Nimrod Information
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
From: cheshire
This is my first post after quite a few years of reading pprune and I should point out that I am a civvy ("Joe Public" no less) with little first hand knowledge of current mil ops; however I think this thread and the accompanying media coverage warrants some comment. Firstly, I sympathise enormously with TD and others close to the crew of XV230 who simply want to know the truth - at times, just through pprune, I feel as though I have shared your grief. Secondly, glad the crew on Monday got down safely. To get to the matter at hand I feel the issue here is all about risk management, i.e. judging what is and is not an acceptable risk. Flying an aircraft into a "hot" area with the knowledge that you have taken all possible measures to mitigate any risk (intel brief, defensive aids, sortie profile, etc) is one thing; doing that with the knowledge that the aircraft could explode during AR due to a known deficiency is completely different.
In my life in civvy street my employer has a responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure that I am not exposed to undue risk; in the case of Nimrod crews it appears to me that the RAF has not taken this responsibility seriously enough. I don't profess to know enough about the technicalities to comment in detail but I know if I (or a loved one) was Nimrod aircrew I would be very uneasy about the current "just get on with it" mentality that seems to prevail in the upper echelons of your management.
To all the crews - the British public do appreciate your ongoing efforts and unswerving dedication to the cause.
Fly Safe.
In my life in civvy street my employer has a responsibility to take all necessary measures to ensure that I am not exposed to undue risk; in the case of Nimrod crews it appears to me that the RAF has not taken this responsibility seriously enough. I don't profess to know enough about the technicalities to comment in detail but I know if I (or a loved one) was Nimrod aircrew I would be very uneasy about the current "just get on with it" mentality that seems to prevail in the upper echelons of your management.
To all the crews - the British public do appreciate your ongoing efforts and unswerving dedication to the cause.
Fly Safe.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: N/A
AC Ovee: forgive me if I am misinterpreting your comments, but you seem to be giving the impression that:
a. You have read the BoI report or at least have knowledge of its contents.
b. You believe that, if the crew knew what you knew, even with fuel spraying into the bomb bay, they should not have diverted but should have remained on task or returned to their airfield of departure.
Is that really what you meant?
a. You have read the BoI report or at least have knowledge of its contents.
b. You believe that, if the crew knew what you knew, even with fuel spraying into the bomb bay, they should not have diverted but should have remained on task or returned to their airfield of departure.
Is that really what you meant?
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: Blighty
So if the Nimrod takes on 40k lbs of fuel in a single AAR, then even 5% of that leaking into the bomb bay would add up to 2k lbs of fuel sloshing around in there. You can knob off if you think im flying around with 2k lbs of fuel waiting for an ignition source to pitch up.
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,304
Likes: 1
From: @exRAF_Al
Potential daft question here, but treat me gently.
Lets assume that fuel is sloshing around in the bay, would expelling it by opening the bay doors help? I know that it wouldn't stop the leak and as you descend, you only add more air to the equation, but would getting rid of a lying pool of fuel serve any benefit? And would instantly expelling the fuel source as it leaked into the area help? Or would the mere physical act of opening the doors create a possible ignition source?
Lets assume that fuel is sloshing around in the bay, would expelling it by opening the bay doors help? I know that it wouldn't stop the leak and as you descend, you only add more air to the equation, but would getting rid of a lying pool of fuel serve any benefit? And would instantly expelling the fuel source as it leaked into the area help? Or would the mere physical act of opening the doors create a possible ignition source?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Joined: Dec 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 16,700
Likes: 54
From: Lincolnshire
Al R, it all depends on the aerodynamics.
Certainly fuel pooling on the bottom of the bombbay doors, ie the join, will either seep out or flow out if the doors are open. Where it goes after that would be a guess. It would be quite possible for it to flow up the fuselage within the boundary layer.
With the doors open the inside surfaces of the doors would propbably get a good airing. The bombbay itself and it cabin floor may be untouched by the airflow. Where the additional air flow drives the fuel however would be unknown.
May be there has been an assessment and a decision that opening the doors may cause more problems than they solve.
Certainly fuel pooling on the bottom of the bombbay doors, ie the join, will either seep out or flow out if the doors are open. Where it goes after that would be a guess. It would be quite possible for it to flow up the fuselage within the boundary layer.
With the doors open the inside surfaces of the doors would propbably get a good airing. The bombbay itself and it cabin floor may be untouched by the airflow. Where the additional air flow drives the fuel however would be unknown.
May be there has been an assessment and a decision that opening the doors may cause more problems than they solve.
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: Over the sea and far away
AC Ovee,
So apart from:
* Possible fire and explosion if an ignition source is present
* Noxious fumes
* Unstable load
* Reduction in available fuel
...there would be no reason for the crew to be concerned!
So apart from:
* Possible fire and explosion if an ignition source is present
* Noxious fumes
* Unstable load
* Reduction in available fuel
...there would be no reason for the crew to be concerned!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
From: Under The Sea
AlR,
AvTur by itself will not ignite.
It is the vapour that ignites.
Leaving it to pool and give off vapour, in the vacinity of an ignition source is dangerous.
Dumping it via the bomb bay, and allowing it to spray (and vapourise) in the vacinity of the engine exhaust could be equally spectacular.
Quess the answer is to get down PDQ.
I think AC Ovee should be an MoD spokesman or morale officer, well informed person that they be.
AvTur by itself will not ignite.
It is the vapour that ignites.
Leaving it to pool and give off vapour, in the vacinity of an ignition source is dangerous.
Dumping it via the bomb bay, and allowing it to spray (and vapourise) in the vacinity of the engine exhaust could be equally spectacular.
Quess the answer is to get down PDQ.
I think AC Ovee should be an MoD spokesman or morale officer, well informed person that they be.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
From: over here
I have an idea.
lets blame the crew for the leak, decide they were wrong to divert, making us happy in the knowledge that AAR is totaly safe and carry on again. W
NKERS!!!
To the crew involved. Well done.
lets blame the crew for the leak, decide they were wrong to divert, making us happy in the knowledge that AAR is totaly safe and carry on again. W
NKERS!!!To the crew involved. Well done.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
From: Just down the road from ISK
Gentlemen, I hate to wade in with my 2 penny worth but:
No matter what you argue, there is still a job to be done and not enough of anything else available with which to do it. So, is it acceptable to ground the fleet and sacrifice the lives of some Squaddies who are depending on us?
Shame on you!
Remember - flying is a little more risky than sitting in an office.
Military flying carrys more risk than going on holiday in a 737.
Military flying in war carrys yet more risk and commanders accept more risk.
I still fly the mighty Rod and have recently returned from theatre - where we flew a fair few AAR trips. I would still continue to do so - albeit with a little concern - but then again, departing from an airfield in a hostile country used to give me more of a 50P-5p feeling.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with the aircraft - there may well be. However, there may well be faults with the new A3XX that nobody will know about until an accident. The revised procedures post 230 almost certainly saved 235 and her crew. That gives me at least a little confidence, moreover, knowing the guys on the BOI personally, I know that their integrity would not hide any pressing issues simply to wait for the issue of the report.
If we as aircrew are concerned then vote with our feet - I for one love flying and will stay. To the others who fly and whinge, I say if you are that concerned then refuse to fly, and accept the consequences, or leave. If I ever reach that level of concern then I will leave also!
To the families and friends of 230, we have not forgotten our friends (and I've been in this game long enough to know and have flowm with nearly all of them), we are simply doing our best with what we have. We can't stop that to wait for new kit but we expect our government to sort out our new kit in f**king short order.
Retires and waits for the tirade!!
No matter what you argue, there is still a job to be done and not enough of anything else available with which to do it. So, is it acceptable to ground the fleet and sacrifice the lives of some Squaddies who are depending on us?
Shame on you!Remember - flying is a little more risky than sitting in an office.
Military flying carrys more risk than going on holiday in a 737.
Military flying in war carrys yet more risk and commanders accept more risk.
I still fly the mighty Rod and have recently returned from theatre - where we flew a fair few AAR trips. I would still continue to do so - albeit with a little concern - but then again, departing from an airfield in a hostile country used to give me more of a 50P-5p feeling.
I'm not saying that there isn't anything wrong with the aircraft - there may well be. However, there may well be faults with the new A3XX that nobody will know about until an accident. The revised procedures post 230 almost certainly saved 235 and her crew. That gives me at least a little confidence, moreover, knowing the guys on the BOI personally, I know that their integrity would not hide any pressing issues simply to wait for the issue of the report.
If we as aircrew are concerned then vote with our feet - I for one love flying and will stay. To the others who fly and whinge, I say if you are that concerned then refuse to fly, and accept the consequences, or leave. If I ever reach that level of concern then I will leave also!
To the families and friends of 230, we have not forgotten our friends (and I've been in this game long enough to know and have flowm with nearly all of them), we are simply doing our best with what we have. We can't stop that to wait for new kit but we expect our government to sort out our new kit in f**king short order.
Retires and waits for the tirade!!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Most people recognise there is a balance of risk to achieve. 14 months have passed, time enough to cobble together fire protection in the bomb bay and fuel tank protection in the wing. The missions could continue as before.
Where I disagree with you, is that the balance of risk is skewed so far this aircraft is no longer deserving of the phrase "safe to fly". You state that the new procedures saved the crew. Not quite. As you well know, the new procedures are designed to prevent an over-pressure leading to a fuel leak. I have read the follow-up report. The max pressure reached with the carter pump on was 45psi. Now then, ground testing equipment takes the pressure to 50psi and it was unable to replicate the leak. The crew were saved, because as part of the post XV230 procedure a crew member was stationed to look for leaks in the bomb bay. You miss the point that the leak still occurred. Meaning the RAF are stumped. I have still not heard of a definitive on the cause of ignition for XV230 and I have been looking at some pictures of the Nimrod bomb bay this morning.
Either get the protective systems on board, or cease flying AAR.
Can an ASTOR brain come back to the thread and explain in simple terms why it cannot do the Nimrod job? Obviously, opsec uppermost. I am hearing it is has an awesome capability.
Finally we are part of a coalition, why not ask for help?
Where I disagree with you, is that the balance of risk is skewed so far this aircraft is no longer deserving of the phrase "safe to fly". You state that the new procedures saved the crew. Not quite. As you well know, the new procedures are designed to prevent an over-pressure leading to a fuel leak. I have read the follow-up report. The max pressure reached with the carter pump on was 45psi. Now then, ground testing equipment takes the pressure to 50psi and it was unable to replicate the leak. The crew were saved, because as part of the post XV230 procedure a crew member was stationed to look for leaks in the bomb bay. You miss the point that the leak still occurred. Meaning the RAF are stumped. I have still not heard of a definitive on the cause of ignition for XV230 and I have been looking at some pictures of the Nimrod bomb bay this morning.
Either get the protective systems on board, or cease flying AAR.
Can an ASTOR brain come back to the thread and explain in simple terms why it cannot do the Nimrod job? Obviously, opsec uppermost. I am hearing it is has an awesome capability.
Finally we are part of a coalition, why not ask for help?
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th November 2007 at 09:24.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
From: The sandpit
Nigegilb, I think it may have been stated earlier but the ASTOR has the SAR capability whereas the rod is EO and also has an excellent comms capability. In theory the ASTOR(sentinel) could provide a service but I'd imagine EO would be the preference.
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 659
From: West Sussex
No matter what you argue, there is still a job to be done and not enough of anything else available with which to do it. So, is it acceptable to ground the fleet and sacrifice the lives of some Squaddies who are depending on us?Shame on you!
Shame on you!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Vage shames us for not thinking about the squaddies on the ground. Thought I would post this from arrse, for the "squaddie" perspective. BTW they don't always like being referred to as squaddies, depends a lot on who is saying it.
Apologies for the fruity language.
"My points:
1. They should NOT have to fly ancient aircraft (VC10 - Nimrod - TriStar)
2. They should NOT have to fly aircraft that are POSSIBLY UNSAFE.
Can anyone imagine our revolting government supporting an airline proposing to go on flying 'dodgy' aircraft?
Penalties for the guys on the ground, but would a majority of our soldiers tell the RAF to go on flying the sodding old Nimrod? In jest, of course they would; but in reality most of the 'Tommies' I know would 'see to' the men ordering the sagging old beast to fly on.
Thanks Bliar, you cnut; thanks also to you 'Bottler' - will you take your next 'long-haul' journies in Nimrods? No, I thought not, you disgusting sh1t !"
Apologies for the fruity language.
"My points:
1. They should NOT have to fly ancient aircraft (VC10 - Nimrod - TriStar)
2. They should NOT have to fly aircraft that are POSSIBLY UNSAFE.
Can anyone imagine our revolting government supporting an airline proposing to go on flying 'dodgy' aircraft?
Penalties for the guys on the ground, but would a majority of our soldiers tell the RAF to go on flying the sodding old Nimrod? In jest, of course they would; but in reality most of the 'Tommies' I know would 'see to' the men ordering the sagging old beast to fly on.
Thanks Bliar, you cnut; thanks also to you 'Bottler' - will you take your next 'long-haul' journies in Nimrods? No, I thought not, you disgusting sh1t !"
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,399
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
AAR for the Nimrod is a force multiplier, not a force enabler (for example, as it was for the Muharraq Tornados in Gulf War 1 tasked on long range attack sorties).
If Nimrod AAR is as dangerous as it certainly now appears, then you will need more Nimrods to cover the same period as a single AAR-supported aircraft.
Which means a lot more money thrown at fixing and upgrading the Nimrod fleet to the 'special' fit needed in Afghanistan.
Suck it in and cough up, Fat Gordon!
If Nimrod AAR is as dangerous as it certainly now appears, then you will need more Nimrods to cover the same period as a single AAR-supported aircraft.
Which means a lot more money thrown at fixing and upgrading the Nimrod fleet to the 'special' fit needed in Afghanistan.
Suck it in and cough up, Fat Gordon!
