Nimrod Information
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Island of Aphrodite
Age: 75
Posts: 530
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is former RAF pilot Andrew Brookes, who has just been on Sky News criticing the bereaved father who was the subject of the Sky report this morning
Join Date: May 2005
Location: cornwall
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just seen the Sky News report. I have two boys, 6 and 11. The eldest has wanted to join the RAF since birth! Honestly he must have been a pilot in a previous life, and all he wants to do is fly, fly, fly.
I support unreservedly and with my heart of hearts your efforts guys to find the truth. I salute you Tapper's Dad, hold fast and good luck.
I support unreservedly and with my heart of hearts your efforts guys to find the truth. I salute you Tapper's Dad, hold fast and good luck.
Well done, TD.
I've just watched Liam Fox. He speaks well, but I detected a note of wariness, no doubt caused by his knowledge that the MoD's ambivalence toward airworthiness, and flat refusal to fund it properly, extends back to his party's reign.
He noted, correctly, that aircraft (and other equipment) are being deployed in conditions far in excess of what their design specification intended. He talks of "modifications" perhaps being required. I'd say a complete rethink on suitability for these conditions (fitness for purpose). Some quite modern, recently specified kit, is proving totally unsuitable for these conditions. COTS equipment often exacerbates this. He also touched on the RATE at which kit is being used and expended, meaning it requires replacement more frequently. We don't see the necessary funding for this.
The only other thing I'd say is that the reporting and criticism is aimed squarely at the "RAF". The people who make the decisions to, for example, cut funding, ignore airworthiness issues or not provide adequate support to the Services (which is a breach of the MoD's own airworthiness rules), are very often in the "Centre". They are not "RAF" - their decisions affect all 3 Services and, if the families were willing, similar campaigns could be run on other recent fatal accidents, notably during 2003, where the issues and evidence is much more clear cut. I respect their decision not to pursue this, but I know for a fact that what TD has unearthed cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed isolated. But I'm sure the MoD will claim this.
I've just watched Liam Fox. He speaks well, but I detected a note of wariness, no doubt caused by his knowledge that the MoD's ambivalence toward airworthiness, and flat refusal to fund it properly, extends back to his party's reign.
He noted, correctly, that aircraft (and other equipment) are being deployed in conditions far in excess of what their design specification intended. He talks of "modifications" perhaps being required. I'd say a complete rethink on suitability for these conditions (fitness for purpose). Some quite modern, recently specified kit, is proving totally unsuitable for these conditions. COTS equipment often exacerbates this. He also touched on the RATE at which kit is being used and expended, meaning it requires replacement more frequently. We don't see the necessary funding for this.
The only other thing I'd say is that the reporting and criticism is aimed squarely at the "RAF". The people who make the decisions to, for example, cut funding, ignore airworthiness issues or not provide adequate support to the Services (which is a breach of the MoD's own airworthiness rules), are very often in the "Centre". They are not "RAF" - their decisions affect all 3 Services and, if the families were willing, similar campaigns could be run on other recent fatal accidents, notably during 2003, where the issues and evidence is much more clear cut. I respect their decision not to pursue this, but I know for a fact that what TD has unearthed cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be termed isolated. But I'm sure the MoD will claim this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Cornwall
Age: 58
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Who is former RAF pilot Andrew Brookes, who has just been on Sky News criticing the bereaved father who was the subject of the Sky report this morning"
http://www.iiss.org/staffexpertise/l...andrew-brookes-
<snip>
Background: Andrew Brookes is a former RAF reconnaissance and bomber pilot. He was a NATO Nuclear Release Officer and the last operational RAF Commander at the Greenham Common cruise missile base. After three years as a Group Director at the RAF Advanced Staff College, he became co-ordinator of air power studies at the newly formed Joint Services Command and Staff College. He has had twelve books published on military aviation and flight safety.
http://www.iiss.org/staffexpertise/l...andrew-brookes-
<snip>
Background: Andrew Brookes is a former RAF reconnaissance and bomber pilot. He was a NATO Nuclear Release Officer and the last operational RAF Commander at the Greenham Common cruise missile base. After three years as a Group Director at the RAF Advanced Staff College, he became co-ordinator of air power studies at the newly formed Joint Services Command and Staff College. He has had twelve books published on military aviation and flight safety.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't watch this.
Guys.
Just seen the sky article. I fear that some people supplying TD with information are doing him and his cause a grave diservice.
I know that there is some degree of mistrust regarding the MOD/RAF/Board motives but why not wait until the report is published?
The people compiling report are experts in their field of knowledge. No single person has all the answers, as such they come together as a group of specialists to pool their knowledge. Those on the board have the best interests of the Nimrod community and the safety of the fleet at heart. It is their duty. Wait for the findings, wait for the reccommendations and then ask the questions. They have more information regarding this than you or I ever will.
The board will give their findings regarding the actual cause and are far better placed than one man, who doesn't have an aviation background, trying to piece together snippets from individuals who are trying to help. Individual pieces of information regarding incidents or issues are clearly not being given in the total context. I know that in some cases you are not at liberty to explain why certain facts, incidents and issues don't line up or are irrelevant. Remember your obligations.
One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance. That is the job of the board. I'm sorry to say this but TD and some well-meaning helpers cannot justifiably point the finger at events, people or groups and say 'it's your fault'. It just has no credibility and won't stand up to scrutiny if it ever came to be considered in legal surroundings.
The Nimrod is still flying with willing crews and willing engineers. All volunteers and all still flying the Nimrod.
I'm AAC and I know infantry and cavalry commanders who have sent out patrols or been ordered to an objective knowing that some of their boys are likely to die or be injured. Are they responsible? Is it their fault? No, it's their job. We know the risks and so, I imagine do Nimrod crews. It's all desperately sad and I cannot imagine what TD and his family are going through, but this isn't helping. So much effort is being expended by one man and if he ever wanted to point the finger and obtain some recompense, it won't stand up in court.
Guys.
Just seen the sky article. I fear that some people supplying TD with information are doing him and his cause a grave diservice.
I know that there is some degree of mistrust regarding the MOD/RAF/Board motives but why not wait until the report is published?
The people compiling report are experts in their field of knowledge. No single person has all the answers, as such they come together as a group of specialists to pool their knowledge. Those on the board have the best interests of the Nimrod community and the safety of the fleet at heart. It is their duty. Wait for the findings, wait for the reccommendations and then ask the questions. They have more information regarding this than you or I ever will.
The board will give their findings regarding the actual cause and are far better placed than one man, who doesn't have an aviation background, trying to piece together snippets from individuals who are trying to help. Individual pieces of information regarding incidents or issues are clearly not being given in the total context. I know that in some cases you are not at liberty to explain why certain facts, incidents and issues don't line up or are irrelevant. Remember your obligations.
One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance. That is the job of the board. I'm sorry to say this but TD and some well-meaning helpers cannot justifiably point the finger at events, people or groups and say 'it's your fault'. It just has no credibility and won't stand up to scrutiny if it ever came to be considered in legal surroundings.
The Nimrod is still flying with willing crews and willing engineers. All volunteers and all still flying the Nimrod.
I'm AAC and I know infantry and cavalry commanders who have sent out patrols or been ordered to an objective knowing that some of their boys are likely to die or be injured. Are they responsible? Is it their fault? No, it's their job. We know the risks and so, I imagine do Nimrod crews. It's all desperately sad and I cannot imagine what TD and his family are going through, but this isn't helping. So much effort is being expended by one man and if he ever wanted to point the finger and obtain some recompense, it won't stand up in court.
"One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance. That is the job of the board".
If BOIs looked back BEFORE accidents in any detail, and made judgments or recommendations on what did or didn't happen, then;
a. There would be fewer accidents, and,
b. The reports covering, for example, the loss of a Tornado and two Sea Kings on successive days in March 2003 would be vastly different. (And so too would the Coroner's verdict).
That they don't do this is precisely why we have to go round this tragic buoy time and again. The mistakes are seldom corrected. Lessons are not learned. To do so would cost money and force MoD to admit liability.
Parliament made a momentous decision by repealing Sect 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947. That is, those responsible for, inter alia, airworthiness lost the protection afforded by Crown Immunity. It forever changed the way the MoD had to conduct their business, particularly in the aircraft world. The first step was DCI GEN 89 in March 1993, followed by the up-issue or creation of various JPSs and Def Stans. (A process which, by the way, is still not yet complete).
Critically, however, the powers that be either didn't appreciate the financial implications and the need for complementary funding to bolster the underlying processes, that themselves had to change almost overnight; or they knew but ignored it. Given the cuts in funding at this time, the most savage aimed fairly and squarely at the process of maintaining the build standard (which includes airworthiness and safety), I go for the latter.
While this probably affected very few of you directly (i.e. you did not have airworthiness delegation), we can all now see the outcome - which was predicted in very precise detail by those charged with managing the process under this new legislation.
Again, I don't think the Services are to blame here (except perhaps the people who, for example, sat passively on the Defence Airworthiness Group dictating processes but saying nothing when funding was denied). There are common factors here with other accidents which, because the remit of the BOI is so narrow, will never be exposed or overcome.
If BOIs looked back BEFORE accidents in any detail, and made judgments or recommendations on what did or didn't happen, then;
a. There would be fewer accidents, and,
b. The reports covering, for example, the loss of a Tornado and two Sea Kings on successive days in March 2003 would be vastly different. (And so too would the Coroner's verdict).
That they don't do this is precisely why we have to go round this tragic buoy time and again. The mistakes are seldom corrected. Lessons are not learned. To do so would cost money and force MoD to admit liability.
Parliament made a momentous decision by repealing Sect 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act of 1947. That is, those responsible for, inter alia, airworthiness lost the protection afforded by Crown Immunity. It forever changed the way the MoD had to conduct their business, particularly in the aircraft world. The first step was DCI GEN 89 in March 1993, followed by the up-issue or creation of various JPSs and Def Stans. (A process which, by the way, is still not yet complete).
Critically, however, the powers that be either didn't appreciate the financial implications and the need for complementary funding to bolster the underlying processes, that themselves had to change almost overnight; or they knew but ignored it. Given the cuts in funding at this time, the most savage aimed fairly and squarely at the process of maintaining the build standard (which includes airworthiness and safety), I go for the latter.
While this probably affected very few of you directly (i.e. you did not have airworthiness delegation), we can all now see the outcome - which was predicted in very precise detail by those charged with managing the process under this new legislation.
Again, I don't think the Services are to blame here (except perhaps the people who, for example, sat passively on the Defence Airworthiness Group dictating processes but saying nothing when funding was denied). There are common factors here with other accidents which, because the remit of the BOI is so narrow, will never be exposed or overcome.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criticisms of TD's motives or intentions noted everyone is entitled to an opinion; we live in a democracy after all.
That said maybe something that hasn't been brought out a great deal in the press reports today is why a serving member of RAF personnel at Kinloss felt so strongly about this that they leaked emails and reports in the full knowledge of the implications that would be drawn from there content.
You could say they had ulterier motives, maybe a personal axe to grind, that's possible. It is also possible that they have a conscience, little or no confidence in the BOI, and feel that they have a duty to ensure that the public knows what happened.
That said maybe something that hasn't been brought out a great deal in the press reports today is why a serving member of RAF personnel at Kinloss felt so strongly about this that they leaked emails and reports in the full knowledge of the implications that would be drawn from there content.
You could say they had ulterier motives, maybe a personal axe to grind, that's possible. It is also possible that they have a conscience, little or no confidence in the BOI, and feel that they have a duty to ensure that the public knows what happened.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What News?
When I saw the SKY van outside work as I drove in this morning I thought there might finally be something worth hearing about.
Unfortunately Sky's lead story was Shock! - Nimrods have fuel leaks.
Oh well... it must have been a really slow day at Sky News Centre...maybe next month...
Unfortunately Sky's lead story was Shock! - Nimrods have fuel leaks.
Oh well... it must have been a really slow day at Sky News Centre...maybe next month...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This hasn't helped
That said certain people Not groundies or Crews knew there were big problems with this ac and one other.
One exploded the other limped back to Kinloss before its tour finished for major repairs.
As for the BOI not one of them has any experience of air crash investigation, I was told this when sitting in an office at Kinloss in sept.
One man cannot possibly hope to make sense out of all the bits of information weeks, months and years before 2nd September without specialist knowledge and assistance.
Rib 7 leaks have always been there. along with lots of other areas on the jet.
TD
Just saw you on The West Tonight (ITV) and Points West (BBC). You were brilliant, well done. For anyone who didn’t see the Beeb in particular, they brought on AVM Tony Mason (rtd), who, as usual, made some valid points, and ended by saying “I hope (TD’s) worst fears are not realised when the board does report” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the BOI’s prospects.
Which brings me on to This hasn’t helped, and his post ‘I can’t watch this’
As it’s your first post, I’m going to assume, charitably, that you (This hasn’t helped) may not have read the rest of this thread, or, perhaps the thread on Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety, or even Chinook - still hitting back. If you had taken this precaution before launching your brave encomium on the efficacy of the BOI system, you might have realised that there is a majority of posters in these fora who do not share your faith in the BOI system. Which is why the threads that I have mentioned have lasted so long, and why people keep on banging on at what they see as injustice.
airsound
Just saw you on The West Tonight (ITV) and Points West (BBC). You were brilliant, well done. For anyone who didn’t see the Beeb in particular, they brought on AVM Tony Mason (rtd), who, as usual, made some valid points, and ended by saying “I hope (TD’s) worst fears are not realised when the board does report” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the BOI’s prospects.
Which brings me on to This hasn’t helped, and his post ‘I can’t watch this’
As it’s your first post, I’m going to assume, charitably, that you (This hasn’t helped) may not have read the rest of this thread, or, perhaps the thread on Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety, or even Chinook - still hitting back. If you had taken this precaution before launching your brave encomium on the efficacy of the BOI system, you might have realised that there is a majority of posters in these fora who do not share your faith in the BOI system. Which is why the threads that I have mentioned have lasted so long, and why people keep on banging on at what they see as injustice.
airsound
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those of you who are wondering just what these leaked emails said heres a bit of some of them;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nnimrod226.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nnimrod226.xml
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The e-mails indicate to me that key people were, and still are, acting very responsibly under pressure.
Every single suspected fault, including fuel leakage, was/is examined and categorized in accordance with well established aviation engineering practice and dealt with properly. Decisions to send the aircraft to the Middle East were easily made: is it fit to fly and defend itself? If yes, go. If not, it stays here and gets fixed. I have lost count of the number of days, weeks and occasionally months, that some jets spent in the hangar having leakage dealt with prior to deployment. There was absolutely no "It'll be all right, its only a little leak, lets send it" type of decisions, even when the pressure was at its greatest.
The leaks that pi$$ me off are the ones I've just read.
Sorry TD, but, with respect to you and yours, you have been fed rubbish.
Every single suspected fault, including fuel leakage, was/is examined and categorized in accordance with well established aviation engineering practice and dealt with properly. Decisions to send the aircraft to the Middle East were easily made: is it fit to fly and defend itself? If yes, go. If not, it stays here and gets fixed. I have lost count of the number of days, weeks and occasionally months, that some jets spent in the hangar having leakage dealt with prior to deployment. There was absolutely no "It'll be all right, its only a little leak, lets send it" type of decisions, even when the pressure was at its greatest.
The leaks that pi$$ me off are the ones I've just read.
Sorry TD, but, with respect to you and yours, you have been fed rubbish.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC OVEE
Here is a little more of the emails.
or
Add to this 230 had an equalised servicing May to July and the Tanks repaired in july and yet 3 weeks later was sent out to the gulf after only one flight with "Accepectable" leaks from the same areas that were leaking prior to all this maintainence.
Here is a little more of the emails.
There were other areas of quick-win opportunities. which I have asked the IPT to dive into.
There is a knock-on effect on XV230. Although NLS are undertaking the primary servicing RAMS has insufficient manpower assets to undertake the fuel tank repairs on this ac.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those quotes indicate discussions trying to find responsible ways to use available resources to cure unacceptable fuel leaks. The language is casual in nature due to the e-mail system; ie it is chatting via the keyboard. Whoever it was who gave you copies of the e-mails is misguided, ill-informed and guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
Regarding the single post rectification flight before deployment: how many "test" flights in the UK should satisfy the engineers? I would say one single flight was enough. Then there would have been the deployment flights (2), then the 1st ops flight. Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults.
Regarding the single post rectification flight before deployment: how many "test" flights in the UK should satisfy the engineers? I would say one single flight was enough. Then there would have been the deployment flights (2), then the 1st ops flight. Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Abbey Inn
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Every flight would have been given a proper post-flight check for any faults."
Here, here. And was, and is, and still is!! And also a proper pre flight check!
Wait for the BOI, Sir.
DS
Here, here. And was, and is, and still is!! And also a proper pre flight check!
Wait for the BOI, Sir.
DS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From one of your 'leaked' emails.
'As you will be aware, XV230 and XV250 both have fuel leak issues that need to be rectified before the aircraft can be deployed into TELIC'
Maybe TD, you should ask yourself why these Nimrods were allowed to be flown before deploying to TELIC? If it were unsafe then why fly it before deploying. Perhaps there is more to the knock-on effect of these particular fuel leaks than you think. Even the hels that I fly leak fuel. This merely reinforces my point about context. TD, you are being misled, I'm afraid to say.
As for whoever leaked the emails along with incident reports leaked to Sky news. You have broken the law. Guys it's not on.
Wait for the board to report.
Second post but I have been watching this forum for years. Very poor show chaps, very poor.
Maybe TD, you should ask yourself why these Nimrods were allowed to be flown before deploying to TELIC? If it were unsafe then why fly it before deploying. Perhaps there is more to the knock-on effect of these particular fuel leaks than you think. Even the hels that I fly leak fuel. This merely reinforces my point about context. TD, you are being misled, I'm afraid to say.
As for whoever leaked the emails along with incident reports leaked to Sky news. You have broken the law. Guys it's not on.
Wait for the board to report.
Second post but I have been watching this forum for years. Very poor show chaps, very poor.
Very poor show chaps, very poor
The cavalier way that BoIs, and in particular their findings, are treated by senior officers, witness the Mull case.
The way that identified airworthiness shortcomings, having been brought to the attention of senior officers, are ignored and the 'memory' of the warnings wiped, witness the C130s.
The way that vital evidence required by a coroners court is withheld for Opsec reasons more to do with embarrassing an ally, until produced by a newspaper, witness the blue on blue.
Lots more of course, but you get the drift I'm sure old chap!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me, or is anybody else concerned about the amount of coverage that the nimrod is currently receiving in the press, concerning fuel leaks and "crew uncertainty" about whether or not the aircraft is safe to fly......
At the end of the day, we're all responsible enough to be able to make a decision whether or not we are happy to fly the aircraft.
This amount of bad publicity is doing nothing for the morale of the dedicated and extremely professional crews who are out in the gulf at the moment working their hardest, as every 'rod crew does....At the moment, all we are doing, is de-moralising our own crews, and giving the impression to our enemies, that the nimrod does not deserve its' reputation as such a capable, versatile, and widely respected platform, as we have spent many years proving....
I understand that people want answers, but until the BOI is out, it seems to me that we are asking questions that the BOI may just answer for us...
As for leaks from the MOD........... Just look at the Madeleine McCann case.... "leaks" in inverted commas make for good sales. i know this does nothing to comfort the families, but people will lie and newspapers will lie, to make money from you guys.... this will never change. its a sad fact of life..
sleep tight guys..
At the end of the day, we're all responsible enough to be able to make a decision whether or not we are happy to fly the aircraft.
This amount of bad publicity is doing nothing for the morale of the dedicated and extremely professional crews who are out in the gulf at the moment working their hardest, as every 'rod crew does....At the moment, all we are doing, is de-moralising our own crews, and giving the impression to our enemies, that the nimrod does not deserve its' reputation as such a capable, versatile, and widely respected platform, as we have spent many years proving....
I understand that people want answers, but until the BOI is out, it seems to me that we are asking questions that the BOI may just answer for us...
As for leaks from the MOD........... Just look at the Madeleine McCann case.... "leaks" in inverted commas make for good sales. i know this does nothing to comfort the families, but people will lie and newspapers will lie, to make money from you guys.... this will never change. its a sad fact of life..
sleep tight guys..