Nimrod Information
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Banging my head against a wall
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD
I totally sympathise with how you must be feeling, but at the risk of being flamed out of existence, it's probably worth bearing in mind 2 things:
Firstly the warning on the front page of this forum which says 'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.' and secondly that out of 45000 (ish) serving members of the Royal Air Force, only about 40 - 50 (and I'm being deliberately on the high side here to avoid claims of understating the number) regularly post here. That is a tiny tiny fraction of an overwhelmingly larger number who don't feel strongly enough about many of the topics here to post on them (although I suspect the majority like me like to view the threads occasionally to see what might be an issue in the future). Some of the postings I have seen here have been ill informed, hopefully unintentionally, but ill informed nonetheless.
I have been honoured to have been a member of the MR2 flying fraternity for over 20 years and knew and served with all of the aircrew on XV230. I really believe that the right thing to do is to wait and see what the BOI says and then question any bits that I either don't understand or don't agree with. Unlike many here, I do have faith in the BOI system - there have been hundreds over the years and I can only think of 2 or 3 out of all of those that (in my view) might have been questionable. I also know some of the people involved with this BOI and they are all good people who have worked extremely hard for very long hours - I refuse to believe that anyone wants to see the thousands of man hours wasted by producing a report that everyone disagrees with. My only worry is that they won't be able to gather enough evidence to come to any meaningful conclusions.
All the best to you and I hope you take this in the well meaning spirit in which it is intended.
Fin
I totally sympathise with how you must be feeling, but at the risk of being flamed out of existence, it's probably worth bearing in mind 2 things:
Firstly the warning on the front page of this forum which says 'As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.' and secondly that out of 45000 (ish) serving members of the Royal Air Force, only about 40 - 50 (and I'm being deliberately on the high side here to avoid claims of understating the number) regularly post here. That is a tiny tiny fraction of an overwhelmingly larger number who don't feel strongly enough about many of the topics here to post on them (although I suspect the majority like me like to view the threads occasionally to see what might be an issue in the future). Some of the postings I have seen here have been ill informed, hopefully unintentionally, but ill informed nonetheless.
I have been honoured to have been a member of the MR2 flying fraternity for over 20 years and knew and served with all of the aircrew on XV230. I really believe that the right thing to do is to wait and see what the BOI says and then question any bits that I either don't understand or don't agree with. Unlike many here, I do have faith in the BOI system - there have been hundreds over the years and I can only think of 2 or 3 out of all of those that (in my view) might have been questionable. I also know some of the people involved with this BOI and they are all good people who have worked extremely hard for very long hours - I refuse to believe that anyone wants to see the thousands of man hours wasted by producing a report that everyone disagrees with. My only worry is that they won't be able to gather enough evidence to come to any meaningful conclusions.
All the best to you and I hope you take this in the well meaning spirit in which it is intended.
Fin
Join Date: May 2007
Location: ISK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, on reflection, I should have worded my last post in a clearer manner so apologies there. I was commenting on the ongoing speculation, and the fact that ISK and its aviators still have to fly the aircraft with all the he reckons this, and she reckons that, as to the safety of the MR2. I am of the opinion that supposition and second guessing is not conducive to the instilling of confidence with those still flying. Let's see what the BOI has to say about the tragic loss when it finally releases its findings.
Respects to all
Respects to all
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fistly may I remind some of you of an earlier posting on
Kinloss whats going on
28th March 2007, 09:23 #8 Tappers Dad vbmenu_register("postmenu_3202898", true);
Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 64
Whats going on ?
Whats going on is the same if not worse that has been going on for the last couple of years. 30+year old aircraft being patched up and sent up !!
No thought given to the morale of the crews. If we as a family didn't get offered counselling after the Nimrod explosion 2nd September , then you can bet no one at the base did either. My son Ben loved every minute he was in the RAF but he would not have wanted to die due to a technical fault. And I know its not an isolated incident ,they are happening every day. The blue suits at Kinloss need to tell the MOD to get there fingers out and say ,Enough is Enough we are not puttting up with it any more . Spend some money get the manpower Get it sorted. You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees.
Hopefully it is plain to see I am not knocking any aircrew or ground crew at ISk. The opposite is true "You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees."
Secondly if you look back in all of my posting I don't think you will find I have said I don't have an faith in the BOI. They will I am sure do a first class job. However it doesn't stop there,
I believe they willl say no more than the families have already been told but in more technical terms.
As you are aware all aircraft were grounded following the crash for a number of days. How did they know what to check if they had no idea what happened.They didn't check the whole fleet out end to end they were looking at certain areas.
This whole thread is about how the crash and the long wait for the BOI has effected morale and "concerns among air force personnel about a range of issues concerning the Nimrod aircraft and the fleet"
There are rumours I have heard I will not post on here and I will wait for the BOI to confim or disprove them.
Kinloss whats going on
28th March 2007, 09:23 #8 Tappers Dad vbmenu_register("postmenu_3202898", true); Instead of being 'just another number' I could order a Personal Title and help support PPRuNe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater
Posts: 64
Whats going on ?
Whats going on is the same if not worse that has been going on for the last couple of years. 30+year old aircraft being patched up and sent up !!
No thought given to the morale of the crews. If we as a family didn't get offered counselling after the Nimrod explosion 2nd September , then you can bet no one at the base did either. My son Ben loved every minute he was in the RAF but he would not have wanted to die due to a technical fault. And I know its not an isolated incident ,they are happening every day. The blue suits at Kinloss need to tell the MOD to get there fingers out and say ,Enough is Enough we are not puttting up with it any more . Spend some money get the manpower Get it sorted. You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees.
Hopefully it is plain to see I am not knocking any aircrew or ground crew at ISk. The opposite is true "You guys deserve better, than this. This government are bringing the services to its knees."
Secondly if you look back in all of my posting I don't think you will find I have said I don't have an faith in the BOI. They will I am sure do a first class job. However it doesn't stop there,
I believe they willl say no more than the families have already been told but in more technical terms.
As you are aware all aircraft were grounded following the crash for a number of days. How did they know what to check if they had no idea what happened.They didn't check the whole fleet out end to end they were looking at certain areas.
This whole thread is about how the crash and the long wait for the BOI has effected morale and "concerns among air force personnel about a range of issues concerning the Nimrod aircraft and the fleet"
There are rumours I have heard I will not post on here and I will wait for the BOI to confim or disprove them.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you are aware all aircraft were grounded following the crash for a number of days. How did they know what to check if they had no idea what happened.They didn't check the whole fleet out end to end they were looking at certain areas.
The crew reported a bomb-bay fire in their mayday. Eye-witnesses saw a fire coming from the underside of the aircraft before it exploded. The crew had just tanked. The aircraft was over a region with hostile ground forces.
So, what are the possibilities?
1. Hostile action - was the aircraft inside the threat envelope of hostile weapon systems? No? - rule out enemy action.
2. Where was the fire reported/seen? Bomb-bay - concentrate efforts in that area.
3. What could possibly cause a fire in the bomb-bay? Ordnance - was the aircraft carrying any? No? Rule that out. Electrical? Could a purely electrical fire cause the intensity of fire reported? Possibly. Hydraulic fluid? Possible. Fuel lines? Just tanked - more likely candidate for the intense fire.
So, based on the above the things to check the rest of the fleet for immediately after the accident was narrowed down to just a few areas. It is unlikely they knew "what to check if they had no idea what happened" as they did have some idea what happened, an intense bomb-bay fire, which narrows down the possible causes. Exactly what happened is left to the long-term investigation by the BOI, but the tempo of ops meant that the rest of the fleet needing checking immediately for any obvious signs of the cause.
I am in the camp that await the findings of the BOI to see what they assess the cause of this tragic accident to be. Like others here, I know some of the members and trust them to to their up most in order to find the cause.
MadMark!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good Mad Mark, you should have been involved with the Concorde incident. You would have had BA flying them again next day.
(1) Engine fire
(2) Check all pipes in area
(3) If all OK, lets go.
Sorry, never thought that the problem was caused by an exploding tyre.
DV
(1) Engine fire
(2) Check all pipes in area
(3) If all OK, lets go.
Sorry, never thought that the problem was caused by an exploding tyre.
DV
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, a bit harsh. Mad mark is making the point that he is waiting for the definitive from the BoI. He was explaining how the Investigators were directed to certain checks after the crash. I have not read open source, that the crew reported a bomb bay fire. I also have it on good authority that the incident was witnessed by a Harrier pilot, he too would have given information to the BoI. The checks that were carried out immediately afterwards revealed damage in AAR pipes to other Nimrod aircraft.
Apologies. Edited IAW comments below. To clarify, these are recommendations from the accident.
MODIFICATIONS TO CONCORDE
It was decided that the main cause of the accident was the ignition of the kerosene flowing from a massive rupture in a fuel tank caused by debris hitting the underside of the tank. After researching the possibilities for shielding the tanks the best source of protection was found to be lining the insides of certain tanks with kevlar-rubber panels.
link
http://www.open2.net/forensic_engine...dvances_13.htm
Apologies. Edited IAW comments below. To clarify, these are recommendations from the accident.
MODIFICATIONS TO CONCORDE
It was decided that the main cause of the accident was the ignition of the kerosene flowing from a massive rupture in a fuel tank caused by debris hitting the underside of the tank. After researching the possibilities for shielding the tanks the best source of protection was found to be lining the insides of certain tanks with kevlar-rubber panels.
link
http://www.open2.net/forensic_engine...dvances_13.htm
Last edited by nigegilb; 11th May 2007 at 12:30.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidentally, to be more accurate, the concorde crash to which you refer was caused by a fuel tank explosion. The source of ignition was caused by the tyre explosion, which may have been caused by a piece of metal on the runway. Either way Concorde did not have fuel tank protection, just like the Nimrod.
S_H
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fin1012. Here, here.
You put it beautifully. Nice to see someone TO THE POINT. And appropriate.
As you see, the thread is devolving into Concorde insignificance now....
You put it beautifully. Nice to see someone TO THE POINT. And appropriate.
As you see, the thread is devolving into Concorde insignificance now....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty S: No it is not really. Just trying to show that in the "correct world" of accident investigation we treat the cause not the effect. Condorde was shown as an example of how the process should be carried out. If XV230 had come down over Elgin or Nairn, we would be going the same way with Nimrod.
DV
DV
The AF Concorde report failed to report with any clarity that:
1. The Commander commenced the take-off with the aircraft outside Perf A limits. According to Concorde experts who have completed performance calculations using available data, even if marginally over MTOW, it was at least 5 tonne over RTOW....
2. The FE shut down an engine which was still producing thrust without having been ordered to do so. From that moment they were doomed.
Sorry, I digress. But the Concorde accident report is NOT a good model to consider.
If the cause of the Nimrod accident is established as having been caused by a fuel fire in the bomb bay, surely thee must be immediate flight restrictions, thorough fleet inspection, and, if necessary, appropriate modification of all other Nimrods.
I just hope the BoI's Accident Report isn't 'modified' by the airships...
1. The Commander commenced the take-off with the aircraft outside Perf A limits. According to Concorde experts who have completed performance calculations using available data, even if marginally over MTOW, it was at least 5 tonne over RTOW....
2. The FE shut down an engine which was still producing thrust without having been ordered to do so. From that moment they were doomed.
Sorry, I digress. But the Concorde accident report is NOT a good model to consider.
If the cause of the Nimrod accident is established as having been caused by a fuel fire in the bomb bay, surely thee must be immediate flight restrictions, thorough fleet inspection, and, if necessary, appropriate modification of all other Nimrods.
I just hope the BoI's Accident Report isn't 'modified' by the airships...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As laboratoryqueen and I know we were informed officially of a fuel leak on XV230.
THIS TROUBLES ME>
Nimrod Aircraft
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last
six months; and if he will make a statement. [134919]
8 May 2007 : Column 66W
Mr. Ingram: Between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 a total
of 25 fuel leaks were reported on Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft. A fuel
leak is defined as any leakage of fuel from aircraft couplings, pipes or
fuel tanks. These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
whether (a) the current air-to-air refuelling system will be replaced and
(b) the single skin fuel pipes will be replaced by double skin fuel pipes
as part of the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft refurbishment programme. [134920]
Mr. Ingram: The MR2 and the R1 are two separate variants of the Nimrod
aircraft. There are no current plans to refurbish the MR2 fleet before
it is replaced by the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. No decisions have yet been
taken on whether the R1 platform will carry the replacement for the
current mission system, and whether the R1 fleet will be refurbished. The
air-to-air refuelling system on MRA4 is an almost entirely new design
and built with only a small number of components retained from MR2 which
will be re-furbished. Jacketed fuel pipes will be used selectively
where it is judged to be necessary and all its fuel pipes will be newly
manufactured.
THIS TROUBLES ME>
Nimrod Aircraft
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how
many fuel leaks have been reported on Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft in the last
six months; and if he will make a statement. [134919]
8 May 2007 : Column 66W
Mr. Ingram: Between the period 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007 a total
of 25 fuel leaks were reported on Nimrod MR2 and R1 aircraft. A fuel
leak is defined as any leakage of fuel from aircraft couplings, pipes or
fuel tanks. These did not compromise the safety of the aircraft and
were rectified under normal maintenance procedures.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
whether (a) the current air-to-air refuelling system will be replaced and
(b) the single skin fuel pipes will be replaced by double skin fuel pipes
as part of the Nimrod MR2 R1 aircraft refurbishment programme. [134920]
Mr. Ingram: The MR2 and the R1 are two separate variants of the Nimrod
aircraft. There are no current plans to refurbish the MR2 fleet before
it is replaced by the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. No decisions have yet been
taken on whether the R1 platform will carry the replacement for the
current mission system, and whether the R1 fleet will be refurbished. The
air-to-air refuelling system on MRA4 is an almost entirely new design
and built with only a small number of components retained from MR2 which
will be re-furbished. Jacketed fuel pipes will be used selectively
where it is judged to be necessary and all its fuel pipes will be newly
manufactured.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like a definitive answer once and for all.
Does the Nimrod MR2 contain any Kapton wiring or not .
Only last time I spoke about it I was told it didn't.
Does the Nimrod MR2 contain any Kapton wiring or not .
Only last time I spoke about it I was told it didn't.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWR111 powerpoint presentation re Kapton - if you're interested.
http://www.iasa-intl.com/uploads/ELE...res%5B1%5D.ppt
http://www.iasa-intl.com/uploads/ELE...res%5B1%5D.ppt
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrods and Kapton
This is also interesting. Note the Nimrod reference.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/ual965/ual965.html
Dont know how reliable it is but it is from the same organisation as the powerpoint.
http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/sr111/ual965/ual965.html
Dont know how reliable it is but it is from the same organisation as the powerpoint.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP
I am doing no more than the all those that posted on the thread
Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Just asking questions, all I want is a yes or no from someone qualified to know.
I am doing no more than the all those that posted on the thread
Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Just asking questions, all I want is a yes or no from someone qualified to know.