Nimrod Information
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
MJ. I would say very little of the QinetiQ report perculated down to the servicing and operating personnel. Otherwise XV230 would not have left equalized servicing with 7 of the 12 fuel defects that it went in with still present. Please AGE do not talk about ADD's. If you do not fix them on depot servicing, when do you fix them?
DV
DV
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: Durham
Mike Jenvey, you waited 5.5 hrs and still no answer to the question you raised, I posed a question on the 3rd of November, after 9 days, I've still had no one jumping to answer my question, which was
"can anybody here say without doubt or heresay, guessing or speculation exactly what happened on board XV230 on september 2nd 2006 to cause the explosion. Yes there was a bomb bay fire, yes there was a fuel leak, how many of you were actually there and actually do know to be able to give a fully informed answer as to exactly why. It is only speculation otherwise."
"can anybody here say without doubt or heresay, guessing or speculation exactly what happened on board XV230 on september 2nd 2006 to cause the explosion. Yes there was a bomb bay fire, yes there was a fuel leak, how many of you were actually there and actually do know to be able to give a fully informed answer as to exactly why. It is only speculation otherwise."
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: RAF Kinloss
DV - I suggest you listen to MightyHunterAGE, he knows what he's talking about, as he known to me personally. It was only 5 days ago he forced me to do my fitness test...
Anyway - the fuel leaks you are talkign about and the ones in question are not realted. A fuel leak that would be ADF'd would be from the wings of the aircraft, from bolts, manhole covers, any part of the INTEGRAL tank that it could find it's way out from. As long as they do not exceed set limits, then they are allowable till a time comes when they will be fixed. In flight, any fuel that does leak out of these will be minimal, and will simply be blown instantly into the airstream. Leaks from couplings in fuel lines are a totally different matter. These will never be ADF'd, and will always be fixed.
As has been noted on here previously, Rib 7 leaks are a different matter.
Anyway - the fuel leaks you are talkign about and the ones in question are not realted. A fuel leak that would be ADF'd would be from the wings of the aircraft, from bolts, manhole covers, any part of the INTEGRAL tank that it could find it's way out from. As long as they do not exceed set limits, then they are allowable till a time comes when they will be fixed. In flight, any fuel that does leak out of these will be minimal, and will simply be blown instantly into the airstream. Leaks from couplings in fuel lines are a totally different matter. These will never be ADF'd, and will always be fixed.
As has been noted on here previously, Rib 7 leaks are a different matter.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Kinloss
DV
I refer you to post 1463 which you posted yesterday at 18.05.
I quote directly from what you posted
"you "current" guys are not as current as you think you are."
What did you mean by this then? I would wager that guys who fly the aircraft NOW know exactly what they are doing and you are accusing them of not knowing how to operate their own aircraft.
Again I quote
"The follow up signal says "The decision to man the bomb bay periscope is a procedure that has been used since Sep 06" Of course this could be a load of Bull S**t from Kinloss (The originator) to give the impression that everything was under control.
I am a man of the world and if someone calls me a bulls**tter then they are calling me a liar.
You seem to be a "specialist" in slinging mud and then trying to wriggled out of it.
As for your question
If you do not fix them on depot servicing, when do you fix them?
The simple answer to that is "when they exceed the acceptable leak rates as laid down by Lft 11 in the 2(R)1"
Anything else?
I refer you to post 1463 which you posted yesterday at 18.05.
I quote directly from what you posted
"you "current" guys are not as current as you think you are."
What did you mean by this then? I would wager that guys who fly the aircraft NOW know exactly what they are doing and you are accusing them of not knowing how to operate their own aircraft.
Again I quote
"The follow up signal says "The decision to man the bomb bay periscope is a procedure that has been used since Sep 06" Of course this could be a load of Bull S**t from Kinloss (The originator) to give the impression that everything was under control.
I am a man of the world and if someone calls me a bulls**tter then they are calling me a liar.
You seem to be a "specialist" in slinging mud and then trying to wriggled out of it.
As for your question
If you do not fix them on depot servicing, when do you fix them?
The simple answer to that is "when they exceed the acceptable leak rates as laid down by Lft 11 in the 2(R)1"
Anything else?
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
RAF Techie101. Thank you for the suggestion, but I also know what I am talking about. The QinetiQ report addresses fuel leak problems in the wings, XV230 went into equalized servicing with 12 ADD (ADF'S) for wing fuel leaks. It came out, almost two months later, with only 5 cleared. The others were extended until Jan 2007. The contractual requirement is to produce a "leak free" aircraft out of NSG.
By the way, what did you run the mile in for your fitness test?
DV
By the way, what did you run the mile in for your fitness test?
DV
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
OK, Mighty Hunter AGE, you claim to be "current" and your friend Techie101 speaks highly of you, so answer these questions:
".. prior to the media publication, what detailed information from the QinetiQ report perculated down to aircrew and ground crews at Kinloss?"
"How many QinetiQ recommendations have been taken up?"
DV
".. prior to the media publication, what detailed information from the QinetiQ report perculated down to aircrew and ground crews at Kinloss?"
"How many QinetiQ recommendations have been taken up?"
DV
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
RAF Techie 101. No, I have not seen said contract myself, but it is a statement of fact in the QinetiQ report.
Fitness tests are getting easier, these days
DV
Fitness tests are getting easier, these days
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 12th November 2007 at 16:17.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: North of England
Balance & Perspective
Amid much debate about speculation, facts, opinion, expertise and so on within this thread, I thought it might be worth offering a reminder about balance and perspective.
Around 230 people have posted here (yes, I’ve actually counted them). Almost a quarter of the 1500 or so posts have come from just 3 of the contributors, and over half have come from as few as 18 contributors.
I have no objection to free-speech and I completley believe in the right of everyone to their opinion, but please don’t let’s think for one moment that this thread is balanced, broadly-based or representative of the views of more than a very small group of individuals.
P.S. The only flack that I feel would be justified as result of this post would be that which points out how sad, workshy and/or anal I must be to have counted all these posts !!
Around 230 people have posted here (yes, I’ve actually counted them). Almost a quarter of the 1500 or so posts have come from just 3 of the contributors, and over half have come from as few as 18 contributors.
I have no objection to free-speech and I completley believe in the right of everyone to their opinion, but please don’t let’s think for one moment that this thread is balanced, broadly-based or representative of the views of more than a very small group of individuals.
P.S. The only flack that I feel would be justified as result of this post would be that which points out how sad, workshy and/or anal I must be to have counted all these posts !!
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
From: RAF Kinloss
Dimmer
If your username is related to your job, then I'm guessing you wouldn't have much else to do while you're working, and would so have much more free time than most to count posts.....
If you're not an AEO, I'll shut up ;-)
If your username is related to your job, then I'm guessing you wouldn't have much else to do while you're working, and would so have much more free time than most to count posts.....
If you're not an AEO, I'll shut up ;-)
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
RAF Techie101. You like your mentor, Mighty Hunter AGE, are "specialist" at jumping to the wrong conclusions. No one has ever said that you and your workmates are not doing your job properly. It is IPT/MoD who are not doing their job properly. You simply follow the directives from above.
Soon, no doubt, a new RTI will be issued by IPT, which states that if you carry out XYZ checks on the ground, the aircraft should be OK to resume AAR. You will carry out those checks, sign off the aircraft, and the aircrew will accept it. If things go wrong, as they did with XV235, I do not blame you, I BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO DEFINED THE LEVEL OF ACCEPTABLE RISK BY PRODUCED THE LAST SERIES OF STI's.
DV
Soon, no doubt, a new RTI will be issued by IPT, which states that if you carry out XYZ checks on the ground, the aircraft should be OK to resume AAR. You will carry out those checks, sign off the aircraft, and the aircrew will accept it. If things go wrong, as they did with XV235, I do not blame you, I BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO DEFINED THE LEVEL OF ACCEPTABLE RISK BY PRODUCED THE LAST SERIES OF STI's.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 14th November 2007 at 09:12.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: Durham
I'm sorry but I thought it had been stated previously that none of this was about who was to blame. Yet DV, you are now saying who you blame.
It has also been said that this is a debate about events leading up to the accident, that it is not speculating on what happened that day, even though there have been several comments of "could have beens" and some which, if a person came along and who had no experience, would easily read the statements as being an actual account and not given as their opinion.
I asked my question, which MJ I believe you have misread, as I was asking if anyone here knew, as it seems to be a resounding no.
It has also been said that this is a debate about events leading up to the accident, that it is not speculating on what happened that day, even though there have been several comments of "could have beens" and some which, if a person came along and who had no experience, would easily read the statements as being an actual account and not given as their opinion.
I asked my question, which MJ I believe you have misread, as I was asking if anyone here knew, as it seems to be a resounding no.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
Blame
Labqueen: I draw your attention to John Blakeley's posting #1456 (..but it shows once again, this time some 6 months before the crash, the IPT and their senior management were only too well aware of the risk they were taking with aircrew lives...)
This is not John Blakeley speculation, it is the findings of the QinetiQ report.
DV
This is not John Blakeley speculation, it is the findings of the QinetiQ report.
DV
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
From: Over the sea and far away
DV,
I'm not sure whether you are intentionally flaming, but comments like...
... are far from endearing.
I agree with your comments regarding the tollerances dictated by the IPT etc. to the engineers, but just like aircrew, engineers also apply experience and knowledge when carrying out their primary duties.
Mighty Hunter AGE,
You'll need to be more careful with your posts otherwise we might suspect you're beginning to like us aircrew!
I'm not sure whether you are intentionally flaming, but comments like...
OK, Mighty Hunter AGE, you claim to be "current"
I agree with your comments regarding the tollerances dictated by the IPT etc. to the engineers, but just like aircrew, engineers also apply experience and knowledge when carrying out their primary duties.
Mighty Hunter AGE,
You'll need to be more careful with your posts otherwise we might suspect you're beginning to like us aircrew!
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
From: Bristol Temple Meads
Mr Point, I take your point. On the other hand, Mighty Hunter AGE constantly suggests that if you are not current aircrew or ground crew you should keep your month shut on current issues. Some of the current issues, on an aircraft 35 years old, are repeats.
Anyway, I still await his answer to the two questions.
DV
Anyway, I still await his answer to the two questions.
DV
Registered User **
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
But I have a feeling in my water about this one.
For my last few years working in the MoD, with most of the fixed and rotary wing in-Service IPTs, it was apparent that safety and airworthiness management was in an appalling state. Not just in the IPTs though, but the organisations that were intended to support them. In ADRP (as was) DASC, AD Engineering Policy, the DESB, DASB FWAMG/HAMG etc, there was virtually no understanding of airworthiness and safety. An acquaintance of mine wrote a damning report on the MoD's competence to self regulate, it did not make good reading and it’s distribution any further was blocked. We often talked about a big event (catastrophe) that might change things within the MoD, and I think, finally, that this may be it. XV179 was not enough, the MoD has been able to wriggle and squirm because enemy fire was involved. But the loss of XV230 could have happened during any AAR sortie. The loss of XW666 was also very close to being that catastrophe, although I suspect that management of airworthiness and safety had not descended to such a level of ineptitude.
The information that is coming out now, and the management of the fleet following the loss of XV230 and all her crew is damning. It calls into question the competence, and the leadership of the very top levels of the MoD and the RAF.
The MoD’s privilege of self regulation should be withdrawn forthwith. It was a privilege that was put in place decades ago when the organisation had a core of design and airworthiness expertise. That core has gone, possibly irrecoverably, the right to self regulate is long past its sell by date.
And yes, I am a Specialist in this field !
Safety_Helmut
Last edited by Safety_Helmut; 12th November 2007 at 17:24.