Nimrod Information
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Must agree with the last 2 posters.
I rememeber when Art Stacey put 666 in the Moray Firth, one of the points that came out of that BoI was a weight restriction to be placed on the back end crew as a result of a seat detaching from the floor on impact.
The cost to the RAF of implementing that was £00.00 NOT a single penny! It was a case of simply stopping those aircrew (and there were quite a few I admit) that were over a certain weight from flying in the aircraft.
Now I don't know how long it took for that to come into force, but it wasn't that long ago, I know that ! and when did Art S do his magic ??????
I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government.
The truth of this accident is already known by the board, its time it was made public.
TSM
I rememeber when Art Stacey put 666 in the Moray Firth, one of the points that came out of that BoI was a weight restriction to be placed on the back end crew as a result of a seat detaching from the floor on impact.
The cost to the RAF of implementing that was £00.00 NOT a single penny! It was a case of simply stopping those aircrew (and there were quite a few I admit) that were over a certain weight from flying in the aircraft.
Now I don't know how long it took for that to come into force, but it wasn't that long ago, I know that ! and when did Art S do his magic ??????
I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government.
The truth of this accident is already known by the board, its time it was made public.
TSM
TSM
"I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government".
Agreed. My faith in BoI was shattered forever when I saw, first hand, vital information being (a) withheld and (b) its very existence denied. When I pointed out it this was daft because (respectively) (a) it was freely available, and held by three companies and in a raft of MoD files, and (b) photographic evidence was hanging on the IPT wall (!!!), I at least expected both the BoI and the Inquest to address these issues fully. They didn't.
So, without doubt the MoD act appallingly, some would say illegally. They lie and they deceive. I also suspect collusion with the Coroner in certain cases, but can't prove it. I base this opinion on the irrefutable fact that, despite a BoI report (which I referred to above) condemning a system as "unfit for purpose", neither the BoI or the Coroner thought it wise to ask why it was still fitted at the time of the accident, as the the same conclusion had be arrived at some years previously - and the system removed then. (The photographic evidence I mentioned). If anyone can satisfy me why there was good reason not to ask pertinent questions about this, then perhaps I can be more charitable.
Meanwhile, I think TD's efforts have placed intolerable pressure on the MoD not to repeat the above, and I think they're finding the results unpalatable. And, while I sympathise enormously with all the families, it is only by applying such pressure that the MoD will, perhaps, act decently. Otherwise, it will all be swept under the carpet, again, and more avoidable accidents will occur. In that sense, I sincerely believe that TD does the Services a favour.
"I had always had faith in BoIs, and have said that on this forum before. But I am slightly ashamed to say that I now believe that the findings are being 're-written' to suit the MOD, the RAF and this dreadful no-good government".
Agreed. My faith in BoI was shattered forever when I saw, first hand, vital information being (a) withheld and (b) its very existence denied. When I pointed out it this was daft because (respectively) (a) it was freely available, and held by three companies and in a raft of MoD files, and (b) photographic evidence was hanging on the IPT wall (!!!), I at least expected both the BoI and the Inquest to address these issues fully. They didn't.
So, without doubt the MoD act appallingly, some would say illegally. They lie and they deceive. I also suspect collusion with the Coroner in certain cases, but can't prove it. I base this opinion on the irrefutable fact that, despite a BoI report (which I referred to above) condemning a system as "unfit for purpose", neither the BoI or the Coroner thought it wise to ask why it was still fitted at the time of the accident, as the the same conclusion had be arrived at some years previously - and the system removed then. (The photographic evidence I mentioned). If anyone can satisfy me why there was good reason not to ask pertinent questions about this, then perhaps I can be more charitable.
Meanwhile, I think TD's efforts have placed intolerable pressure on the MoD not to repeat the above, and I think they're finding the results unpalatable. And, while I sympathise enormously with all the families, it is only by applying such pressure that the MoD will, perhaps, act decently. Otherwise, it will all be swept under the carpet, again, and more avoidable accidents will occur. In that sense, I sincerely believe that TD does the Services a favour.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who reads through the entire length of this thread will notice that now, several family members, all from different families effected by this tragic accident, have called for the speculation and the media involvment to end.
Yes TD has the right to grieve in his own way, we also should have the right to grieve in our own way. All of those who have called for a cease to this are asking because our rights to grieve in our own way have been violated. The children, parents, wives, brothers and sisters of all the families are having to deal with their own grief as well as dealing with everything that is brought up in the media.
I know TD wants answers, we all do, we also want to have the right to grieve respectfully and with dignity to those we have lost.
The times are difficult enough for us without the extra strain of speculation and media involvement.
Yes TD has the right to grieve in his own way, we also should have the right to grieve in our own way. All of those who have called for a cease to this are asking because our rights to grieve in our own way have been violated. The children, parents, wives, brothers and sisters of all the families are having to deal with their own grief as well as dealing with everything that is brought up in the media.
I know TD wants answers, we all do, we also want to have the right to grieve respectfully and with dignity to those we have lost.
The times are difficult enough for us without the extra strain of speculation and media involvement.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Labqueen. The BAe safety report recommended the fitting of a fuel tank inerting system and bomb bay fire protection to the Nimrod, before the crash. I know, absolutely without doubt, that this equpment has still not been requested by the customer for Nimrod. This recommendation was made years before the tragedy. I cannot begin to understand how upsetting this must be, but in my view, failure to fit this equipment is criminal. Furthermore, failure to fit it, after the tragedy defies belief. TD's efforts might just prevent anyone else having to go through this desperate time.
Surely, if the MoD cared, it would arrange a private briefing for the families? The report was, after all, written months ago. I am afraid, the speculation will most likely continue, until this report is published. As I have said before, publish and be damned for everyone's sake.
I am very sorry for your loss.
Surely, if the MoD cared, it would arrange a private briefing for the families? The report was, after all, written months ago. I am afraid, the speculation will most likely continue, until this report is published. As I have said before, publish and be damned for everyone's sake.
I am very sorry for your loss.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are having private briefings.
At the moment we do not know exactly what happened on board XV230 we can not know that until we have been presented the BOI findings.
Yes there will be speculation about those events which caused the deaths of 14 men and the loss of XV230, however, speculation on the events and on the cause will never bring about change. The only thing which will give a platform to fight for change and for safety measures to be implemented are the facts.
At the moment we do not know exactly what happened on board XV230 we can not know that until we have been presented the BOI findings.
Yes there will be speculation about those events which caused the deaths of 14 men and the loss of XV230, however, speculation on the events and on the cause will never bring about change. The only thing which will give a platform to fight for change and for safety measures to be implemented are the facts.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See below. Not the same recommend as per Nimrod bomb bay. This rec was pre-crash. One would have thought that another TWA800 style catastrophe was enough to trigger a similar response? I too, question whether the MoD should be allowed to continue to self-regulate.
"Maintain watching brief of current civil regulating developments regarding mandating of heated fuel tank area inerting during flight in line with recent FAA fireworthiness developments following TWA800 Boeing 747 in-flight fuel tank explosion accident investigation. Findings recommend mandating of fitment on new build, and possibly in-service retro fitment of a fuel tank nitrogen inerting system to prevent the occurrence of an explosive vapour in a partially empty tank."
"Maintain watching brief of current civil regulating developments regarding mandating of heated fuel tank area inerting during flight in line with recent FAA fireworthiness developments following TWA800 Boeing 747 in-flight fuel tank explosion accident investigation. Findings recommend mandating of fitment on new build, and possibly in-service retro fitment of a fuel tank nitrogen inerting system to prevent the occurrence of an explosive vapour in a partially empty tank."
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LabQueen, respectfully acknowledged, but there are many people on this forum with much more experience of BoI than you or I who have very little faith in the Boards ability or willingness to deliver the facts.
I'm also afraid to say that my earlier post
Is a fact, a fact which indicates that if left to their own devices little will be achieved from the BoI.
My fear now is that the governemnt is waiting for a good day to "bury" bad news.
I'm also afraid to say that my earlier post
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.
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.
My fear now is that the governemnt is waiting for a good day to "bury" bad news.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I read it, all LabQueen wants is for the media coverage and speculation to end. Let the BOI report be released and THEN, if you find it contentious, fight for what you believe.
You never know, the BOI report many state exactly the same findings that everyone on here seems to be fighting about. It may find that much of the speculation on here is complete and utter bollox and that the cause was something that no-one here has thought of. It may find that the accident may have been preventable. It may find that no matter what fire-suppressant systems were fitted it would still have had the same end result. It may be a complete whitewash. However, until it is released we don't know, and all the speculation is only bringing more pain to many of those families affected.
As LabQuuen said, so far there have been posts from members of several of the bereaved families in this thread and it appears that all but one of those families are being upset by the publicity being generated.
Please, for the feelings of the other families, let this lie until the BOI reports - then, if need be, challenge the findings and/or the subsequent follow-up actions of the MOD.
MadMark!!!
You never know, the BOI report many state exactly the same findings that everyone on here seems to be fighting about. It may find that much of the speculation on here is complete and utter bollox and that the cause was something that no-one here has thought of. It may find that the accident may have been preventable. It may find that no matter what fire-suppressant systems were fitted it would still have had the same end result. It may be a complete whitewash. However, until it is released we don't know, and all the speculation is only bringing more pain to many of those families affected.
As LabQuuen said, so far there have been posts from members of several of the bereaved families in this thread and it appears that all but one of those families are being upset by the publicity being generated.
Please, for the feelings of the other families, let this lie until the BOI reports - then, if need be, challenge the findings and/or the subsequent follow-up actions of the MOD.
MadMark!!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark,
I understand what you are saying with regard to LabQueen, and I have the utmost sympathy for her, along with TD and all of the families involved.
But at the end of the day, this is a RUMOUR forum! Thats what it's all about.
I do genuingly have the utmost sympathy for her, but I would simply suggest that if it causing her and some of the others even more unneccesary grief, they perhaps shouldn't read it.
TSM
I understand what you are saying with regard to LabQueen, and I have the utmost sympathy for her, along with TD and all of the families involved.
But at the end of the day, this is a RUMOUR forum! Thats what it's all about.
I do genuingly have the utmost sympathy for her, but I would simply suggest that if it causing her and some of the others even more unneccesary grief, they perhaps shouldn't read it.
TSM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7 Mar 2006, Adam Ingram, Defence Minister, speaking to the Defence Committee about allegations made concerning the shooting down of XV179, after the BoI was published.
"There is only one version of events, that is the BOI. Anyone who speculates has not done the technical analysis."
The point being, Govt will only listen to the recommendations in the BoI. It is absolutely imperative that the BoI has all the information it needs to draw up its report. If it is true, that the BoI did not have some of the info that TD has uncovered then he will have saved an awful lot of bother down the line. If the BoI subsequently recommends certain safety equipment to be considered for Nimrod, it will be much easier to get it on board, vice a public campaign after the BoI is published.
I understand it is not possible to ignore the high level media interest, but it must be realised that cost is one of the main factors behind Nimrod not already having this protection, certainly true of MRA4. Sadly, airing problems in the media is a very effective way of securing this Govt's money.
"There is only one version of events, that is the BOI. Anyone who speculates has not done the technical analysis."
The point being, Govt will only listen to the recommendations in the BoI. It is absolutely imperative that the BoI has all the information it needs to draw up its report. If it is true, that the BoI did not have some of the info that TD has uncovered then he will have saved an awful lot of bother down the line. If the BoI subsequently recommends certain safety equipment to be considered for Nimrod, it will be much easier to get it on board, vice a public campaign after the BoI is published.
I understand it is not possible to ignore the high level media interest, but it must be realised that cost is one of the main factors behind Nimrod not already having this protection, certainly true of MRA4. Sadly, airing problems in the media is a very effective way of securing this Govt's money.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad MArk
I have refrained from posting recently however in your last post you said.
The leaked emails are genuine FACT
The BAE report is genuine FACT
2 more facts that are indisputable
1..There was a Bomb Bay fire on board XV230 FACT
2..BAE recommended in 2004 that is a fire should break out in the Bomb Bay of a Nimrod it would result in the loss of the ac. UNLESS they followed the recommendations and fitted a fire suppressant system FACT
Rumours ? Everything I have said I have written documented proof of.
In the last year I have worked my way through
CAA Airwothiness Notices AN58 and AN61
CAA FODCOM 22/2002
JAR OPS 1.780
DEF STAN 00-970
And over 10 FOI requested documents.
Just one more thing ACCOUNTABILITY
I am Graham Knight- Tappers Dad and I am proud to say that
I have no idea who you are or many others posting on here. That is your choice.
I have refrained from posting recently however in your last post you said.
media speculation fuelled by possibly miss-leading facts/rumours
The BAE report is genuine FACT
2 more facts that are indisputable
1..There was a Bomb Bay fire on board XV230 FACT
2..BAE recommended in 2004 that is a fire should break out in the Bomb Bay of a Nimrod it would result in the loss of the ac. UNLESS they followed the recommendations and fitted a fire suppressant system FACT
Rumours ? Everything I have said I have written documented proof of.
In the last year I have worked my way through
CAA Airwothiness Notices AN58 and AN61
CAA FODCOM 22/2002
JAR OPS 1.780
DEF STAN 00-970
And over 10 FOI requested documents.
Just one more thing ACCOUNTABILITY
I am Graham Knight- Tappers Dad and I am proud to say that
I have no idea who you are or many others posting on here. That is your choice.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 1st Nov 2007 at 12:26. Reason: Footnote added
Guest
Posts: n/a
Objective?
What is the desired outcome of this particular thread? Is it one of accountability for the loss of XV230 or the prevention of further loss? Or both?
And what happens if the BoI conclusions differ from those reached through the genuine research/wild speculation carried carried out by PPRuNe'rs on this thread?
Do the wishes of the majority of the families/NoK, directly affected by the loss of the aircraft, have any effect on the direction/continuation of the thread?
And what happens if the BoI conclusions differ from those reached through the genuine research/wild speculation carried carried out by PPRuNe'rs on this thread?
Do the wishes of the majority of the families/NoK, directly affected by the loss of the aircraft, have any effect on the direction/continuation of the thread?
cm74, I will try to answer your questions, in the same order. My answers are merely that, ie merely mine. Others may/do differ no doubt.
1.The thread is just that, its desired outcome will be in the individual minds of those who contribute or only read it. For my part I agree with Nigegilb and others who call for independent military airworthiness regulation rather than the self regulation that exists. I believe that alone would save lives. If our arguments advance that case I would be content.
2. Then either the BoI or the posters or both will have got it wrong. It is more likely that the BoI findings will be so restricted by the remit that considerations of Airworthiness Regulation/Provision will not be covered. A case of woods and trees. We have to urge for the inclusion of those woods into their findings, or the MOD will once again renege on its duty of care by using the absence of such consideration to duck the issue
3. Of course the wishes and views of NoK have an effect on those who post on this forum. We are all conscious of the tragedy that lies behind this thread and of the broken lives left in its wake. Many of us have experienced the loss of comrades in this or other accidents. I genuinely believe that we are united in the wish to prevent such tragedy in the future, that is to reduce future avoidable accidents. How we get there is the bone of contention of course, and the subject of much of the debate.
1.The thread is just that, its desired outcome will be in the individual minds of those who contribute or only read it. For my part I agree with Nigegilb and others who call for independent military airworthiness regulation rather than the self regulation that exists. I believe that alone would save lives. If our arguments advance that case I would be content.
2. Then either the BoI or the posters or both will have got it wrong. It is more likely that the BoI findings will be so restricted by the remit that considerations of Airworthiness Regulation/Provision will not be covered. A case of woods and trees. We have to urge for the inclusion of those woods into their findings, or the MOD will once again renege on its duty of care by using the absence of such consideration to duck the issue
3. Of course the wishes and views of NoK have an effect on those who post on this forum. We are all conscious of the tragedy that lies behind this thread and of the broken lives left in its wake. Many of us have experienced the loss of comrades in this or other accidents. I genuinely believe that we are united in the wish to prevent such tragedy in the future, that is to reduce future avoidable accidents. How we get there is the bone of contention of course, and the subject of much of the debate.
Last edited by Chugalug2; 1st Nov 2007 at 14:35.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM74,
The desired outcome is for the truth.
Unfortuantely, those of us who have been (or were in) for a bit are concerned at the length of time this BoI is taking and it is making us suspicious of the 'the findings' and thus the outcome.
The problem the BoI has, together with the RAF, MOD and ultimately the government, is that there are numerous cases and examples of incidents where concern has been raised over the lack of adequate fire suppression systems, whether it be in the Bomb Bay or in a fuel tank of Nimrod and other aircraft (C-130?? - say no more)
The 'nanny state' culture we now live in, makes it law for people to be accountable when things go wrong. The Clapham Rail disaster is a point in question, where some management were charged, I understand, with culpable manslaughter. The MOD is no different. It too has a duty of care to servicemen and women, and to uphold that law, and the longer this BoI goes on, it only adds fuel to the argumant that perhaps things are being 'doctored' to suit various departments and or individuals who may just be feeling the strain.
It matters not what is written here as far as the BoI outcome is (or should be) concerned, however, the outstanding efforts of people like Graham Knight to get to the bottom of things and to try and understand the inner workings of the MOD - RAF - Industry is raising some potentially embarrassing points and questions. And I would say that some of the speculation is not 'wild' at all, but is based on facts alone.
TD
Graham, once again Sir, you command my utmost respect for your unstinting efforts to get to the bottom of this utter tragedy. Stick with, Tapper and the rest of the guys deserve nothing less.
TSM
The desired outcome is for the truth.
Unfortuantely, those of us who have been (or were in) for a bit are concerned at the length of time this BoI is taking and it is making us suspicious of the 'the findings' and thus the outcome.
The problem the BoI has, together with the RAF, MOD and ultimately the government, is that there are numerous cases and examples of incidents where concern has been raised over the lack of adequate fire suppression systems, whether it be in the Bomb Bay or in a fuel tank of Nimrod and other aircraft (C-130?? - say no more)
The 'nanny state' culture we now live in, makes it law for people to be accountable when things go wrong. The Clapham Rail disaster is a point in question, where some management were charged, I understand, with culpable manslaughter. The MOD is no different. It too has a duty of care to servicemen and women, and to uphold that law, and the longer this BoI goes on, it only adds fuel to the argumant that perhaps things are being 'doctored' to suit various departments and or individuals who may just be feeling the strain.
It matters not what is written here as far as the BoI outcome is (or should be) concerned, however, the outstanding efforts of people like Graham Knight to get to the bottom of things and to try and understand the inner workings of the MOD - RAF - Industry is raising some potentially embarrassing points and questions. And I would say that some of the speculation is not 'wild' at all, but is based on facts alone.
TD
Graham, once again Sir, you command my utmost respect for your unstinting efforts to get to the bottom of this utter tragedy. Stick with, Tapper and the rest of the guys deserve nothing less.
TSM
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD,
Yes I did post those words in a reply to TSM, however, I immediately felt that all that would be achieved would be a a possible flaming by those taking them out of context. It appears that my reason for removing that post has been justified.
As you rightly quote, my words were "media speculation fuelled by possibly miss-leading facts/rumours". As you can see, I acknowledged that the media speculation was fuelled by facts. I also feel that some of the information, especially in the Panorama programme, was rumour. Hence why I said it was fuelled by both.
Also, there are facts and there are facts. The Nimrod suffers from fuel leaks FACT
A vast majority of those fuel leaks are nothing more than slight seeps FACT
The media are quick to headline the number of fuel leaks reported but give no mention of exactly what is classed as a leak and what percentage of all those reported were acceptable FACT
Much of what has been posted on here is pure rumour and speculation - and in response to your last post ("Rumours ? Everything I have said I have written documented proof of"), I did not say that what you had posted was rumourFACT
A post stating that a rib 7 fuel leak resulted in fuel pooling in the bomb bay is pure rumour and is bollox FACT
Other families saying that all the media coverage only brings back the pain when THEY are trying to grieve in their own way FACT
Several posters on here know SFA about the Nimrod, but spout off like experts FACT
As someone that flies in the Nimrod I applaud you for trying to raise important issues, such as the need for bomb bay and fuel tank fire suppressant systems - I may be very grateful one day.
As someone that had several friends on board I understand your pain. But I am also fully aware and understand the pain that all this is causing to the families of those others that were lost. All I asked was that speculations, facts and rumours are kept out of the media until you know the BOI results and whether or not their findings need to be challenged. Although the recent Sky News reports did contain facts they did not report ALL the facts and were, hence, very misleading. The day that story aired I saw more people at Kinloss that were hacked off with the report than those in support of it - because they knew the rest of the facts. FACT
MadMark!!!
p.s. In the post I deleted I replied to TSM comment about other families having the choice to not read this forum. My comment was that I agree, but they do not have the same choice about media reports without having to avoid the news or papers in toto. My post was about the media reporting, not about this forum.
[Edited for spolling mistokes]
Yes I did post those words in a reply to TSM, however, I immediately felt that all that would be achieved would be a a possible flaming by those taking them out of context. It appears that my reason for removing that post has been justified.
As you rightly quote, my words were "media speculation fuelled by possibly miss-leading facts/rumours". As you can see, I acknowledged that the media speculation was fuelled by facts. I also feel that some of the information, especially in the Panorama programme, was rumour. Hence why I said it was fuelled by both.
Also, there are facts and there are facts. The Nimrod suffers from fuel leaks FACT
A vast majority of those fuel leaks are nothing more than slight seeps FACT
The media are quick to headline the number of fuel leaks reported but give no mention of exactly what is classed as a leak and what percentage of all those reported were acceptable FACT
Much of what has been posted on here is pure rumour and speculation - and in response to your last post ("Rumours ? Everything I have said I have written documented proof of"), I did not say that what you had posted was rumourFACT
A post stating that a rib 7 fuel leak resulted in fuel pooling in the bomb bay is pure rumour and is bollox FACT
Other families saying that all the media coverage only brings back the pain when THEY are trying to grieve in their own way FACT
Several posters on here know SFA about the Nimrod, but spout off like experts FACT
As someone that flies in the Nimrod I applaud you for trying to raise important issues, such as the need for bomb bay and fuel tank fire suppressant systems - I may be very grateful one day.
As someone that had several friends on board I understand your pain. But I am also fully aware and understand the pain that all this is causing to the families of those others that were lost. All I asked was that speculations, facts and rumours are kept out of the media until you know the BOI results and whether or not their findings need to be challenged. Although the recent Sky News reports did contain facts they did not report ALL the facts and were, hence, very misleading. The day that story aired I saw more people at Kinloss that were hacked off with the report than those in support of it - because they knew the rest of the facts. FACT
MadMark!!!
p.s. In the post I deleted I replied to TSM comment about other families having the choice to not read this forum. My comment was that I agree, but they do not have the same choice about media reports without having to avoid the news or papers in toto. My post was about the media reporting, not about this forum.
[Edited for spolling mistokes]
Last edited by Mad_Mark; 1st Nov 2007 at 17:54.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cm74
Some of those who are content to wait I wonder what they are waiting to hear .
Does anyone think the BOI is going to say there was no Bomb Bay fire ?
We know why it exploded the RAF told all the families,an uncontrollable Bomb Bay fire broke out. The events leading up to the explosion are not fully known but the result was the same .
Was it Fuel. hydraulic fluid,was the ignition caused by Kapton wiring or the SPC or because of AAR I don't know and don't profess to know
I am going to sound like a cracked record but;
1..There was a Bomb Bay fire on board XV230 FACT
2..BAE recommended in 2004 that is a fire should break out in the Bomb Bay of a Nimrod it would result in the loss of the ac. UNLESS they followed the recommendations and fitted a fire suppressant system FACT
Had a fire suppressant system been fitted 14 good men may still be alive, they just needed 3 mins in which to land .
Some people have said he is just a grieving father wanting to blame someone.
Do they know me No do they know my background No.
My grandfather was a magistrate, my brother until recently was a magistrate one of my surviving sons is a counter fraud investigator.
People used to reading though piles of document ,people who know the law.
And what happens if the BoI conclusions differ from those reached through the genuine research/wild speculation carried carried out by PPRuNe'rs on this thread?
Does anyone think the BOI is going to say there was no Bomb Bay fire ?
We know why it exploded the RAF told all the families,an uncontrollable Bomb Bay fire broke out. The events leading up to the explosion are not fully known but the result was the same .
Was it Fuel. hydraulic fluid,was the ignition caused by Kapton wiring or the SPC or because of AAR I don't know and don't profess to know
I am going to sound like a cracked record but;
1..There was a Bomb Bay fire on board XV230 FACT
2..BAE recommended in 2004 that is a fire should break out in the Bomb Bay of a Nimrod it would result in the loss of the ac. UNLESS they followed the recommendations and fitted a fire suppressant system FACT
Had a fire suppressant system been fitted 14 good men may still be alive, they just needed 3 mins in which to land .
Some people have said he is just a grieving father wanting to blame someone.
Do they know me No do they know my background No.
My grandfather was a magistrate, my brother until recently was a magistrate one of my surviving sons is a counter fraud investigator.
People used to reading though piles of document ,people who know the law.
Last edited by Tappers Dad; 1st Nov 2007 at 15:46. Reason: Too much information
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore TD, changes to AAR procedures failed to prevent subsequent massive fuel migrations during AAR Ops and such was overriding Op Tempo AAR Ops were authorised hours after the crash.
I agree with you, the lack of bomb bay fire suppressant is the key here.
I would add, that contrary to what some people have written in this thread it is perfectly possible to provide bomb bay fire protection on Nimrod, for normal ops.
The fact that RAF changed AAR procedures in an attempt to reduce the possibility of pressure spikes during AAR and also restricted the use of certain fuel tanks on board, speaks for itself.
The counter argument for not fitting fuel tank protection to C130s was the absence of official requests making their way up the CoC.
TD has discovered that BAe, no less, requested that Nimrod be given bomb bay fire protection. This is hugely significant.
An explanation needs to be given in the BoI for the rush to continue AAR and the failure to provide adequate bomb bay protection and fuel tank protection.
I agree with you, the lack of bomb bay fire suppressant is the key here.
I would add, that contrary to what some people have written in this thread it is perfectly possible to provide bomb bay fire protection on Nimrod, for normal ops.
The fact that RAF changed AAR procedures in an attempt to reduce the possibility of pressure spikes during AAR and also restricted the use of certain fuel tanks on board, speaks for itself.
The counter argument for not fitting fuel tank protection to C130s was the absence of official requests making their way up the CoC.
TD has discovered that BAe, no less, requested that Nimrod be given bomb bay fire protection. This is hugely significant.
An explanation needs to be given in the BoI for the rush to continue AAR and the failure to provide adequate bomb bay protection and fuel tank protection.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD has discovered that BAe, no less, requested that Nimrod be given bomb bay fire protection. This is hugely significant.
The BAE systems report listed the faults that would lead to a fire, the results and the solutions. This is what the RAF / MOD must be held to account over.