Nimrod Information
My understanding is that Military Airworthiness standards are directed by SofS and along the lines of:
'At least as safe as the civilian equivalent...'
'At least as safe as the civilian equivalent...'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's an easy question for you guys to answer which I am sure won't break any rules.
Are you using OM-15 hydraulic fluid in the radar drive sytem or
MIL-H-83282 ?
Are you using OM-15 hydraulic fluid in the radar drive sytem or
MIL-H-83282 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a real smart answer, Enginesucks,
See if you can answer the next parts of the question with the same degree of intelligence:
(1) Specified temperture range for NITRILE rubber?
(2) Shelf life for NITRILE seals?
DV
Yes loads of them..........and the wings are made of cheese.
(1) Specified temperture range for NITRILE rubber?
(2) Shelf life for NITRILE seals?
DV
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV,
I refer you to spanners123's post. Please forgive my sarcasm but I've had enough of random probings ref the nimrod fuel system , just what exactly are you trying to get at ?
I refer you to spanners123's post. Please forgive my sarcasm but I've had enough of random probings ref the nimrod fuel system , just what exactly are you trying to get at ?
enginesuck 
,
it's also the way the questions are asked and answers demanded!
if an answer is not posted within a couple of hours, he asks again!
perhaps dv could explain the reasoning behind the questions before demanding answers, he might find people are a bit more helpful!
blue suiters are posting fewer responses because nothing new is happening at the moment.
,it's also the way the questions are asked and answers demanded!
if an answer is not posted within a couple of hours, he asks again!
perhaps dv could explain the reasoning behind the questions before demanding answers, he might find people are a bit more helpful!
blue suiters are posting fewer responses because nothing new is happening at the moment.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Airworthiness
The MOD AMS web site currently says the following about Military Airworthiness - note the word is "Regulations":
JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations
(formerly JSP 318B)
JSP 553 details the regulations for the Airworthiness of MOD Aircraft. This document is intended for staffs concerned with the policy aspects of MOD aircraft, Project Sponsorship, and the preparation of Military Aircraft Release, Service Deviations and other Service initiated changes of an operational or engineering nature.
Prior to 1 Jul 03, military airworthiness regulations were published in JSP 318B 4th Edition AL2. JSP 318B has been re-issued as JSP 553 as part of the Military Aviation Regulation Document Set (MARDS). The policy content of the 1st Edition of JSP 553 is identical to that of JSP 318B 4th Edition AL2.
The full MARDS, which is available by accessing the MARDS web site on the RLI comprises:
JSP 550 Military Aviation Policy, Regulations and Directives (formerly JSP 318)
JSP 551 Military Flight Safety Regulations (formerly AP 3207)
JSP 552 Military Air Traffic Service Regulations (formerly JSP 318A)
JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations (formerly JSP 318B)
JSP 554 Military Aviation Aerodrome Criteria and Standards (formerly JSP 455)
JSP 556 Military Test Flying Regulations (formerly Director Flying's Instructions)
JSP 558 Military Aviation Diplomatic Approvals and Clearances (mid 2004) (formerly AP 1158)
You need legal access to the MOD Intranet to look at JSP 553, but no doubt one of the contributors to this site will be able to check the latest definition. The old JSP 318B, which seemed to be more concerned with procedures rather than regulations, defined airworthiness as:
The ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, groundcrew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general pubic over which such airborne systems are flown.
Thus by this broad definition airworthiness is not just a "safe" aircraft it is also the correct mission equipment fit eg DAS, ESF etc and if the regulations are met should ensure that MOD has fulfilled its responsibilities for duty of care. As always though it gets woolly when you try to find a definition of "significant" - perhaps JSP 553 is more precise.
JB
JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations
(formerly JSP 318B)
JSP 553 details the regulations for the Airworthiness of MOD Aircraft. This document is intended for staffs concerned with the policy aspects of MOD aircraft, Project Sponsorship, and the preparation of Military Aircraft Release, Service Deviations and other Service initiated changes of an operational or engineering nature.
Prior to 1 Jul 03, military airworthiness regulations were published in JSP 318B 4th Edition AL2. JSP 318B has been re-issued as JSP 553 as part of the Military Aviation Regulation Document Set (MARDS). The policy content of the 1st Edition of JSP 553 is identical to that of JSP 318B 4th Edition AL2.
The full MARDS, which is available by accessing the MARDS web site on the RLI comprises:
JSP 550 Military Aviation Policy, Regulations and Directives (formerly JSP 318)
JSP 551 Military Flight Safety Regulations (formerly AP 3207)
JSP 552 Military Air Traffic Service Regulations (formerly JSP 318A)
JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations (formerly JSP 318B)
JSP 554 Military Aviation Aerodrome Criteria and Standards (formerly JSP 455)
JSP 556 Military Test Flying Regulations (formerly Director Flying's Instructions)
JSP 558 Military Aviation Diplomatic Approvals and Clearances (mid 2004) (formerly AP 1158)
You need legal access to the MOD Intranet to look at JSP 553, but no doubt one of the contributors to this site will be able to check the latest definition. The old JSP 318B, which seemed to be more concerned with procedures rather than regulations, defined airworthiness as:
The ability of an aircraft or other airborne equipment or system to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, groundcrew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general pubic over which such airborne systems are flown.
Thus by this broad definition airworthiness is not just a "safe" aircraft it is also the correct mission equipment fit eg DAS, ESF etc and if the regulations are met should ensure that MOD has fulfilled its responsibilities for duty of care. As always though it gets woolly when you try to find a definition of "significant" - perhaps JSP 553 is more precise.
JB
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John, Military Commanders appear to be using "military risk" as a catch all to send crews to war in aircraft not having sufficient protection or combat survivability. You only have to look at recent history of Hercules, Helos and Nimrod to see this recurring theme.
What is the relationship between military risk and air worthiness?
Furthermore, "or to the general pubic over which such airborne systems are flown." This could prove to be the flaw in the argument. Breach of Health and Safety regulations and breach of duty of care are two areas where the MoD approach would appear to be wanting.
What is the relationship between military risk and air worthiness?
Furthermore, "or to the general pubic over which such airborne systems are flown." This could prove to be the flaw in the argument. Breach of Health and Safety regulations and breach of duty of care are two areas where the MoD approach would appear to be wanting.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Risk
Nigel,
I do not know what JSP553 says. The old JSP 318B had a section on operating in "Hostilities and situations of Direct Threat" which empowered the Operations Branch to approve flying to the provisions of SDs and OEC releases, for both operational and work-up training flying "but the risks involved as a result of the limited [MOD(PE) as then was] trials carried out for the OEC release and the probable lack of trials for SDs must be borne in mind in approving the amount of such work up."
A further section where the "operational need is overriding" introduced the concept of Operational Necessity Service Deviations (ONSDs) normally requiring approval at 2* or above. ONSDs were to be approved "sparingly, and only when life is at stake (my bold), because the lack of trials results available to the approving authority will make a realistic risk assessment difficult."
Whether these are still the current "rules" I would not know - but bear in mind none of these procedures authorise you to take the further risks of flying an aircraft which is not airworthy - they are there to allow things like UOR equipment to be introduced, flights at higher AUWs, changes to flight limitations, new weapons to be introduced, etc, etc. Unless JSP 553 is different there is as far as I can see no change in the definitions that allows lower airworthiness standards to be applied to operational flying - but maybe a contributor to this thread knows differently!
JB
I do not know what JSP553 says. The old JSP 318B had a section on operating in "Hostilities and situations of Direct Threat" which empowered the Operations Branch to approve flying to the provisions of SDs and OEC releases, for both operational and work-up training flying "but the risks involved as a result of the limited [MOD(PE) as then was] trials carried out for the OEC release and the probable lack of trials for SDs must be borne in mind in approving the amount of such work up."
A further section where the "operational need is overriding" introduced the concept of Operational Necessity Service Deviations (ONSDs) normally requiring approval at 2* or above. ONSDs were to be approved "sparingly, and only when life is at stake (my bold), because the lack of trials results available to the approving authority will make a realistic risk assessment difficult."
Whether these are still the current "rules" I would not know - but bear in mind none of these procedures authorise you to take the further risks of flying an aircraft which is not airworthy - they are there to allow things like UOR equipment to be introduced, flights at higher AUWs, changes to flight limitations, new weapons to be introduced, etc, etc. Unless JSP 553 is different there is as far as I can see no change in the definitions that allows lower airworthiness standards to be applied to operational flying - but maybe a contributor to this thread knows differently!
JB
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK that makes sense. AOC 2Gp did the Op necessity thing 2 days or so after the crash. From what you are saying, if the ac is still deemed not airworthy then this Op Necessity, military risk catch all, cannot be used.
And who would have the authority, outside of the Military to deem the aircraft not airworthy? I am also thinking about the recent trial of the Met, could a member of the public challenge the airworthiness of the Nimrod? Say based on the failure of the MoD to comply with civilian airworthiness directives?
And who would have the authority, outside of the Military to deem the aircraft not airworthy? I am also thinking about the recent trial of the Met, could a member of the public challenge the airworthiness of the Nimrod? Say based on the failure of the MoD to comply with civilian airworthiness directives?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Risk
Nigel,
Don't know without seeing JSP 553, but the old definitions and procedures do not seem to cover accepting the risks associated with deliberately flying an unairworthy aircraft even on operations where life is at stake (and whose life are we talking about anyway the crew or someone else's) - as opposed to flying without, say, the full clearance trials. If the definitions are still the same I do not see that AOC 2 Group had an ONSD route to fly a known unairworthy aircraft - but he clearly thought/thinks differently - perhaps because he was being advised that the aircraft was airworthy!
JB
Don't know without seeing JSP 553, but the old definitions and procedures do not seem to cover accepting the risks associated with deliberately flying an unairworthy aircraft even on operations where life is at stake (and whose life are we talking about anyway the crew or someone else's) - as opposed to flying without, say, the full clearance trials. If the definitions are still the same I do not see that AOC 2 Group had an ONSD route to fly a known unairworthy aircraft - but he clearly thought/thinks differently - perhaps because he was being advised that the aircraft was airworthy!
JB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airworthiness and JSP 553
In defining airworthiness AP3456 refers to JSP 553 (Introduction), which is as follows:
Airworthiness is defined as the ability of an aircraft, or other airborne equipment or system, to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown. Airworthiness is not only concerned with engineering aspects, but also with the way an aircraft is flown and how its systems are operated.
DV
Airworthiness is defined as the ability of an aircraft, or other airborne equipment or system, to operate without significant hazard to aircrew, ground crew, passengers (where relevant) or to the general public over which such airborne systems are flown. Airworthiness is not only concerned with engineering aspects, but also with the way an aircraft is flown and how its systems are operated.
DV
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airworthiness
DV,
Thanks very much - an even better definition than the original one in 318B in my view as it also requires, at least by very strong implication if nothing else, the right equipment to be fitted for the operations that are to be carried out, and for the supporting operational procedures to be safe.
JB
Thanks very much - an even better definition than the original one in 318B in my view as it also requires, at least by very strong implication if nothing else, the right equipment to be fitted for the operations that are to be carried out, and for the supporting operational procedures to be safe.
JB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JB
Glad that helps.
I do not have a copy of JSP 553, but AP 3456 clearly indicates that it uses the definition used in that documents introduction section.
DV
Glad that helps.
I do not have a copy of JSP 553, but AP 3456 clearly indicates that it uses the definition used in that documents introduction section.
DV
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
Sorry, just couldn't resist...
Is the General a friend of the Flt Lt Hare?
Sorry, the puerile, non-relevant moment has passed...
Sorry, just couldn't resist...
the general pubic over which such airborne systems are flown.
Is the General a friend of the Flt Lt Hare?
Sorry, the puerile, non-relevant moment has passed...
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear
Rudekid,
Thanks - as a newly qualified OAP I now need all the help I can get! Mind you looking at the Headley Court thread running today it might be an appropriate Freudian slip! I will leave you to make the appropriate connections to the members of the public concerned!
JB
Thanks - as a newly qualified OAP I now need all the help I can get! Mind you looking at the Headley Court thread running today it might be an appropriate Freudian slip! I will leave you to make the appropriate connections to the members of the public concerned!
JB
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Under The Sea
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Military Airworthiness
"Hansard 22 Feb 2000
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): The Secretary of State referred to safety in RAF training. Will he say more about that in relation to my constituents in Cumbria? They accept the absolute primacy of national security, but they were most concerned about some of the reports as to the possible causes of the air crash in Shap, in Cumbria, at the end of last year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the people of Cumbria, and of other areas affected by low-flying aircraft, that no reductions will interfere with the primacy of safety--of people in the air and on the ground?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I have just given that assurance. Safety is paramount and will continue to be so--both for those who fly the aircraft and for his constituents on the ground. I am happy to be able to repeat the assurance that I gave him in writing when he properly raised those matters with me. "
So then....
The issue that is faced is how do you prove military aviation is safe?
What process do you use?
What regulation do you follow?
European civil aviation is safe - How do we know? Because it is regulated by the Part M regulation. This is similar to Def Stan 05-130.
Part M requires you to set up a Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) which has to demonstrate to EASA (through a bond) that it has sufficent money to fly and maintain the aircraft within it's scope. That would be a novel approach to the current military.
If you think that the Military are different (special needs?) then how come CANForce have implemented something similar? They fly F-18 on operations dont they?
Check out http://admmatapp.dnd.ca/taa/taa/
The reality is that risk management is the culture. Risk implies increased probability.
If the "as maintained airframe" is safe, then ask the company that designed it to underwrite the airworthiness.
The processes in place are flawed. Chug and others are correct. The aircraft should be generated servicable, and if, and only if, at time of WAR the need arises to manage risk occurs, then you should fly, and then recover the fault at the first opportunity, not at a time somewhere down the line that it suits you.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale): The Secretary of State referred to safety in RAF training. Will he say more about that in relation to my constituents in Cumbria? They accept the absolute primacy of national security, but they were most concerned about some of the reports as to the possible causes of the air crash in Shap, in Cumbria, at the end of last year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance to the people of Cumbria, and of other areas affected by low-flying aircraft, that no reductions will interfere with the primacy of safety--of people in the air and on the ground?
Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I have just given that assurance. Safety is paramount and will continue to be so--both for those who fly the aircraft and for his constituents on the ground. I am happy to be able to repeat the assurance that I gave him in writing when he properly raised those matters with me. "
So then....
The issue that is faced is how do you prove military aviation is safe?
What process do you use?
What regulation do you follow?
European civil aviation is safe - How do we know? Because it is regulated by the Part M regulation. This is similar to Def Stan 05-130.
Part M requires you to set up a Continuing Airworthiness Management Organisation (CAMO) which has to demonstrate to EASA (through a bond) that it has sufficent money to fly and maintain the aircraft within it's scope. That would be a novel approach to the current military.
If you think that the Military are different (special needs?) then how come CANForce have implemented something similar? They fly F-18 on operations dont they?
Check out http://admmatapp.dnd.ca/taa/taa/
The reality is that risk management is the culture. Risk implies increased probability.
If the "as maintained airframe" is safe, then ask the company that designed it to underwrite the airworthiness.
The processes in place are flawed. Chug and others are correct. The aircraft should be generated servicable, and if, and only if, at time of WAR the need arises to manage risk occurs, then you should fly, and then recover the fault at the first opportunity, not at a time somewhere down the line that it suits you.
Last edited by DEL Mode; 24th Nov 2007 at 07:57.