied, cost is always a consideration..... which is the point I believe SFO was making.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM
What on earth makes you think that is what I said?
sw
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?
sw
Interestingly, I have recently had to advise a tanker designer that it is vital for accurate offload figures to be available to the receiver.
This is because the manufacturer has an aircraft which can accept Jet A, Jet A-1 and Jet B yet has instructed the AAR system supplier to use a single fixed mid-range value for assumed fuel density (although this is corrected in flight for actual fuel temperature).
The net result is that the value displayed on the pod control system could be in error by up to 5.6% compared with the value deduced from the tanker fuel quantity indicators..... So Where Has All The Fuel Gone? Is it swilling around inside a receiver between probe and tanks (hands up all those who want a fuel cooled AI radar....) - or has it leaked out to atmosphere?
My advice is that accurate fuel offload values to each and every receiver are absolutely essential. Does anyone see this as being too picky?
This is because the manufacturer has an aircraft which can accept Jet A, Jet A-1 and Jet B yet has instructed the AAR system supplier to use a single fixed mid-range value for assumed fuel density (although this is corrected in flight for actual fuel temperature).
The net result is that the value displayed on the pod control system could be in error by up to 5.6% compared with the value deduced from the tanker fuel quantity indicators..... So Where Has All The Fuel Gone? Is it swilling around inside a receiver between probe and tanks (hands up all those who want a fuel cooled AI radar....) - or has it leaked out to atmosphere?
My advice is that accurate fuel offload values to each and every receiver are absolutely essential. Does anyone see this as being too picky?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM
The purpose of posting the info was to show the Little short fat chap that his comment about 'recent' airline incidents/accidents was simply not correct.
Since your outburst, I re-read his contribution and I didn't have any argument with it.
As others have also indicated, civil airlines operate to make money and one of their biggest overheads, in doing so, is safety. I firmly believe that the manufacturers and operators rely on the regulators to establish the safety requirements and then build and fly those aircraft to meet those safety needs at the lowest cost. They make their aircraft as safe as they need to be to get certified. I've not yet heard of any builder or operator inventing and/or fitting an expensive safety feature that was not required by regulation.
So, when a civil airliner crashes, the builder and the operator can say, hand on heart, that the aircaft met the safety standard, so don't blame them. But, the chances are that the aircraft was not as safe as it could be. IMHO, of course.....
The SFO was not wrong in any way about his take on civil aircraft. I am at a loss to understand TSMs rather aggressive stand on this - but given TSMs lack of grasp of several things and his inability to read and pick up on pertinent facts on this whole subject, perhaps this should not be surprising.
Well, it seems to me several have tried to explain some potentially valid & convincing reasons for this but you seem to be unable to grasp the engineering issues behind why it is probably not feasible.
Well again several have suggested that you are incorrect in this assertion - indeed SFO has made it clear that to dismissively brand it as "single skinned" is just not true. I'm starting to think TSM is actually a troll.
Finally, have a look at this TSM and tell us again how you naively believe civil aircraft are all "as safe as possible".
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
Not one of you have come back with a reasonable explanation as to why the MR4 is NOT being fitted with a fire suppressant systen in the bomb bay.
Not one of you have explained why the aircraft will be using a single-skinned AAR sytem, almost identical one to that fitted to the MR2 fleet. Why is that?
Finally, have a look at this TSM and tell us again how you naively believe civil aircraft are all "as safe as possible".
http://www.airlinesafety.com/faq/B-737Rudder.htm
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Statistics
If you want to compare UK military aircraft accident rates etc, look here:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/acci...m/acctab2.html
and browse around some of the other available info if you are interested.
For the record, I'm not going to get into arguments over what the stats say (in terms of implied safety).
sw
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/acci...m/acctab2.html
and browse around some of the other available info if you are interested.
For the record, I'm not going to get into arguments over what the stats say (in terms of implied safety).
sw
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to compare UK military aircraft accident rates etc, look here:
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/acci...m/acctab2.html
and browse around some of the other available info if you are interested.
For the record, I'm not going to get into arguments over what the stats say (in terms of implied safety).
sw
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/acci...m/acctab2.html
and browse around some of the other available info if you are interested.
For the record, I'm not going to get into arguments over what the stats say (in terms of implied safety).
sw
here's the data by aircraft role and type ......
http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/acci...m/acctab1.html
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparisons between civil and military types doesn't really mean a great deal. In terms of the 737 it runs a production line of over 5'000 with something like a maximum of five accidents thought to have originated with the rudder PFCU problems. View the rest of the accidents that have
happened to the fleet and it's quite clear that the type is fundamentally very safe. The write off list runs to 130 and amongst these are a broad range of accidents - the majority of which can be attributed to pilot error.
In terms of the military accident rate -it is very low but it's also worth viewing it from the point that a typical military aircraft doesn't do anything like the number of hours per year that a civil airliner would do. Hence exposure to risk is therefore lower.
As for the manufacturers doing the minimum in terms of safety - either they
are incredibly lucky or the minimum standards seem to work. There are set standards for all aircraft fittings and these are set in stone. View the majority of accidents and design and maintainance feature in a very small number.
In terms of Nimrod - if there are concerns regards fuel integrity there needs to be urgent action taken. We should not in a position where the biggest threat to our aircrew is from our own equipment.
happened to the fleet and it's quite clear that the type is fundamentally very safe. The write off list runs to 130 and amongst these are a broad range of accidents - the majority of which can be attributed to pilot error.
In terms of the military accident rate -it is very low but it's also worth viewing it from the point that a typical military aircraft doesn't do anything like the number of hours per year that a civil airliner would do. Hence exposure to risk is therefore lower.
As for the manufacturers doing the minimum in terms of safety - either they
are incredibly lucky or the minimum standards seem to work. There are set standards for all aircraft fittings and these are set in stone. View the majority of accidents and design and maintainance feature in a very small number.
In terms of Nimrod - if there are concerns regards fuel integrity there needs to be urgent action taken. We should not in a position where the biggest threat to our aircrew is from our own equipment.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM, some while back you posted a comment stating you "knew who I was". I would appreciate it if you'd do me the courtesy of sending a PM and giving me a clue of who YOU are. The reason? I, and a fair few others, would be keen to know what makes you the authority on absolutely everything quoted on this thread. For example, how closely involved are you with MRA4? Or, why it is you feel personal insults are an appropriate way of taking part in this discussion?
Additionally airliners are designed for one purpose, they take off, climb to x thousand feet, cruise to destination, descend, land and complete cycle repeatably untill aircraft reaches its out of service date and the airlines buy another new one.
Military jets based on airliners, take off may or may not climb and cruise around and then land, they carry out manouvres that the airliner would not. Military aircraft also have extra bits bolted on, get re-engineered etc, change roles that mean the aircraft is doing what it was not 'originally designed to do', and the MOD/RAF do this not the civvie contractor.
As has been said any loss of life is un-acceptable and we cannot say often enough how we feel for those who lost family, but in the previous 30 years this has been the only loss of life from this aircraft attributable to an accident that was caused from a failure of this nature, the two other aircraft losses had nothing to do with the age of the aircraft, nor its AAR capability, nor its wiring, nor their lack of bomb bay suppressant system, nor the single skin fuel pipework, additionally I do not think the MR1? at Moray Firth had this type of problem as it does not have a bomb bay. This to me shows a pretty good safety record for the Nimrod MR2.
For all fuel/hydraulic leaks these have been risk managed and the engineers have done as much as they can, but once in the air vibration temperature fluctuations, turbulance and stress can all loosen pipes, cause cracks in pipes, which is why we have inspections and maintenance periods and we try to mitigate against these risks. As has been said, by looking at historical maintenance data, incidences and accidents, if a trend line shows that we have a specific problem with one specific area of a system, we put in an RTI, MOD, or other suggestion, it gets evaluated, costed and then the MOD/Government bean counters get involved, they way up the cost against likehood of catastrophic failure against possible effect (i.e. injury, fatalities loss of/or damage to aircraft and infrastructures), and as has been said if the risk of something happening is low, the effect of what happens if the failure actually happens is high or low and the cost is prohibitive then it will not get done, especially in todays RAF.
Military jets based on airliners, take off may or may not climb and cruise around and then land, they carry out manouvres that the airliner would not. Military aircraft also have extra bits bolted on, get re-engineered etc, change roles that mean the aircraft is doing what it was not 'originally designed to do', and the MOD/RAF do this not the civvie contractor.
As has been said any loss of life is un-acceptable and we cannot say often enough how we feel for those who lost family, but in the previous 30 years this has been the only loss of life from this aircraft attributable to an accident that was caused from a failure of this nature, the two other aircraft losses had nothing to do with the age of the aircraft, nor its AAR capability, nor its wiring, nor their lack of bomb bay suppressant system, nor the single skin fuel pipework, additionally I do not think the MR1? at Moray Firth had this type of problem as it does not have a bomb bay. This to me shows a pretty good safety record for the Nimrod MR2.
For all fuel/hydraulic leaks these have been risk managed and the engineers have done as much as they can, but once in the air vibration temperature fluctuations, turbulance and stress can all loosen pipes, cause cracks in pipes, which is why we have inspections and maintenance periods and we try to mitigate against these risks. As has been said, by looking at historical maintenance data, incidences and accidents, if a trend line shows that we have a specific problem with one specific area of a system, we put in an RTI, MOD, or other suggestion, it gets evaluated, costed and then the MOD/Government bean counters get involved, they way up the cost against likehood of catastrophic failure against possible effect (i.e. injury, fatalities loss of/or damage to aircraft and infrastructures), and as has been said if the risk of something happening is low, the effect of what happens if the failure actually happens is high or low and the cost is prohibitive then it will not get done, especially in todays RAF.
RileyDove - you make some fair points I wouldn't argue with.
Boeings attitude to the problem and the fact that the Airworthiness Directive took so long to come are quite interesting for those who blindly believe civil aviation is magically safe.
The accident stats are interesting - whilst you can't generalise due to CFIT/polit error reasons etc, some themes emerge:
Harriers - crash alot more than most fast jets - jaguar being an exception, and the tonka figures are quite high
Helicopters - are known to be complicated and fundamentally quite dangerous things and these figures backthat up. The Squirrel has a very good record though and Sea Kings are good too.
Nimrod - if you flew one every day for an hour it would be 342 years before you had any sort of incident.
Boeings attitude to the problem and the fact that the Airworthiness Directive took so long to come are quite interesting for those who blindly believe civil aviation is magically safe.
The accident stats are interesting - whilst you can't generalise due to CFIT/polit error reasons etc, some themes emerge:
Harriers - crash alot more than most fast jets - jaguar being an exception, and the tonka figures are quite high
Helicopters - are known to be complicated and fundamentally quite dangerous things and these figures backthat up. The Squirrel has a very good record though and Sea Kings are good too.
Nimrod - if you flew one every day for an hour it would be 342 years before you had any sort of incident.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Devon
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly my condolenses to Tappers Dad and all the other families whose loved ones died in this appalling accident.I felt I had to post on this thread and am probably going tobe slated for it as I am a civvy.I have been intrigued with this thread since its inception and have followed it very closely.Without sounding patronising I believe our armed forces are second to none and do a fantastic job with the resources available. But looking at the overall situation from the outside looking in the RAF seems to have taken the brunt of the cutbacks with redundancies base closures etc etc and the list goes on eventually something else has to give and it seems to me tobe safety.If health and safety is not acted on in the outside world all hell brakes loose but it seems in the armed forces it can be turned a blind eye too and swept under the carpet which seems tobe the case with the posts I have been reading and quite regularly and its about time all our armed forces get the relevant budgets they deserve instead of cutback after cutback. But gentlemen this thread is very informative and a pleasure to read please dont turn it into a slanging match because if you do this you are not helping Tappers Dad and the rest of the families get the true justice they so rightly deserve.