Nimrod Information

[Winco]

zedder,

Thank you for your most informnative post, however, if you think for a second that I would put friends' initials on here, then you are really stupid. What do you take me for a fool? It wouldn't take a great deal to narrow them down would it? and then what? Up in front of the 'old man at the least I would suspect, maybe even worse.

But I simply ask you this....why would I bull$hit you? What do I have to gain by this?

All I am stating are facts that have been expressed to me by fellow aviators who I have kept in touch with since I left the fleet - and I can assure you that some of them are quite 'senior aviators' so not sprogs or inexperienced guys.

I would just reiterate what I said about the jet being safe for a CT, but when AAR ops are introduced it 'causes a problem' for some of the aircrew. I say that because you effectively agreed with me when you wrote...

'I'm not seeing any great fear of flying the jet. With regard AAR then it is definitely true to say that a lot of people would have an issue with doing that'

A lot of people have an issue with it?
So what is your point?
Are a lot of aircrew afraid of AAR ops as you say?
Does the Stn Cdr really appreciate that?
Whats is he doing about it?
Does AOC 2Gp know?
Is it affecting crew compositions for ops?
Has the BoI honestly concluded?

Military flying is a risky business, of course it is and I would entirely agree with you, and as you say, the aircraft should be as safe as humanly possible - unfortunately it isn't though, is it?

And as for your car... would you take your wife and kids out in it if you had had the brakes fail on you the day before, or would you find out what went wrong first? I rest my case.

You chaps must learn to appreciate that most of us on here are NOT against you or the groundcrew or anyone in any way at all, really. We all have a vested interest because most of us lost friends in 230, and we don't want it to happen again - ever, irrespective of what is costs to fix.

The AAR system was fitted, as you say a long time ago. I know, I did several of the initial flight trials when we got the first jet back from Woodford. JR, MC and a few others of us were all involved (mainly due to our V force background) and it was very much a 'Heath Robinson' affair. But it worked well, and did the job. If you suggesting that the whole cobbled together system has not been looked at in detail since, then that is pretty worrying, especially given the short notice in which it was initially fitted.

Regards
The Winco

[nigegilb]

A point on the AAR system. Tri Star has a double skin system, Nimrod MR2 does not. MRA4 does not. I appreciate that part of the pipework on Nimrod is double-skinned but would someone mind confirming whether the AAR pipework in the bomb bay is double skinned or single skinned?
I am fairly sure it is single skinned there.

Design point. If the RAF does not want to pay for a bomb bay fire protection system why not at least insist on safer pipework? The holes in the welding work found in the days after the crash are troubling. I understand that a similar welding technique is being used on MRA4.

Cheers,
NG

[Safety_Helmut]

Hello All

There has been some discussion on here about the adequacy of the MoD safety and airworthiness regulatory regime. I have my own opinions having worked within it, and these are clear from my previous posts. However, I am aware that a report was written 2 or 3 years ago which looked at setting up a MAA, Military Airworthiness/Aviation Authority. I know who wrote the report, but I don't want to put his name on here. He had worked within AD Eng Pol at Wyton so was well aware of some of the issues. I cant remember who he wrote the report for, was it DASC, the DESB/DASB ? I'm not sure. Is anyone aware of the report ? People I know were astonished that it recommended against forming a MAA. I am wondering if the findings of the report actually supported the conclusions, or whether the conclusions were predetermined by the desire to remain the status quo for various departments and people. The head of ADRP at the time would certainly have resisted it, but then I am not sure he would have been able to spell the word change.

S_H

[The Swinging Monkey]

zedder,

Grow up man! What are you asking someone to name names for you idiot?

We could probably all name someone on PPrune, but we don't. To ask someone to do so, just to satisfy your doubts is bl00dy stupid.

What effect do you think it would have the those named??

Please, don't anyone on here name anyone at all - ever.

Thank you

[Chugalug2]

Safety Helmut, I am intrigued to hear that the need for an MAA was studied a couple of years ago. Though I have called for that on this and other threads I had no idea that a formal study had already been done. Having said that it hardly surprises me that an in house report recommended that military airworthiness should remain within the MOD. A contrary finding would have rivalled "Turkeys vote for Christmas" as a shock horror announcement. Obviously the inmates want to go on running the asylum lest their gross negligence (familiar phrase?) be laid bare to the world. This can only be achieved by political will, the imposition of external pressure and the testimony of those whose professional and moral standards have been set upon by the monstrous MOD machine. Only a completely independent inquiry can suffice in such a process, anything less would be fit only for a Yes Minister script.

[Mr Point]

Zedder:

Just imagine frontline troops being unwilling to go on Patrol because they might get shot at.

I agree entirely with that statement. However, if under certain conditions a known faulty batch of rounds had previously blown up in the face of the troops, you would have an entirely different argument.

[Magnersdrinker]

I now seen a bitching few posts directed at a few guys that fly the jets we are on about , Id just like to say lay off these lads , they are the ones that choose no matter what to fly , they take that risk with information from the people that know what they are on about. Ive had 17 years as an engineer on these jets and i with my hand on my heart have no isssues with the a/c, other things yes , but thats a diffrent matter. You all sit there and question that you know it all , if you a part of the kipper fleet then yes you have a right to say things that are of concern ,but 90% on this thread dont they speculate and think they know it all. nimrod has problems like all A/c in the inventory, its not down to being a bad aircraft its about spending cash , if you want it to work then spend enough and it will , we all know its not the case.

[Gaiscioch]

Derrrr...

For Zedder......... Read Wa*ker...

[Lytham Lifeboat]

Gaiscioch

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.......

[Jobza Guddun]

Magners,

Point well presented matey. As a non Kipper blokem it makes sense to me,

Jobza

[Distant Voice]

Magnersdrinker's quote:

The majority of our lot have seen how certain info has been jiggled around and made things look bad and have no reflection on the way things are .......

Can you tell me which statements/recommendations from the QinetiQ report, the BAe safety report and the XV227 UI report have been "jiggled" around and posted as speculations on this thread?

DV

[enginesuck]

Sorry DV but stop wheeling out this BAE safety report and the like without knowing the whole picture, its getting monotonous now. Be patient and wait for the BOI, in the meantime some of us have a job to do.

[tucumseh]

The “BAE safety report” is an authoritative document, commissioned by the IPT. They contract the Aircraft Design Authority to be aware of the complete picture, and distill it down to key issues – in this case safety hazards and risks – so that they (the IPT, in consultation with stakeholders) can make informed decisions.

The aim (presumably) is to take a proactive approach to risk management, rather than reactive. Put another way; try to prevent accidents, rather than waiting for one and the subsequent BoI report, before taking action. I sincerely hope the BoI report doesn’t recommend actions which have been already recommended in the BAeS and QQ reports mentioned here, but were not implemented.

I think the point that has been made here and in other threads, on numerous occasions, is that BoI reports often present recommendations as their own exclusive ideas, conveniently omitting that they have been made many times before.

[Distant Voice]

enginesuck: Have you read them?

DV

[Safeware]

enginesuck,

stop wheeling out this BAE safety report and the like without knowing the whole picture

It may not be the whole picture, but it is the root that TD, DV etc need to start with. As covered earlier, the BAES safety report is the the prime input to the IPT safety case, which in turn is the prime input to the RTSA safety case. And in the RTS, all the limitations there for the purposes of safety must have an audit trail back to source - primarily the above safety case reports.....

.... or if the next level up decides to do something different, it would need to be justifiied in the safety case at that stage.

sw

[zedder]

Gaiscioch,
Did you type the s and second i by mistake when you signed up? No? Fits though doesn't it!

As far as asking Winco for the initials of someone in theatre at the time, I said give me the initials not post the initials. That's what PMs are for!
The point I was trying to make is that judging by the number of people who have chatted to a mate who was "in theatre at the time", then half the frontline crews must have been there. At least Winco claims to have been passed information first hand. I suspect a lot of what is posted on here is 2nd or 3rd hand etc. That means plenty of opportunity for what was actually said to be 'spun' or misconstrued into something that was not actually said/meant.

For example Winco replied that

And as for your car... would you take your wife and kids out in it if you had had the brakes fail on you the day before, or would you find out what went wrong first? I rest my case.

What I was getting at is do we all drive cars with the best NCAP ratings available, or do we have to compromise because of the potentially high cost of getting the utopian solution.

[Mr Point]

What I was getting at is do we all drive cars with the best NCAP ratings available, or do we have to compromise because of the potentially high cost of getting the Utopian solution.

You are absolutely right that compromise is a necessary part of any procurement. From a Health & Safety perspective though, the term "reasonably practicable" means balancing risk against cost. The greater the risk, the more reasonable it becomes to go to substantial expense, trouble and invention to reduce it.

If the Metropolitan Police can be challenged in court by the HSE, shouldn't the MOD be concerned?

[r supwoods]

Hello All

There has been some discussion on here about the adequacy of the MoD safety and airworthiness regulatory regime. I have my own opinions having worked within it, and these are clear from my previous posts. However, I am aware that a report was written 2 or 3 years ago which looked at setting up a MAA, Military Airworthiness/Aviation Authority. I know who wrote the report, but I don't want to put his name on here. He had worked within AD Eng Pol at Wyton so was well aware of some of the issues. I cant remember who he wrote the report for, was it DASC, the DESB/DASB ? I'm not sure. Is anyone aware of the report ? People I know were astonished that it recommended against forming a MAA. I am wondering if the findings of the report actually supported the conclusions, or whether the conclusions were predetermined by the desire to remain the status quo for various departments and people. The head of ADRP at the time would certainly have resisted it, but then I am not sure he would have been able to spell the word change.

S_H

The proposed MAA did rear it's head a few years ago but never materialised. The up and coming MAOS model based on Def Stan 05-130, could end up very similar regulatory body - We'll see!

[Safeware]

In all the discusion about an MAA (and it may have been covered in the papers alluded to), one of the problems I see needing to be dealt with is the operational aspect. Even as it stands, as things progress towards the RTSA safety case, if something isn't "liked" for operational reasons, justification (however sketchy one may feel) can be made for doing what is "operationally necessary". What would having an an MAA add in this sense? If ACAS wants to sign off an RTS that says "Go do x, regardless of the risk, because the consequences of not doing are ...", I can't see an MAA getting in his way.

What I think is needed is better regulation within the framework that exists, and that includes a better understanding of what it all means by those responsible and honesty in presenting info / taking decisions, such that the crock of Sh!t doesn't become policy.

sw

[The Swinging Monkey]

zedder,

Even if Winco sent you the initials via a PM do you think thats right?

I mean, who are you anyway?
How do we know you are NOT SIB?, RAFP, Stn Cdr, AOC 2Gp, or maybe even CAS himself?
You really must get a grip mate, it was just a stupid thing to say.

And your comment about the cars and NCAP may well be true, but you didn't answer the question I see, which was.....

would you take your wife and kids out in it if you had had the brakes fail on you the day before, or would you find out what went wrong first?

Well....would you?

When you buy a car, you make the decision. Unfortunately as far as Nimrod safety is concerned.....you have NO say in the matter.

Magnersdrinker

With your vast experience and knowledge, perhaps you would enlighten us as to exactly what has been 'jiggled' on this thread please? thank you.

TSM