Nimrod MRA.4
One cannot help but wonder how much of this will be down to Woodford and Kinloss.
Happy New Year
LJ
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Short Fat One
The safety concerns to which I refer involve shoddy workmanship from the contractors at Woodford not changes in regulations. I suspect all the decent workforce left to other jobs a while ago when they knew the writing was on the wall for their jobs. After all over 50% of the workforce on Nimrod at Woodford were contractors by 2010.
Furthermore, was it not the case that all RAF personnel had been banned from flying on MRA4 this summer due to safety concerns?
Had BAE built the RAF the aircraft they promised and not used the MOD as a cash cow, then it would be in service having demonstrated some capability since type acceptance and not sat on the ground for most of last year.
Let me again stress that we should not have given up the capability as I throughly believe it is still required, but we needed to stop BAE taking us for a ride financially.
The safety concerns to which I refer involve shoddy workmanship from the contractors at Woodford not changes in regulations. I suspect all the decent workforce left to other jobs a while ago when they knew the writing was on the wall for their jobs. After all over 50% of the workforce on Nimrod at Woodford were contractors by 2010.
Furthermore, was it not the case that all RAF personnel had been banned from flying on MRA4 this summer due to safety concerns?
Had BAE built the RAF the aircraft they promised and not used the MOD as a cash cow, then it would be in service having demonstrated some capability since type acceptance and not sat on the ground for most of last year.
Let me again stress that we should not have given up the capability as I throughly believe it is still required, but we needed to stop BAE taking us for a ride financially.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Welfare bill soars as austerity drive bites
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits
One cannot help but wonder how much of this will be down to Woodford and Kinloss.
Welfare bill soars as austerity drive bites
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits
One cannot help but wonder how much of this will be down to Woodford and Kinloss.
If anyone wants to dispute this, PLEASE detail the correct, updated, DW&P regulations, so I too, may also claim and recieve "benefits".
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 112 Likes
on
79 Posts
" involve shoddy workmanship from the contractors at Woodford not changes in regulations. I suspect all the decent workforce left to other jobs a while ago when they knew the writing was on the wall for their jobs. After all over 50% of the workforce on Nimrod at Woodford were contractors by 2010."
The only factual content of the above is that BAe use contractors.
The rest can best be described as vilification of engineers who have some of the highest skill levels in the industry. I know quite a few people at Woodford and frankly, your comments are wholly unfounded as to their abilities. What, exactly, you know about engineering I wonder...in practical terms, not theory.
Unless of course, you have unequivocal evidence to the contrary?
If it's any help, and it probably won't be in your case, I have yet to encounter any aircraft, Mil or Civ, that did not have some sort of quality lapse prior to entering service...despite the best efforts to avoid such.
Why not make a visit to Woodford and tell them personally..before they all lose their jobs...and check the distance to Stepping Hill before you go.
May one venture to suggest that thinking isn't your particular forte?....unless you are "thoughtful " enough to rescind your comments that is.
The only factual content of the above is that BAe use contractors.
The rest can best be described as vilification of engineers who have some of the highest skill levels in the industry. I know quite a few people at Woodford and frankly, your comments are wholly unfounded as to their abilities. What, exactly, you know about engineering I wonder...in practical terms, not theory.
Unless of course, you have unequivocal evidence to the contrary?
If it's any help, and it probably won't be in your case, I have yet to encounter any aircraft, Mil or Civ, that did not have some sort of quality lapse prior to entering service...despite the best efforts to avoid such.
Why not make a visit to Woodford and tell them personally..before they all lose their jobs...and check the distance to Stepping Hill before you go.
May one venture to suggest that thinking isn't your particular forte?....unless you are "thoughtful " enough to rescind your comments that is.
Last edited by Krystal n chips; 3rd Jan 2011 at 13:08.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" involve shoddy workmanship from the contractors at Woodford not changes in regulations. I suspect all the decent workforce left to other jobs a while ago when they knew the writing was on the wall for their jobs. After all over 50% of the workforce on Nimrod at Woodford were contractors by 2010."
As mentioned above, repeat that to the guys at Woodford and you will leave the site in the same condition as the frames will in a matter of weeks.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits
Rising unemployment will cost the government £1.5bn more than expected in welfare benefits, according to official forecasts that reveal the hidden cost of the coalition’s austerity drive.
As big increases in VAT are due to bite from Tuesday, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility shows slowing economic growth will make it harder to reduce the deficit by forcing more people to seek state support.
The Treasury watchdog calculates the government will have to pay out £700m more in unemployment benefit than previously forecast. Similarly, a higher number claiming jobseeker’s allowance as well as falling into lower wage brackets will see the government needing to pay out another £700m more in housing assistance over the next four years.
As big increases in VAT are due to bite from Tuesday, analysis from the Office for Budget Responsibility shows slowing economic growth will make it harder to reduce the deficit by forcing more people to seek state support.
The Treasury watchdog calculates the government will have to pay out £700m more in unemployment benefit than previously forecast. Similarly, a higher number claiming jobseeker’s allowance as well as falling into lower wage brackets will see the government needing to pay out another £700m more in housing assistance over the next four years.
You see what’s been done there?
Yes, you’re wandering along thinking, hmmm, £1.5 billion, that’s, even by government numbers, real money.
Then you get that “four years” bit.
They’re actually saying that there’s going to be £180 million (ish) more in unemployment pay and £180 million (ish) more in housing benefit each year.
Yes, still real money, but these are projections of course: that predicting the future thing is very difficult. And in the context of predicting the housing benefit bill (circa £20 billion a year) four years out, a 1% rise is really a rounding error. In fact, I would rather hope that the margin for error in the estimate is larger than that: if it isn’t then someone is guilty of spurious accuracy.
Absolutely no four year forecast of government finances survives contact with the real economy and a 1% variance from previous plans is simply too entirely trivial to get excited about.
Won’t stop Danny (see comments. How the hell am I supposed to keep track of the various flavours of odious Scots?) Douglas Alexander and the like leaping about shouting “£1.5 billion!” but that’s just spurious politics, nothing real or serious.
shoddy workmanship
So designing an aircraft that had too small a rudder for the aircraft's new engines for VMCA and VMCG - hardly great engineering...
Delivering an early aircraft without the wing-bolts correctly torqued and wire-locked - hardly great engineering...
Putting fuel unions under tension so when undone they "twang" apart - hardly great engineering...
Designing a modern aircraft with fuel, oxygen and an ignition source within the same zone in certain areas of the wing - hardly great engineering...
Trying to deliver a maritime patrol aircraft without a sonobuoy clearance - WTF over...
Having a main flying control circuit at the back of the bomb bay that is susceptible to a possibly "game over" bird-strike - hardly great engineering...
Having to re-engineer the flap brackets because 2 out of the 3 cracked completely on a flight test - hardly great engineering...
And these are just some of the "Horror Stories" I have heard from some of the Nimrod aircrew and engineers who were working towards bringing this POS into service. I even saw pictures of some of these "horrors" and I get the impression that there were many more.
From these "horrors" I wouldn't expect to find them on homebuilt aircraft (see Safety Spot Articles) but certainly not on a professionally designed and built aircraft in the late 20th early 21st Century!!!
I believe that the Govt made the right decision before we accepted the MRA4 on incredible risk for it to ever enter service as planned plus the chance (probably remote) that we might kill another crew - however, the capability loss is another matter and unacceptable. It should be covered off with something else sooner rather than later.
Sadly, the ConDems did what NuLabour should have done when the program ran into trouble in the early "noughties", but didn't have the b0ll0cks to do so!
The B Word
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So not realising that their own aircraft, built in their factory, had different sized fuselages and then building wings that didn't fit - hardly great engineering...
Sloppiness, bad design and poor QA all happen in any projects early life. Take Boeing and the 787 for example.
1.Years late over budget
2.Wrong fasteners used in the prototypes
3.Had to redesign strengtheners for the wingbox just before first flight
4.Fire in the avionics bay knocked out virtually all the aircraft's systems FOD was blamed.
To make out BAE are unique in making mistakes is a mistake itself, its rather a poor attack using the points you posted to justify the cancellation.
Considering BAE started with a pile of ****, they produced eventually an aircraft to proud of.
If your British you should be ashamed
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC
My dear chap, I truly hope that your household accounts are controlled by your memsahib!
And in the context of predicting the housing benefit bill (circa £20 billion a year) four years out, a 1% rise is really a rounding error.
“£1.5 billion!” but that’s just spurious politics, nothing real or serious.
If your British you should be ashamed
BTW - I think you'll find that BAe formed from the merger of Hawker Siddley, British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and Scottish Aviation on 29 April 1977 as part of the "Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977". The addition of GEC-MARCONI in 1999 saw BAe turn into BAESYSTEMS.
Sadly, I have had many friends killed in BAES products due to "mistakes" as you like to call them:
Sqn Ldr Mike Harland RAF (Rtd) - working for BAES on a flight-test after major engineering work by the very same when his bang-seat fell out and he fell to his death.
Flt Lt "Jessie" Owens RAF - died during ejection when the massively over-specced engine on his BAES/RR engineered Tornado F3 blew up and the pilot lost all engine/flying controls for the aircraft. Thank God for Martin-Baker who saved my other mate who ejected well outside normal parameters.
Flt Sgt Adey Davies RAF - Flt Eng killed on XV230 along with 11 others when their aircraft, supposedly airworthy according to BAES's "botched" Safety Case, exploded in mid air. - to quote BAES "We acknowledge that there were a number of failings in our application of our internal processes and procedures during the course of work undertaken as part of the Nimrod safety review which took place between 2001 and 2004. We accept full responsibility for these failings and apologise unreservedly for them." The cause of the explosion, an AAR modification, was designed and fitted by BAe (not Hawker Siddley) in 1982. To quote Mr Haddon-Cave QC "If the Nimrod Safety Case had been drawn up with proper skill, care and attention, the catastrophic fire risks to the Nimrod MR2 fleet presented by the Cross-Feed/SCP duct and the Air-to-Air Refuelling modification would have been identified and dealt with, and the loss of XV230 in September 2006 would have been avoided". The Inquiry further goes on to say "BAE Systems had left 40% of the hazards "Open" and 30% "Unclassified"" within the Safety Case.
And you wonder why I am little bitter and twisted about your company!!!
3-strikes and you're out as far as I'm concerned...
The B Word
Last edited by The B Word; 3rd Jan 2011 at 19:10.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Secret base, SW
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flt Lt Mike Harland RAF (Rtd) - working for BAES on a flight-test after major engineering work by the very same when his bang-seat fell out and he fell to his death.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flt Lt "Jessie" Owens RAF - died during ejection when the massively over-specced engine on his BAES/RR engineered Tornado F3 blew up and the pilot lost all engine/flying controls for the aircraft. Thank God for Martin-Baker who saved my other mate who ejected well outside normal parameters.
The weight penalty needed to contain a catastrophic engine explosion would render the aircraft too heavy to fly.
Was the recent uncontainable explosion of a RR Trent on a A380 airbus's fault?
Downsizer
I agree about RAF Armourers were doing the Bang-Seat but I believe the Coroner couldn't apportion blame to the company or RAF. She did award a verdict of "accidental death" due to a lack of or conflicting evidence.
I also believe that the company had their part to play within this tragedy:
So sadly I suspect that "two tangoed" in this accident where "mistakes" almost certainy killed a good mate - unfortunately "mistakes" are not good for the old adage "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
The B Word
I agree about RAF Armourers were doing the Bang-Seat but I believe the Coroner couldn't apportion blame to the company or RAF. She did award a verdict of "accidental death" due to a lack of or conflicting evidence.
Coroner Jacqueline Lake told jurors that accident investigators had concluded that a locking device which prevented an ejector seat from slipping when a jet is flying upside-down had not been properly fitted.
But RAF technicians who fitted and checked the seat at Marham said it had been correctly installed.
Mrs Lake said: "There is a clear conflict of evidence in this respect."
A senior RAF technician suggested that a spring inside the device might have broken, but experts who conducted an investigation said that scenario was "very unlikely".
But RAF technicians who fitted and checked the seat at Marham said it had been correctly installed.
Mrs Lake said: "There is a clear conflict of evidence in this respect."
A senior RAF technician suggested that a spring inside the device might have broken, but experts who conducted an investigation said that scenario was "very unlikely".
"The whole post maintenance generation process was delayed, but BAE had to try and get that airtest carried out that day due to contractural arrangements with the MoD. The aircrew may not have been "presurising" but BAE managers were in the office, every half hour."
The B Word
manccowboy,
You stated "..The original Nimrod was built by Hawker Siddeley in a different era using a different CAD system and each airframe was individual, how was BAE, a different company in another era supposed to know that? They took one frame and used that for the new CAD, any other manufacturer would have done the same since the original jigs and blueprints were long gone..."
A couple of points in response.
First of all I somehow doubt that CAD was in use when the original Nimrod (MR1) was designed, as it happened somewhen before 1967...but that is almost the least important point.
If you read back through this thread you will find someone stating that BAE were told that the aircraft were different sizes very early (at the very beginning, I'm not sure?) in the project.
This issue was also highlighted when FRA/Serco starting stripping down 3 fuselages at Bournmouth in 1997!
The fact that older generation aircraft were different sizes is not exactly news to anyone who has been in the aircraft industry more than 5 minutes, I believe that Buccaneers were well known for it...
HOWEVER - THE BIGGEST POINT TO MAKE IS THAT BAE WERE THE DESIGN AUTHORITY (or whatever phrase they use these days) FOR THE MR2 AIRFRAME.
THEY WERE PAID, YES PAID, EVERY YEAR BY THE MOD FOR THEIR INPUT TO THE MR2, WHICH INCLUDED KEEPING DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARCHIVED FOR ANY REQUIRED USE!
To claim, as you appear to be doing, that BAE knew nothing of the aircrafts specifications and buildstate either means you are very naive as to what was going on in terms of maintaining the MR2, or means you are saying that BAE was committing fraud for years, by not doing work it was being paid for annually.
I suggest you read the Haddon Cave report from cover to cover before you start saying what paragons of virtue BAE were/are...
BAE may not be alone in the world in terms of problems building new aircraft (see the F-35 thread), but in many cases they didn't help themselves either...
You stated "..The original Nimrod was built by Hawker Siddeley in a different era using a different CAD system and each airframe was individual, how was BAE, a different company in another era supposed to know that? They took one frame and used that for the new CAD, any other manufacturer would have done the same since the original jigs and blueprints were long gone..."
A couple of points in response.
First of all I somehow doubt that CAD was in use when the original Nimrod (MR1) was designed, as it happened somewhen before 1967...but that is almost the least important point.
If you read back through this thread you will find someone stating that BAE were told that the aircraft were different sizes very early (at the very beginning, I'm not sure?) in the project.
This issue was also highlighted when FRA/Serco starting stripping down 3 fuselages at Bournmouth in 1997!
The fact that older generation aircraft were different sizes is not exactly news to anyone who has been in the aircraft industry more than 5 minutes, I believe that Buccaneers were well known for it...
HOWEVER - THE BIGGEST POINT TO MAKE IS THAT BAE WERE THE DESIGN AUTHORITY (or whatever phrase they use these days) FOR THE MR2 AIRFRAME.
THEY WERE PAID, YES PAID, EVERY YEAR BY THE MOD FOR THEIR INPUT TO THE MR2, WHICH INCLUDED KEEPING DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARCHIVED FOR ANY REQUIRED USE!
To claim, as you appear to be doing, that BAE knew nothing of the aircrafts specifications and buildstate either means you are very naive as to what was going on in terms of maintaining the MR2, or means you are saying that BAE was committing fraud for years, by not doing work it was being paid for annually.
I suggest you read the Haddon Cave report from cover to cover before you start saying what paragons of virtue BAE were/are...
BAE may not be alone in the world in terms of problems building new aircraft (see the F-35 thread), but in many cases they didn't help themselves either...
Cowboy
Both BAe and RR briefed us about the cause of the accident afterwards which was that the design needed to run a crucial component over-spec to achieve the desired aircraft performance. When the engine "let go" then it severed all the main hyd circuits that were (and still are) at risk to uncontained failure (plenty of examples of this before and since) - I believe that it was a BAe sanctioned design?!! The fix afterwards was to not fly too fast (known as "speed of the day" that was less than company recommended design Vne) until the crucial component was modded and fitted. So I see both BAe and RR have parts to play during the design phase of the aircraft.
The B Word
Both BAe and RR briefed us about the cause of the accident afterwards which was that the design needed to run a crucial component over-spec to achieve the desired aircraft performance. When the engine "let go" then it severed all the main hyd circuits that were (and still are) at risk to uncontained failure (plenty of examples of this before and since) - I believe that it was a BAe sanctioned design?!! The fix afterwards was to not fly too fast (known as "speed of the day" that was less than company recommended design Vne) until the crucial component was modded and fitted. So I see both BAe and RR have parts to play during the design phase of the aircraft.
The B Word
PS - I forgot to add that after the hyds were lost the "back up" mechanical control rods melted in the fire and were useless - same thing happened to the mech rods in a Tornado GR that went into the Humber (luckily both got out). Another design flaw?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of people here seem hell bent on blaming BAE for the demise of the MRA4 and painting them as the biggest cowboys in the aerospace industry, the fact is, the aircraft is/was flying and the project was literally at 23.50 hours on a 24 hour clock from completion.
Im not really interested what BAE did on other projects, this thread is about the MRA4 and comparing other projects is like comparing apples & oranges.
BAE didn't kill the project, DC and the MOD did......people seem to be overlooking that.
Im not really interested what BAE did on other projects, this thread is about the MRA4 and comparing other projects is like comparing apples & oranges.
BAE didn't kill the project, DC and the MOD did......people seem to be overlooking that.