Nimrod Information
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just wondering from where this magical engineering det in Akt will get its manning from. 
We on NLS certainly dont have enough folk at the moment to cover the working weekends we have been lumbered with EVERY weekend so where this idea has come from is beyond me.
Maybe the pixies are being broken out of stores, if so send then down to the line first please.
We on NLS certainly dont have enough folk at the moment to cover the working weekends we have been lumbered with EVERY weekend so where this idea has come from is beyond me.
Maybe the pixies are being broken out of stores, if so send then down to the line first please.
Iff / Siff
Here’s another angle to consider. As aircrew, what would you prefer?
(a) to know the (IFF) functionality was definitely not in your aircraft and to have trained for a “work around”, or,
(b) to be told you had the functionality, and trained accordingly, but it turns out it hasn’t been integrated properly and so doesn’t work?
To be fair, you should know the MoD benchmark decision on this precise issue. PE and DPA 2* and 4*, DE&S, plus 4 successive Min(AF) have ruled (b) is acceptable; most recently last month.
What price Duty of Care?
(a) to know the (IFF) functionality was definitely not in your aircraft and to have trained for a “work around”, or,
(b) to be told you had the functionality, and trained accordingly, but it turns out it hasn’t been integrated properly and so doesn’t work?
To be fair, you should know the MoD benchmark decision on this precise issue. PE and DPA 2* and 4*, DE&S, plus 4 successive Min(AF) have ruled (b) is acceptable; most recently last month.
What price Duty of Care?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fuel penalty to avoid Mode S airspace is massive. For this reason an engineering det in Akrotiri is being considered.
I don't think I need to explain my comment.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigegilb
I have heard that recently as well and that the RAF has no money for the MODE S which is fitted for safety reasons.
For this reason an engineering det in Akrotiri is being considered.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, this is most definitely a safety issue. I nearly wiped out in Pakistan airspace back in 2002. Nearly had a mid air against a USAF C130 flying at the wrong level, lights out. Saved by my Air Eng who spotted the potential collision on NVGs and the Co who reacted with an aggressive break at the last second. (Miss distance 50 to 70 feet).
I can't speak for Nimrod engineer manning levels, but this is what happens when everything has been run down to bare thread. I am sure of one thing. the most expedient option, money wise, will be the one selected.
I can't speak for Nimrod engineer manning levels, but this is what happens when everything has been run down to bare thread. I am sure of one thing. the most expedient option, money wise, will be the one selected.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We on NLS certainly dont have enough folk at the moment to cover the working weekends we have been lumbered with EVERY weekend
Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie! Ohh, but avoid 202
MadMark!!!
Nigegilb,
I am sorry but I cannot see your incident having any relevance to fitting of Mode S to the Nimrod Fleet.
Mode S is a civilian ATC IFF enhancement giving additional information and with the addition of some extra bits dovetails nicely with ADS-B.
The C-130 not transponding would not have any enhancement offered by Mode S if it ain't switched on and thus would not have been a factor in the tale you related.
I am sorry but I cannot see your incident having any relevance to fitting of Mode S to the Nimrod Fleet.
Mode S is a civilian ATC IFF enhancement giving additional information and with the addition of some extra bits dovetails nicely with ADS-B.
The C-130 not transponding would not have any enhancement offered by Mode S if it ain't switched on and thus would not have been a factor in the tale you related.
Instead of debating whether or not Mode S should be in Nimrods, surely the important facts are that;
(a) a fully functional IFF (whatever the appropriate Mk/Mode) is a fundamental safety requirement
(b) senior staffs, up to and including Min(AF), disagree
Here, at para 19,
http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/.../maaszg710.pdf
C-in-C RAFSC disagreed with these senior staffs (although it’s not clear if he knew he was disagreeing with them, as the prior warning of the general problem, and the recommendation that aircraft should be inspected, is not acknowledged in the BOI report).
This appalling attitude, which in this and other cases permitted malfunctioning safety equipment to be fitted to aircraft and offered for Release to Service as fully functional (a criminal act, in my opinion), is what should concern us. I’m sure Nige came across this attitude during his C130 ESF campaign.
All the above is open source/obtained under FOI.
(a) a fully functional IFF (whatever the appropriate Mk/Mode) is a fundamental safety requirement
(b) senior staffs, up to and including Min(AF), disagree
Here, at para 19,
http://www.iwar.org.uk/news-archive/.../maaszg710.pdf
C-in-C RAFSC disagreed with these senior staffs (although it’s not clear if he knew he was disagreeing with them, as the prior warning of the general problem, and the recommendation that aircraft should be inspected, is not acknowledged in the BOI report).
This appalling attitude, which in this and other cases permitted malfunctioning safety equipment to be fitted to aircraft and offered for Release to Service as fully functional (a criminal act, in my opinion), is what should concern us. I’m sure Nige came across this attitude during his C130 ESF campaign.
All the above is open source/obtained under FOI.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely if the RAF do not fit MODE-S on their ac it will effect the safety of ac in Britain and their own safety when these aircraft are flying in and out of Kinloss?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To fit a Mode-S transponder to the PA-28 Joe Smo flies at the weekend would cost a couple of hundred pounds. Although there would be integration and other mil-only costs to pay it shows just how down the spending ladder the Nimrod is?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, arguably, any decision to not fit the latest gizmo on an aircraft will affect flight safety in an environment where everyone else is using the kit. However, the CAA recognises that not everyone can/will comply, so there are procedures in place to ensure that non-compliancy does not increase risk.
Such procedures usually involve barring an uncompliant jet from very busy airspaces, which are 3 dimensional in nature. So flying below or above or to one side or another from the busy airspace will de-conflict the un-compliant jet. The new ground-based radars are backwards compatible so a non-Mode S jet will be seen and controlled/advised as it is now and depending on the nature of that area, another ATC controller will look after the non-compliant jets, so that the busy airspace controller doesn't have to worry about a non-compliant jet on his screen.
I foresee, in the years ahead, airspace above airports such as Inverness and Aberdeen demanding Mode S compliance within their zones and the airways leading to them. Nimrod MR2 will probably not comply, so it will not be allowed to practice approaches there or fly along the airways. Emergencies will be exempt. The effect is increased distance and time to the Nimrod flight and the consequent increased fuel penalty; nothing more than that.
For many years now, the Nimrod has been operating without a Reduced Vertical Separation Minima gizmo, which allows aircrft to fly closer to each other above 30,000 ft (ish). We are not compliant so we cannot now fly up there with the compliant jets without specific authority. I reckon the original cost of fitting the kit has now been exceeded by the cost of the fuel we have needlessly burnt by flying at lower altitudes than fuel efficiency demands.
Flight Safety is not at risk by non-compliance; only efficiency.
Such procedures usually involve barring an uncompliant jet from very busy airspaces, which are 3 dimensional in nature. So flying below or above or to one side or another from the busy airspace will de-conflict the un-compliant jet. The new ground-based radars are backwards compatible so a non-Mode S jet will be seen and controlled/advised as it is now and depending on the nature of that area, another ATC controller will look after the non-compliant jets, so that the busy airspace controller doesn't have to worry about a non-compliant jet on his screen.
I foresee, in the years ahead, airspace above airports such as Inverness and Aberdeen demanding Mode S compliance within their zones and the airways leading to them. Nimrod MR2 will probably not comply, so it will not be allowed to practice approaches there or fly along the airways. Emergencies will be exempt. The effect is increased distance and time to the Nimrod flight and the consequent increased fuel penalty; nothing more than that.
For many years now, the Nimrod has been operating without a Reduced Vertical Separation Minima gizmo, which allows aircrft to fly closer to each other above 30,000 ft (ish). We are not compliant so we cannot now fly up there with the compliant jets without specific authority. I reckon the original cost of fitting the kit has now been exceeded by the cost of the fuel we have needlessly burnt by flying at lower altitudes than fuel efficiency demands.
Flight Safety is not at risk by non-compliance; only efficiency.
Last edited by AC Ovee; 6th Oct 2007 at 10:13. Reason: amplification
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAD MARK said:
I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS
No I don't think you do unless you actually work there, which I am sure you don't
but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance!
Which could be carried out during the week if we had the manpower and I think you will find that I am fully aware that essential maintenance needs to be carried out, probably more so than you seeing as I am one of the ones controlling it
You only work weekends when it is necessary
Thats why we have changed our shifts AGAIN to man working weekends EVERY weekend is it then
if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does!
I put it to you that obviously you are the one who doesn't know what is going on
Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie!
After 6 years on NLS I feel I have done my fair share for NLS and Kinloss and thanks but I am already on my way over the road
Ohh but avoid 202
Thanks for the tip
MHAGE!!!
I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS
No I don't think you do unless you actually work there, which I am sure you don't
but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance!
Which could be carried out during the week if we had the manpower and I think you will find that I am fully aware that essential maintenance needs to be carried out, probably more so than you seeing as I am one of the ones controlling it
You only work weekends when it is necessary
Thats why we have changed our shifts AGAIN to man working weekends EVERY weekend is it then
if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does!
I put it to you that obviously you are the one who doesn't know what is going on
Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie!
After 6 years on NLS I feel I have done my fair share for NLS and Kinloss and thanks but I am already on my way over the road
Ohh but avoid 202
Thanks for the tip
MHAGE!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MHAGE,
Congratulations on your reasoned and reasonable response to Mad Mark's last post. To do so in the face of such lack of understanding requires some degree of calmness. Good luck at Lossie.
s37
Congratulations on your reasoned and reasonable response to Mad Mark's last post. To do so in the face of such lack of understanding requires some degree of calmness. Good luck at Lossie.
s37
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long here, I made my comments with regard to post 1102, concerning the lack of TCAS on Nimrod ac. TCAS has saved many a mid-air in the civilian world and I did not have the benefit of it on my Herc back in 2002. I don't know where the Nimrod fleet is now with TCAS but the real point is, not fitting Mode S and TCAS will pile up the restrictions on where this ac can operate. And as someone has pointed out, would probably have been paid for in fuel cost savings anyway. (Different budget??) I was just making a point that these advancements in the Aviation world are provided for a reason. The cash strapped MoD always delays compliance for the last possible moment, sometimes beyond. It is informative for anyone questioning the MoD approach to Duty of Care.
Manning an eng det in Akrotiri with no spare Nimrod engineers will be a major headache. Safety aspects of not fitting Mode S probably aren't that great, but the there are fundamental operational changes that will arise because of this failure to comply.
Manning an eng det in Akrotiri with no spare Nimrod engineers will be a major headache. Safety aspects of not fitting Mode S probably aren't that great, but the there are fundamental operational changes that will arise because of this failure to comply.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Revealed: secret report on Britain's 'rusty' spy planes
Serious safety concerns have emerged over Britain's ageing fleet of Nimrod spy planes – currently patrolling Iraq and Afghanistan – after an investigation by The Independent on Sunday found their fuselages could be riddled with rust.
Sources have revealed that severe corrosion has been found on the 40-year-old fuselages now being revamped in the UK to form the next generation of aircraft. That £3bn project is seven years behind schedule and millions of pounds over budget.
The Government decided in 1996 that the new generation of Nimrods should use the fuselages of the old aircraft. Several were taken out of service and stripped back to the fuselage, and new wings, undercarriage and floors were bolted on. Problems found in the revamped fuselages are likely to be found in the planes still flying because the craft are the same age.
In January 2006 BAe Systems, which is building the new aircraft, discovered cracks in the rivets holding fuselage sections together. In repairing this problem the fuselage skin beneath the rivets has been found to be corroded. As a result, all Nimrod aircraft now in use will have to be checked.
Full Story:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle3035998.ece
Sources have revealed that severe corrosion has been found on the 40-year-old fuselages now being revamped in the UK to form the next generation of aircraft. That £3bn project is seven years behind schedule and millions of pounds over budget.
The Government decided in 1996 that the new generation of Nimrods should use the fuselages of the old aircraft. Several were taken out of service and stripped back to the fuselage, and new wings, undercarriage and floors were bolted on. Problems found in the revamped fuselages are likely to be found in the planes still flying because the craft are the same age.
In January 2006 BAe Systems, which is building the new aircraft, discovered cracks in the rivets holding fuselage sections together. In repairing this problem the fuselage skin beneath the rivets has been found to be corroded. As a result, all Nimrod aircraft now in use will have to be checked.
Full Story:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle3035998.ece
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of TCAS would be dictated by theatre IFF policy. It may well be possible that all transponder modes are employed - in which case TCAS would most definitely be switched on.
As stated Mode S and TCAS are not the same thing. Mode S in isolation does not really improve the safety of an individual aircraft, but does enhance the efficiency, and hence safety, of a suitably equipped ATC environment. The very few flight hours undertaken by non-equipped State aircraft does not degrade the concept.
TCAS requires Mode S to be fitted and then provides a huge extra safety margin for individual aircraft by providing collision protection from any other transponding aircraft - not just those also equipped with TCAS. Not surprisingly, the fitting of TCAS to it's passenger jets was forced on MoD by legislation in foreign countries and wasn't at their own volition. The bonus is that the system bestows tremendous safety and situational awareness benefits in all circumstances, particularly in operational environments that may have less well-developed ATC or even be operating on a procedural/VFR principles. It is short-sighted of the MoD not to fit TCAS wherever possible, and by not doing so they are taking the chance of mid-air collision "on risk".
RVSM for aircraft like the Nimrod is a different issue. It requires an updated altimetry system, an altitude alerter and an autopilot level lock. The fitting and clearance is not always straightforward on legacy aircraft and has to be weighed against the cost of limiting the aircraft to FL280. In theory, State aircraft are allowed into RVSM airspace , but ATC then have to provide 2000' separation and in practice the controller will simply refuse the request due to impact on other traffic. Similarly, aircraft like C-130 and Nimrod are incompatible with the civil traffic due to speed differentials, so would often not be given those levels even if they were RVSM compliant. Incidentally, this is a practical reality that appears not to figure in the claims for C-130J and A400M range/payload.
It is probably not worth giving Nimrod standalone Mode S or RVSM - but omitting TCAS is a wholly different risk.
As stated Mode S and TCAS are not the same thing. Mode S in isolation does not really improve the safety of an individual aircraft, but does enhance the efficiency, and hence safety, of a suitably equipped ATC environment. The very few flight hours undertaken by non-equipped State aircraft does not degrade the concept.
TCAS requires Mode S to be fitted and then provides a huge extra safety margin for individual aircraft by providing collision protection from any other transponding aircraft - not just those also equipped with TCAS. Not surprisingly, the fitting of TCAS to it's passenger jets was forced on MoD by legislation in foreign countries and wasn't at their own volition. The bonus is that the system bestows tremendous safety and situational awareness benefits in all circumstances, particularly in operational environments that may have less well-developed ATC or even be operating on a procedural/VFR principles. It is short-sighted of the MoD not to fit TCAS wherever possible, and by not doing so they are taking the chance of mid-air collision "on risk".
RVSM for aircraft like the Nimrod is a different issue. It requires an updated altimetry system, an altitude alerter and an autopilot level lock. The fitting and clearance is not always straightforward on legacy aircraft and has to be weighed against the cost of limiting the aircraft to FL280. In theory, State aircraft are allowed into RVSM airspace , but ATC then have to provide 2000' separation and in practice the controller will simply refuse the request due to impact on other traffic. Similarly, aircraft like C-130 and Nimrod are incompatible with the civil traffic due to speed differentials, so would often not be given those levels even if they were RVSM compliant. Incidentally, this is a practical reality that appears not to figure in the claims for C-130J and A400M range/payload.
It is probably not worth giving Nimrod standalone Mode S or RVSM - but omitting TCAS is a wholly different risk.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da4orce
And who is going to check them when theres a shortage of groundies and were are they going to get the money from ????
In January 2006 BAe Systems, which is building the new aircraft, discovered cracks in the rivets holding fuselage sections together. In repairing this problem the fuselage skin beneath the rivets has been found to be corroded. As a result, all Nimrod aircraft now in use will have to be checked.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to MHAGE...
No I don't think you do unless you actually work there, which I am sure you don't
I may not work on NLS but work closely with them and in that capacity I AM fully aware of the lack of manpower at NLS.
Which could be carried out during the week if we had the manpower and I think you will find that I am fully aware that essential maintenance needs to be carried out, probably more so than you seeing as I am one of the ones controlling it
Again, I have no doubt that with enough manpower you would be able to carry out most of the essential maintenance during the week. But you don't have that manpower and my comment was in reference to your use of the word 'lumbered'. I still stand by it and am sorry if you feel you are being 'lumbered' with carrying out ESSENTIAL work at weekends.
Secondly, even with enough manpower, there are times when work on a particular frame needs to be carried out at the weekend (Ops 1 jet, u/s jet required first thing Mon, weekend operational/exercise commitments, etc).
Thats why we have changed our shifts AGAIN to man working weekends EVERY weekend is it then
As you say, you control the maintenance - and possibly even the shift patterns? You do not control the ISK commitments. As I said, you only work weekends when it is absolutely necessary. If it has been necessary for you to work every weekend then I am sorry but the commitment of the fleet is such that you do exactly that.
I put it to you that obviously you are the one who doesn't know what is going on
Sorry, but it appears that I do indeed have a bigger picture view of the required tasks of ISK. You appear to be engineering-centric whereas I am looking at the big picture. As I said before, if YOU do not know why exactly NLS are required to work a particular weekend then ask someone that does. You are not asked to work weekends for the pure hell of it. Those asking you to do so are fully aware of the staffing issues on the line and try to avoid working weekends as much as the possible - but task needs sometimes outweigh the individual needs. You also demonstrated this lack of awareness of the big picture in several of your posts in the "Kinloss........Whats Going on?" thread.
After 6 years on NLS I feel I have done my fair share for NLS and Kinloss and thanks but I am already on my way over the road
Good luck.
Thanks for the tip
You're welcome.
And I must also thank Shack37 for his knowledgeable response. For someone whose profile states they live in another country and is of such an age that you have probably never worked on the MR2 in recent years, you seem to be more knowledgeable than someone that is a damn sight closer in both location and time than yourself
Right, must fly,
MadMark!!!
I appreciate you are very under-staffed on NLS
but I am sorry that you feel you have been 'lumbered' with doing essential maintenance!
Secondly, even with enough manpower, there are times when work on a particular frame needs to be carried out at the weekend (Ops 1 jet, u/s jet required first thing Mon, weekend operational/exercise commitments, etc).
You only work weekends when it is necessary
if you do not know why you are working a particular weekend then maybe you should ask someone that does!
Maybe if you want a purely Monday to Friday job you should go along the road to Lossie!
Ohh but avoid 202
And I must also thank Shack37 for his knowledgeable response. For someone whose profile states they live in another country and is of such an age that you have probably never worked on the MR2 in recent years, you seem to be more knowledgeable than someone that is a damn sight closer in both location and time than yourself
Right, must fly,
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad mark
Very well said!
It strikes me that MHAge always takes things that are said so badly. Even when you agree with him over manpower and how hard-pushed the groundies are, he still has a go at you!!
I'm off now, sharpish, before he launches off at me again! But well said anyway!
TSM
Very well said!
It strikes me that MHAge always takes things that are said so badly. Even when you agree with him over manpower and how hard-pushed the groundies are, he still has a go at you!!
I'm off now, sharpish, before he launches off at me again! But well said anyway!
TSM