Nimrod Information
In isolation, the questions and answers mean little. When compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths. I’m sure the monies wasted on Nimrod could have been put to use elsewhere.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LIES
For those of you who wonder why I and others question the integrity and honesty of the MOD/RAF here is an example:
Nimrod Aircraft 8 May 2007 : Column 66W
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last
six months; and if he will make a statement. [134919]
Mr. Ingram: Between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 a total
of 25 fuel leaks were reported on Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft. A fuel
leak is defined as any leakage of fuel from aircraft couplings, pipes or
fuel tanks. These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
Yet I have proof that in October 2006 XV231 was leaking and could not be repaired in theatre or rectified under normal maintenance procedures and had to return to Kinloss without using AAR.And then was sent to the NSG depth organization for investigation.
Mr. Ingram Armed forces minister was not telling the truth
This is why I question the MOD/RAF
Nimrod Aircraft 8 May 2007 : Column 66W
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last
six months; and if he will make a statement. [134919]
Mr. Ingram: Between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 a total
of 25 fuel leaks were reported on Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft. A fuel
leak is defined as any leakage of fuel from aircraft couplings, pipes or
fuel tanks. These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
Yet I have proof that in October 2006 XV231 was leaking and could not be repaired in theatre or rectified under normal maintenance procedures and had to return to Kinloss without using AAR.And then was sent to the NSG depth organization for investigation.
Mr. Ingram Armed forces minister was not telling the truth
This is why I question the MOD/RAF
XV231 was one of the 25 that had a leak, it could not be fixed in theatre so flew safely all the way to RAF Kinloss without using AAR to be fixed at a MOB, this used to be the normal maintenance procedure, but no doubt I will be proved to be mistaken soon.
I fully accept that you have good reason to question the MOD/RAF about the tragic loss and applaud you wholeheartedly for your unstinting efforts for the truth and hope you find the answers that you want, and no doubt need, for some small solace for your loss and additonally for the peace of mind of those families that have family members and friends that still work/fly within the fleet. I just personally felt that the statement by Mr Ingram is not one that you needed to be side tracked from your goal for.
I fully accept that you have good reason to question the MOD/RAF about the tragic loss and applaud you wholeheartedly for your unstinting efforts for the truth and hope you find the answers that you want, and no doubt need, for some small solace for your loss and additonally for the peace of mind of those families that have family members and friends that still work/fly within the fleet. I just personally felt that the statement by Mr Ingram is not one that you needed to be side tracked from your goal for.
"In isolation, the questions and answers mean little. When compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths. I’m sure the monies wasted on Nimrod could have been put to use elsewhere."
So there you are JFZ90 & Headstone, the answer to your questions (at least you got one!) and from a man who knows.
So there you are JFZ90 & Headstone, the answer to your questions (at least you got one!) and from a man who knows.
For those of you who wonder why I and others question the integrity and honesty of the MOD/RAF here is an example:
"Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last six months; and if he will make a statement."
"These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures."
TD : Yet I have proof that in October 2006 XV231 was leaking and could not be repaired in theatre or rectified under normal maintenance procedures and had to return to Kinloss without using AAR.And then was sent to the NSG depth organization for investigation.
"Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last six months; and if he will make a statement."
"These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures."
TD : Yet I have proof that in October 2006 XV231 was leaking and could not be repaired in theatre or rectified under normal maintenance procedures and had to return to Kinloss without using AAR.And then was sent to the NSG depth organization for investigation.
JFZ90, far be it for me to answer on behalf of tucumseh (I would not presume to do so), but the first of your quotes is from my post, albeit quoting him and for that nebulous reason alone I feel encouraged to respond. The original question you asked was as to the relevance of an exchange re MRA4 when this thread does not concern that particular aircraft. As one who is trying to follow this and other threads, the connecting link would appear to be the MOD itself and the way that Procurement and specifically Airworthiness aspects of different types (Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook) have been or are being handled at the MOD. Tucumseh says that one can see an oft repeated pattern of shortcomings in these projects that is not thrown up due to the "stovepipe effect" deliberately created by the organisational anomalies of the MOD. This is surely the very antithesis of Flight Safety where everyone should know what anyone knows? There is a worrying miasma within the corridors of the MOD where all should be openness and transparency where Airworthiness and Flight Safety are concerned. I am concerned. TD is concerned, and so I believe are increasing numbers of people!
Chug, when referring to the trainer questions, tuc said:
I interpreted this as "when you compare the Nimrod training procurement arrangements with other programmes, it isn't very good".
I don't see any evidence at all for this conclusion, however on reflection I don't think this is what Tuc meant. Infact all I think he means is he didn't agree with other decisions the 1/2*s in the same area made on other projects, hence the way they're managing the trainer is probably pants too. Not really a fair or justifiable slur if he's honest, though I understand reason for the sentiment. This is a bit surprising however as I would have thought as a safety guru he would have treated such issues on a case-by-case basis underpinned by facts, rather than assuming all decisions or approaches were flawed.
In isolation, the questions and answers mean little. When
compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths.
compared with other similar programmes however, they reveal unpalatable and embarrassing truths.
I don't see any evidence at all for this conclusion, however on reflection I don't think this is what Tuc meant. Infact all I think he means is he didn't agree with other decisions the 1/2*s in the same area made on other projects, hence the way they're managing the trainer is probably pants too. Not really a fair or justifiable slur if he's honest, though I understand reason for the sentiment. This is a bit surprising however as I would have thought as a safety guru he would have treated such issues on a case-by-case basis underpinned by facts, rather than assuming all decisions or approaches were flawed.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90
I hope you don't think I am nit picking here but to me Joe Public normal maintenance procedures means
1 Normal =an everday occurrence so you are saying its normal to fly 3900 miles to fix a fuel leak?
2.Maintenance= Carry out procedures to preserve from failure or decline not repair.So it is normal that ac out in theatre are sent back to the UK like XV231 and its normal to take up the cabin floors area.
Its normal for XV250 to have leaks so bad the ac has to be replaced in theatre .
If this is normal maintenance that god knows what state they have to be in for an unusual repair.
I hope you don't think I am nit picking here but to me Joe Public normal maintenance procedures means
1 Normal =an everday occurrence so you are saying its normal to fly 3900 miles to fix a fuel leak?
2.Maintenance= Carry out procedures to preserve from failure or decline not repair.So it is normal that ac out in theatre are sent back to the UK like XV231 and its normal to take up the cabin floors area.
Its normal for XV250 to have leaks so bad the ac has to be replaced in theatre .
If this is normal maintenance that god knows what state they have to be in for an unusual repair.
If this is normal maintenance that god knows what state they have to be in for an unusual repair
Two of us answered your comments about XV231, you have now added XV250 and talk of
and its normal to take up the cabin floors area?
Last edited by Exrigger; 30th Jul 2007 at 20:08. Reason: added, hopefully clarification of an unusual repair.
TD
I'm just trying to point out that the mtn occurances you describe could be considered normal depending on the issue.
On some cars you can change the clutch and cambelts quite easily.
On a Porsche 911, changing the clutch is an expensive invasive operation, due in part to its rear engined configuration. On a Ferrari 348, you have to take the engine out to change the cambelts. These are "normal" mtn procedures, but are quite extreme compared to other cars. This doesn't necessarily mean they are badly designed cars (though you could argue the fezza 348 is a bit of a lemon!). The difficulty of a mtn procedure will depend on many things, and some maybe fixed in theatre, some may need return to UK, some even return to the manufacturer (or manf need to send out a dedicated fix it team).
Just trying to help - don't think the various mtn levels requiring different approaches is necessarily a bad thing. Better the job is done properly at the right mtn level, rather than botched in theatre with the wrong tools / procedures!
I'm just trying to point out that the mtn occurances you describe could be considered normal depending on the issue.
On some cars you can change the clutch and cambelts quite easily.
On a Porsche 911, changing the clutch is an expensive invasive operation, due in part to its rear engined configuration. On a Ferrari 348, you have to take the engine out to change the cambelts. These are "normal" mtn procedures, but are quite extreme compared to other cars. This doesn't necessarily mean they are badly designed cars (though you could argue the fezza 348 is a bit of a lemon!). The difficulty of a mtn procedure will depend on many things, and some maybe fixed in theatre, some may need return to UK, some even return to the manufacturer (or manf need to send out a dedicated fix it team).
Just trying to help - don't think the various mtn levels requiring different approaches is necessarily a bad thing. Better the job is done properly at the right mtn level, rather than botched in theatre with the wrong tools / procedures!
JFZ90
To answer your questions:
“Tuc admits freely to know nothing about Nimrod trainer issues yet goes on to imply wrong doing here because of other experiences”.
I admitted I knew little (but not nothing) about Nimrod MR in the context of a lack of detailed knowledge of the RMPA / MRA4 programme, and why someone would pose the questions on the training facilities. I therefore made no direct comment on this.
“Tucs apparent safety analysis / certification credentials (I may have read this wrong, but I thought this was his background). Have I missed something Tuc?”
Well, a little. This is a bit like saying a pilot is someone who seeks permission to take off.
What I said was that, if you look beyond the apparently bland questions and answers on the Nimrod training facility, you can ascertain useful facts (not speculation) which help a better understand of the MoD system, and which can inform the likes of TD as to where to look for proper answers, and what questions to ask. There are various threads here (Mull of Kintyre, Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado/Patriot are a few) where people have vented their frustration at being continually fobbed off with half truths and outright lies from the MoD. I know little about some of these – but on others I was one of those who accurately warned of problems that later “emerged” in the BOI reports. What I can offer is an overview which wholly refutes the MoD’s standard response that problems were isolated events and completely unrelated. In this particular case (trainers) I simply commented that any problems would not be the first time, by any means, that MoD has got its knickers in a twist over aircrew / maintainer training. The common factors? Someone in the Customer organisation (not the procurers) must identify the requirement up front and make proper materiel and financial provision. MoD, as a rule, no longer does this properly or accurately, which causes financial pressure later in the programme, forcing people to take sometimes dangerous shortcuts. You do NOT initiate the Training Needs Analysis as an afterthought or, worse, take a bloody minded decision to ditch training altogether just because the Customer has forgotten to ask for it, or refused to do his job. (The other programme I mentioned). There needs to be acceptance that the ISD cannot, by definition, be met if the aircrew and maintainers are not properly trained. Training (and accompanying documentation) is a fundamental part of the airworthiness process. (Read the Mull thread – this is a prominent feature).
I say all this as if fact, but fully acknowledge that far more senior people than I think I’m wrong, and have formally ruled that, for example, it is ok to ignore all this (including airworthiness) if it inconveniently clashes with time or cost.
I find this unpalatable. If they read this, I hope they’re embarrassed. Certainly, I have been told my views are both unpalatable and embarrassing – by the very people I warned about at least three of the incidents I have mentioned. To which I say – good!
Best wishes
To answer your questions:
“Tuc admits freely to know nothing about Nimrod trainer issues yet goes on to imply wrong doing here because of other experiences”.
I admitted I knew little (but not nothing) about Nimrod MR in the context of a lack of detailed knowledge of the RMPA / MRA4 programme, and why someone would pose the questions on the training facilities. I therefore made no direct comment on this.
“Tucs apparent safety analysis / certification credentials (I may have read this wrong, but I thought this was his background). Have I missed something Tuc?”
Well, a little. This is a bit like saying a pilot is someone who seeks permission to take off.
What I said was that, if you look beyond the apparently bland questions and answers on the Nimrod training facility, you can ascertain useful facts (not speculation) which help a better understand of the MoD system, and which can inform the likes of TD as to where to look for proper answers, and what questions to ask. There are various threads here (Mull of Kintyre, Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado/Patriot are a few) where people have vented their frustration at being continually fobbed off with half truths and outright lies from the MoD. I know little about some of these – but on others I was one of those who accurately warned of problems that later “emerged” in the BOI reports. What I can offer is an overview which wholly refutes the MoD’s standard response that problems were isolated events and completely unrelated. In this particular case (trainers) I simply commented that any problems would not be the first time, by any means, that MoD has got its knickers in a twist over aircrew / maintainer training. The common factors? Someone in the Customer organisation (not the procurers) must identify the requirement up front and make proper materiel and financial provision. MoD, as a rule, no longer does this properly or accurately, which causes financial pressure later in the programme, forcing people to take sometimes dangerous shortcuts. You do NOT initiate the Training Needs Analysis as an afterthought or, worse, take a bloody minded decision to ditch training altogether just because the Customer has forgotten to ask for it, or refused to do his job. (The other programme I mentioned). There needs to be acceptance that the ISD cannot, by definition, be met if the aircrew and maintainers are not properly trained. Training (and accompanying documentation) is a fundamental part of the airworthiness process. (Read the Mull thread – this is a prominent feature).
I say all this as if fact, but fully acknowledge that far more senior people than I think I’m wrong, and have formally ruled that, for example, it is ok to ignore all this (including airworthiness) if it inconveniently clashes with time or cost.
I find this unpalatable. If they read this, I hope they’re embarrassed. Certainly, I have been told my views are both unpalatable and embarrassing – by the very people I warned about at least three of the incidents I have mentioned. To which I say – good!
Best wishes
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90 said:
Surely the standard of maintenance should be the same whether in theatre or on base? You seem to be implying that it isn't.
Better the job is done properly at the right mtn level, rather than botched in theatre with the wrong tools / procedures!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Da4Force, I suspect that 'botched' was a poor choice of words but to aircrew its meaning was perfectly clear.
As has been said earlier, some repairs require in-depth engineering to undertake a complete repair. The resources in-theatre will never be to the same level as at home (they used to be when we had Maintenance Units in Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore). Where resources in-theatre are sufficient to make the aircraft fit -to-fly a ferry mission back to UK then that will happen.
Where fit-to-fly is beyond local resources a small rectification party will be despatched to make the aircraft fit-to-fly. They will work to a recognised repair scheme authorised by the appropriate authority (DEA? EA? etc). This has the advantages of relieving pressure on the detachment engineers and being the most economical way to recover the aircraft.
Occasionally the repair required may be so extensive that the cost of repairing in situ will be compared with the cost of dismantling and shipping home compared with the remaining life of the airframe. With an old aircraft write-off action becomes an increasingly attractive option.
Bodge? No in these circumstances.
As has been said earlier, some repairs require in-depth engineering to undertake a complete repair. The resources in-theatre will never be to the same level as at home (they used to be when we had Maintenance Units in Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore). Where resources in-theatre are sufficient to make the aircraft fit -to-fly a ferry mission back to UK then that will happen.
Where fit-to-fly is beyond local resources a small rectification party will be despatched to make the aircraft fit-to-fly. They will work to a recognised repair scheme authorised by the appropriate authority (DEA? EA? etc). This has the advantages of relieving pressure on the detachment engineers and being the most economical way to recover the aircraft.
Occasionally the repair required may be so extensive that the cost of repairing in situ will be compared with the cost of dismantling and shipping home compared with the remaining life of the airframe. With an old aircraft write-off action becomes an increasingly attractive option.
Bodge? No in these circumstances.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does appear to me that normal maintenance procedures are being changed on a regular basis.
After the ruptured super-heated air pipe on Nimrod XV227 November 2004.
A unit inquiry report stated "A maintenance policy should be instigated for the ruptured duct and all similar ducts".
Ergo this was not part of the normal maintenance procedure prior to this incident.
After the fuel leak on XV255 on 3rd Sept 06 they called for a zonal inspection of of all areas between Rib 1 Port & Rib 1 Stbd every 30 days.
Again this appears this was not part of the normal maintenance procedure prior to this incident.
So when Mr. Ingram said between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 all leaks were rectified under normal maintenance procedures I think he was incorrect.
I am sure if I ask under the FOI for reports on all those leaks I am sure I will find some of the leaks would not have been detected or rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
After the ruptured super-heated air pipe on Nimrod XV227 November 2004.
A unit inquiry report stated "A maintenance policy should be instigated for the ruptured duct and all similar ducts".
Ergo this was not part of the normal maintenance procedure prior to this incident.
After the fuel leak on XV255 on 3rd Sept 06 they called for a zonal inspection of of all areas between Rib 1 Port & Rib 1 Stbd every 30 days.
Again this appears this was not part of the normal maintenance procedure prior to this incident.
So when Mr. Ingram said between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 all leaks were rectified under normal maintenance procedures I think he was incorrect.
I am sure if I ask under the FOI for reports on all those leaks I am sure I will find some of the leaks would not have been detected or rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Normal' maintenance procedures develop over the life of an aircraft.
When new the procedures are based on generic experience and on experience gained during development and trials. As the aircraft settles in to service some routine items are found not to need checking or need checking as frequently as first thought. At the same time other items are found to need checking or checking more frequently.
Over the next few years we might have a steady state. Aircraft may then by cycled through a Major servicing and things might be discovered such that additional checks need to be introduced as normal maintenance checks, for instance checks for spillage and corrosion in the galley or toilet (don't ask).
As the aircraft ages these additions may be more frequent. In the case cited here of an event on 3 Sep and later leaks being tackled under normal maintenance procedures from 1 Oct this is not impossible. It would be difficult to prove otherwise.
When new the procedures are based on generic experience and on experience gained during development and trials. As the aircraft settles in to service some routine items are found not to need checking or need checking as frequently as first thought. At the same time other items are found to need checking or checking more frequently.
Over the next few years we might have a steady state. Aircraft may then by cycled through a Major servicing and things might be discovered such that additional checks need to be introduced as normal maintenance checks, for instance checks for spillage and corrosion in the galley or toilet (don't ask).
As the aircraft ages these additions may be more frequent. In the case cited here of an event on 3 Sep and later leaks being tackled under normal maintenance procedures from 1 Oct this is not impossible. It would be difficult to prove otherwise.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, where is this thread actually going? Is it based around XV230, the RAF in general or a slagging for Nimrod MRA4...I've got lost. It appears that all these "issues", and more, are being simply poured into the great melting pot...
May I suggest there be a clear division of effort and understanding; an MRA4 thead does exist on PPRUNE
already. May I suggest that some of the comments, mis-guided or otherwise, are directed there.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ht=Nimrod+MRA4
May I suggest there be a clear division of effort and understanding; an MRA4 thead does exist on PPRUNE
already. May I suggest that some of the comments, mis-guided or otherwise, are directed there.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ht=Nimrod+MRA4
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty perhaps I can help.
This thread ids called Nimrod Information / Panorama Mon 4th June (Merged) .
On Panorama they discussed the delay in the Nimrod MRA4 project and Mr. Liddell-Grainger is my MP who has a special and personal interest in the Nimrod fleet.
See http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/n...placements.php
Air hero's dad and MP call for Nimrod replacements
This thread ids called Nimrod Information / Panorama Mon 4th June (Merged) .
On Panorama they discussed the delay in the Nimrod MRA4 project and Mr. Liddell-Grainger is my MP who has a special and personal interest in the Nimrod fleet.
See http://www.bridgwatermercury.co.uk/n...placements.php
Air hero's dad and MP call for Nimrod replacements
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty – thanks for the last. I am still no clearer as to why the post about MRA4 Trainer/Sim was made. How did it contribute to the loss of XV230? I thought this was all about the tragic events leading to the loss of a valuable aircraft and a fine bunch of RAF and Army people.
So lets get on with it. If you want a pop at Mr Dick Evans Black Pudding, Shipbuilding and Aeroplane Manufacturers of Lancs Ltd then there are plenty of threads. If you want or have any other Nimrod Information, I don’t know what but maybe how many pies they eat per hour then again there are loads of threads. Concentrate on the facts that pertain to MR2, include those that have a DIRECT correlation, do away with rumour, conspiracy theories and speculation and we will hopefully get an answer and stop it happening again.
So lets get on with it. If you want a pop at Mr Dick Evans Black Pudding, Shipbuilding and Aeroplane Manufacturers of Lancs Ltd then there are plenty of threads. If you want or have any other Nimrod Information, I don’t know what but maybe how many pies they eat per hour then again there are loads of threads. Concentrate on the facts that pertain to MR2, include those that have a DIRECT correlation, do away with rumour, conspiracy theories and speculation and we will hopefully get an answer and stop it happening again.
Da4Force, I suspect that 'botched' was a poor choice of words but to aircrew its meaning was perfectly clear.
As has been said earlier, some repairs require in-depth engineering to undertake a complete repair. The resources in-theatre will never be to the same level as at home (they used to be when we had Maintenance Units in Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore). Where resources in-theatre are sufficient to make the aircraft fit -to-fly a ferry mission back to UK then that will happen.
Where fit-to-fly is beyond local resources a small rectification party will be despatched to make the aircraft fit-to-fly. They will work to a recognised repair scheme authorised by the appropriate authority (DEA? EA? etc). This has the advantages of relieving pressure on the detachment engineers and being the most economical way to recover the aircraft.
Occasionally the repair required may be so extensive that the cost of repairing in situ will be compared with the cost of dismantling and shipping home compared with the remaining life of the airframe. With an old aircraft write-off action becomes an increasingly attractive option.
Bodge? No in these circumstances.
As has been said earlier, some repairs require in-depth engineering to undertake a complete repair. The resources in-theatre will never be to the same level as at home (they used to be when we had Maintenance Units in Malta, Cyprus, Aden and Singapore). Where resources in-theatre are sufficient to make the aircraft fit -to-fly a ferry mission back to UK then that will happen.
Where fit-to-fly is beyond local resources a small rectification party will be despatched to make the aircraft fit-to-fly. They will work to a recognised repair scheme authorised by the appropriate authority (DEA? EA? etc). This has the advantages of relieving pressure on the detachment engineers and being the most economical way to recover the aircraft.
Occasionally the repair required may be so extensive that the cost of repairing in situ will be compared with the cost of dismantling and shipping home compared with the remaining life of the airframe. With an old aircraft write-off action becomes an increasingly attractive option.
Bodge? No in these circumstances.
Concentrate on the facts that pertain to MR2, include those that have a DIRECT correlation, do away with rumour, conspiracy theories and speculation and we will hopefully get an answer and stop it happening again.
Yes wouldn't that be nice Headstone? If only life were that simple! No more tiresome comment about MRA4, no more dragging in talk of helicopter airworthiness or Hercules ESF, and best of all no more hinting at skulduggery in the MOD! But life isn't simple, the MOD certainly isn't. You choose to discount tucumseh's post where he tells us that from his personal experience:
There are various threads here (Mull of Kintyre, Nimrod, Hercules, Tornado/Patriot are a few) where people have vented their frustration at being continually fobbed off with half truths and outright lies from the MoD. I know little about some of these – but on others I was one of those who accurately warned of problems that later “emerged” in the BOI reports. What I can offer is an overview which wholly refutes the MoD’s standard response that problems were isolated events and completely unrelated......The common factors? Someone in the Customer organisation (not the procurers) must identify the requirement up front and make proper materiel and financial provision. MoD, as a rule, no longer does this properly or accurately, which causes financial pressure later in the programme, forcing people to take sometimes dangerous shortcuts. You do NOT initiate the Training Needs Analysis as an afterthought or, worse, take a bloody minded decision to ditch training altogether just because the Customer has forgotten to ask for it, or refused to do his job. (The other programme I mentioned). There needs to be acceptance that the ISD cannot, by definition, be met if the aircrew and maintainers are not properly trained. Training (and accompanying documentation) is a fundamental part of the airworthiness process. (Read the Mull thread – this is a prominent feature).
tragic events leading to the loss of a valuable aircraft and a fine bunch of RAF and Army people
so, with all due respect, I shall go on posting in the same vein on this thread. I hope others do so as well.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Aug 2007 at 12:42. Reason: wrong attribution given