Nimrod Information
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, AAR refuelling is just that. Carried out in flight. How can the pipes be checked post AAR?
In the past this was a fairly standard, regular maintenance practice, carried out on the line, with a probe adaptor hooked on to bowser pressure refuling line. Aircraft was then re-fueled on the ground via the probe, leak checks / inspections then carried out. (Victor, C130 and Tornado anway)
In the past this was a fairly standard, regular maintenance practice, carried out on the line, with a probe adaptor hooked on to bowser pressure refuling line. Aircraft was then re-fueled on the ground via the probe, leak checks / inspections then carried out. (Victor, C130 and Tornado anway)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mary hinge
They do check them on the ground, however they are not able to reconstruct conditions when AAR takes place like turbulence ,air temperature and fluctuations in AAR pressure.
They do check them on the ground, however they are not able to reconstruct conditions when AAR takes place like turbulence ,air temperature and fluctuations in AAR pressure.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NimAGE, the point I was trying to make, badly, was that at the time XV230 crashed there was another Nimrod, flying operations with a hole in the AAR pipework. That hole was only discovered in the post crash checks carried out to the Fleet and could have resulted in another tragedy.
I understand the crew could smell fumes on the flight deck before the fire on XV230. Are you doubting whether there was a fuel leak on XV230? Or is it commonplace to smell fuel on the flight deck of a Nimrod? I have completed many AAR sorties in the Herc and never witnessed a leak and never smelled fuel. To be honest, I am shocked by what is regarded as normal on the Nimrod Fleet. I don't doubt the integrity of engineering practices but I would hope that someone is standing back and taking a considered view. Herc frames that I flew were all late 1960's models.
You make the point that we do not know the source of ignition. I agree and I also state once more, that fuel tank protection is a must for the Fleet, for that very reason, alone.
I understand the crew could smell fumes on the flight deck before the fire on XV230. Are you doubting whether there was a fuel leak on XV230? Or is it commonplace to smell fuel on the flight deck of a Nimrod? I have completed many AAR sorties in the Herc and never witnessed a leak and never smelled fuel. To be honest, I am shocked by what is regarded as normal on the Nimrod Fleet. I don't doubt the integrity of engineering practices but I would hope that someone is standing back and taking a considered view. Herc frames that I flew were all late 1960's models.
You make the point that we do not know the source of ignition. I agree and I also state once more, that fuel tank protection is a must for the Fleet, for that very reason, alone.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
David Angel,
You Nimrod guys seem to be getting a bit Twitchy about this fuel leak business that we are banging on about, and I don't understand why.
Other reports on here have stated numerous cases of sever fuel leaks, on the ground, in flight, post AAR, after landing etc. Even a Tristar crew reported a bad leak. It would seem that there is little disagreement with those facts, and you chaps even now claim that you have been given a little chart to ensure that the leaks are coming from areas where leaks are allowed!
My point about Camelspyyder, was that his statement of 'flying a leaking aircraft every day' isn't clever, and nothing to be complacent or proud about. He says himself that he is an idiot (toungue in cheek I know) but it really must be of concern to his crew that he is prepared to just accept these problems every day.
I don't know whether XV230 had an 'acceptable' leak the day of that fateful flight, but I would assume it did. Sadly, the 'acceptable' leak turned into something a lot more tragic, hence why so many of us feel the accident was avoidable. I'm not convinced that continuing to fly aircraft with 'acceptable' fuel leaks is a sensible decision, by anyone under the circumstances. I would suggest that the aircraft captain, and everyone in the command chain has a duty to consider this.
If it does turn out that XV230 did have one of these 'acceptable' leaks, then I would suggest that someone, somewhere, will be getting their dangly bits in a sling when the inquest makes its conclusions.
WW, please stop the PMs, I have explained that I will not respond to you, now knock it off.
You Nimrod guys seem to be getting a bit Twitchy about this fuel leak business that we are banging on about, and I don't understand why.
Other reports on here have stated numerous cases of sever fuel leaks, on the ground, in flight, post AAR, after landing etc. Even a Tristar crew reported a bad leak. It would seem that there is little disagreement with those facts, and you chaps even now claim that you have been given a little chart to ensure that the leaks are coming from areas where leaks are allowed!
My point about Camelspyyder, was that his statement of 'flying a leaking aircraft every day' isn't clever, and nothing to be complacent or proud about. He says himself that he is an idiot (toungue in cheek I know) but it really must be of concern to his crew that he is prepared to just accept these problems every day.
I don't know whether XV230 had an 'acceptable' leak the day of that fateful flight, but I would assume it did. Sadly, the 'acceptable' leak turned into something a lot more tragic, hence why so many of us feel the accident was avoidable. I'm not convinced that continuing to fly aircraft with 'acceptable' fuel leaks is a sensible decision, by anyone under the circumstances. I would suggest that the aircraft captain, and everyone in the command chain has a duty to consider this.
If it does turn out that XV230 did have one of these 'acceptable' leaks, then I would suggest that someone, somewhere, will be getting their dangly bits in a sling when the inquest makes its conclusions.
WW, please stop the PMs, I have explained that I will not respond to you, now knock it off.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airbus above is venting not leaking.
All aircraft have a leakage schedule. There is no grey area eather mil or civvy. Any Air Eng/Flight Eng or Pilot worth his salt wouldn't take an unservicable aircraft. We need to be very careful with terms like "Leaking like a sieve". Some do but it's within design limits. Others may be outside limits. Thats why both ground and flight crew are trained to recognise and asses leaks and should know what the limits are or how to find them.
All aircraft have a leakage schedule. There is no grey area eather mil or civvy. Any Air Eng/Flight Eng or Pilot worth his salt wouldn't take an unservicable aircraft. We need to be very careful with terms like "Leaking like a sieve". Some do but it's within design limits. Others may be outside limits. Thats why both ground and flight crew are trained to recognise and asses leaks and should know what the limits are or how to find them.
did you hear about the 43 pax who refused to fly on an airliner out of ADN last week because there was fuel dripping off of the wing.
I bet they'd all watched PANORAMA too!!
I bet they'd all watched PANORAMA too!!
..... ps. sadly, half the Airports fire service turned out and practically drowned the poor $$$$ aircraft ....
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not a regular check anyway and isn't done on a daily servicing basis.
From my time on Nimrods, I seem to remember doing 'pull off' checks with a device that checked that the probe would leave the drogue properly. This was done before every scheduled AAR trip.
I also remember the sumpys doing refuels through the probe, bowser hose went up a set of aircraft steps and onto an adaptor on the probe. I don't remember whether this was part of sceduled maintenance/OOP etc, or whether done before an AAR sortie. This was on the R fleet.
S_H
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: up north
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must make the distinction here bewteen acceptable pre flight leaks and the in flight leaks being discussed here. Any acceptable leak will be from a tank and will be external, it will usually be a seep and will not even drip. Even any that do drip will be very slow and will not run into any area where it could pool and become a fire hazard. We do not intentionally fly with leaks from pipes or couplings and certainly not leaks in enclosed places. This includes the bomb bay. These acceptable wing leaks are all in places where the minute quantity of fuel would blow off the underside of the wing in flight. They do no not suddenly become major leaks as could a pipe or coupling, they are not under pressure other that the vent system ram air. These LEAKS are of no concern to the safety of the crew or aircraft.
The major leaks being discovered during and after flight are totally different and involve pipes, couplings and the like. Sometimes under pressure and usually leaking into an enclosed area. These are concerning, they could pose a flight safety hazard. These are the leaks you should be talking about, if you want to contribute something useful to the discussion.
The major leaks being discovered during and after flight are totally different and involve pipes, couplings and the like. Sometimes under pressure and usually leaking into an enclosed area. These are concerning, they could pose a flight safety hazard. These are the leaks you should be talking about, if you want to contribute something useful to the discussion.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Eng thank you for your contribution. It would be helpful if the MoD would make the same differentiation, but would that make the seriousness of the situation rather too obvious?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Forres
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull off checks
"From my time on Nimrods, I seem to remember doing 'pull off' checks with a device that checked that the probe would leave the drogue properly. This was done before every scheduled AAR trip."
S-H, you're correct. As part of a before flight servicing, the pull off checks are carried out if the aircraft is due to do an AAR sortie. The probe is also checked post flight.
Ground refuel through the probe is carried out after scheduled maintenace or any rectification work on said system.
S-H, you're correct. As part of a before flight servicing, the pull off checks are carried out if the aircraft is due to do an AAR sortie. The probe is also checked post flight.
Ground refuel through the probe is carried out after scheduled maintenace or any rectification work on said system.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: N Scotland
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know whether XV230 had an 'acceptable' leak the day of that fateful flight, but I would assume it did. Sadly, the 'acceptable' leak turned into something a lot more tragic, hence why so many of us feel the accident was avoidable.
You have no proof, whatsoever, that the fire was started by an extant acceptable fuel leak. In fact, it is highly unlikely that anyone would accept a known leak in the area of the reported fire.
Winco, your speculation borders on accusing front line personnel of negligence.
By all means, have a pop at RAF engineering policy, but leave the line workers out of this.
To answer Safety Helmut's question about the probe adaptor: yes, it is still used before and after every AAR flight, to check the probe for serviceability. It may also be used a diagnostic tool (with a bowser) for reported leaks in the refuel system.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AC Ovee
I fear that you are also getting Twitchy about this, but let me assure you of a couple of things:
I am ex Nimrod (even a humble Pilot Captain) so I do know a little bit about the aircraft pre 1990, when I left the fleet. I also flew the early sorties with MC and JR proving the AAR system prior to our deployment to ASI.
I have never ever accused or even suggested that this accident was the result of neglegence by anyone, including groundcrew. Your suggestion otherwise is quite outrageous.
I have always supported the groundcrew over this at every opportunity and have stated so on numerous occasions that the constraints (and conditions) they are working under is a disgrace and should be reviewed asap. You cannot maintain any aircraft fleet without money, and lots of it with an ageing fleet.
I have never had 'a pop' at RAF Engineering either. I have constantly remarked on the higher authority of the RAF and their lack of leadership over this, especially CAS who, IMHO, should have grounded all of the Nimrod fleet until every leak has been fixed. To allow these aircraft to continue to fly is an appalling decision.
Your comment about me having a go at line workers is completely untrue Sir.
There are posters on this forum who claim to be current Nimrod aircrew, and who are claiming that in general terms, all of the aircraft leak to one degree or another. We have others who claim to fly 'every day' in aircraft leaking fuel. But I don't know whether or not XV230 had an existing fuel leak or not, but based on what the current operators are claiming, I would think that it is highly probable that it did (but you are right, I don't know that for fact)
Likewise, I know nothing about your little charts outlining where leaks are acceptable. But you must step back and ask yourself this.....Is it 'right' that aircraew are being asked to fly aircraft with known leaks, even minor ones? The answer, considering the tragedy of XV230, is a resounding NO, they should not.
You say that I have no proof of what happened that day, and of course you are quite correct I don't. But what we do have is the loss of an aircraft, and its crew, and a lot of Nimrod operators saying that the aircraft always leak. Does that not suggest something to you? because it does to me and probably to most other aviators also.
I fear that you are also getting Twitchy about this, but let me assure you of a couple of things:
I am ex Nimrod (even a humble Pilot Captain) so I do know a little bit about the aircraft pre 1990, when I left the fleet. I also flew the early sorties with MC and JR proving the AAR system prior to our deployment to ASI.
I have never ever accused or even suggested that this accident was the result of neglegence by anyone, including groundcrew. Your suggestion otherwise is quite outrageous.
I have always supported the groundcrew over this at every opportunity and have stated so on numerous occasions that the constraints (and conditions) they are working under is a disgrace and should be reviewed asap. You cannot maintain any aircraft fleet without money, and lots of it with an ageing fleet.
I have never had 'a pop' at RAF Engineering either. I have constantly remarked on the higher authority of the RAF and their lack of leadership over this, especially CAS who, IMHO, should have grounded all of the Nimrod fleet until every leak has been fixed. To allow these aircraft to continue to fly is an appalling decision.
Your comment about me having a go at line workers is completely untrue Sir.
There are posters on this forum who claim to be current Nimrod aircrew, and who are claiming that in general terms, all of the aircraft leak to one degree or another. We have others who claim to fly 'every day' in aircraft leaking fuel. But I don't know whether or not XV230 had an existing fuel leak or not, but based on what the current operators are claiming, I would think that it is highly probable that it did (but you are right, I don't know that for fact)
Likewise, I know nothing about your little charts outlining where leaks are acceptable. But you must step back and ask yourself this.....Is it 'right' that aircraew are being asked to fly aircraft with known leaks, even minor ones? The answer, considering the tragedy of XV230, is a resounding NO, they should not.
You say that I have no proof of what happened that day, and of course you are quite correct I don't. But what we do have is the loss of an aircraft, and its crew, and a lot of Nimrod operators saying that the aircraft always leak. Does that not suggest something to you? because it does to me and probably to most other aviators also.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb wrote:
I'm not sure whether it's commonplace nigegilb but it certainly happened at least once since the loss of XV230. Like you I think most people are shocked at what appears to be normal on the fleet.
Dec 2006
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nirmrodreport1.pdf
"prior to landing the conditioning was turned off as normal and the crew smelt fuel fumes in the aircraft."
NimAGE.....Are you doubting whether there was a fuel leak on XV230? Or is it commonplace to smell fuel on the flight deck of a Nimrod? I have completed many AAR sorties in the Herc and never witnessed a leak and never smelled fuel. To be honest, I am shocked by what is regarded as normal on the Nimrod Fleet.
Dec 2006
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nirmrodreport1.pdf
"prior to landing the conditioning was turned off as normal and the crew smelt fuel fumes in the aircraft."
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near a former secret airbase somewhere in Wiltshire
Age: 77
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This particular thread started with the Panorama programme, but, naturally it has moved on to wider issues.
However, it seems pretty clear that the XV230 loss, along with other situations in all of the services represents the true cost of a succession of "cost saving" measures, from cuts in personnel to a terminal shortage of hot spares and necessary equipment.
For those (few) who seem to snipe at the engineers, don't, like so many others, they're trying to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot.
I am nearly 15 years out of the fleet now, but the rot had already firmly set in then, pressure being brought to bear at all levels to save money (penny pinch) - well, nothing comes without a price, not even cost cutting.
Unfortunately, that price is paid, not by those who set the spending targets, but by others just trying to do do the best they can.
We all know where the buck should stop, but will it? Gusee you'll have to decide for yourselves.
TPD
However, it seems pretty clear that the XV230 loss, along with other situations in all of the services represents the true cost of a succession of "cost saving" measures, from cuts in personnel to a terminal shortage of hot spares and necessary equipment.
For those (few) who seem to snipe at the engineers, don't, like so many others, they're trying to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot.
I am nearly 15 years out of the fleet now, but the rot had already firmly set in then, pressure being brought to bear at all levels to save money (penny pinch) - well, nothing comes without a price, not even cost cutting.
Unfortunately, that price is paid, not by those who set the spending targets, but by others just trying to do do the best they can.
We all know where the buck should stop, but will it? Gusee you'll have to decide for yourselves.
TPD
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 4 Civvy Street. Nowhere-near-a-base. The Shires.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Winco, you're always fishing so here's a bite
Yes. I am current on the MR2
No. I am not a captain
Yes. I have 6000hrs on type
Yes. They Leak
No. I would not fly with a known major/dangerous leak, and more to the point none of the ground engineers would never release the aircraft in that state.
My point for the last few days has been - define "leak" and I think the people in the know have been quite clear on that one in the last 48hrs.
Many of my friends perished last Sept 2nd and God bless them all.
I have no axe to grind but I am keen to replace the hysteria on this forum with good, honest,facts, and I believe that people who know the arcraft today are probably moe likely to supply them than anonymous old has-beens.
CS
Yes. I am current on the MR2
No. I am not a captain
Yes. I have 6000hrs on type
Yes. They Leak
No. I would not fly with a known major/dangerous leak, and more to the point none of the ground engineers would never release the aircraft in that state.
My point for the last few days has been - define "leak" and I think the people in the know have been quite clear on that one in the last 48hrs.
Many of my friends perished last Sept 2nd and God bless them all.
I have no axe to grind but I am keen to replace the hysteria on this forum with good, honest,facts, and I believe that people who know the arcraft today are probably moe likely to supply them than anonymous old has-beens.
CS
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me who or what is the Nimrod IPT (integrated project team).
What do they do and who makes up the team.
Please PM me if you don't wish to put the information on this forum.
What do they do and who makes up the team.
Please PM me if you don't wish to put the information on this forum.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco
'I am ex Nimrod (even a humble Pilot Captain) so I do know a little bit about the aircraft pre 1990, when I left the fleet. I also flew the early sorties with MC and JR proving the AAR system prior to our deployment to ASI.
There are posters on this forum who claim to be current Nimrod aircrew, and who are claiming that in general terms, all of the aircraft leak to one degree or another. We have others who claim to fly 'every day' in aircraft leaking fuel.
Likewise, I know nothing about your little charts outlining where leaks are acceptable. But you must step back and ask yourself this.....Is it 'right' that aircraew are being asked to fly aircraft with known leaks, even minor ones? The answer, considering the tragedy of XV230, is a resounding NO, they should not.'
Id bet that they leaked even when you flew them. The charts the guys are on about refer to wing fuel leaks in the integral 4, 4a, 3 + 2 tanks. Normally a small fuel stain on the underside of the wing. The reason for the chart is so they can be monitored. Each leak is assessed post refuel for any worsening.
If Raf a/c or any a/c for that matter were grounded for these small insignificant leaks. The skys would be very quiet indeed.
'I am ex Nimrod (even a humble Pilot Captain) so I do know a little bit about the aircraft pre 1990, when I left the fleet. I also flew the early sorties with MC and JR proving the AAR system prior to our deployment to ASI.
There are posters on this forum who claim to be current Nimrod aircrew, and who are claiming that in general terms, all of the aircraft leak to one degree or another. We have others who claim to fly 'every day' in aircraft leaking fuel.
Likewise, I know nothing about your little charts outlining where leaks are acceptable. But you must step back and ask yourself this.....Is it 'right' that aircraew are being asked to fly aircraft with known leaks, even minor ones? The answer, considering the tragedy of XV230, is a resounding NO, they should not.'
Id bet that they leaked even when you flew them. The charts the guys are on about refer to wing fuel leaks in the integral 4, 4a, 3 + 2 tanks. Normally a small fuel stain on the underside of the wing. The reason for the chart is so they can be monitored. Each leak is assessed post refuel for any worsening.
If Raf a/c or any a/c for that matter were grounded for these small insignificant leaks. The skys would be very quiet indeed.