Nimrod Information

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

If the BOI reconvenes I hope they've covered everything

1. What's the delivery pressure from AAR tanker?
2. Does this pressure ever surge (overpressure)?
2a. Was the tanker serviceable?
3. What checks are carried out prior to AAR sorties?
4. Are the fuel pipes (in the bomb bay) pressure tested to full system pressure, either routinely, or after component replacement?
5. Where is the ignition source?
6. Would Nimrod electrical wiring pass modern standards of 'Wiring Husbandry' checks (post TWA explosion)?
7. Can a bleed air leak ignite fuel?
8. Is the suspect cooling pack pipe, or any joints of that pipework, anywhere near electrical wiring?

There are plenty of clues out there.

SPHLC

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Mick Smith

The most sensible interpretation of reconvening to look at the XV227 case is that the BOI’s remit did not go back that far.

This is possibly quite likely. A BOI will initially have both a blank sheet and a closely defined set of terms of reference. It is arguably that this is correct so that they may focus on the actual event.

Only as the investigation proceeds may its TORs be altered to cover areas not initially thought relevant. Of course it may be that some areas are not identified or are not brought to the BOIs attention or indeed are ruled outside the BOIs TORs. I believe there have been several recent Government enquiries where the investigation has been constrained by close TORs! (Butler?)

This is possibly the service that TD has performed, lifting the carpet and letting light into areas that some people may have wished to avoid being brought to light

[MightyHunter AGE]

DV why drag something I posted over 5 weeks ago? Oh well here goes:

MHAGE posted
So DV what you are saying then is that the MU is not doing its job properly?

DV answered
The answer to that, in XV230's case, is YES.

Well well DV I wouldn't like to be a fly on the wall when the legal team at NSG read this and start legal proceedings for slander.

So what if a jet went in with ACCEPTABLE fuel leaks and those at the bottom end of the ACCEPTABLE leak end were not rectified? Big deal.
The jet was required for operations and ACCEPTABLE leaks are just that, ACCEPTABLE.

Once again I ask why all the fuss about ACCEPTABLE fuel leaks on the wings. As has been said time and time again the finger of suspicion is being pointed at a bomb bay fire not an ACCEPTABLE leak from an integral wing tank.

Then again as you have pointed out I am only a "Crew Chief" who has spent the last six years keeping these great old jets flying, what would I know about its fuel systems or fuel leak rates and rectification, silly old me.

A slight bit more than you I suspect.

I think evertone is being swayed away from the real possible cause of the loss of 30, SirPeterHardingsLoveChild has hit the nail on the head in his post.

[Da4orce]

Papa Whisky Alpha wrote:

However - in the case of XV230, if it subsequently transpires that the manufacturer had advised fire suppressant measures which were not implemented on the grounds of cost then it shows a remarkable lack of appreciation of the level of risk posed to those flying the aircraft and a low level of risk management. Should it be shown that the hazard was identified but a conscious decision was taken to ignore it on commercial, financial or political grounds, that is criminal.

I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems clearly recommending the fire suppressant measures which were subsequently not implemented on cost grounds, there is no 'if it subsequently transpires', the evidence is in black and white, it happened.

Airsound wrote:

Catastrophes like this are vanishingly rare, whether in military or civilian operations, mostly because all the possible causes have been foreseen, considered and dealt with. When this rarest of events does occur, it is surely unlikely to be because of something totally unforeseen - but rather because a known, recognised risk has been miscalculated, or worse, ignored.

I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems making reference to ignition sources (electrical and hot air) being in conflict with fuel systems. The same report states that the risks are low but covers that by saying that the low number of flying hours means a meanigful assessment of risk is not possible!

SpannerSpinner

Rib 7 fuel leaks are linked with underwing stores (Boz etc) as eluded to in the report but what do they have to do with the cause of the crash?

As a very recent MR2 man I'd be astonished (although I am ready to be corrected) if they were the main cause of the crash.

I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems that Rib 7 had fuel leakage problems and specifically the use of the Boz Pod exacerbated the problem and worsened the leaks.

I've also been told by RAF sources that fuel leaking from the Nimrod wings (not Rib 7) could run along the underside of the wing and pool in the bomb bay, not specifically on 230 but in previous incidents so there does seem to be a precedent.


Mick Smith wrote:

It was reconvened after it emerged that the Kinloss Station Commander had warned in August 2005 - in the wake of the burst hot air pipe on XV227 - that an “unexpected failure” was likely on Nimrod given that it was already 10 years past its out-of-service date.
The most sensible interpretation of reconvening to look at the XV227 case is that the BOI’s remit did not go back that far. What is more puzzling is why its remit did not include the discussions covered in the emails, which ran from December 2005 to February 2006 and centred on the need to get XV230’s leak problems fixed.

Maybe the BoI didn't ask for the emails or didn't know to ask for them, maybe they asked for them but were told they didn't exist. Whatever, someone at Kinloss obviously thought they were significant enough to risk their career by leaking them.

SirPeterhardingsLovechild wrote:

Would Nimrod electrical wiring pass modern standards of 'Wiring Husbandry' checks (post TWA explosion)?

Is the suspect cooling pack pipe, or any joints of that pipework, anywhere near electrical wiring?

I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems making reference to wiring chaffing because its too close to moving parts, arching because of the chaffing, also reference to the continued use of Kapton wiring in the Nimrod systems. Further refernce to hot air pipes being too close to fuel pipes etc

Pontius wrote:

This is possibly the service that TD has performed, lifting the carpet and letting light into areas that some people may have wished to avoid being brought to light.

BINGO !

[MightyHunter AGE]

Da4orce wrote
I have seen documentary evidence from BAE Systems that Rib 7 had fuel leakage problems and specifically the use of the Boz Pod exacerbated the problem and worsened the leaks. I've also been told by RAF sources that fuel leaking from the Nimrod wings ran along the underside of the wing and pooled in the bomb bay, not specifically on 230 but in previous incidents so there does seem to be a precedent.


Da4orce I am not being facetious but how would a fuel leak from rib 7 manage to pool in the bomb bay during flight when the very motion of the aircraft moving through the air in flight would sweep away any fuel that leaks as rib 7 is approx 10 feet away from the bomb bay?

If there were a leak developed in flight you would certainly notice fuel managing to pool into the bomb bay if it had to fight itself 10 feet across the wing and engine doors to then pool into the bomb bay against the airflow?

And if there was a rib 7 leak on the ground then the ground crew's servicing, the air Eng and subsequent captains walk round would surely have spotted that? I have it on good authority from the very men that saw the jet off that fateful day that there were no fuel leaks when it took off.

[Da4orce]

MightyHunter AGE the simply answer is I don't know enough about the jet to dispute what you are saying, all I know is what I was told by more than one serving at Kinloss.

Maybe I need to clarify my statement and make it clear that the pooling doesn't relate to Rib 7 if that is correct. Maybe you could clarify whether such pooling occurs from leaks elsewhere on the jet?

[Distant Voice]

Mighty Hunter AGE: You misquote your own posting to which I replied, "Yes".
Your statement in full was "So DV what you are saying then is that the MU is not doing its job properly? that jets are being sent up with fuel leaks that are not being rectified"

Acceptable deferred defects are still defects, which should be cleared in the specified time. Normally, they are carried until the next in-depth servicing, unless they get worse before that can take place.

I should also like to point out that a Commissioned Engineering Officer at Kinloss, stated in an email (Dec 2005), "As you are aware, XV230 and XV250 both have fuel leak issues that need to be rectified before the aircraft can be deployed to TELIC". He then goes on to list the defects, which are all located in the wing area. MPI are then called in (Feb 2006) to carry out fuel leak-mapping, negative pressure testing and a full reseal of affected areas on XV230. THE FAULTS RETURN a few months later, prior to the aircraft unndergoing the new equalized servicing, and deployment to the Gulf. However, only 7 out of 12 defects were cleared. The standards which applied in Feb, should still have applied in Aug when the aircraft was sent to the Gulf.

In the end we lost XV230, and XV250, which was also sent the Gulf was asked to return to Kinloss in Nov 2006.

And why do I reply now? timing old boy, timing.

By the way, the posting was not four months ago, it was last month (14th September).

DV

[r supwoods]

SW

JSP 553 is a Regulation but if they regulate on something that cannot be achievable, an alternative may be justified and authorised for use.

[Chugalug2]

JSP 553 is a Regulation but if they regulate on something that cannot be achievable, an alternative may be justified and authorised for use.

If ever there were a phrase that encapsulated the gulf between Military and Civilian Airworthiness then that is surely it!

[jan66]

think of those left behind

please guys for gods sake ,think of those left behind...ive been reading these rumours for the past 13 months(i am a family member who lost a loved one that day) and am finding it increasingly difficult to see TD and freinds continually using this site or making speculated news reports.we all need to see the BOI first then make all our questions answered.
there are children who still cry every day for their daddys,...wives,mothers,fathers,brothers and sisters too.i fully understand your grief,but others want to show theirs respectfully and in private and by TD and like bringing it into the public eye as often as they do,does not and will not bring any other the guys back.
im sorry for your loss,but i have lost too.so please give a thought to us,you are not the only one to suffer.


rest in peace guys.x

[Chugalug2]

Jan66, I reply very diffidently to your post, for mine was the one that preceded yours, and if that was indeed the 'final straw' then I apologise unreservedly. Let me firstly commiserate with you in your loss and your grief. I can only speak for myself, but hopefully reflect the feelings of others who have posted here both pro and con your call to wait for the BoI to be published. This dialogue is not the detached gossip of 'tech nerds' but of those serving and retired who have a professional concern for this particular accident, or for the wider but vital enforcement of military airworthiness regulations. With due respect, if we felt that the BoI was likely to 'make all our questions answered', then we might be persuaded to so wait. Precedence does not encourage such hope though I fear, and the urgent need to reform Military Airworthiness Provision has to be addressed to reduce the chances of such tragedies in future. It seems to me pertinent that the views of those, like myself, who castigate the lack of a robust and sound system of Military Airworthiness Regulation, go unchallenged. If such challenges had been made some 35 years ago, when I was in the RAF, I am sure that they would have been met with a resounding response. I hope that you can see that the driving concern of all who post here is the prevention of avoidable accidents, and the grief of yet more bereaved, such as yourself, who lose loved ones. That is our preoccupation and in that I suspect we are all united. Once again my sincere condolences in your loss.
With respect.
Chug

[Safeware]

[jan66]

chug

i understand where you are all coming from but it doesnt help when the news is covered by TD findings, when yes,he has lost and needs to find out why his son was taken,but what about the other families involved?? dont they have any say when their children are crying too,..thats all i wanted to get across.
TD has two other sons who need him now,but we have to look after what we got left too.
there are alot of us left behind,some that have to deal with this without the support that they should be getting,but we manage.

i truley hope TD gets the answers he wants,just like the rest of us.
good luck

[Distant Voice]

Jan66: I, like everyone who has posted on this thread, am deeply sorry for your loss, and it is impossible for me to appreciate what you are going through. But I can assure you that all we are trying to achieve, for you, TD and the other families who have lost a love one in XV230, is that the whole truth is revealed about this accident. You, like others, say wait for the BoI results, but experience tells many of us that more has to be done than just wait. I am convined, like Mike Smith, that the BoI has had to go back and re-examine their findings several times, because of what has been exposed on this thread. Sometimes, things get a little heated here on pprune, but it is all done in order to achieve the best results in the long term.

God bless to you, and your little ones, and I hope it is not too long before the official report is issued.

Distant Voice

[santiago15]

I think what we've seen wrt the loss of XV230 is a first: widespread speculation before the results of a BOI are published. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot recall such speculation and heresay before any BOI in my military career.

There are so many good reasons not to pre-empt and wait, yet they seem to have been ignored in this instance because so many people seem to have no faith in the BOI system. I hope what we are seeing with regard to pre-BOI speculation in this instance is a one off. Because rest assured, outside of this forum, a lot of harm has been done in terms of upsetting the other families involved in this case. I truely hope that we can look back in a few years time and say it was worth it. Although I have to say, right now, I have a big doubt.

[chappie]

jan 66 PM if you wish.

suffice to say i know both the pain of being left behind. i too know the pain of the trying to comfort the one's left behind, the ones that away or in front of the computer screen cry raw huge ugly painful tears.years on... you are still left to question why.

please understand one thing...many of those on here do not talk, nor indeed speculate, about what happened just as a matter of interest, but to try adn find out the truth behind what has happened and for the simple fact we, the ones left behind, do not want to have any other family go through the agony that we endure every waking moment. it is both painful and distressing to have people you don't know speculate about those moments that led up to the end of your loved ones life. please belelieve that the majority of repondents do not reply without wishing to disrespect the cause for which they are merely trying to help with.

i lost my brother, on the hercules that was shot down in iraq. i have both sat back and endured the "open" discussion about his last moments and the failings that led to that moment. i have also participated in them to. all because i was trying to stop anyone from feeling what i felt. in fact what i still feel even today.there is nothing that will bring them back. there is nothing that will ease the pain that you/we are left with. in fact sometimes open speculation about failings from a government that was supposed to serve and protect them hurt all the more. i had to listen to my little girl today tell me that she knew where iraq was in her atlas and thats where uncle bob was killed and thats why you cry mummy. so please, understand jan that as i write this my eyes are stinging with tears.. again. i understand at how good you have to be at making sudden excuses that you are crying suddenly. i also understand that sadly this process is long, painful and drawn out and we are merely part of it.

sending you big cyber hugs

[Chugalug2]

Your most moving post ever, Chappie. Respectfully,
Chug

[theotherhalf]

Jan 66
When you have lost, as we have, it seems a violation of our space that others appear to openly discuss things which should or should not remain private. The most difficult thing I have found is the almost single minded way in which all this horror is dealt with, often at the expense of others who have lost and certainly at the expense of those who have a different perspective which is dismissed out of hand. We all have an interest, we all have unrelenting grief to deal with, it never goes away and I agree with you - we all want the truth but sometimes I am very concerned that many people who have no knowledge of what they are dealing are actually creating more problems. If you are not an experienced technician/pilot etc., then dealing with what can only be another persons view or experience but not your own first hand knowledge is a very dangerous game because it is too easy to read what you want to read or interpret what you want, due to anothers perspective and agenda. I would imagine most people feel they are only helping, sadly for us, this is often not the case and only serves to make an almost untenable situation even more difficult to deal with.
My family are still reeling from our loss, but despite the lack of help and consideration, the love we all had and still have keeps us strong for each other. Nothing will bring him back, nothing can take away the empty feeling or the bleak future, nothing can take away the tears but equally nothing can take away the happy memories and the laughter shared. Unless this experience has been shared by others, it cannot be put into words successfully but I also feel that those who are left behind deserve and need all our time and love and care in order to make sure that healing continues.
Take strength from the fact that many of us feel as you do. My heart goes out to you. God Bless

[nigegilb]

When it became clear that MRA4 was being belatedly rushed into service without a host of protective equipment, I was hopeful that this extended search for truth headed by TD might influence the conclusions and recommendations of the BoI. I know that once the BoI is published, if it does not recommend bomb bay fire protection and fuel tank protection, then the chances of getting this equipment on board MRA4 and even MR2 are slim to none. Tonight, I am sad to say that there are absolutely no signs of the RAF insisting that any of this protection should be provided.

I would imagine, that the evidence now publically available is making the job of MoD lawyers difficult. One wonders what the real reasons are for the delays in the publication of this BoI report.

Thoughts with the families.

[Da4orce]

Sadly I agree with nigegilb

There has been 4 accidents to Nimrod aircraft up until last year. In 1980, 1984, May 1995, Sept 1995

As a result of investigations carried out by the Boards of Inquiry a total of 41 recommendations were made.

In 2004 BAE said 19 of these recommendations had not been addressed.

In a statement on 21st Feb 2005 Mr Caplin MP said:

a Board of Inquiry is an internal inquiry held to investigate the facts of an incident in order to prevent recurrence.