Nimrod Grounded
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod Grounded
Why?
Plenty of reassurances about airworthiness from MoD and ministers, even after the damning inquest into the loss of XV230.
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod aircraft grounded by MoD
Anything to do with possible MoD liability under HRA 98, particularly as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is opposing the MoD's challenge to Mr Justice Collin's ruling that troops (etc) may have some protection under HRA 98 even on operations?
BBC NEWS | UK | Human rights challenge to MoD due
Plenty of reassurances about airworthiness from MoD and ministers, even after the damning inquest into the loss of XV230.
BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod aircraft grounded by MoD
Anything to do with possible MoD liability under HRA 98, particularly as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission is opposing the MoD's challenge to Mr Justice Collin's ruling that troops (etc) may have some protection under HRA 98 even on operations?
BBC NEWS | UK | Human rights challenge to MoD due
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod not grounded
All Nimrod aircraft that have not had a vital safety modification are to be grounded by the Ministry of Defence, the BBC has learned.
The Nimrods, all based overseas, will be withdrawn on 31 March in order to replace engine bay hot air ducts.
The MoD has said there will be no impact on operations.
So..er...not grounded then
The Nimrods, all based overseas, will be withdrawn on 31 March in order to replace engine bay hot air ducts.
The MoD has said there will be no impact on operations.
So..er...not grounded then
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is not new news this has been planned for months,did get a scare when it was plastered all over the news fleet is grounded !!!
This reduction in numbers has been on cards for a long time and this is the date we all knew it was going to happen. Nothing new about this except and official release from Defence secretary.
This reduction in numbers has been on cards for a long time and this is the date we all knew it was going to happen. Nothing new about this except and official release from Defence secretary.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
No impact on operations - the Beeb says we will use other nation assets.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 9th Mar 2009 at 14:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this has been planned for months, why not announced before now?
Why ground them all at once, if this is indeed the case? Can't surely work on them all at once?
I
Why ground them all at once, if this is indeed the case? Can't surely work on them all at once?
I
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Jess, according to the news I heard at lunchtime, the grounding is because the work was supposed to have been done more quickly than it has. The grounding is supposed to allow the work to proceed more quickly.
I would guess that the grounding will have two effects. Airframes will be available for Mods rather than being diverted to essential tasks.
The groundcrew who would be servicing the in-service jets can be deployed for a surge maintenance programme.
Just a guess.
Len, I would have thought they will be deploye dback in theatre once modified. The same news item said that the capability would be maintained by the use of other UK and allied assets.
One might ask why wait another 2 weeks or so. I would guess it is to allow time for those other assets to be deployed in to theatre.
I would guess that the grounding will have two effects. Airframes will be available for Mods rather than being diverted to essential tasks.
The groundcrew who would be servicing the in-service jets can be deployed for a surge maintenance programme.
Just a guess.
Len, I would have thought they will be deploye dback in theatre once modified. The same news item said that the capability would be maintained by the use of other UK and allied assets.
One might ask why wait another 2 weeks or so. I would guess it is to allow time for those other assets to be deployed in to theatre.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jess It has been known for months and was made public a while back that the fleet will be reduced or the word drawdown to start the introduction of the MRA4.
This just happened to coincide with the target date for the fuel seal replacement programme.... and yes I know its all very coincendental
Just to edit on that last , I laugh at the news right now on Sky.... Nimrod jets grounded for maintenance checks as the headline ?
Nothing like causing a panic
This just happened to coincide with the target date for the fuel seal replacement programme.... and yes I know its all very coincendental
Just to edit on that last , I laugh at the news right now on Sky.... Nimrod jets grounded for maintenance checks as the headline ?
Nothing like causing a panic
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The Crucible
Age: 55
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN,
Thanks for that. Been out of ISK for a while now and was just wondering if this was going to be used as the first stage in the withdrawal of Nimrod from OOA given that other platforms are now obviously available.
Thanks for that. Been out of ISK for a while now and was just wondering if this was going to be used as the first stage in the withdrawal of Nimrod from OOA given that other platforms are now obviously available.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In June 2005, just a few months after the XV227 incident, several ducts in the hot air system were identified as "life expired and in need of replacement". Some 3 years went by before MoD (IPT) admitted there was a problem and introduced a program to replace 37 sections of ducting per aircraft. At the inquest we all heard Gp Cpt Hickman say that these ducts would be replaced by the end of 2008, then this was corrected to read "end of financial year". To make matters worse, sections of ducting are in high risk areas with a potential Harzard Risk Index (HRI) of "A". I say "potential" because NIPT once again refuse to except opion in the same way the did in June 2005.
The big joke is that just one week after the inquest in May 2008, a safety working group chaired by IPT declared the risk was ALARP.
DV
The big joke is that just one week after the inquest in May 2008, a safety working group chaired by IPT declared the risk was ALARP.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 9th Mar 2009 at 16:08.
Thought I'd try and find the words from the horse's mouth. Eventually, after much unsuccessful and frustrating searching of MoD/RAF sites, found this, lurking in 'Equipment and Logistics News'
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Nimrods requiring safety modifications to temporarily cease flying
Noted that neither the coroner nor the inquest was mentioned.
Also, in the Minister for the Armed Forces' statement, he says
I wasn't aware the the risks had become ALARP - they were admitted as not being so at the inquest. Are we to take it that they now are, despite the fact that the modifications have not been completed?
Or have I missed something?
Edited to say - obviously I did miss DV's observation of ALARP being declared so soon after the inquest. Sorry.
airsound
Ministry of Defence | Defence News | Equipment and Logistics | Nimrods requiring safety modifications to temporarily cease flying
Noted that neither the coroner nor the inquest was mentioned.
Also, in the Minister for the Armed Forces' statement, he says
....in order that the risks involved in operating the aircraft remain tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable,.....
Or have I missed something?
Edited to say - obviously I did miss DV's observation of ALARP being declared so soon after the inquest. Sorry.
airsound
Last edited by airsound; 9th Mar 2009 at 15:44. Reason: crossed with DV
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't aware the the risks had become ALARP - they were admitted as not being so at the inquest. Are we to take it that they now are, despite the fact that the modifications have not been completed?
Or have I missed something?
Or have I missed something?
s37
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have now read Bob Ainsworth statement, and once again he dances around safety. If these modifications are needed in order that the risks remain "tolerable and as low as reasonably practicable", (safe), then without them the aircraft can not be SAFE. And because these defective ducts have been known about since 2005 then the aicraft was not safe in Sept 2006.
DV
DV
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: .
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distant Voice
There are a few hundred aircrew (all volunteers) at Kinloss who are in the know on this matter. We all climb the steps to go flying, week-in and week-out. We don't lose sleep over Nimrod flying and we aren't scared of it.
The measures put in place since that dreadful day have worked and I take great comfort in the fact that airworthiness is constantly being assessed and the findings acted upon.
We still have a very important job to do and will keep doing so until the MR2 is relieved of duty by the MRA4.
The measures put in place since that dreadful day have worked and I take great comfort in the fact that airworthiness is constantly being assessed and the findings acted upon.
We still have a very important job to do and will keep doing so until the MR2 is relieved of duty by the MRA4.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: various bits of UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and also on the MoD site as of today...THIS REPORT
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there is a fairly widespread misconception on this forum that there is one certifiable level of risk that can be defined as ALARP. The practicable part of the acronym allows for timely work.
If, for example a fault was found with fleet wide ramifications for any airliner you care to think of, the chances are the entire fleet of hundreds of aircraft would not be grounded, but given a suitable timescale to effect a modification. In the case of the RAF, faults which require immediate rectification will in effect ground the aircraft until rectified, whereas those deemed acceptable within a given timeframe will be given that time for rectification and afterwards would be grounded until the work was complete.
Continuing to operate with a level of risk that is understood and tolerated within banded limits, whilst working towards a higher standard is reasonable whilst remaining practicable.
If, for example a fault was found with fleet wide ramifications for any airliner you care to think of, the chances are the entire fleet of hundreds of aircraft would not be grounded, but given a suitable timescale to effect a modification. In the case of the RAF, faults which require immediate rectification will in effect ground the aircraft until rectified, whereas those deemed acceptable within a given timeframe will be given that time for rectification and afterwards would be grounded until the work was complete.
Continuing to operate with a level of risk that is understood and tolerated within banded limits, whilst working towards a higher standard is reasonable whilst remaining practicable.
I think there is a fairly widespread misconception on this forum that there is one certifiable level of risk that can be defined as ALARP. The practicable part of the acronym allows for timely work.
These risks were not expected to become ALARP until the end of 2008. But apparently, the RAF decided only about a week after the inquest that the risks were, after all, ALARP.
But now we discover that these modifications have not been made to all aircraft - and will not be completed until “early summer”. In the meantime, some of the fleet, but not all, will be “temporarily withdrawn”.
Not only that, but Mr Ainsworth seems to have chosen a very, shall we say, untransparent, not to say opaque, way of announcing this in a written statement well concealed in the ministry’s publication processes.
With the best will in the world, doesn’t that all smell a bit fishy?
airsound
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
I wonder if the date I heard on the news of 31 Mar is a coincidence, or has something to do with a new financial year. It is always the way of IPTs that work goes ahead at the start of a new year!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Over the sea and far away
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The work has been going on for months and DOES NOT start on 1st April. As has already been stated, aircrew at Kinloss have known about this for months but political interference has muddied the water regarding the rigidity of the date for completion.
Only aircraft that have not completed the hot air duct replacement programme cannot be flown. The 31st March is not a magical date beyond which the aircraft is not safe, this is a date that has been forced on the Kinloss engineering staff to have the work completed by.
Although this has not always been the case in recent years, aircrew at Kinloss are being kept up to speed with the engineering situation. Sky News announced to the world that "the Nimrod is grounded" due to "fuel seals that brought down a Nimrod in 2006". I am announcing that Sky News does not have a clue what is going on with the safety or engineering programmes of the Nimrod.
I believe that the media can have a very important role to play in exposing political malpractice, but ill-informed and poorly researched reporting gives all journalists a bad name.
Only aircraft that have not completed the hot air duct replacement programme cannot be flown. The 31st March is not a magical date beyond which the aircraft is not safe, this is a date that has been forced on the Kinloss engineering staff to have the work completed by.
Although this has not always been the case in recent years, aircrew at Kinloss are being kept up to speed with the engineering situation. Sky News announced to the world that "the Nimrod is grounded" due to "fuel seals that brought down a Nimrod in 2006". I am announcing that Sky News does not have a clue what is going on with the safety or engineering programmes of the Nimrod.
I believe that the media can have a very important role to play in exposing political malpractice, but ill-informed and poorly researched reporting gives all journalists a bad name.