Nimrod Information
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do see your point and I do agree with it, which is why I have been saying that yes changes do need to be made but we do need to give the BOI a chance and to then ask the correct questions after the hearing, then we have the correct direction.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cm74:
Why not read the content of a post before commenting? Who exactly said that I was fighting for answers on behalf of the families and the crews in Kinloss? 
I was trying to explain to Lab Queen that there is good reason to raise the profile of this incident.
Which category do you come under: family or Kinloss crew?
Who asked you to take up the fight for answers on behalf of the families and the crews in Kinloss?
I was trying to explain to Lab Queen that there is good reason to raise the profile of this incident.Which category do you come under: family or Kinloss crew?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that, but the wishes of current Nimrod crews also need to be respected, not least those who were operational in 1995 when two other aircraft were lost.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Watching
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cm74...
It would appear you have rather a large chip on your shoulder... May I ask who asked you to carry it?.......... I would venture no-one.
Anyone for DV.....?
It would appear you have rather a large chip on your shoulder... May I ask who asked you to carry it?.......... I would venture no-one.
Anyone for DV.....?
Last edited by Gaiscioch; 4th Nov 2007 at 19:06. Reason: Oops..Sorry Chug/DV
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Watching
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you just looking for a rise?
A tad confrontational don't you think?
It would appear, like myself, that you are a relative newcomer to this discussion......... It would also appear that you have little or nothing to add to the debate.......
(ps... For the hard of noticing... one of which you seem to be a member... a debate which has been ongoing for quite some time...)..
It would appear, like myself, that you are a relative newcomer to this discussion......... It would also appear that you have little or nothing to add to the debate.......
(ps... For the hard of noticing... one of which you seem to be a member... a debate which has been ongoing for quite some time...)..
From Mr Smith’s blog, mentioned above……
“Civilian contractors at RAF Kinloss were not only not required to pass on the substantial information they had on the leaks and how to deal with them to the Integrated Project Team which oversees how the Nimrod fleets is run, they were not required to tell the RAF technicians working on the aircraft at Kinloss that the Air Publications they were working to were out-of-date and of "little, if any, value"”
This is not news, it’s been known for many years that MoD largely withdrew funding to routinely update tech pubs (just in time for the Chinook Mk2 pubs to be out of date at the time of the Mull crash). Maintaining Tech Pubs is a fundamental part of MoD airworthiness REGULATIONS. The MoD never actually denies it doesn’t maintain them, merely saying “we have robust airworthiness processes and procedures”. They do indeed, but they don’t implement them – a rather crucial omission and typical of their deceit.
It’s part of the process called “maintaining the build standard”. There are 17 core components, of which tech pubs is one. Fail to comply and you almost certainly break the airworthiness audit trail. If the Nimrod IPT don’t know exactly what I’m talking about, that’s incompetence. If they do know, it’s criminal. But, this affects everyone, not just Nimrod. Just because we have 2*s who think it’s a waste of money doesn’t mean they’re right. The quicker it’s fixed, the quicker a significant risk is mitigated.
“Civilian contractors at RAF Kinloss were not only not required to pass on the substantial information they had on the leaks and how to deal with them to the Integrated Project Team which oversees how the Nimrod fleets is run, they were not required to tell the RAF technicians working on the aircraft at Kinloss that the Air Publications they were working to were out-of-date and of "little, if any, value"”
This is not news, it’s been known for many years that MoD largely withdrew funding to routinely update tech pubs (just in time for the Chinook Mk2 pubs to be out of date at the time of the Mull crash). Maintaining Tech Pubs is a fundamental part of MoD airworthiness REGULATIONS. The MoD never actually denies it doesn’t maintain them, merely saying “we have robust airworthiness processes and procedures”. They do indeed, but they don’t implement them – a rather crucial omission and typical of their deceit.
It’s part of the process called “maintaining the build standard”. There are 17 core components, of which tech pubs is one. Fail to comply and you almost certainly break the airworthiness audit trail. If the Nimrod IPT don’t know exactly what I’m talking about, that’s incompetence. If they do know, it’s criminal. But, this affects everyone, not just Nimrod. Just because we have 2*s who think it’s a waste of money doesn’t mean they’re right. The quicker it’s fixed, the quicker a significant risk is mitigated.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got a very simple question to ask.
It's been 14 months since the accident, there has been numerous articles in the press, endless debates and constant speculation into what may have been the cause throughtout this time, even a panorama programme dedicated to the problems on the fleet and what "could have been" a contributing factor etc.
Has any of this actually brought about any changes with regards to saftey procedures, or even come close to bringing change and increasing safety?
It's been 14 months since the accident, there has been numerous articles in the press, endless debates and constant speculation into what may have been the cause throughtout this time, even a panorama programme dedicated to the problems on the fleet and what "could have been" a contributing factor etc.
Has any of this actually brought about any changes with regards to saftey procedures, or even come close to bringing change and increasing safety?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you
So I take it then that the requests from the family members and from those who are associated with the Nimrod, to await the facts presented by the BOI, and that speculation into the events have no sway towards changes, are actually justified.
So I take it then that the requests from the family members and from those who are associated with the Nimrod, to await the facts presented by the BOI, and that speculation into the events have no sway towards changes, are actually justified.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotia
Age: 57
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh.
Do you know if the Nimrod publications are out of date? Speculation again. Rather a sweeping statement without any knowledge to state that the Nimrod IPT is incompetent/negligent without any knowledge?
The report from QQ that Michael Smith refers to did this relate to XV230 or another aircraft in the fleet. Is there direct read across to all airframes, has an audit been carried out on all fuel tanks by QQ?
Mr Smith refers to six aircraft with the EO fit is this the current number? If he cannot get the simple facts right how can anyone trust any of the other speculation/facts in his blog/articles?
Jimmy Jones appears to have been involved in the original trials of the MR1 does he have any current knowledge of the aircraft and the fits. Does he have any relevant/current knowledge of the AAR fit?
Continued speculation is hurting the family members of CXX/3. Why not wait and see what the BoI has to say. If anything predjudices there efforts it is surely they must be wrong because I've got this report culture that has built up on this thread. I doubt that all the FOI requests and leaks allow a comprehensive picture to have been developed.
As ever condolences to the bereaved. I hope that you get the full story as soon as possible but few can no your grief and i am sorry to even post this and add to your problems.
Do you know if the Nimrod publications are out of date? Speculation again. Rather a sweeping statement without any knowledge to state that the Nimrod IPT is incompetent/negligent without any knowledge?
The report from QQ that Michael Smith refers to did this relate to XV230 or another aircraft in the fleet. Is there direct read across to all airframes, has an audit been carried out on all fuel tanks by QQ?
Mr Smith refers to six aircraft with the EO fit is this the current number? If he cannot get the simple facts right how can anyone trust any of the other speculation/facts in his blog/articles?
Jimmy Jones appears to have been involved in the original trials of the MR1 does he have any current knowledge of the aircraft and the fits. Does he have any relevant/current knowledge of the AAR fit?
Continued speculation is hurting the family members of CXX/3. Why not wait and see what the BoI has to say. If anything predjudices there efforts it is surely they must be wrong because I've got this report culture that has built up on this thread. I doubt that all the FOI requests and leaks allow a comprehensive picture to have been developed.
As ever condolences to the bereaved. I hope that you get the full story as soon as possible but few can no your grief and i am sorry to even post this and add to your problems.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Watching
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lab Queen
I believe there have been no substantive changes (a few procedural changes excepted..) to MR2 post XV230, neither have there been any changes to the design of MRA4.
If the BOI come up with any change recommendations, I for one (as a UK taxpayer) will want to know why it’s taken over 14 months (to date) to decide that changes are necessary (that’s 14 months of flying to date (& more tomorrow) without any changes…)).
If the BOI come up with any change recommendations, I for one (as a UK taxpayer) will want to know why it’s taken over 14 months (to date) to decide that changes are necessary (that’s 14 months of flying to date (& more tomorrow) without any changes…)).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 49
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to do a bit of speculating of my own on this.
Could it possibly be that no changes have been brought about because it is not yet known exactly what changes need to be brought about, what the cause of the accident was, what caused the fuel leak, why there was a bomb bay fire. Could it be that they are themselves awaiting the findings of the BOI before it could be possible to effect any change. Afterall to change something you have to know exactly what needs to be done.
All comes back to having the actual facts.
There is a huge difference between "i think" or "I guess" this is what happened and "I know". The one you listen to is the one who knows.
Could it possibly be that no changes have been brought about because it is not yet known exactly what changes need to be brought about, what the cause of the accident was, what caused the fuel leak, why there was a bomb bay fire. Could it be that they are themselves awaiting the findings of the BOI before it could be possible to effect any change. Afterall to change something you have to know exactly what needs to be done.
All comes back to having the actual facts.
There is a huge difference between "i think" or "I guess" this is what happened and "I know". The one you listen to is the one who knows.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speculation or Facts
Mr Smith refers to six aircraft with the EO fit is this the current number? If he cannot get the simple facts right how can anyone trust any of the other speculation/facts in his blog/articles?
The article in today's Sunday Times is not based on speculation. It is a straightforward report of what a very damning QinetiQ report said. The blog simply refers to that. Nothing I have written since the initial accident has been based on speculation. The MoD uses that word as a smokescreen to deflect criticism. But facts do not turn into speculation just because a board of inquiry has yet to report.
Official reports, be they serious fault signals, air incident reports, BAE Systems reports, or QinetiQ reports are just that. They were certainly not speculation. For the most part they were written before the explosion and they were certainly all factual and all damning or they would not have been reportable. They are of course merely snapshots, part of an overall picture. They of course cannot be taken, on their own or collectively, as some sort of quasi-board of inquiry.
But as Tucumseh has indicated, there is damning evidence in the QinetiQ report of serious problems which have implications not just for the Nimrod fleets but across the RAF, and which, whether or not they contributed to the explosion, should be made public.
Everyone would like the BOI report to be published ASAP. But it is not the media's job to keep quiet when evidence of something going wrong emerges. As for whether or not it has helped, on at least two occasions, the board of inquiry has put back its report following information emerging in the media. That can only be because that information was not taken into account by someone contributing to the report.
I entirely understand why relatives and friends of those who died feel unhappy reading reports that refer to the incident. I have not at any point forgotten that 14 real people died, leaving behind partners, parents and children for whom I have the utmost sympathy, a fact that is clearly indicated in my blogs. But their sorrow is no reason why highly damning information like that reported by the QinetiQ team should not be made public.
For those who want to make their own choice to read the article to which the blog refers, it is here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2786304.ece
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith wrote:
"on at least two occasions, the board of inquiry has put back its report following information emerging in the media."
How on earth do you know that? Are you more intimately involved with the BOI proceedings than those involved with the Nimrod or even those that know the BOI members, or are you just speculating on this point as you do on most things? If you have hard evidence present it otherwise keep quiet.
I also read your article today and it frustrated me to the extent that I put a blog on your website which read:
"As a Nimrod engineer, I have seen the QinetiQ report. The way this newspaper article has sensationalised the matter and linked it to the loss of XV230 is shameful. The points made have all been taken completely out of context from the report especially the alleged ‘critical problem with structural integrity’ which is grossly misrepresented. The report was initiated to improve aircraft availability not from safety concerns as these were never compromised by the wing leaks in question. XV230 was one of the platforms assessed but this has no linkage to the accident whatsoever. We are working hard to make Nimrod as safe as it can be in difficult operational times and this is a challenge with difficult decisions having to be made. These articles divert valuable efforts onto unnecessary issues and distress many of the families. Jimmy Jones, ‘the so called expert’ has no credibility at Kinloss and Michael Smith is sensationalising a serious issue for his own ends. STOP NOW AND AWAIT THE BOI.
I note this blog has not been reproduced on your Times Website but I am not surprised by this!
I am sure as a result of this my first ever post onto PPrune, and it is likely to be my last, and that I will undoubtedly be vilified by some quarters on this forum. However, I too want the truth both for the families and to ensure safety of air and ground crews undertaking a difficult job. I want the families to find closure, however difficult that path may be but I do have faith in the BOI as I know the members to be men of integrity and even if they are not experts in all matters to do with accidents they are supported where they need to be.
I know PPrune is a rumour forum and clearly you can speculate on here all you want, albeit you should respect the families who have asked repeatedly for restraint. However, when that speculation extends to National reporting it both further distresses families and diverts efforts from key issues; this should stop now.
"on at least two occasions, the board of inquiry has put back its report following information emerging in the media."
How on earth do you know that? Are you more intimately involved with the BOI proceedings than those involved with the Nimrod or even those that know the BOI members, or are you just speculating on this point as you do on most things? If you have hard evidence present it otherwise keep quiet.
I also read your article today and it frustrated me to the extent that I put a blog on your website which read:
"As a Nimrod engineer, I have seen the QinetiQ report. The way this newspaper article has sensationalised the matter and linked it to the loss of XV230 is shameful. The points made have all been taken completely out of context from the report especially the alleged ‘critical problem with structural integrity’ which is grossly misrepresented. The report was initiated to improve aircraft availability not from safety concerns as these were never compromised by the wing leaks in question. XV230 was one of the platforms assessed but this has no linkage to the accident whatsoever. We are working hard to make Nimrod as safe as it can be in difficult operational times and this is a challenge with difficult decisions having to be made. These articles divert valuable efforts onto unnecessary issues and distress many of the families. Jimmy Jones, ‘the so called expert’ has no credibility at Kinloss and Michael Smith is sensationalising a serious issue for his own ends. STOP NOW AND AWAIT THE BOI.
I note this blog has not been reproduced on your Times Website but I am not surprised by this!
I am sure as a result of this my first ever post onto PPrune, and it is likely to be my last, and that I will undoubtedly be vilified by some quarters on this forum. However, I too want the truth both for the families and to ensure safety of air and ground crews undertaking a difficult job. I want the families to find closure, however difficult that path may be but I do have faith in the BOI as I know the members to be men of integrity and even if they are not experts in all matters to do with accidents they are supported where they need to be.
I know PPrune is a rumour forum and clearly you can speculate on here all you want, albeit you should respect the families who have asked repeatedly for restraint. However, when that speculation extends to National reporting it both further distresses families and diverts efforts from key issues; this should stop now.