Nimrod Information

[nigegilb]

Picking up a point from JB.

JB, the reason I am swinging the bat so hard on this is because the MRA4 does not have fire protection in the bomb bay.

Going back to MR2, nobody current has stated if the long range tanks could still be fitted in the bomb bay. We established that the tanks might have been sold as scrap but not if it was theoretically possible to comply with the BAe report. We did establish that High AUW considerations meant it was impractical to go without the need for AAR, but I wonder if it is possible to take off with the tanks empty and refuel in flight. Not ideal because there is still a risk of fuel migrations but at least there would be some fire protection in the bomb bay.

Finally, it has been suggested to me that the reason MRA4 will be introduced to service without bomb bay protection, fuel tank protection and flight deck armour, as well as single skin AAR piping, is that the RAF is desperate to get it to the front line. Any late changes to design would allow BAe to use it as an excuse to take much longer to get the aircraft in service.

The "clever" plan is to UOR after ISD. To that effect the RAF is starting to look at FDA and OBIGGS for MRA4. I hasten to say that there have been absolutely no official requests to fit this equipment.



Errr MD, I make that December 4th

[ORAC]

The "clever" plan is to UOR after ISD.

See my other new thread reference UOR funding. if it is the "clever" new plan, the Treasury is being just as "clever" and something else will have to give in the MOD budget to fund it - because the treasury won't.

[nigegilb]

Saw that ORAC, it was only last Monday that I was being reassured there is an unlimited fund of money supplied by the Treasury for UORs, outside of the existing Defence Budget. That will be the end of that promise then.
Anyone else see the flaws in the "clever" plan to UOR Nimrod MRA4 after ISD?

[Chugalug2]

The flaw IMHO to all the plans, clever or otherwise, to oblige the MOD to make airworthy their unairworthy aircraft, whether in service now or in the future, is that it has to balance such expenditure with all the other calls on its budget, shrinking or otherwise. The government is thus off the hook and can move the goalposts adinfinitum, a la UORs. It needs an external authority to oblige the MOD to commit to such expenditure and oblige it to make its air fleets fit for purpose. The answer to MRA4 airworthiness, as it is with every other type, is an MAA. This is a vital imperative. Our armed forces need kit that is fit for purpose to prevail in the wars that they are sent to by this government, that especially includes the aircraft that are an integral part of that effort. The only way to assure that is to establish an MAA without delay.

[DEL Mode]

MAA

I bet civil airlines would love to define their own airworthiness guidelines. I can imagine that one going down well with the budget airlines.

I bet they would also love to investigate their own airworthiness incidents.

I know, lets move towards total self regulation in the civil sector. We could avoid the cost of the CAA or EASA. It must be safe we have not had an airliner blow up in the sky recently, therefore we can relax the safety standards. When one happens, the officials could introduce new standards and show how effective they are at managing crisis. Now where is Mr. Brown's e-mail address.

Why do you think the rail industry has had to change. Self regulation does not work.

Last time I looked we were not at war ( I do accept we are in armed conflict). The problem is this government even want you guys to fight war on the cheap.

[Magnersdrinker]

Well TD and JB as an Airframe engineer with over 15 years on this type of aircraft , in that time since 1991 when i arrived on this aircraft I can only recall once in that time I have heard of a fire on board. It was not so long ago and was an electrical fire but was easily dealt with. im sure there has been more but nothing major to suggest thats a problem.
If you are going to all make up figures and bend the information to make the aircraft look bad then go ahead , you guys really are desperate to find anything bad. TD you have came up with different figures already

78 incidents of Fires were recorded
355 incidents of Fumes/Smoke

So 880 fires ? Where the flying **** did that come from

Have you looked at the statistics of all aircraft not just the Nimrod. You have straight away got in your mind that 880 fires on board a Nimrod and its unsafe , for joe public and people that do not work on Nimrod this straight away in there head thinks Ohhh there must be a problem with fires on the aircraft, old granny is now going I heard on PPrune that Nimrods have a bad fire record and this gets spread about.


edit . I do apoligse for TD and JB, I just saying what I reasd although that initial figure came from NigelB, NigelB can you update the thread on them 880 fires please.

[RAF_Techie101]

It is also a well known fact that many fumes in the cabin are caused by the aircrew putting the meals on the top shelf of the oven, despite a label telling them not to...........

[spanners123]

These numbers don't seem to add up!!
This is exactly the type of posts on prune that are doing irreversible harm to the Nimrod Fleet.
RAF_Techie101, good point!

[Magnersdrinker]

Yep harm to the fleet from people who dont even work on them and have no idea how its operated. Its all Nimrod but it would make nice compariative reading to other aircraft in service. I think that would quash any rumours that have now been started on the Nimrod basically being an unsafe fire hazard that everytime it gets airborne a fire will start.

For what its worth and this maybe little on this thread, the Nimrod has saved hundreds if not thousands of lives in its career, its been involved in every major conflict, its been at the heart of most disasters around the UK and 24/7 365 days a year it waits to launch to help a sailor/fisherman in distress. many take that protection for granted and have no idea she is there to help but she will when she is asked. Richard Branson is one of a few famous names thats appreciated the help of the kipper fleet. So sure find all you want wrong , but just dont foget the good, the guys out in Afghan that were taken from us were doing good and had probally saved hundreds doing what they do. Sometimes things dont add up and nature is cruel. One thing for sure is that aircraft will have done its utmost to get them guys home as its a life saver too.

[spanners123]

I totally agree Magnersdrinker. Whilst this is a thread on Nimrod, over the same period, how many reports of smoke/fire has there been on VC-10, Tristar, Hercs etc?

[Magnersdrinker]

spanners123



I totally agree Magnersdrinker. Whilst this is a thread on Nimrod, over the same period, how many reports of smoke/fire has there been on VC-10, Tristar, Hercs etc?


I dunno Spanners , Im sure Nigelb will probably give us some stats on the Herc fleet , hes been succesful that end with on board fire suppresion stuff. Im 100% certain they will have a lot more incidents with fire on board than the Rod because of the nature of cargo.

[nigegilb]

Never been a great believer in using stats in an argument. Apologies if posting that Observer article has caused so much trouble. I actually posted it because the Observer was stating the day the BoI is due to be published. Then, hopefully, the speculation will end.

[Mr Point]

Magners,

I agree that the number of fires reported by the media do not add up but I can assure you that there have been more than one.

As has already been stated, galley smoke, burning oil and electrical burning will account for the vast majority of incidents, and prior to around 1995 there were also a number of retro fires.

I have personally experienced two real under-floors (one of which was on the ground), and know of at least three other fires that needed the use of internal fire extinguishers.

[Vim_Fuego]

Agree the figures don't add up...in 11 years I can only think of three 'fires' one of which was told to me second hand and the other two I personally experienced with a HF aerial ablaze on the ground just prior to taxi and a CSDU cooling fan rubbing on it's casing whilst lining up...Plenty of fumes from which not one did we come home early for...the source was always identified and isolated or it just went away...

If I remember correctly the sandwich toaster device was a major source of under floor warnings due to were it vented it's cooking fumes...

[RAF_Techie101]

Oddly enough, the power socket for the toaster is still fitted and labelled just above the galley table...

Would love some toast when I'm sat down the back during a transit on det...

Just add some marmite and cheese...

Now THAT'S In-Flight...

[John Blakeley]

BAES Report

Whilst people can argue about the numbers of fires/smoke incidents until the cows come home, and I only have the Press figures to go on, and in truth the actual number is not particularly relevant, I note that very few are picking up on the real point - namely that the IPT commissioned a Design Authority (BAES) Report back in 2004 which came up with some significant recommendations to bring the chances of fire/explosion down to what BAES considered an ALARP level (although even here they hedged their bets by saying the sample investigated was small) and that few, if any, of these recommendations were taken up. Worse, in some cases the recommendations have not been actioned for the MR4.

The fact that the Nimrod has been involved in saving many lives at sea, including an incident today that could have turned very nasty, is relevant to the case for having an aircraft and trained crews available for this essential role - it is not an excuse for using an aircraft that may not be fully airworthy. Let us hope that with such a small fleet of Nimrod 4s, with numbers being driven by cost and not OA, we will still have enough resources to continue as we do now.

JB

[Exrigger]

Considering I keep being told all these figures are for only a small fleet so it is worse than it looks, but even with the recent posts of historical knowledge of actual fires over 40 odd years of service, this is still a long way short of 78. And over what period does the paper article claim the 880 cover.

Spanners123: carefull you have mentioned other aircraft that have the same problems, as has been pointed out to me in no uncertain terms the stats for these aircraft are not relevant to the thread subject.

JB: do you know for a fact what has and has not been incorporated on the MRA4?

[Mick Smith]

The actual figures!

Dunno where the figures that dont add up came from - they arent in either of the media reports today - but the 880 figure is beyond a shadow of a doubt.
This is from the BAE Systems report:

Approximately 880 signals over a period from 1982 to the date of issue of this report were identified that may be classified as incidents concerning fire or smoke from unknown origins. In all cases, each identified incident was addressed in the immediate term by one or more of the following:
Crew action to extinguish the fire either by using hand extinguishers or selecting the appropriate crew controlled remote suppression system.
Crew action to identify and remove the ignition source by isolating the offending system (which may be a mechanical, electrical or avionics system or a combination of all)...
It may be assumed with some degree of confidence that the overall probability of a minor fire/smoke related occurrence for any given initiating cause will continue to be FREQUENT.

The FREQUENT is in their capitals not mine.

[Exrigger]

Thanks MS, I would rather take credence from that report than from a newspaper, even though in this case they seem to have actually got their facts right. Allthough I will add the newspaper did not appear to have the timescales, so the comments about making things look worse than they are still stands, why use the full facts when missing some out makes a better story and actually makes things look worse than they are.

With regards to this comment

It may be assumed with some degree of confidence that the overall probability of a minor fire/smoke related occurrence for any given initiating cause will continue to be FREQUENT.

, since this report was issued how many changes have been made to alleviate some of these instances happening again, though I think I know the answer, which is sweet diddly squat (although from one post above they have removed the toaster ).

[John Blakeley]

Post 1724

Ex-rigger

See post 1724 - are you saying NigeGib is wrong? Mike Smith is of course the journalist who wrote the Sunday Times report and it seems that he has proved his credibility on the numbers beyond a shadow of doubt - thanks for the info Mike.

JB