Nimrod Information
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the practise of keeping the F700 on the ac is an outmoded practise. This was a Nimrod jam full of communication equipment in the year 2006 why did they need to carry around a paper file whats wrong with keeping it digitally. Does the information in the F700 never get put on a computer or is it all hand written and only kept in that file?
TD
What you say may seem logical but fully digitised data is too easily manipulated/erased. Better to retain a paper audit trail. MoD may still destroy and/or deny the existence of paper (as witnessed by at least one fatal GW2 incident, on 22nd March 2003; and almost certainly the one on the following day), but it is more difficult to manipulate and certifiable copies can be kept and produced as evidence (as witnessed by.........2003).
Don't trust them as far as you can throw them.
What you say may seem logical but fully digitised data is too easily manipulated/erased. Better to retain a paper audit trail. MoD may still destroy and/or deny the existence of paper (as witnessed by at least one fatal GW2 incident, on 22nd March 2003; and almost certainly the one on the following day), but it is more difficult to manipulate and certifiable copies can be kept and produced as evidence (as witnessed by.........2003).
Don't trust them as far as you can throw them.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been reading this excellent site for some time but i feel this thread needs some comments. Sorry but:
I first flew in XV 230 on Feb 4th 1971. It leaked fuel then.
On the first day of Aircrew training an instructor bluntly told us that we may be shot down, killed and fly pieces of junk if required to, in defence of the country, in all weathers at all times, that we were all volunteers for aircrew and if we liked to work in a comfortable workshop we should stay as groundcrew. (Yes I used to fly as groundcrew!)
The intelligence business isn't glamorous, and the closer you get to the centre of power the worse it gets. But as the eyes and ears of the military and government it is a job that has to be done, and the risks are well known.
The Nimrod was an absolute mismatch of conflicting requirements from day one, stuck together to please left wing labour politicians. Today the delusions of politicians task them with conflicts they were never designed for, and when things go wrong politicians cover up as they do all around the world. But consider the majority of us voted them into office.
So please salute those lost in XV 230 for their voluntary service to their country and move on. I am sure they knew the risks, don't need lawsuits or conspiracy theories, and without brave people who volunteer to risk their lives for their country we would not enjoy the freedoms we have.
I first flew in XV 230 on Feb 4th 1971. It leaked fuel then.
On the first day of Aircrew training an instructor bluntly told us that we may be shot down, killed and fly pieces of junk if required to, in defence of the country, in all weathers at all times, that we were all volunteers for aircrew and if we liked to work in a comfortable workshop we should stay as groundcrew. (Yes I used to fly as groundcrew!)
The intelligence business isn't glamorous, and the closer you get to the centre of power the worse it gets. But as the eyes and ears of the military and government it is a job that has to be done, and the risks are well known.
The Nimrod was an absolute mismatch of conflicting requirements from day one, stuck together to please left wing labour politicians. Today the delusions of politicians task them with conflicts they were never designed for, and when things go wrong politicians cover up as they do all around the world. But consider the majority of us voted them into office.
So please salute those lost in XV 230 for their voluntary service to their country and move on. I am sure they knew the risks, don't need lawsuits or conspiracy theories, and without brave people who volunteer to risk their lives for their country we would not enjoy the freedoms we have.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD
You could start a whole thread on the money (millions) and effort that the MoD has wasted on electronic F700s.
S_H
You could start a whole thread on the money (millions) and effort that the MoD has wasted on electronic F700s.
S_H
Last edited by Safety_Helmut; 2nd Oct 2007 at 08:08.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, agree completely. Every attempt to introduce an electronic logbook has been a farce as none of them replicate the airworthiness functionality and basic practicality of the paper book. Notwithstanding the inconvenience that the missing F700 can cause, all of the information is available elsewhere, it just needs to be put together.
Interesting to see how the A400M's Maintenance Data System (which will include an e-F700) is proceeding.
Interesting to see how the A400M's Maintenance Data System (which will include an e-F700) is proceeding.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeoIntel
My son was fond of his quotes and you sound like a character from one of his favorite films.
A Few Good Men
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup):
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post".
I am grateful for the blanket of freedom provided by our armed forces.
HOWEVER:
I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.
I will question the RAF's duty of care.
I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.
I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.
I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.
I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).
Without fuel tank protection.
Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
Without bomb bay fire protection.
Without flight deck armour.
I am sure there are many who read this would prefer I said thank you, and went on my way.
Sorry it isn't going to happen, not just yet.
So please salute those lost in XV 230 for their voluntary service to their country and move on. I am sure they knew the risks, don't need lawsuits or conspiracy theories, and without brave people who volunteer to risk their lives for their country we would not enjoy the freedoms we have.
A Few Good Men
Jack Nicholson (Col. Jessup):
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post".
I am grateful for the blanket of freedom provided by our armed forces.
HOWEVER:
I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.
I will question the RAF's duty of care.
I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.
I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.
I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.
I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).
Without fuel tank protection.
Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
Without bomb bay fire protection.
Without flight deck armour.
I am sure there are many who read this would prefer I said thank you, and went on my way.
Sorry it isn't going to happen, not just yet.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You, and all the others who lost loved ones deserve the truth and you have certainly drawn attendion to many issues that cannot now be ignored.
Yes, we do you salute them and also you, in your efforts.
Thank you.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the compliment but more like Alan Alder in MASH than Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men. Having had opportunities to see behind "The Wizard of Oz" curtain on many occasions I prefer Hawkeye to Jessup!
>I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.
Known highly volatile and unsafe fuel, wartime operating, spark and oxygen. The question should be "Was the loss worth it to the mission and the outcome of the war." Probably the answer is NO! That is a question worth pursuing.
>I will question the RAF's duty of care.
No military service has any "duty of care", just to carry out the orders of politicians, and that often means innocent people suffering. Today our losses are small compared to the thousands per day in WWII, and tens of thousands per day in WWI. The RAF has never had enough of anything and has operated as an illusion for the last 50 years. It is a credit to everyone, groundcrew and aircrew, that more haven't been lost.
>I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.
There can be a good case made to ground every aircraft, civil or military, as well as keep every car, motor bike, even bicycle in the garage. (I did have the Nimrods grounded once, and was quickly moved on to training Navigators at Finningley.) In a wartime scenario you go with what you have got, not what you want. The Nimrod was designed to fly Maritime Recce, anti-submarine warfare, and to drop parachutists through the rear door. If George Bush wanted a crop spaying aircraft Blair would have volunteered the Nimrod. Who then is at fault, the RAF or politicians?
>I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.
Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".
>I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.
Unrealistic dreams of our "Leaders" who for the last 60 years still believe the UK can project global power, with a budget to run the Isle of Wight Ferry. We forget the Valiant, TSR2, F-111 and a whole string of "Dream Machines' we could not afford, then there are missile systems, avionics and facilities that were hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, to fool the voters.
>I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).
With satellites and Drones the argument could be made for moving into the 21st Century and completely re-examining the whole concept.
>Without fuel tank protection.
Same argument as every civilian airliner. The JP1/JP4 argument again, and the quality of aviation fuel supplied to US led forces.
>Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
>Without bomb bay fire protection.
>Without flight deck armour.
Because the political "leaders" we voted into power decided on our behalf to use the very small UK pot of money to support social programs, building Millennium theme parks, and renovating palaces instead of making their front line military aircraft safer. Compare your points to the thousands of grieving US parents asking why the Humvee did not have the basic protection, or those who dare ask why Leander Frigates were built to burn like a Thermite Bomb, as shown during the Falklands War.
As long as incompetent officials, military and political can hide behind the archaic Official Secrets Act there will never be accountability for stupid, fraudulent and senseless decisions. The UK military have been brainwashed to believe the media are their enemies, as shown by the rhetoric against the BBC. The media are the only defence against the legions of faceless bureaucrats who have absolutely no regard for their "Subjects" life or safety.
Keep up your quest for answers, but ask the politicians "Why" and not get sidetracked by worrying where the F700 was stored, or the other Red Herrings that distract. When you get slapped with a "D Notice" you know you are getting near the truth, and the guilty are feeling the heat!
>I will move on once I know why a 50 million pound ac exploded in mid-air.
Known highly volatile and unsafe fuel, wartime operating, spark and oxygen. The question should be "Was the loss worth it to the mission and the outcome of the war." Probably the answer is NO! That is a question worth pursuing.
>I will question the RAF's duty of care.
No military service has any "duty of care", just to carry out the orders of politicians, and that often means innocent people suffering. Today our losses are small compared to the thousands per day in WWII, and tens of thousands per day in WWI. The RAF has never had enough of anything and has operated as an illusion for the last 50 years. It is a credit to everyone, groundcrew and aircrew, that more haven't been lost.
>I will question the validity of the Safety Case for this ac.
There can be a good case made to ground every aircraft, civil or military, as well as keep every car, motor bike, even bicycle in the garage. (I did have the Nimrods grounded once, and was quickly moved on to training Navigators at Finningley.) In a wartime scenario you go with what you have got, not what you want. The Nimrod was designed to fly Maritime Recce, anti-submarine warfare, and to drop parachutists through the rear door. If George Bush wanted a crop spaying aircraft Blair would have volunteered the Nimrod. Who then is at fault, the RAF or politicians?
>I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure.
Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".
>I will question the MOD lack of funding for the RAF.
Unrealistic dreams of our "Leaders" who for the last 60 years still believe the UK can project global power, with a budget to run the Isle of Wight Ferry. We forget the Valiant, TSR2, F-111 and a whole string of "Dream Machines' we could not afford, then there are missile systems, avionics and facilities that were hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, to fool the voters.
>I question why the MRA4 with a service life of 34 years.will be brought in without, nitrogen inerting system in the fully pressurized fuel containing probe(currently exists on MR2).
With satellites and Drones the argument could be made for moving into the 21st Century and completely re-examining the whole concept.
>Without fuel tank protection.
Same argument as every civilian airliner. The JP1/JP4 argument again, and the quality of aviation fuel supplied to US led forces.
>Without under floor fire protection (currently on MR2).
>Without bomb bay fire protection.
>Without flight deck armour.
Because the political "leaders" we voted into power decided on our behalf to use the very small UK pot of money to support social programs, building Millennium theme parks, and renovating palaces instead of making their front line military aircraft safer. Compare your points to the thousands of grieving US parents asking why the Humvee did not have the basic protection, or those who dare ask why Leander Frigates were built to burn like a Thermite Bomb, as shown during the Falklands War.
As long as incompetent officials, military and political can hide behind the archaic Official Secrets Act there will never be accountability for stupid, fraudulent and senseless decisions. The UK military have been brainwashed to believe the media are their enemies, as shown by the rhetoric against the BBC. The media are the only defence against the legions of faceless bureaucrats who have absolutely no regard for their "Subjects" life or safety.
Keep up your quest for answers, but ask the politicians "Why" and not get sidetracked by worrying where the F700 was stored, or the other Red Herrings that distract. When you get slapped with a "D Notice" you know you are getting near the truth, and the guilty are feeling the heat!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeoIntel....
'The Nimrod was designed to fly Maritime Recce, anti-submarine warfare, and to drop parachutists through the rear door.'
'...to drop parachutists through the rear door.'
Really?
I never knew that. Anyone actually seen that done?
'...to drop parachutists through the rear door.'
Really?
I never knew that. Anyone actually seen that done?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD keep a very close eye on the Hercules Inquest. I wouldn't be surprised if the MoD try to claim that they have learned the lessons of the the shooting down ov XV179. This could be their potential get out of jail card.
Remember, previous requests for foam were turned down and that after the tragedy the MoD responded with a plan fit foam to just 5 Hercules aircraft, with absolutely no urgency.
That was before the all arms media campaign. I would agree with geointel,
learn to love the media. That is the counterpoint in the UK. (The Tories were useless).
That MRA4 is being introduced without the long list of protection shows clearly that the lessons learned by the MoD were very selective and were designed to counter embarrassing media and parliamentary coverage.
Keep banging away. When the BoI is published we may require another media barrage.
If so, all hands on deck!!
Remember, previous requests for foam were turned down and that after the tragedy the MoD responded with a plan fit foam to just 5 Hercules aircraft, with absolutely no urgency.
That was before the all arms media campaign. I would agree with geointel,
learn to love the media. That is the counterpoint in the UK. (The Tories were useless).
That MRA4 is being introduced without the long list of protection shows clearly that the lessons learned by the MoD were very selective and were designed to counter embarrassing media and parliamentary coverage.
Keep banging away. When the BoI is published we may require another media barrage.
If so, all hands on deck!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall the seats at the rear of the Nimrod were built in as a troop carrying requirement and the original negotiations included the bird brained ability to drop parachutists through the rear door. There was a serious disarmanent group within the labour movement and the multi purpose plan was the only way to get such an expensive design through the left wing loonies. (Michael Foot, Harold Wilson and Dennis Healey come to mind, although others may have a better idea.)
I remember there were reports of one, repeat one, brave soul who rolled out to prove the concept. The port engines had to be shut down, and the parachutists only just missed the tail. Unfortunately I have no verification of this, but will double check.
Keep in mind the MR1 was a mismatch of ideas, systems and suppliers. The computer came out of an army tank, the radio from the canceled TSR2 and the whole concept was half-assed. It was sold to HMG as an unarmed reconnaissance platform, with nuclear weapons. How the Soviets didn't shoot it down and start WWIII was amazing in hindsight. But after the Shackleton 3.3 it was sheer luxury, and an occasional ATU fire was worth the comfort.
I remember there were reports of one, repeat one, brave soul who rolled out to prove the concept. The port engines had to be shut down, and the parachutists only just missed the tail. Unfortunately I have no verification of this, but will double check.
Keep in mind the MR1 was a mismatch of ideas, systems and suppliers. The computer came out of an army tank, the radio from the canceled TSR2 and the whole concept was half-assed. It was sold to HMG as an unarmed reconnaissance platform, with nuclear weapons. How the Soviets didn't shoot it down and start WWIII was amazing in hindsight. But after the Shackleton 3.3 it was sheer luxury, and an occasional ATU fire was worth the comfort.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeoIntel
While it doesn't contain the words "duty of care", you might want to consider the Secretary of State's policy statement here:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B3BDB...yStatement.pdf
sw
While it doesn't contain the words "duty of care", you might want to consider the Secretary of State's policy statement here:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B3BDB...yStatement.pdf
sw
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes sir, you are correct, and sitting pretty in peacetime home bases, listening to the birds, and watching the butterflies flutter by these pontifications meet the statutory demands of Parliament to comply with domestic health and safety.
The relevant "Get out of Jail Free Clause" is:
"2.4 Where the Ministry of Defence has been granted specific exemptions, disapplications or derogations from legislation, international treaties or protocols, we will introduce standards and management arrangements that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation. I will invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation only on the grounds of national security and only when such action is essential to maintain operational capability. Where there is no relevant legislation, internal standards will aim to optimise the balance between risks and benefits. This does not mean avoiding risks but managing them responsibly, on the basis of impact and likelihood, supported by appropriate rules, procedures and guidance. "
There are also many, many international binding treaties, legislation, orders and agreements that we do not invade sovereign countries, won't indulge in Rendition flights, attack unarmed civilians, bomb civilian targets arrest or torture poor sods we don't like.
When bullets start flying, bombs start exploding and we enter a war scenario then I would suggest these noble documents are ignored. Then the mission becomes the only criteria and you can be shot for not complying. I wasn't around in the 1940's conflict but the 2000's were the worst period in history for ignoring policy statements, treaties, and laws.
You need to dig a lot deeper than Google!!
The relevant "Get out of Jail Free Clause" is:
"2.4 Where the Ministry of Defence has been granted specific exemptions, disapplications or derogations from legislation, international treaties or protocols, we will introduce standards and management arrangements that are, so far as reasonably practicable, at least as good as those required by legislation. I will invoke any powers given to me to disapply legislation only on the grounds of national security and only when such action is essential to maintain operational capability. Where there is no relevant legislation, internal standards will aim to optimise the balance between risks and benefits. This does not mean avoiding risks but managing them responsibly, on the basis of impact and likelihood, supported by appropriate rules, procedures and guidance. "
There are also many, many international binding treaties, legislation, orders and agreements that we do not invade sovereign countries, won't indulge in Rendition flights, attack unarmed civilians, bomb civilian targets arrest or torture poor sods we don't like.
When bullets start flying, bombs start exploding and we enter a war scenario then I would suggest these noble documents are ignored. Then the mission becomes the only criteria and you can be shot for not complying. I wasn't around in the 1940's conflict but the 2000's were the worst period in history for ignoring policy statements, treaties, and laws.
You need to dig a lot deeper than Google!!
"I will question why 14 good men died in an incident caused by some type of failure."
Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".
Unfortunately that is aviation. Any analysis on why planes crash always provides a string of unconnected decisions that converge into an incident. There are no "accidents".
As long as incompetent officials, military and political can hide behind the archaic Official Secrets Act there will never be accountability for stupid, fraudulent and senseless decisions. The UK military have been brainwashed to believe the media are their enemies, as shown by the rhetoric against the BBC. The media are the only defence against the legions of faceless bureaucrats who have absolutely no regard for their "Subjects" life or safety.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 2nd Oct 2007 at 21:28.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near a former secret airbase somewhere in Wiltshire
Age: 77
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GeoIntel
The RAF DOES have a "duty of care" under the Health & Safety at Work Act (1974), in fact your place of work should have a copy of the HSE poster prominently displayed, along with a H&S policy statement from the Secretary of State and another signed by the Station Commander.
However, the Act states that "reasonable" measures should be taken to provide for a safe working environment.
It cannot define what "reasonable" means in every circumstances and I'm sure that NOBODY on this forum would take that to include NOT sending our armed forces into hostile situations, it's the nature of their job when all else, particularly political action, has failed.
However, if there are circumstances of inadequate protection, inadequate maintenance (for whatever reason - and I'm not having a pop at the servicing people here, under resourcing is the significant factor), then there may be a case to answer, but only the legal eagles can sort that one out.
TD, you are quite right, as well you know, to pursue answers, otherwise "silence gives consent", if you don't ask the tough questions, then, by implication you are content, that's the way politics works.
On the subject of dropping parachutists out of the back of a Nimrod, that suggestion lasted until it was pointed out that letting people fall through the jet eflux of 2 Spey 250s (4 if both doors were used) was probably not a good idea!
It, fortunately, went the same way as dropping SF troops, in a "container" from the bomb bay, or a GPMG through a gland in the port beam window (right across the intakes and a couple of fuel tanks - wonderful idea), or the same GPMG attached to a swinging cradle, firing out of the port rear door - the assembly for that one was tried out of a Puma on Aberporth range; the way that was supposed to be aimed was pure Marx Brothers (no, not Karl).
There were, however, several configurations touted by BAe when the MR1 first came into service, in addition to the MR and R variants, there was a tanker version, an AEW version with guess what, an overhead rotating scanner, not an easter egg at either end, and even a passenger version - guess you could have called that a Comet!
BAe produced a very pretty glossy pamphlet at the time, showing all of the possible variations, sadly, I did not hang onto it.
I'm sorry if this has drifted off topic and I wouldn't want it to detract in any way from the prime aim of getting answers as to why that tragedy ocurred, nor to trivialise the aims of this forum, but it does show that the grasp that some VSOs have on reality is, at best, tenuous.
Sloppiness and self-interest are not tolerated at the lower end of the food chain, so why should those at the top not be held accountable? After all they receive their not inconsiderable salaries on the basis that they are "responsible" for the armed forces, well let them take some responsibility.
However, the Act states that "reasonable" measures should be taken to provide for a safe working environment.
It cannot define what "reasonable" means in every circumstances and I'm sure that NOBODY on this forum would take that to include NOT sending our armed forces into hostile situations, it's the nature of their job when all else, particularly political action, has failed.
However, if there are circumstances of inadequate protection, inadequate maintenance (for whatever reason - and I'm not having a pop at the servicing people here, under resourcing is the significant factor), then there may be a case to answer, but only the legal eagles can sort that one out.
TD, you are quite right, as well you know, to pursue answers, otherwise "silence gives consent", if you don't ask the tough questions, then, by implication you are content, that's the way politics works.
On the subject of dropping parachutists out of the back of a Nimrod, that suggestion lasted until it was pointed out that letting people fall through the jet eflux of 2 Spey 250s (4 if both doors were used) was probably not a good idea!
It, fortunately, went the same way as dropping SF troops, in a "container" from the bomb bay, or a GPMG through a gland in the port beam window (right across the intakes and a couple of fuel tanks - wonderful idea), or the same GPMG attached to a swinging cradle, firing out of the port rear door - the assembly for that one was tried out of a Puma on Aberporth range; the way that was supposed to be aimed was pure Marx Brothers (no, not Karl).
There were, however, several configurations touted by BAe when the MR1 first came into service, in addition to the MR and R variants, there was a tanker version, an AEW version with guess what, an overhead rotating scanner, not an easter egg at either end, and even a passenger version - guess you could have called that a Comet!
BAe produced a very pretty glossy pamphlet at the time, showing all of the possible variations, sadly, I did not hang onto it.
I'm sorry if this has drifted off topic and I wouldn't want it to detract in any way from the prime aim of getting answers as to why that tragedy ocurred, nor to trivialise the aims of this forum, but it does show that the grasp that some VSOs have on reality is, at best, tenuous.
Sloppiness and self-interest are not tolerated at the lower end of the food chain, so why should those at the top not be held accountable? After all they receive their not inconsiderable salaries on the basis that they are "responsible" for the armed forces, well let them take some responsibility.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread has run to 55 pages so far, as ever on pprune there has been some lively debate as people have expressed their opinions. Most of the contributors are well known and have established their credibility one way or the other.
Then there are those who join just to post on this thread, to offer their opinion, well they are free to do that. But please, don't just come on here with a few reminiscences of the Nimrod being designed for para dropping blah blah etc whilst at the same time displaying a startling ignorance of MoD policies, procedures and standards etc.
Have a read through the thread, all 55 pages of it, read some of the other threads on similar subjects, try and get an understanding of what people are discussing. Then, when you've done that, come back and tell us if you still feel the same way, and tell us if you think people should just stay silent when they know that things are inadequate, wrong or involve significantly greater risk than is necessary.
Then there are those who join just to post on this thread, to offer their opinion, well they are free to do that. But please, don't just come on here with a few reminiscences of the Nimrod being designed for para dropping blah blah etc whilst at the same time displaying a startling ignorance of MoD policies, procedures and standards etc.
Have a read through the thread, all 55 pages of it, read some of the other threads on similar subjects, try and get an understanding of what people are discussing. Then, when you've done that, come back and tell us if you still feel the same way, and tell us if you think people should just stay silent when they know that things are inadequate, wrong or involve significantly greater risk than is necessary.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 78
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety_Helmut
Love to but we don't have the MoD posters used to inform the grease monkeys here in Washington, DC, just the people who make the decisions. I will ask Tony Blair to bring some over at his next Carlysle board meeting.
Tappers Dad - Please don't construe my comments as suggesting you ever stop rattling cages. I have serious issues myself with MoD and USN policy in preserving an effective MR capability, which will be essential in the years, possibly months ahead.
And Helmut, sorry but we are fighting a growing global war, which we are losing, and some of us haven't the time to read 55 pages, or cross post under every miscellaneous thread from motor cycles to gossip, just to get a "feel". My "feel" is that the Iranians want all the Nimrods & MR aircraft out of the skies, so do the Chinese and Russians. We should not help them with stupidity and incompetence.
Tappers Dad - Please don't construe my comments as suggesting you ever stop rattling cages. I have serious issues myself with MoD and USN policy in preserving an effective MR capability, which will be essential in the years, possibly months ahead.
And Helmut, sorry but we are fighting a growing global war, which we are losing, and some of us haven't the time to read 55 pages, or cross post under every miscellaneous thread from motor cycles to gossip, just to get a "feel". My "feel" is that the Iranians want all the Nimrods & MR aircraft out of the skies, so do the Chinese and Russians. We should not help them with stupidity and incompetence.