Nimrod MRA.4
Having said that, it is a fact that the specimen production aircraft made available to the RAF engineers (air engs and ground engs) was significantly lacking in build standard. Their findings have been recorded and reported.
The safety case work, sponsored by the MOD as required by the new MAA before a MAR could be issued, had hardly started. There was no way that a MAR would have been issued anytime soon. It would have required the MOD safety case work being subjected to enormous pressure to stay on the existing delivery schedule.
See the list of Configuration Milestones above. What you've described Ed are very serious breaches of the airworthiness audit trail which, as we've both said, could take years of regression work to correct.
With that list I'm a little surprised we had any flying up here with service crews on - I wonder if anyone involved with the flight testing feels free to confirm or deny that list....
Still, at least now we know what he based his decision on.
Dave
Still, at least now we know what he based his decision on.
Dave
The cancellation decision was initiated by the need to save money. The end.
The on-going delivery niggles and 230 bad publicity are convenient excuses which the politicians are now using as an side excuse to disguise the fact that this is a result of savage cuts in the MoD. Big cuts mean big ticket items have to go.
Hence this cancellation stems directly from the scale of Tory cuts - not due to technical reasons. It is convenient for the politicians to use this excuse, and it seems the ST are happy it also fits their agenda.
One question to ask yourself is, if the widespread cuts that are being made to manage the deficit were taken over a longer period than just to 2015 - would Nimrod have survived? I think its entirely possible.
Personnally I think the cuts are too quick, too deep, too fast - but not just for MoD reasons, but also for the wider UK economy. Everyone will start to really feel this - public or private sector.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It added: “Parallels could be drawn between this design defect and that which is thought to have caused the loss of the Nimrod MR2 (XV230) in Afghanistan in September 2006 resulting in the death of 14 personnel.”
You don't ground an aircraft on a 3 page summary, there were quality issues on the first non test aircraft but these were all rectified on later builds.
I might add even Boeing & Airbus have QA problems on early builds including the 787 & A380.
Hence this cancellation stems directly from the scale of Tory cuts - not due to technical reasons.
But of course there will be some including idiot reporters who will believe any **** the government feeds them.
JFZ90,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I thought I would offer the following comments in response to your statement that "cuts" are going to be "too quick, too deep, too fast".
First of all these cuts are made by a coalition government, two of the 3 main political parties are putting the package together. In addition, even the Labour party admit (at least most do) that the budget deficit needs to be tackled, it is the "when and how" they disagree on.
In Oct 2010 the UK public sector debt was £850 odd billion. Taking figures from the BBC news report for the June 2010 budget (which may not be totally up to date), the coalition aim to reduce public borrowing to £149Bn 10-11, £116Bn 11-12, £89Bn 12-13, £60Bn 13-14, £37Bn 14-15, £20Bn 15-16. Presumably they aim to have it down to zero by the financial year Apr16-Apr17. Measures will mainly start to take effect from Apr 2011 onwards.
So by 2016 the overall debt will be 850+ (part of 149, the Oct-Apr part) + 116 + 89 + 60 + 37 + 20 = approx. £1,250Bn! Which will be over 100% of GDP.
The following link gives a graphic representation:
UK National Debt — Economics Blog
You will note that we have not owed over 100% of GDP since 1960, when we were still paying off WW2 debt.
Yes there are countries out there that owe more money as a % of GDP than us,
List of National Debt by Country — Economics Blog
but it is not an inspiring list we can take comfort from, and the more sensible are trying to reduce their debt.
If you think the actions taken in this country will be too severe than you should consider what will be forced upon us if the IMF have to bail us out, look what is happening in Greece to avoid this.
Finally, I fully realise that cuts will impact unfairly on the poorest in UK society, I myself was born and raised in a council estate, escaping through the social mobility provided by the now defunct Grammar School system.
However, consider the following facts, readily obtained through Google:
The UK population is approx 62 million.
There are approx 27 million households in the UK.
There are 31 million cars in the UK (on average 1 per household)
There are 10 million subscribers to Sky in the UK (some will be pubs/clubs, but overall nearly 1 per 3 households)
85% of adults in the UK own a mobile phone.
In 2007 UK residents took 44 million holidays overseas and 67 million holidays in the UK (111 million holidays for 62 million people, nearly 2 each).
So in general, every houshold in the UK has a car, mobile phones, 2 holidays a year, 1 in 3 watch Sky, and I never even bothered to check on such things as broadband connections, money spent at Xmas etc....
While cuts for the very poorest will no doubt be significant, and should be cushioned by a "progressive" government approach (but will they be?) for many people in the UK what they will be complaining about is their "unwillingness" to accept an enforced reduction in a "living standard" that is actually pretty bl**dy good by world standards.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I thought I would offer the following comments in response to your statement that "cuts" are going to be "too quick, too deep, too fast".
First of all these cuts are made by a coalition government, two of the 3 main political parties are putting the package together. In addition, even the Labour party admit (at least most do) that the budget deficit needs to be tackled, it is the "when and how" they disagree on.
In Oct 2010 the UK public sector debt was £850 odd billion. Taking figures from the BBC news report for the June 2010 budget (which may not be totally up to date), the coalition aim to reduce public borrowing to £149Bn 10-11, £116Bn 11-12, £89Bn 12-13, £60Bn 13-14, £37Bn 14-15, £20Bn 15-16. Presumably they aim to have it down to zero by the financial year Apr16-Apr17. Measures will mainly start to take effect from Apr 2011 onwards.
So by 2016 the overall debt will be 850+ (part of 149, the Oct-Apr part) + 116 + 89 + 60 + 37 + 20 = approx. £1,250Bn! Which will be over 100% of GDP.
The following link gives a graphic representation:
UK National Debt — Economics Blog
You will note that we have not owed over 100% of GDP since 1960, when we were still paying off WW2 debt.
Yes there are countries out there that owe more money as a % of GDP than us,
List of National Debt by Country — Economics Blog
but it is not an inspiring list we can take comfort from, and the more sensible are trying to reduce their debt.
If you think the actions taken in this country will be too severe than you should consider what will be forced upon us if the IMF have to bail us out, look what is happening in Greece to avoid this.
Finally, I fully realise that cuts will impact unfairly on the poorest in UK society, I myself was born and raised in a council estate, escaping through the social mobility provided by the now defunct Grammar School system.
However, consider the following facts, readily obtained through Google:
The UK population is approx 62 million.
There are approx 27 million households in the UK.
There are 31 million cars in the UK (on average 1 per household)
There are 10 million subscribers to Sky in the UK (some will be pubs/clubs, but overall nearly 1 per 3 households)
85% of adults in the UK own a mobile phone.
In 2007 UK residents took 44 million holidays overseas and 67 million holidays in the UK (111 million holidays for 62 million people, nearly 2 each).
So in general, every houshold in the UK has a car, mobile phones, 2 holidays a year, 1 in 3 watch Sky, and I never even bothered to check on such things as broadband connections, money spent at Xmas etc....
While cuts for the very poorest will no doubt be significant, and should be cushioned by a "progressive" government approach (but will they be?) for many people in the UK what they will be complaining about is their "unwillingness" to accept an enforced reduction in a "living standard" that is actually pretty bl**dy good by world standards.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I can confirm the x feed pipe they are on about does not even run the same path as the MR2. The Flap Control unit site in that place now so automatically that story is complete **** but I have no doubt now it will bring in the good people ov the XV230 story and that will be the talk now rather than the truth.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I thought I would offer the following comments in response to your statement that "cuts" are going to be "too quick, too deep, too fast".
First of all these cuts are made by a coalition government, two of the 3 main political parties are putting the package together. In addition, even the Labour party admit (at least most do) that the budget deficit needs to be tackled, it is the "when and how" they disagree on.
First of all these cuts are made by a coalition government, two of the 3 main political parties are putting the package together. In addition, even the Labour party admit (at least most do) that the budget deficit needs to be tackled, it is the "when and how" they disagree on.
The "when and how" is the key issue - my reading is that the speed and depth is really being pushed by the Tories (and the LibDems are going along with it it seems - not that that doesn't make them culpable for the outcome). We'll never know if the Labour cuts would have been as deep or quick - but it seems likely they would at least not have been as quick, and on that basis its possible Nimrod would have survived.
Its also impossible to know which strategy is best for the UK in the long term - quick & deep could be the right answer - but from my basic grip of economics it feels risky, likely to cripple the UK economy and leave us at a disadvantage globally. But I could be wrong.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90 -
Quite right - what I really ought to have said is more along the lines of 'at least we now know the details of the faults that he is claiming the decision is based on'.... I have previously said that Fox/Cameron keep talking about safety etc but they have never gone into any detail, leaving the rest of us to guess at the state of the aircraft.
No doubt the decision was indeed money led, as per the rest of the SDSR, but if MRA4 had by then been ready to deploy it might (might) have been somewhat harder to cancel quite so readily.
As it is we now need a new LRMPA, and that won't be cheap.
Dave
The cancellation decision was initiated by the need to save money. The end.
No doubt the decision was indeed money led, as per the rest of the SDSR, but if MRA4 had by then been ready to deploy it might (might) have been somewhat harder to cancel quite so readily.
As it is we now need a new LRMPA, and that won't be cheap.
Dave
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Green Granite ;
even worse the design fault that caused the loss in Afghanistan was still there.
even worse the design fault that caused the loss in Afghanistan was still there.
In fact im not even going to say anymore as its pure crap made by journalists again who spout ****. End of Story
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fault that caused the crash was, basically, a hot air pipe next to a fuel pipe, therefore any hot air pipe next to any fuel pipe has the potential to produce the same fault/result albeit in this case a different location.
Exactly what proof do you have for making such a serious statement that calls into account someone's professional abilities? And please share it with us.
fact im not even going to say anymore as its pure crap made by journalists again who spout ****. End of Story
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The system used in the MRA4 is completely different to the MR2, in fact its common knowledge its the same system used in the Airbus. Its a complete new system that is nothing like the MR2. The piping that was the fault for the XV230 crash does not exist on the MRA4.
But there are those on these forums, Whitehall & journalists that only see the name "Nimrod" & tar the MRA4 with the same brush.
And another snippet in BAE's defense, if the MOD had allowed BAE to use a A320 fuse instead of using the old MR2 fuses MRA4 would have been flying years ago and Woodford would already be shut.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kettering
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot air pipe blah blah hot air hot air... a bomb bay that can't open sounds a bit more bloody serious to me for an aircraft we are so often told is such an amazing bit of kit because of all the different flash bangy things you can hang in the bomb bay.
A lot of the faults sounds like stuff that could be fixed with the proper application of yet more money, but entering service with a non operational bomb bay? Clearly there are pipes involved - crack pipes by the sound of it.
A lot of the faults sounds like stuff that could be fixed with the proper application of yet more money, but entering service with a non operational bomb bay? Clearly there are pipes involved - crack pipes by the sound of it.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of the faults sounds like stuff that could be fixed with the proper application of yet more money, but entering service with a non operational bomb bay?
If you can show me ANY aircraft in pre-service testing without faults I'll show you a honest politician
Green Granite;
The fault that caused the crash [XV230] was not a hot air pipe by a fuel pipe.
DV
The fault that caused the crash [XV230] was not a hot air pipe by a fuel pipe.
DV
(a) the escape of fuel during AAR, occasioned by an overflow from No 1 tank, or a leak from the fuel system (fuel coupling or pipe), leading to an accumulation of fuel within the No 7 tank dry bay; although of a lower probability, the fuel leak could have been caused by a hot air leak damaging fuel system seals; and
(b) the ignition of that fuel following contact with an exposed element of the aircraft's crossfeed/ SCP pipe work.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrods had ‘critical fault’
Simon McGee
THE nine Nimrod aircraft cancelled amid a storm of condemnation and at a cost of £4 billion were designed with the same critical safety fault blamed for the downing of an RAF Nimrod in 2006 with the loss of 14 lives.
Liam Fox, the defence secretary, has been accused of leaving a “massive gap” in the nation’s security by scrapping the fleet of maritime patrol planes.
But classified documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal Ministry of Defence (MoD) safety tests conducted last year on the first Nimrod MRA4, built by BAE Systems, found “several hundred design non-compliances”. Non-compliances are a fact of life. They are either agreed, in which case they become part of the updated Design Baseline, or are fixed.
Among them were problems opening and closing the bomb bay doors, (the Bomb-bay Doors opened fine thank you) failures of the landing gear to deploy (the landing gear never failed to deploy/retract once in the 5 years I flew on the program – there were 2 instances of Nose wheel door indication failure due to incorrectly positioned nosewheel door microswitches – this was partly a result of the original part manufacturer going out of business and the replacement sensors being of a slightly different design, a fact that wasn’t picked up until the first occurrence at which point it was fixed), overheating engines (no recollection of any engine overheat during flight trials – there may have been one induced deliberately as part of flight test but I don’t think so – utter crap) and gaps in the engine walls (true – gaps were found between the engine bay fire wall and surrounding structure. Temporary fix employed to enable flight test to continue whilst reason identified and permanent fix embodied through production), limitations operating in icy conditions (because QQ hadn’t finished its final recommendations, that’s why it was called an Incremental Release to Service, as QQ provided wider clearances, the RTS expanded), and concerns that “a single bird-strike” could disable the aircraft’s controls (there was a theoretical possibility that a suicidal albatross could somehow fly directly into the Bomb bay – whilst the doors were open of course – miss the life rafts and everything else in there – and impact a specific area about 6ins long x 4ins wide that may have ultimately had an adverse effect on the aileron system. A cover guard was being designed).
However, the most serious problem discovered by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) inspectors at MoD Abbey Wood in Bristol involved a still unresolved design flaw. It concerns the proximity of a hot air pipe to an uninsulated fuel line, widely blamed for an explosion on board Nimrod XV230 on September 2, 2006, near Kandahar airport in Afghanistan. A three-page summary of the faults, labelled “restricted” and written on September 17, last year, stated: “The work being undertaken by the MoD to validate the BAE Systems aircraft’s safety case during the week of September 13, 2010, identified a potentially serious design defect: a small section of a hot air pipe was discovered to be uninsulated in an area that also contains fuel pipes, which is outside the design regulations.” (The fuel feed pipe from the No1 Tank exits the lower fuselage area and travels upwards and slightly forwards through the inter-space between the fuselage and the inboard engine fire wall, before disappearing off to join the fuel feed line. This occurs roughly mid-way along the wing chord at the wing root. In the same inter-space is the Engine intake Anti-icing take-off pipe that travels up and then forward approximately 8ft 6ins. This pipe was insulated, apart from the very last 4ins or so, where it went through a small bulkhead into the Intake Nacelle and the piccolo tube for the Anti-icing system. The Functional Failure Analysis looked at likely failure rates of the fuel pipe, the maximum likely temperature of the Engine Intake Anti-icing air off-take, the likely usage frequency and time of the Engine Anti-Icing System, the fact that the fuel had to travel both forwards (about 8 feet against the natural airflow used to ventilate the inter-space) and upwards (about 30ins) and came to the conclusion that this was approximately a 10-9 probability event (which was the probability level agreed as the target to achieve). The subsequent MoD/RAF Zonal Hazard Analysis used the SWIFT approach (So What If Technique), which does not really look at probabilities (that’s generally a good thing!), it just starts off with “So What If?”. At this point it became obvious that a design solution would be needed, this was in the process of being worked and agreed. The temporary workround was to isolate the No1 Tank, this would have resulted in a temporary restriction to RAF training flights of around 3 hours duration plus div fuel if only No4 Tanks fuel was carried).
Apologies if the font/formatting didn't carry over from Word.
Simon McGee
THE nine Nimrod aircraft cancelled amid a storm of condemnation and at a cost of £4 billion were designed with the same critical safety fault blamed for the downing of an RAF Nimrod in 2006 with the loss of 14 lives.
Liam Fox, the defence secretary, has been accused of leaving a “massive gap” in the nation’s security by scrapping the fleet of maritime patrol planes.
But classified documents seen by The Sunday Times reveal Ministry of Defence (MoD) safety tests conducted last year on the first Nimrod MRA4, built by BAE Systems, found “several hundred design non-compliances”. Non-compliances are a fact of life. They are either agreed, in which case they become part of the updated Design Baseline, or are fixed.
Among them were problems opening and closing the bomb bay doors, (the Bomb-bay Doors opened fine thank you) failures of the landing gear to deploy (the landing gear never failed to deploy/retract once in the 5 years I flew on the program – there were 2 instances of Nose wheel door indication failure due to incorrectly positioned nosewheel door microswitches – this was partly a result of the original part manufacturer going out of business and the replacement sensors being of a slightly different design, a fact that wasn’t picked up until the first occurrence at which point it was fixed), overheating engines (no recollection of any engine overheat during flight trials – there may have been one induced deliberately as part of flight test but I don’t think so – utter crap) and gaps in the engine walls (true – gaps were found between the engine bay fire wall and surrounding structure. Temporary fix employed to enable flight test to continue whilst reason identified and permanent fix embodied through production), limitations operating in icy conditions (because QQ hadn’t finished its final recommendations, that’s why it was called an Incremental Release to Service, as QQ provided wider clearances, the RTS expanded), and concerns that “a single bird-strike” could disable the aircraft’s controls (there was a theoretical possibility that a suicidal albatross could somehow fly directly into the Bomb bay – whilst the doors were open of course – miss the life rafts and everything else in there – and impact a specific area about 6ins long x 4ins wide that may have ultimately had an adverse effect on the aileron system. A cover guard was being designed).
However, the most serious problem discovered by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) inspectors at MoD Abbey Wood in Bristol involved a still unresolved design flaw. It concerns the proximity of a hot air pipe to an uninsulated fuel line, widely blamed for an explosion on board Nimrod XV230 on September 2, 2006, near Kandahar airport in Afghanistan. A three-page summary of the faults, labelled “restricted” and written on September 17, last year, stated: “The work being undertaken by the MoD to validate the BAE Systems aircraft’s safety case during the week of September 13, 2010, identified a potentially serious design defect: a small section of a hot air pipe was discovered to be uninsulated in an area that also contains fuel pipes, which is outside the design regulations.” (The fuel feed pipe from the No1 Tank exits the lower fuselage area and travels upwards and slightly forwards through the inter-space between the fuselage and the inboard engine fire wall, before disappearing off to join the fuel feed line. This occurs roughly mid-way along the wing chord at the wing root. In the same inter-space is the Engine intake Anti-icing take-off pipe that travels up and then forward approximately 8ft 6ins. This pipe was insulated, apart from the very last 4ins or so, where it went through a small bulkhead into the Intake Nacelle and the piccolo tube for the Anti-icing system. The Functional Failure Analysis looked at likely failure rates of the fuel pipe, the maximum likely temperature of the Engine Intake Anti-icing air off-take, the likely usage frequency and time of the Engine Anti-Icing System, the fact that the fuel had to travel both forwards (about 8 feet against the natural airflow used to ventilate the inter-space) and upwards (about 30ins) and came to the conclusion that this was approximately a 10-9 probability event (which was the probability level agreed as the target to achieve). The subsequent MoD/RAF Zonal Hazard Analysis used the SWIFT approach (So What If Technique), which does not really look at probabilities (that’s generally a good thing!), it just starts off with “So What If?”. At this point it became obvious that a design solution would be needed, this was in the process of being worked and agreed. The temporary workround was to isolate the No1 Tank, this would have resulted in a temporary restriction to RAF training flights of around 3 hours duration plus div fuel if only No4 Tanks fuel was carried).
Apologies if the font/formatting didn't carry over from Word.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: lancaster
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done SFO
SFO - I glad we had people like you working on this project, because at least you knew what actually happenned and have a good recollection of the project history, unlike many of the misinformed opinion spouted here.
Yes - not all was perfect but, as you say, in fairly quick time, these issues would have been addressed (As someone on another maritime aircraft, which has had its own issues, some exactly the same as you guys have had but, these have been overcome over the last few years)
Also, as someone who flew on the aircraft, I can say that MRA 4 really was the dogs knob.
UK PLC have messed up BIG time.
Have a wee dram on me????
Yes - not all was perfect but, as you say, in fairly quick time, these issues would have been addressed (As someone on another maritime aircraft, which has had its own issues, some exactly the same as you guys have had but, these have been overcome over the last few years)
Also, as someone who flew on the aircraft, I can say that MRA 4 really was the dogs knob.
UK PLC have messed up BIG time.
Have a wee dram on me????
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ProcO
Will do me old,
there are some fine 15Yr old malts being lined up for the Sqn Disbandments (26th May)!
Don't forget, 42 Sqn 95th Anniversary is taking place over the weekend 1-3 Apr, get your names down before it's too late.
there are some fine 15Yr old malts being lined up for the Sqn Disbandments (26th May)!
Don't forget, 42 Sqn 95th Anniversary is taking place over the weekend 1-3 Apr, get your names down before it's too late.