Nimrod Information
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 659
From: West Sussex
Please interpret as you see fit........
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide
You decide.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Mike, do you seriously think anyone here wants to damage the Nimrod fleet? More importantly, in the light of your post, would the good men and women of a jury think that?
That was a hell of a first post, I hope you stick around and answer a few questions, rather than put the frighteners out and retire to wherever it is you came from.
There is a belief in here that the MoD is playing safety off against the lives of British servicemen. I have been told by very senior officers that they would love to have more safety equipment on board the Nimrod but there simply is no money to do it with.
Over to you.
That was a hell of a first post, I hope you stick around and answer a few questions, rather than put the frighteners out and retire to wherever it is you came from.
There is a belief in here that the MoD is playing safety off against the lives of British servicemen. I have been told by very senior officers that they would love to have more safety equipment on board the Nimrod but there simply is no money to do it with.
Over to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Whilst we wait for Mike to reply, or the Omega to pull up I would like to relate the following incident. It occurred on climb out from Kabul. A Hercules crew were slowly gaining altitude when a TCAS RA event occurred.
The Herc was over mountainous terrain, the RA was a descend instruction. Just about the worst place to be on a dark night. Turns out, the new arrival plates for Bagram had not been deconflicted with the SID for Kabul. I relate this because I was under the impression that TCAS was mandatory for coalition aircraft. When I was flying over Afg in 2002, there were 2 AWACS aircraft North and South, with not so many aircraft to deconflict. I, myself had a near fatal airmiss because of a lack of TCAS on board. I was intrigued because XV235s MAYDAY call went unanswered. I hear that this is no longer the case (AWACS) and the sky is full of metal.
There have been very many RAs in this airspace. Just wondered if Nimrod had TCAS?
The Herc was over mountainous terrain, the RA was a descend instruction. Just about the worst place to be on a dark night. Turns out, the new arrival plates for Bagram had not been deconflicted with the SID for Kabul. I relate this because I was under the impression that TCAS was mandatory for coalition aircraft. When I was flying over Afg in 2002, there were 2 AWACS aircraft North and South, with not so many aircraft to deconflict. I, myself had a near fatal airmiss because of a lack of TCAS on board. I was intrigued because XV235s MAYDAY call went unanswered. I hear that this is no longer the case (AWACS) and the sky is full of metal.
There have been very many RAs in this airspace. Just wondered if Nimrod had TCAS?
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
From: Back in Geordie Land
Mike,
Thank you for your most informative post, but do you think that none of us know the Official Secrets Act?? I think most of us do.
Perhaps you would do us the honour of introducing yourself and letting us into your background? Are you a CS or military?
Are you quoting the said document to try and scare us off or something? or, as has been said here, a 'legal person' who can offer us some help with this matter?
I look forward to your replies.
Kind regards
The Winco
Thank you for your most informative post, but do you think that none of us know the Official Secrets Act?? I think most of us do.
Perhaps you would do us the honour of introducing yourself and letting us into your background? Are you a CS or military?
Are you quoting the said document to try and scare us off or something? or, as has been said here, a 'legal person' who can offer us some help with this matter?
I look forward to your replies.
Kind regards
The Winco
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Thanks Dave. I understand there is very little in the way of ATC control/separation available. Are you aware of any other multi-aircraft operating in Afg without the safety of TCAS on board?
I throw that question out to the wider audience.
PS Has anyone acually UOR'd this essential safety equipment for Nimrod?
With reference to your reply Dave, I was saved when my Air Engineer, (On NVGs), spotted the confliction and the Co ( also on NVGs) performed a very aggressive left hand down. Presumably you do not get an instruction to climb or descend with your equipment and you do not know what the conflicting aircraft is going to do?
I throw that question out to the wider audience.
PS Has anyone acually UOR'd this essential safety equipment for Nimrod?
With reference to your reply Dave, I was saved when my Air Engineer, (On NVGs), spotted the confliction and the Co ( also on NVGs) performed a very aggressive left hand down. Presumably you do not get an instruction to climb or descend with your equipment and you do not know what the conflicting aircraft is going to do?
Last edited by nigegilb; 15th November 2007 at 20:57.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
From: England
I don't think that the Harrier (or any of our fast-jets) has TCAS.
The MoD were forced into fitting TCAS to the AT/AAR fleet when Germany specified that the exemption for Military Transport Type Aircraft (MTTA) would cease from 1 Jan 05. After that date MoD owned MTTA would not have been able to fly in German airspace. I suppose that Nimrod was classified as a Reconnaissance aircraft and retained the state exemption.
It is telling that foreign legislation was required before the MoD would find the money to act. They wouldn't even heed the horrific lesson learned by 2 of our closest allies when a GAF Tu-154 collided with a USAF C-141 off West Africa, prompting both those nations to forsake their exemptions.
The MoD were forced into fitting TCAS to the AT/AAR fleet when Germany specified that the exemption for Military Transport Type Aircraft (MTTA) would cease from 1 Jan 05. After that date MoD owned MTTA would not have been able to fly in German airspace. I suppose that Nimrod was classified as a Reconnaissance aircraft and retained the state exemption.
It is telling that foreign legislation was required before the MoD would find the money to act. They wouldn't even heed the horrific lesson learned by 2 of our closest allies when a GAF Tu-154 collided with a USAF C-141 off West Africa, prompting both those nations to forsake their exemptions.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
I hear the Akrotiri eng det is being actively considered when the state exemptions for Mode "S" run out next March. Surely, it makes more sense to fit TCAS to large multi-aircraft? With all the world's air forces operating in Afg airspace and carrier group aircraft on top, it would appear to me to be essential. If the paperwork is not already in, might be worth submitting it. I will try and raise this issue via PQs.
It would be interesting to find out the implications of Nimrod being banned from entering European airspace.
Apologies Spanners, but this issue has been raised with me privately. I will now revert to thread.
It would be interesting to find out the implications of Nimrod being banned from entering European airspace.
Apologies Spanners, but this issue has been raised with me privately. I will now revert to thread.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Agreed, the TCAS discussion is off-topic, but I hope readers will permit me one last reply to nigegilb to save starting a new thread.
I'm not sure what you've heard, and you won't find people discussing specific details of theatre on an open forum, but the ATC situation is probably not as bad as you thought.
I know nothing of defence procurement but as a layman I would be surprised if we got TCAS on an aircraft that supposedly has only 5(ish) years left.
I'm not sure what you've heard, and you won't find people discussing specific details of theatre on an open forum, but the ATC situation is probably not as bad as you thought.
I know nothing of defence procurement but as a layman I would be surprised if we got TCAS on an aircraft that supposedly has only 5(ish) years left.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: uk
Off topic but...
We've had FOUR TCAS RAs in the last week alone in Afghan airspace, one of which caused us some serious alarm and caused me to question my belief in big sky theory! I know of two others within the Telic JOA in the same time frame.
I am somewhat surprised that the Nimrod fleet doesn't have TCAS, a basic safety system which is widely available and previously embodied in other military types, with or without SIFF. I would have to think very carefully whether I would be willing to operate an ac into Telic airspace without TCAS.
Has the Nimrod IPT and command chain been so focussed on making the ac 'relevant' that it's missed some fairly fundamental areas of basic safety?
As an aside...
Theatre comms are notoriously fickle and I'm not in the least surprised that someone didn't hear/respond to the mayday to KAF. Mind you, with all the box switching that occurs, I wouldn't rule out a switch pigs either...
Forgive my intrusion...
We've had FOUR TCAS RAs in the last week alone in Afghan airspace, one of which caused us some serious alarm and caused me to question my belief in big sky theory! I know of two others within the Telic JOA in the same time frame.
I am somewhat surprised that the Nimrod fleet doesn't have TCAS, a basic safety system which is widely available and previously embodied in other military types, with or without SIFF. I would have to think very carefully whether I would be willing to operate an ac into Telic airspace without TCAS.
Has the Nimrod IPT and command chain been so focussed on making the ac 'relevant' that it's missed some fairly fundamental areas of basic safety?
As an aside...
Theatre comms are notoriously fickle and I'm not in the least surprised that someone didn't hear/respond to the mayday to KAF. Mind you, with all the box switching that occurs, I wouldn't rule out a switch pigs either...
Forgive my intrusion...
Registered User **
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
I know nothing of defence procurement but as a layman I would be surprised if we got TCAS on an aircraft that supposedly has only 5(ish) years left.
Rudekid, this was not just an IPT decision, the decision not to fit TCAS/GPWS and other such systems has been made much higher than IPTL level. The installation of these has been recommended in numerous accident and incident reports. Safety has not been the driving factor in the limited installations so far, it has been forced only be the need to use certain parts of the airspace. The MoD spokesmen who constantly trot out the mantra of safety being a priority are nothing much more than l.... !
S_H
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,311
Likes: 365
From: uk
TCAS, IFF etc
TCAS, IFF etc
I am glad to see this mentioned on a thread whose focus, as a result of the release under FoI of the QQ report, has shifted slightly to encompass and consider the appalling catalogue of airworthiness failures it reveals. And remember, these are not revelations. EVERY single adverse comment in the report has been notified before. And rejected, so it’ll be interesting to see the MoD reaction. I think this thread is, at last, drawing all this together.
It is important to realise that DE&S (DPA + DLO) does not have thousands of people working on military aviation. It is actually a quite small community, headed by a few. Those few increasingly rely on an important aspect of achieving and maintaining airworthiness, called “retention of Corporate memory”. Experience. Competence. Upkeep of standards. And so on. (All things referred to by QQ as missing, to varying degrees, on Nimrod support). But, just as the report damns the exodus of experience from the RAF, the equivalent experience is being ejected from DE&S. Every loss of an experienced engineer, undermines the airworthiness foundations. And means money has to be diverted to pay premium rates elsewhere.
Few here would disagree that a serviceable and functional (two different things) IFF is vital. Think Tornado/Patriot – the BoI report is available on the MoD site. Consider also that the above staffs have formally ruled that neither necessary. Then, ask if the same people are making similar absolutely barking decisions concerning other safety and airworthiness issues. I simply refer you to the QQ report.
You may recall that earlier this year the MoD in-house rag trumpeted SIFF in these terms – “Latest Puma changes will cut friendly fire risk”. Well done, I say, to the IPTL. But I wonder if he knew that various DGs, CDP and Mins(AF) had specifically ruled to the contrary. Who would you rather have responsible for your safety?
These events/subjects are all linked.
I am glad to see this mentioned on a thread whose focus, as a result of the release under FoI of the QQ report, has shifted slightly to encompass and consider the appalling catalogue of airworthiness failures it reveals. And remember, these are not revelations. EVERY single adverse comment in the report has been notified before. And rejected, so it’ll be interesting to see the MoD reaction. I think this thread is, at last, drawing all this together.
It is important to realise that DE&S (DPA + DLO) does not have thousands of people working on military aviation. It is actually a quite small community, headed by a few. Those few increasingly rely on an important aspect of achieving and maintaining airworthiness, called “retention of Corporate memory”. Experience. Competence. Upkeep of standards. And so on. (All things referred to by QQ as missing, to varying degrees, on Nimrod support). But, just as the report damns the exodus of experience from the RAF, the equivalent experience is being ejected from DE&S. Every loss of an experienced engineer, undermines the airworthiness foundations. And means money has to be diverted to pay premium rates elsewhere.
Few here would disagree that a serviceable and functional (two different things) IFF is vital. Think Tornado/Patriot – the BoI report is available on the MoD site. Consider also that the above staffs have formally ruled that neither necessary. Then, ask if the same people are making similar absolutely barking decisions concerning other safety and airworthiness issues. I simply refer you to the QQ report.
You may recall that earlier this year the MoD in-house rag trumpeted SIFF in these terms – “Latest Puma changes will cut friendly fire risk”. Well done, I say, to the IPTL. But I wonder if he knew that various DGs, CDP and Mins(AF) had specifically ruled to the contrary. Who would you rather have responsible for your safety?
These events/subjects are all linked.
Registered User **
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
From: Cambridge
Tuc
One of the UK's most rescpected safety professionals once described the MOD as "a hollowed out shell, devoid of competence". He was speaking with regard to safety engineering and safety management. It is a remark that was perhaps unfair on a small minority of people, but as a generalisation, quite reasonable I think.
S_H
One of the UK's most rescpected safety professionals once described the MOD as "a hollowed out shell, devoid of competence". He was speaking with regard to safety engineering and safety management. It is a remark that was perhaps unfair on a small minority of people, but as a generalisation, quite reasonable I think.
S_H
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
Rude Kid and I have never always seen eye to eye but I couldn't agree more with his post, esp the following.
Has the Nimrod IPT and command chain been so focussed on making the ac 'relevant' that it's missed some fairly fundamental areas of basic safety?
As has been mentioned, the very fact that Nimrod is allowed to enter Afg airspace without TCAS places other TCAS equipped aircraft at risk. Stationing guys in the bubble reminds me of our methods in Afg. Two GEs in the para doors, their job to call the missile launch and to shout the "break" such was the efficacy of our anti-missile equipment, laughingly called a DAS by Adam Ingram.
Picking up on Brain's post, would I be right in stating that Nimrod is the only multi-ac in the RAF without TCAS?
Has the Nimrod IPT and command chain been so focussed on making the ac 'relevant' that it's missed some fairly fundamental areas of basic safety?
As has been mentioned, the very fact that Nimrod is allowed to enter Afg airspace without TCAS places other TCAS equipped aircraft at risk. Stationing guys in the bubble reminds me of our methods in Afg. Two GEs in the para doors, their job to call the missile launch and to shout the "break" such was the efficacy of our anti-missile equipment, laughingly called a DAS by Adam Ingram.
Picking up on Brain's post, would I be right in stating that Nimrod is the only multi-ac in the RAF without TCAS?
Last edited by nigegilb; 16th November 2007 at 10:07.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Henley, Oxfordshire
OSA and Nimrod fleet
Mike Rotch
I don't think there is any doubt here what a British court would decide was "damaging" and it doesnt have anything to do with national security. Certainly there are technical breaches of the OSA for any RAF personnel involved and these are open and shut under the law I'm afraid.
But since the video capability is well and truly in the public domain through a series of articles by JDW, both before and since the crash, and the Sunday Times since the crash - and more importantly in legal terms the QinetiQ report, which was released under FOI - a British court's only consideration here would be the safety of RAF aircrew put at risk because a known problem with part of the aircraft wasn't fixed, and in that regard there is a clear public interest in disclosure.
Meanwhile, I asked a series of questions in my previous post and we still don't seem to have had any answers. Let's just concentrate on the first two:
Was the Nimrod repair working group [recommended by the QinetiQ team] ever set up?
A positive answer here could not have any possible security implications, indeed would only serve to dampen some of the anger shown on this thread.
Have the APs in the RAMS been updated to the point where they match up to the procedures in use by the NSG?
Again, a positive answer would have no security implications and could only help moderate the anger on this thread. So why hasn't someone just come up to say: "Yep, both were done,"?
I'm afraid in the absence of any such answers people are entitled to draw the obvious conclusions.
What do you believe is 'damaging' and what would an English court see as 'damaging'? Disclosure to those, outside of the MoD, of difficulties with the UK's MPA fleet?
You decide.
You decide.
But since the video capability is well and truly in the public domain through a series of articles by JDW, both before and since the crash, and the Sunday Times since the crash - and more importantly in legal terms the QinetiQ report, which was released under FOI - a British court's only consideration here would be the safety of RAF aircrew put at risk because a known problem with part of the aircraft wasn't fixed, and in that regard there is a clear public interest in disclosure.
Meanwhile, I asked a series of questions in my previous post and we still don't seem to have had any answers. Let's just concentrate on the first two:
Was the Nimrod repair working group [recommended by the QinetiQ team] ever set up?
A positive answer here could not have any possible security implications, indeed would only serve to dampen some of the anger shown on this thread.
Have the APs in the RAMS been updated to the point where they match up to the procedures in use by the NSG?
Again, a positive answer would have no security implications and could only help moderate the anger on this thread. So why hasn't someone just come up to say: "Yep, both were done,"?
I'm afraid in the absence of any such answers people are entitled to draw the obvious conclusions.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Safety_Helmut: I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how I expect the TCAS thing will pan out.
Regarding the 'other TCAS aircraft at risk' comment, we obviously have an IFF with 3/C, so as long as that's working, TCAS-fitted aircraft should see us on surveillance and be able to issue both TA and RAs, with the only caveat that an RA won't have been pre-deconflicted with our own avoiding action.
Again, I'm not saying the status quo is perfect but I don't want people to read this site and think that the situation is worse than it really is.
Regarding the 'other TCAS aircraft at risk' comment, we obviously have an IFF with 3/C, so as long as that's working, TCAS-fitted aircraft should see us on surveillance and be able to issue both TA and RAs, with the only caveat that an RA won't have been pre-deconflicted with our own avoiding action.
Again, I'm not saying the status quo is perfect but I don't want people to read this site and think that the situation is worse than it really is.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
From: wilts
DB, hear what you are saying. The specific example I quoted involved a transporter climbing out over high terrain and a fighter descending on top of. The RA gave a climb for the fighter and a descent for the transporter. That is exactly the sort of time you want both aircraft TCAS equipped.
The other example I quoted, my own experience, involved a head on potential collision at Herc cruise levels. You see you are relying on the other aircraft being able to see you. In my case, neither Herc had TCAS and to this day I don't know how we missed.
One thing is for sure, if this equipment has not been requested, there is no way on earth you will get it on board.
The other example I quoted, my own experience, involved a head on potential collision at Herc cruise levels. You see you are relying on the other aircraft being able to see you. In my case, neither Herc had TCAS and to this day I don't know how we missed.
One thing is for sure, if this equipment has not been requested, there is no way on earth you will get it on board.