Nimrod Information

[skua]

I have only got as far as para 9, but 50 mins for the arrival of CSAR only 14 nms from Kandahar airfield does not sound very reassuring, even though their services were sadly not needed.

[SaddamsLoveChild]

FP team

Skua,

Dont talk tosh mate, moving quickly into an area overwatched by the Talibs is never going to be quick, area heavily mined, other ops ongoing, you cant just disengage and leave others an exposed flank whilst you go off on another task. These things take time and they had another asset with eyes on if you read the report. Do you not think that ANY patrol Cdr knowing an aircraft had gomne down would not expedite to help. He would but not whilst exposing his own troops and adding to the possible casualty number.

Suggest you dont cloud the issue by finding fault in our own side.....unless you were part of the RCD on scene.

Back in my box now.

[Doctor Cruces]

What abunch of aroles these tossers are, if they hadn't been penny pinching the crew would still be alive.
Don't ing apologise, Dozy Des, adequately fund the military for the jobs required and get the beancounters out of military requirement. Only the best should be good enough for our serving personnel and this just won't do.
I'm so angry I could just............
No point in voting against them where I live, a monkey with a blue rosette would get in so no point in threatening not to vote for this bunch of tossers who can't even give us a full time minister.
Doc C

[D-IFF_ident]

While the BOI process is not intended to apportion blame it would be interesting to see if the report could be used as evidence in, say, manslaughter charges. I wonder if the CPS has had sight of the report yet.

[Da4orce]

The devil is in the detail.

Mr Brown just appeared on BBC stating that the bulk of the BoI recommendations would be implemented and would go some way to addressing concerns!

[Satellite_Driver]

Recommendation 32 from the BoI:
"Consideration be given to reinstating the SO1 (Wg Cdr) engineering post in Forward at RAF Kinloss to provide senior oversight of station engineering matters."
By 'the SO1 (Wg Cdr) engineering post in Forward' this means what we used to call OC Eng Wing. Yes, it probably was a silly idea to get rid of that role, wasn't it? So much for QR 640, as beaten into us BEngOs at DSGT in the good old days.*
(*i.e. the early 1990s, before 'Lean' had been invented.)

[4mastacker]

I watched Secretary of State making his Statement on BBC Parliament and all I could feel was anger and dismay at what was said. Having followed this thread and read the very many, knowledgeable inputs, I for one, find it hard to understand why Browne's words that it was "an accident" were not followed by "waiting to happen". Whether or not the families and friends of the fallen find comfort in the Statement, I know not. If it had been my son, I would be extremely disappointed at today's announcement.

My deepest sympathies to all the relatives, friends and colleagues of our lost comrades.

[everythingbuttheboy]

4mastacker, i disagree that this was an accident waiting to happen.......

this was an accident that occurred due to a cumulative sequence of events.... the fact that the insulation around the pipe that ignited the fuel was not sufficiently adequate, was not realised/discovered, until the one day that pipe insulation became vital;the day that the fuel leaked from one of the tanks, across the airframe, and into the area where it could be ( and tragically was) ignited.... at the end of the day, the MOD has admitted resonsibility for it's part in the accident, and has committed to compensation (which I know, wont bring back loved ones), and a further investigation (probably because of the intense media coverage, helped by this forum)
As a former stacker (i presume thats what you did!), what expert knowledge, exactly, do you have in this accident. unless you are a subject matter expert(ie ex pilot, eng etc).
how much experience do you have servicing this aircraft, or actually flying it. as far as i'm concerned, the aircrew did their part, extremely professionally, right until the end, and the groundcrew, did exactly what their relevant documents and experience told them to do.. it was a tragic incident, and i do believe the media coverage has helped in terms of MOD not trying to hide things, but comments like yours, that are unsubstantiated, dont help the families, or the colleagues, friends, and loved ones to understand what happened, what is going to happen, and how the Kinloss community, and the nimrod fleet are trying to prevent this happening again.......
Its an extremely hard fact to digest, but we learn from our mistakes, and I'm sure that the bereaved families, may take some comfort from knowing that their loved ones never died in vain...... that mistakes have been rectified, (as proved with the recent aircraft diverting due to fuel leak) and that this will (hopefully) never happen again... please feel free to PM me.

[Padhist]

Nimrod enquiry

Before anyone goes off half cocked on this. Look at the terms of reference for the enquiry.
The usual trick is to make these terms, such that they prevent an examiner looking at the real problem.
Look at the enquiry into the Vulcan accident at London Airport on 1st october 1956.The RAF Official Enquiry was carried out in secret.
The subsequent Civil enquiry, emphasised that its terms of reference were to enquire into the quality of the GCA approach procedures at LAP.There were no existing problems. Aircraft were using these facilities all the time.
So. I do hope that this enquiry will be realistic.
Should anyone require more information on the Vulcan crash I will be happy to oblige.
At the moment I am into my 3rd medicinal apperatiff. So read this with care.

[Tappers Dad]

I would just like to thank all those who have supported me over the past year.

I will say more tomorrow.

[The Swinging Monkey]

TD
I watched you on the TV tonight mate, and simply don't know how you managed to stay so calm and controlled - respect. I have never been so disgusted and ashamed of being a Brit tonight, in light of this report.

It is an utter disgrace, and I hope that the matter goes further and finds someone culpably negligent.

everythingbuttheboy
If we had 'learned by our mistakes' as you so eloquently put it, then we would NOT have had so many near misses prior to the loss of 230, and several SINCE the loss. The fact is that the RAF DID NOT learn from it's mistakes. Thats why it happened, yet again, only a couple of weeks ago.

I hope that we get an independant body to come in a check all the aircraft over and ground them for good. Endex.

[everythingbuttheboy]

is there any other aircraft in service in the world, that has not had problems?????

flying is inherently dangerous. i'm not saying for a second that we should just accept this, and get on with it, but at the same time, accidents happen, and as long as we learn from our mistakes, at least it's a little condolence for the families...
by "near misses", i take it you're referring to problems with refuelling, and not near misses... at the time the system was introduced, it was meant as a stopgap for the falklands. yes, it was a mistake, to take the refueling system for granted and to use it on a regular basis, but hey, as i've said, people make mistakes, they're human. i'm all for ensuring that the mistakes aren't repeated: as for people being implicated..... i'm sure it will mean a lot to some of the families, others just want to make sure that these people didn't die in vain....

As for learning from its' mistakes, what about the jet that diverted last week, spot the differnce between that one, and 230.... (tell you what..... i'll give you a clue. that one landed) tragedy no 2 prevented.... i'd call that a learning process


as for grounding the fleet for good, i'd like to see you say that to the hundreds of troops on the ground who rely on the battlefield asset we provide.... but then again, your comments make it sound like you're not particularly arsed about them. its not all about us crews, its about the force as a whole. i'm not saying for a second that 14 deaths is an acceptable loss, far from it, but grounding the fleet will cause many more deaths. think before you make such all encompassing commments...its not a 767 ferrying people to and from tenerife, its a battlefield assets that is saving lives, every minute it's airborne.

[speeddial]

everythingbuttheboy,

There is not an aircraft without problems, however please tell me when a KC-135, B-52, RC-135 or C-130E, all of the Nimrod's vintage, last had a similar incident? The answer is never. At the first sign of a problem the USAF ground the fleet and spend the money needed to fix the problem, or retire the aircraft.

[everythingbuttheboy]

speeddial,
i accept your comments, but then when was any of the aircraft you mentioned, such a potent asset, and easily replaceable....
what is there, that can replace the nimrod, carry out it's job as effectively, and produce results every time.... so much so, that it's common for commanders to cancel a mission if a nimrod is unavailable.....

and please dont say predator, or any other supposed reconnaissance aircraft, that cannot ever do the job nimrods can..

yes, safety comes first, but at the moment the aircraft is safe, and wth the 4 coming in shortly (cue sarcastic remarks) its simply not viable to spend million on this a/c. just make it safe to fly, and keep it safe, until the 4 comes in.

[everythingbuttheboy]

APPARENTLY, THE USAF DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS WITH AGING AIRCRAFT

So dont bother reading on......

ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-079(II)/MP-079(II)-(SM)-$KN.pdf -


Managing the Aging Aircraft Problem
John W. Lincoln
Aeronautical Systems Center
2530 Loop Road West
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433-7101
USA


No one should be surprised there are aircraft all over the world today in a state of aging. Economic considerations demand that aircraft be operated long beyond originally identified retirement times. One reason for keeping aircraft in the inventory is that technological advances allow currently designed aircraft to effectively perform their mission for much longer than
previously possible. An aircraft, even when sold by one airline, sees extended life in another airline’s operations. In the commercial sector, new aircraft tend to be evolutionary in their designs. Consequently, they are maintained in service until they are not economically viable to
operate. The cost of new aircraft, particularly for the military, is enormous. Each new military aircraft is a revolutionary change from the previous model since the services must maintain combat effectiveness in an environment of ever-changing threats. Therefore, military aircraft stay in the inventory until they are operationally obsolete or they are no longer economically viable to operate. The USAF retired many F-4 aircraft because they were obsolete as a weapon system rather than being economically nonviable. In the case of the KC-135, the USAF plans to keep
these aircraft operational to the year 2040 since they believe it will be economical to operate them until that time. They would likely not be obsolete in the year 2040. If the USAF can maintain these aircraft operationally until 2040, their service life will be approximately 80 years. When the USAF procured these aircraft, they planned for a service life of about 20 years.

However, the economic demand to fly these aircraft longer and longer has emphasized the need to re-examine these aircraft for the possibility of WFD, corrosion damage, and loss of damage
tolerance capability through repairs. In many cases, the budgets have not allowed the modernization of maintenance facilities or the
upgrading of their information management systems. This has led to maintenance practices that are not state-of-the-art in that the use of information management has not become ingrained in the
work force.

[Chugalug2]

Everythingbuttheboy said:

this was an accident that occurred due to a cumulative sequence of events....

So with every accident. But the cumulative sequence started not in XV230, rather with a bean counter’s award winning idea more than a decade ago. The RAF Airworthiness System cost money, too much money it would seem. Paperwork was generated for every incident no matter how seemingly trivial, vast data bases were assembled, trends established, potential weaknesses identified, rectification action designed and implemented, and at the end of it all nothing to show for it except for a minor mod and an enormous bill. Why not seriously curtail the reporting side and ensure that money expended subsequently was slashed? Of course the staffs used to dedicating their lives to the provision of airworthiness would have to be made to change their ways, with disciplinary action if required, but the prize would be major financial savings. Well the prize has turned out to be a rather more bitter harvest than that. The RAF may well apologise for it has ended up destroying a Flight Safety system that was the envy of the world and finished up with aircraft fleets whose airworthiness would shame a bucket shop airline. Note please I castigate the airworthiness, not the serviceability. The two are quite separate, and for all I know XV230 was perfectly serviceable right up to the moment that a fuel leak destroyed it. So what now?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2999441.ece says:
Mr Browne vowed that lessons would be learned from the official Board of Inquiry report into last September's catastrophic crash, which was published today, and announced that a review would be launched into the safety of Nimrods. If it is deemed necessary, he added that a full public inquiry would follow.
AND:
The most devastating condemnation of what had gone wrong in maintaining the fleet came from Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Loader, Commander-in-Chief Air Command.
In an attachment to the Board of Inquiry report issued today, Sir Clive said : "I conclude that the loss of XV230 and, far more importantly, of the 14 Service personnel who were aboard, resulted from shortcomings in the application of the processes for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod."
So all we are promised is an independent review into Nimrod Safety.
ACM Loader to his credit identifies the real cause of this accident, and it is a cause that compromises not only the Nimrod Fleet, but every other one in HM Armed Forces. The full public inquiry is a sine qua non and must be tasked to identify those shortcomings and recommend the remedy. In my opinion that must be to withdraw Airworthiness Regulation from the MOD and vest it in an independent Military Airworthiness Authority.

[OmegaV6]

I think CinC's comments para 2 vindicate all those on this thread who have championed changes to RAF airworthiness procedures

God rest the guy's, lets hope their sacrifice is not in vain

[Confucius]

Will the leaning process continue?

[Pontius Navigator]

The VC10 as an airframe, if not a design, predates the Nimrod. Many VC10 were operated by airlines whose maintenance may not have been as stringent as the RAF procedures.

Mrs PN saw something on (or in) the news which suggested to her that an Air Marshal might be falling on his sword. Has there been any AM on (or in) the news other than CAS or CinC?

[roush]

TD

My thoughts are with you and everyone else who lost family and friends (myself included).

everythingbuttheboy,

Sorry for my obvious stupidity, but why can't the Pred/Reaper a/c do the job of the Nimrod?