Nimrod Information

[Tappers Dad]

I am going to try and explain my position yet again for those who appear to be unsure.
In the words of Donald Rumsfeld:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know". (52 leaks in Nimrods in the 6 months leading up to the crash, and numerous leaks occurring in Nimrods after AAR since the crash)

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know".(What was the cause of ignition)
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.(This is why I am asking questions on this site, like the Safety Case this was for me an unknown unknown).

Any rumours I read on here I check them out through various means,I certainly don't go "sucking up everything they are told in these forums because they think we are all authorities on what is happening".
I ask my MP to check things out or I get information via the FOI act and read it for myself.

I just want to touch on scaring the relatives of those flying Nimrods at present. I had constant discussions with my son about air safety, me saying they weren't safe and its dangerous and him saying they were.

Sadly I was right and he was wrong and this will stay with me for the rest of my life.

[Winco]

WW

I am afraid that I can't let you get away with saying things that are patently untrue. Neither I, TSM or indeed anyone on this forum has in any way insulted 'Nimrod aircrew' as you put it, at all and I would ask you to retract your statement. Things were said in responce to other comments, namely from SFO.

I was Nimrod aircrew for many years, and know a great many aircrew still at ISK. They have my utmost respect, as do the groundcrew who are doing an outstanding job with very limited resources.

I am now 'current' on an aircraft slightly bigger than Nimrod, and I would again suggest a great deal safer. Unfortunately, SFO began the abuse after I reported as such. But I still stick by it, and if you yourself are flying a new 'ish B737 you must agree that it is perhaps even just a little bit safer than a Nimrod ?

eg How many fuel leaks have you detected on your entire 737 fleet?
I can tell you that on the B747 fleet that I currently fly, in the last 12 months, I should think you could count them on one hand (and most of them were venting of sorts) Would you not agree that is a damned sight safer than 52 leaks in 6 months, on a fleet of not very many?

No doubt SFO will counter that, but those are the facts I'm afraid.

The Winco

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I can't even begin to imagine the grief that TD and others who knew the guys who lost their lives in the Nimrod crash must still be feeling but to see this very serious thread with excellent debate on both sides of the divide denigrated by two squabbling schoolgirls in this manner is appalling

Winco and WW please take your petty row into PM land and let the adults continue to find some common ground and hopefully some answers

[camelspyyder]

Hyperbolic fuel leak figures

A lot of posts on this thread mention vast numbers of fuel leaks.

How many are significant?

I have witnessed 3 very recently. the slowest probably leaked a few drops every 10 minutes: the worst a pint or two - which was rectified in a couple of minutes (airborne).

So whether you have been told there were 25 or 52 or 752,834 fuel leaks in the last 6 months, it is highly unlikely that many of them were dangerous. Viewing any F700 on this fleet, or other types, will show a number of places where fuel escapes - we even have diagrams of the wings so you can mark on where all the known leaks are!

If anyone has valid data on significant fuel leaks or fuel system failures I would like to see them as much as anybody else, but dont quote me random figures when most of the events spill less fuel that we all do filling up our cars at TESCO.

[BEagle]

Spill fuel filling up at Tesco and it catches fire - throw sand over it and leg it sharpish.

Spill fuel inside a sealed compartment in an aeroplane and you can do neither.

Bit of an ar$e post, camelsniper.

[camelspyyder]

Beagle, that was not a flippant post.

Today I watched fuel coming out of a place it shouldn't during a sortie, and now I merely wish to differentiate between "lies, damn lies, and statistics"

If anyone has current data on substantial or dangerous fuel leaks in recent years on this fleet I, as much as anybody who still flies on them, would like to be able to view it.

[Wigan Warrior]

FACTS

"...ha ha, what an idiot!!"
TSM

"...I can't stop laughing at you Short Fattie thing, HO HO, HA HA..."

Those WINCO are personal insults aimed at CURRENT Nimrod Aircrew - FACT.

[FATTER GATOR]

Msg for Winco and Wigan Warrior.

Chaps. By all means leave your comments and views here. But please take this, now personal argument, elsewhere.

Better still, trade phone numbers and talk it over.

[Tappers Dad]

camelspyyder
"If anyone has valid data on significant fuel leaks or fuel system failures I would like to see them as much as anybody else",

How about "Evidence of fuel was found approximately a third of the way up the flare housings" "There was fuel found covering the plastic base of the flares"

Does that count ????

[nimblast]

CamelSpyder
"Today I watched fuel coming out of a place it shouldn't during a sortie, and now I merely wish to differentiate between "lies, damn lies, and statistics"
I would have thought that ANY fuel coming out of a place it shouldn't on a Nimrod during a sortie is dangerous.
"We even have diagrams of the wings so you can mark on where all the known leaks are!"
I suppose this is what is meant by acceptable risk. We know about the leaks so its not a problem.
If you know there are leaks the MOD should provide the money to fix them or the aircraft should be grounded. The fuel system was not designed to leak the way it is currently doing.

[nigegilb]

"More worrying is the 6 major leaks we have had since the accident and the hurry to resume AAR after each one."

I was told by someone I trust that the RAF would love to have fuel tank protection on-board the Nimrod, but there isn't any money available to do it. I got involved in this thread because Nimrod aircrew contacted me privately with their concerns. I am now in contact with engineers with the same concerns. 6 major leaks since the downing of XV230 is not a record to be proud of.

[thunderbird7]

Camelspyder is making a fair point. What about the Lightning or SR71, both of which leaked like sieves until skin temperature expanded the skin to plug the leaks. Its not so much the leak as what causes the 'spark' on any fire. All aeroplanes leak, to a certain extent, due to the continual thermal and pressure changes on seals and couplings etc in normal operation over extended periods of time. If servicing schedules and item 'life' is being extended in an arbitrary fashion, to cope with 'one off events' that then become continual, then THAT is a problem in itself that could lead to unacceptable leaks or other faults.
That, though is a policy decision relating to 'overstretch' that needs to be addressed as a separate issue. Hopefully, if it were a factor in this incident, then the BOI will bring that out. Historically, BOIs have never been afraid of pointing the finger of blame upwards - its whether 'Their Airships' are prepared to accept those reccomendations
Also, not fully understanding how the system works, would fire suppressant foam actually stop a tank exploding if the explosion is a result of a fire not in a tank? Does it release into the tank as a result of a pressure change in the tank or on temperature? ie: if a leaking fuel has caught fire in another location, where it has pooled and been ignited, no amount of foam in a tank 20 feet away up the wing is going to stop a fire in that other location.

[Mad_Mark]

I must also agree with what camelspyyder is saying.

A fuel leak can be anything from a slight damp stain at a seal, through a slow drip, fast drip, a steady flow or a complete gush akin to a fuel dump. Simply saying that the Nimrod has suffered X number of fuel leaks in Y months is meaningless without classifying the severity of the leaks. One complete fuel gush in 6 months is far worse than 1000 slight stains, however if the statistics reported that the Nimrod had only suffered 1 fuel leak in that 6 month period the unthinking public would probably believe that to be acceptable

The "6 major leaks" at least goes part way to clarify the problem, but again - what is a major leak? Quantities, rates, locations - all these play a part in determining the seriousness of a leak. Without the full facts a simple number is meaningless.

MadMark!!!

[Da4orce]

In response to Mad_Mark and camelspyyder:

Air Incident Ser No Kin 60\2006

"fluid was seen dripping into the bomb bay at approx 1 drop per sec."

"On landing, the tristar crew reported that the level of venting from the rear of the aircrapt was similar to that of a fuel dump."

Air Incident Ser No Kin 066/06 AL1

"The VC10 reported a total offload of 42,900LB. The Nimrod recorded an increase of 30,300LBS into the tanks plus an incontact fuel burn of 4,700LBS. Including the usual 100lb discrepancy, the total recorded uplift comes to 36,000LB"

VC-10 offloads 42,900 lbs Nimrod uplift 36,000 lbs.

There is a discrepancy of 6,900 lbs of fuel.

I can't remember the last time I spilt 6,900 lbs of fuel on Tesco's forecourt! Am I missing something here????

[Mad_Mark]

Da4orce, I am not arguing whether serious fuel leaks have occurred on the Nimrod or not - I already know the answer. What I am agreeing with camelspyyder about is the reporting of simple numbers of leaks without, on the whole, quantifying the degree and location of leakage (a flowing leak from the trailing edge is probably no more dangerous than a fuel dump, whereas a constant drip onto an engine could be disastrous).

The Panorama programme made a great thing of the high number of fuel leaks on the Nimrod in the past few months but failed to mention that the majority of those numbers were minor.

Yes, let the press go ahead and highlight the few possibly dangerous leaks, but don't simply reel off numbers of all leaks no matter how minor they are.

MadMark!!!

[Distant Voice]

MM: According to statements from MoD the true fuel leak rate (minor and major) is 4 per 50 flying hours. Based on last years flying hours of approx 8000, that equates to about 320 leaks during a 6 month period. So I suspect that the 25 and 52 being talked about are not minor weeps and drips, but something major.

DV

[camelspyyder]

Stats

DV, I suspect that 99% of statistics published on this thread are made up on the spot!

[camelspyyder]

Leaks?

Oh I forgot

did you hear about the 43 pax who refused to fly on an airliner out of ADN last week because there was fuel dripping off of the wing.

I bet they'd all watched PANORAMA too!!

CS

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

So would that make them properly cautious or should they have stupidly ignored the bleedin obvious and simply complied with the man in charge

[camelspyyder]

In my book that would make them innocent victims of media hysteria and hyperbole