Nimrod Grounded
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV:
Yes, I fully understand what has been written by BAeS and Qinetiq. I think we need to look at how the HRI is arrived at:
1. The published frequency of the hazard is based on judgement of both historical and technical analysis of the system. I have absolutely no argument with the upgrade to OCCASIONAL by QQ in the case of a duct leak. It is debatable what the degree of any leak or failure is likely to be, but OCCASIONAL is an acceptable failure rate.
2. The effect of the hazard is in 2 areas: local and overall. In the very worst case, a blown duct might burn out a hole in the upper skin, burn out a few wires, and/or overheat a fuel/hydraulic coupling seal. This is the local effect. However, the overall effect to the aircraft, which is where the HRI comes in, is minimal due to the fact there is a crew on board to deal with the problem(s). The aircraft will not be lost, it will not even have to make an emergency landing. The published procedures in the aircrew manuals will deal all the local failures in a structured and calm manner. The weight might need to be reduced, which could take up to 30 minutes, and then the aircraft will make a safe and controlled approach to land. The crew would not even need to make it a MAYDAY unless they received a fire warning, which, due to nature of the event, will either be spurious due to burnt wiring or a temporary hyd or fuel fire (which would require a sustained and very hot air leak), but easily extinguished. That is the very, very, worst case, and the aircraft is still flying and the rear crew are still eating their doughnuts. Regardless of the degree of the failure, the effect to the aircraft, by book definition, is not CRITICAL or CATASTROPHIC by any means. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to reduce the risk to ALARP.
I don't know how, or why, BAeS and QQ declared the hazard as CATASTROPHIC. I do know that they did not consult the aircrew when they erroneously calculated the effect to the aircraft when a HP air duct bursts on a Nimrod in flight.
I don't think I can bring anything more to this discussion.
Regards
Ed
Whether we like it or not, hazard H66 has a hazard severity rating of CATASTROPHIC. It is currently set on the data base has having a probabilty of IMPROBABLE. Is was recommended by QinetiQ in 2008 that because there had been two duct failures this should be reset to OCCASIONAL. This would give it a HRI of "A".
1. The published frequency of the hazard is based on judgement of both historical and technical analysis of the system. I have absolutely no argument with the upgrade to OCCASIONAL by QQ in the case of a duct leak. It is debatable what the degree of any leak or failure is likely to be, but OCCASIONAL is an acceptable failure rate.
2. The effect of the hazard is in 2 areas: local and overall. In the very worst case, a blown duct might burn out a hole in the upper skin, burn out a few wires, and/or overheat a fuel/hydraulic coupling seal. This is the local effect. However, the overall effect to the aircraft, which is where the HRI comes in, is minimal due to the fact there is a crew on board to deal with the problem(s). The aircraft will not be lost, it will not even have to make an emergency landing. The published procedures in the aircrew manuals will deal all the local failures in a structured and calm manner. The weight might need to be reduced, which could take up to 30 minutes, and then the aircraft will make a safe and controlled approach to land. The crew would not even need to make it a MAYDAY unless they received a fire warning, which, due to nature of the event, will either be spurious due to burnt wiring or a temporary hyd or fuel fire (which would require a sustained and very hot air leak), but easily extinguished. That is the very, very, worst case, and the aircraft is still flying and the rear crew are still eating their doughnuts. Regardless of the degree of the failure, the effect to the aircraft, by book definition, is not CRITICAL or CATASTROPHIC by any means. Therefore, there is no legal requirement to reduce the risk to ALARP.
I don't know how, or why, BAeS and QQ declared the hazard as CATASTROPHIC. I do know that they did not consult the aircrew when they erroneously calculated the effect to the aircraft when a HP air duct bursts on a Nimrod in flight.
I don't think I can bring anything more to this discussion.
Regards
Ed
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RC-135 in RAF colours. Anybody around who knows how the B29s (aka Washingtons) were crewed/operated? Or did the RAF in those days work on the basis that once you could fly a four-engine piston type it didn't take long to convert? Please note: I am not ex-RAF or a flyer! - just a supporter.
With reference to what KIT said in post 68, are the families really suing the MoD for £20 million? If so, how many of the families is it and where would this money come from?
I notice that there has been no response to this claim but if it’s true, it makes me very angry!
I notice that there has been no response to this claim but if it’s true, it makes me very angry!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RC-135 link seems to be another variant of the Helix story - The project which still hasn't hit main gate and keeps getting mentioned in parliamentry questions.
e.g. Excerpts from Jan. 12 Debate in Parliament
or:
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Dec 2008 (pt 0006)
e.g. Excerpts from Jan. 12 Debate in Parliament
or:
House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 15 Dec 2008 (pt 0006)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late, I know. £20m would scarcely cover the salary of CXX/3 prior to retirement. It makes me angry that the families have yet to get a penny from UK plc; although, I have a fair idea why.
Duncs
Duncs
Last edited by Duncan D'Sorderlee; 15th Mar 2009 at 00:15. Reason: spool chook
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KIT,
I know, as aquaintances, a few of the widows and their families. In monetary terms, there is absolutely no doubt that they have all been robbed of a decent income through the loss of their husbands and fathers. That income loss was undeniably caused by a failure of the MOD to adequately provide that crew (and all other crews who flew on both Mks of Nimrod before 2 Sep 06 who, but for the grace of God, could have been killed) with a safe aircraft. It has been proven to have been a deathtrap.
As it stands, the families are entitled to the standard AFCS/AFPS settlement which is also payable, on exactly the same terms, to any other family whose loved one is simply lost in the course of his/her duty where the MOD is not guilty of negligence. That standard settlement is a pittance in comparison with the amount of expected income that would otherwise have been received by the families of XV230.
I can assure you that all of the families have my unconditional support in seeking a reasonable settlement in compensation for the loss that they have suffered due to the failure of the MOD/RAF/BAe. The MOD is the current owner and operator of the Nimrod and is therefore the respondent in this case. To my knowledge, not one single claimant has said anything about punitive damages. This is a claim for reasonable compensation. Do you have any idea how much income an average pilot can expect to receive in a 36/18 career followed by a civilian flying career and RAF pension?
Might I politely suggest that you review your last message.
Ed Sett
I know, as aquaintances, a few of the widows and their families. In monetary terms, there is absolutely no doubt that they have all been robbed of a decent income through the loss of their husbands and fathers. That income loss was undeniably caused by a failure of the MOD to adequately provide that crew (and all other crews who flew on both Mks of Nimrod before 2 Sep 06 who, but for the grace of God, could have been killed) with a safe aircraft. It has been proven to have been a deathtrap.
As it stands, the families are entitled to the standard AFCS/AFPS settlement which is also payable, on exactly the same terms, to any other family whose loved one is simply lost in the course of his/her duty where the MOD is not guilty of negligence. That standard settlement is a pittance in comparison with the amount of expected income that would otherwise have been received by the families of XV230.
I can assure you that all of the families have my unconditional support in seeking a reasonable settlement in compensation for the loss that they have suffered due to the failure of the MOD/RAF/BAe. The MOD is the current owner and operator of the Nimrod and is therefore the respondent in this case. To my knowledge, not one single claimant has said anything about punitive damages. This is a claim for reasonable compensation. Do you have any idea how much income an average pilot can expect to receive in a 36/18 career followed by a civilian flying career and RAF pension?
Might I politely suggest that you review your last message.
Ed Sett
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moderator Required
KIT
Time you withdrew both if not most of your posts on this forum. The families are quite rightly concerned about further loss from what was and still is a tight knit community. They wanted answers as to why such a tradgedy was allowed to happen in the first place and they are slowly getting there, I take my hat off to them for their persistance. If we all roled over and accepted it like you seem to suggest, because others are in a worse boat or basher, then it would just be a matter of time before another XV230 happened.
If the aircraft operating authority was aware of problems but had not mitigated against them then they deserve full compensation and more. Al Squires alone would have earned a further £10M in his career, without going to the civvies.
KIt you need to think twice about who views these forums before posting such inflamatory comments that will only upset or antagonise. Get rid of the post before the moderator does.
Time you withdrew both if not most of your posts on this forum. The families are quite rightly concerned about further loss from what was and still is a tight knit community. They wanted answers as to why such a tradgedy was allowed to happen in the first place and they are slowly getting there, I take my hat off to them for their persistance. If we all roled over and accepted it like you seem to suggest, because others are in a worse boat or basher, then it would just be a matter of time before another XV230 happened.
If the aircraft operating authority was aware of problems but had not mitigated against them then they deserve full compensation and more. Al Squires alone would have earned a further £10M in his career, without going to the civvies.
KIt you need to think twice about who views these forums before posting such inflamatory comments that will only upset or antagonise. Get rid of the post before the moderator does.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Trap 3
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the rest tagging along and trying to be good or know what you are doing , not many from Kinloss are involved in the is forum or chat , most have the sense to not listen to the utter **** and contempt you all think you have and how special this place makes you feel.
I'd think you would never be the choice of the Kinloss masses, as a representative of their beliefs........you're passionate to the point of being unhinged. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but there is no need to be so bloody personal with it. I disagree with many of the armchair experts on this forum but remember that the internet is hardly the place for an argument. If you know better than someone else, great. You then have a choice, put the facts up and argue or maintain your silence and enjoy the fact that you do, indeed, know better.
Sobering up and learning some manners might be a good place to start for you KIT.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You All
Thanks for pointing out the error everyone. 
However, I was of cause allowing for service to 60 or a second career as a training captain and index linking it for the outrageaous inflation that we are aboiut to suffer after Gb has messed about with the money supply. That plus a few sensible investments of the multiple FRIs that are bound to be offered once the pull from civvy street recovers.
Good bye to KIT though.
However, I was of cause allowing for service to 60 or a second career as a training captain and index linking it for the outrageaous inflation that we are aboiut to suffer after Gb has messed about with the money supply.
That plus a few sensible investments of the multiple FRIs that are bound to be offered once the pull from civvy street recovers.Good bye to KIT though.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed Sett;
Whether we agree with it or not, Hazard H66 is set to CATASTROPHIC on the Cassandra Hazard Log. It was recommended by BAEs and accepted the Nimrod IPT.
DV
Whether we agree with it or not, Hazard H66 is set to CATASTROPHIC on the Cassandra Hazard Log. It was recommended by BAEs and accepted the Nimrod IPT.
DV
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV:
Well, I've said it before, but its incorrect. Lets not forget that H66 is part of the original Nimrod Safety Case, which has been severely criticised by the BOI. As I write, that safety case is under scrutiny by Kinloss engineers and aircrew, for the first time (see my comment below). Once I know how H66 fares under examination by the experts, I will let everyone, here, know. Given that it was Kinloss officers who found the flaws in the original hazard log, I suggest that H66 should have been sent to Kinloss, for an opinion on its "catastrophic" effect, before the IPT decided to take the drastic action it has.
A new safety case is currently being produced by BAeS, with all interested parties involved. I'm confident that the zonal and functional hazard reports will be far more accurate, and that the effect of HP air duct failure in the engine zones will be assessed as less than critical. Lets face it, BAeS built the Nimrod. The company designers were not so stupid, even in the late 60's, to create a system that would bring the aircraft down with one single failure. They knew that hot pipes were needed in the engine zones, so they designed failure warnings, isolation valves and crew procedures to cater for the failure and prevent a catastrophic or critical event. Now, in their niavety, the company safety staff have paid little or no regard for the company designers' provisions right at the outset of the aircraft's life. BAeS are truly British Waste of Space.
Ed Sett
PS. The BOI report, in Dec 07, recommended a review of the Nimrod Safety Case (NSC) by Kinloss engineers and aircrew. It is a collection of documents that have never been at Kinloss, AFAIK, until now. We didn't even know it existed. It is only now, nearly 15 months after the publication of the BOI report, and more than 4 years since the NSC was produced, that the NSC has finally arrived at Kinloss for examination. I blame the IPT for that one.
Whether we agree with it or not, Hazard H66 is set to CATASTROPHIC on the Cassandra Hazard Log. It was recommended by BAEs and accepted the Nimrod IPT.
A new safety case is currently being produced by BAeS, with all interested parties involved. I'm confident that the zonal and functional hazard reports will be far more accurate, and that the effect of HP air duct failure in the engine zones will be assessed as less than critical. Lets face it, BAeS built the Nimrod. The company designers were not so stupid, even in the late 60's, to create a system that would bring the aircraft down with one single failure. They knew that hot pipes were needed in the engine zones, so they designed failure warnings, isolation valves and crew procedures to cater for the failure and prevent a catastrophic or critical event. Now, in their niavety, the company safety staff have paid little or no regard for the company designers' provisions right at the outset of the aircraft's life. BAeS are truly British Waste of Space.
Ed Sett
PS. The BOI report, in Dec 07, recommended a review of the Nimrod Safety Case (NSC) by Kinloss engineers and aircrew. It is a collection of documents that have never been at Kinloss, AFAIK, until now. We didn't even know it existed. It is only now, nearly 15 months after the publication of the BOI report, and more than 4 years since the NSC was produced, that the NSC has finally arrived at Kinloss for examination. I blame the IPT for that one.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kinloss
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BGG,
OK, fair point.
However, it is the case that the original designers must have anticipated HP air duct failures because they fitted detectors, valves and surrounded the pipes and the engines with titanium walls to protect the aircraft. Sure, the top skin might suffer some damage. A complete top panel might even be blown off, but its not catastrophic to the aircraft.
OK, fair point.
However, it is the case that the original designers must have anticipated HP air duct failures because they fitted detectors, valves and surrounded the pipes and the engines with titanium walls to protect the aircraft. Sure, the top skin might suffer some damage. A complete top panel might even be blown off, but its not catastrophic to the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed Sett 100 you said:
That is correct, and they set the hazard to CATASTROPHIC. The BOI comments relate to Hazard H73 (Zone 514/614), which had been set to CATASTROPHIC/REMOTE by BAes, but then downgarded by IPT to CATASTROPHIC/IMPROBABLE. You should read Martin Breakell (BAes) evidence at the inquest
Do you really believe that MOD are now replacing 37 sections of ducting per aircraft, four years after the 2005 "warning", as an act of good will? You should be very careful before you do any downgrading.
DV
Let's face it, BAes built the aircraft
Do you really believe that MOD are now replacing 37 sections of ducting per aircraft, four years after the 2005 "warning", as an act of good will? You should be very careful before you do any downgrading.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 17th Mar 2009 at 07:46. Reason: Additional information