Nimrod MRA.4

[tucumseh]

can we now have an RTS without the completion of the safety case?

JSP553 - “The aircraft safety case must underpin the totality of the Aircraft Release to Service”.

Before entering service it was issued with a RTS certificate by CA. That, basically said, that the aircraft was safe to fly and operate within certain parameters. In effect it was its "safety case", and remained that way until around 2002.

You are speaking pre-GARP, so;

The Controller Aircraft Release was a statement by MoD(PE)’s Controller Aircraft (a 3 Star post) to ACAS (his customer) that the aircraft was airworthy at a given build standard; usually that presented at the Boscombe trials you speak of. Part of the underpinning evidence was the Safety Case or Safety Argument. The term “Safety Case” may be relatively new, but the basic work was still required to be carried out, regardless of what it was called.

Before signing the CAR, CA was obliged under the regulations to seek a firm statement from ACAS that the proposed CAR was acceptable, and that he (ACAS) would incorporate it within his RTS as Part 1. (Part 2 was Service Deviations or, if you like, variations from the presented Build Standard and representative of the In Use Build Standard). If ACAS was unhappy, the CAR was not to be signed, thus avoiding a situation whereby PE delivered an aircraft that could not be put to its intended use, safely. (Despite this regulation, CDP and successive Mins(AF) are on record as saying it is ok to dump an unsafe aircraft on the user and walk away. In my opinion, those who do so are guilty of fraud, maladministration and worse, but I can’t say too much because they are now very senior in DE&S, so I’ll just sit on the fence and say 15 years hard labour would do the trick).

ACAS issued the RTS, which was his statement to the Users that the aircraft was airworthy and, upon Initial Issue, he signed a letter of promulgation which was the authority to fly the aircraft in service.

Our (UK) system is limitations based, so “CA Release trials” were conducted to determine, for example, the installed performance of avionic equipment, from which any limitations were derived. It follows that one needs a performance baseline; for example, when the Nimrod Mk1 was modified to Mk2, the Build Standard, Safety Argument and CAR/RTS of the Mk1 had to be maintained and current otherwise the Mk2 had no baseline from which to work. Similarly, MR2 to MRA4. (I imagine this is where MoD and BAeS are having a lot of trouble, because it is highly unlikely the MR2 pre-requisites are in order). This applies to any such conversion or modification programme – MoD’s most notable failure in this respect was Chinook HC Mk1 > Mk2, where the CAR and RTS were issued before the installed performance of most of the avionics was established, meaning very little of it was actually cleared for use. In fact, far from the Mk2 having a valid Safety Case/Argument, CA and ACAS signed their Releases in the knowledge Boscombe had declared Safety Critical Software “positively dangerous”.

I mention Chinook because, of course, it shared a MoD(PE) 2 Star with Nimrod. If one aircraft was screwed up, it more or less followed that they all were as staff worked under the same directives. Which was precisely the point made by MoD staff prior to the Nimrod accident (when failure to implement airworthiness regs was notified directly to Adam Ingram), and reiterated by ACM Loader in the BoI. And why Haddon-Cave’s conclusions came as no surprise whatsoever.

Faced with that degree of Gross Negligence by MoD, you ask very good questions DV.

[Chugalug2]

tuc:

Faced with that degree of Gross Negligence by MoD..

Just as the MRA4's RTS is the MAA's immediate test of its abilities or lack of them, the same applies to this Government's handling of the Gross Negligence that tuc alludes to above. If it doesn't come up with its own "finding" of that Gross Negligence and of the cowardly cover up of it, then it too will be judged accordingly and will have failed in its responsibilities to the nation.

[Squidlord]

In response to my assertion that build standard issues weren't relevant to the failure of a particular air PT to sort out its Safety Case, tucumseh wrote:

It may not be the only reason in this case, but what I said is demonstrably true.

I'm not doubting the veracity of what you write but it's a bit like me asking what the capital of Poland is, and you replying that the capital of Spain is Madrid. True but irrelevant.

Just to be clear, the PT I was referring to when I wrote about the recent MAA audit is not Nimrod. Just because, several years ago, Nimrod (and many others, for all I know) cocked up its build standard (and of course I realize its importance), it doesn't mean that every air PT currently has a cocked-up build standard. Certainly, the audit report in question made no reference to the build standard.

Distant Voice:

Can someone explain to me what the difference is, now, between RTS and the Safety Case?

Since I'm not an expert on RTSs, I can't really but my guess is that you (DV) do understand RTSs so if you look at the definition of a Safety Case in Def Stan 00-56 or POSMS (both available online), you'll probably get a good idea.

I'm slightly amused by Shell Management's (!) version of Safety Case history. One might almost believe it is a propaganda puff piece written by ... well, Shell management.

[The B Word]

Anyone know if the Company will fly MRA4 at Fairford or Farnborough?

[BEagle]

Nimrod MRA4 is not listed as either a flying or static aircraft at Farnborough.

However, it is listed as a static participant at RIAT.

A pity it isn't going to be at Farnborough - it could have carried on the tradition of "Entering RAF service shortly" propagada read out by the commentator whenever the hideous Nimrod AEW3 appeared..

[tucumseh]

True but irrelevant

As a maintained Build Standard is a mandatory pre-requisite to (a) a valid Safety Case and, in turn, (b) a valid Release to Service (the Master Airworthiness Reference), may I respectfully suggest that the Build Standard is never irrelevant.

MoD stopped routinely maintaining Build Standards in 1991. There are 17 core components of a BS. I'm pretty sure 95% of DE&S couldn't name 5. Even if they read this and wanted to know more, they'd have difficulty as the only Def Stan that set them out and described how each was to be managed was declared obsolete in 2008. That is my main point - MoD's complete ambivalence to the subject ("a waste of money") and aviation safety in general.

[Jabba_TG12]

Dont know how much traction this story may either have or may gain going forward or whether its just another shot in the dark...


RAF offers to cancel Nimrod MRA.4 programme as part of defence cuts

[Wasser]

Offshore installation safety cases came about from the Cullen inquiry into the Piper Alpha disaster and introduced the offshore installation safety case regulations in 1992. The current version of the regs is SI 2005 No 3117 and can be downloaded free at Statutory Instruments 2005

The companies I've done work for, see workforce involvement as a critical element in safety case management. Offshore workers (the people who actually do the work) are involved in reviewing draft material for inclusion in the safety case. Major changes to hazards and risks are roled out to the workforce by means of summaries / posters / presentations etc.

Having been on NAEDIT in the mid 80s, if someone had bothered to ask what we thought were major hazards, each of us trade specialists (the workforce) would have been able to give a list there and then without too much thought, as I'm sure would the NFTC and GSU crews.

But as DV says it's all about people (and knowing the right people to ask).

[Lima Juliet]

I believe it's a "no show" for Fairford?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

It's not looking good for the MRA4 is it?

I just can't believe that we are going to be left without an MPA. After all, Coastal Command saved our bacon more recently than Fighter Command...why not axe some Typhoons instead?

[Siggie]

The previous links about the MR4 being offered up as a saving, might lead the more cynical amongst us to think that this would explain the delay in the RTS until after the SDR.

The fact that most of the money has already been spent on the project, would also lead one to think that any savings are going to be found in manpower cuts, due to the proposed withdrawal.

I suppose that the recent discussions about cuts to redundancy packages, taxation on gratuities and pensions could be seen by some 'glass half empty' types as further indication of what might be about to happen.

I fervently hope that all this is speculation is hogswash.

[Archimedes]

Originally Posted by TorqueOfTheDevil

It's not looking good for the MRA4 is it?

I just can't believe that we are going to be left without an MPA. After all, Coastal Command saved our bacon more recently than Fighter Command...why not axe some Typhoons instead?

That's another story in Jane's - selling off (or if necessary scrapping) a third of the force by 2015., which, according to another part of the MRA4 story (if you don't have access to a Jane's subscription) will be when the entire GR4 fleet disappears....

It all brings this chap's catchphrase to mind.


(Pte Fraser is carrying the only weapon the TA will be left with after SDSR)

[RumPunch]

All this talk of MRA4 being canned is very worrying indeed. Angus Roberston came out a few months ago and said it was delayed till November, the RAF said it was bull**** yet turned out to be true. The RAF told us all we would be on time and jobs are safe blah blah blah yet 2 seperate papers have mentioned the RAF has offered up the MRA4 to be scrapped. I hope there is answers on Monday morning, with PA4 not turning up to RIAT , I fear the worst has been decided already, Its true the SDR plans are in place , its just the legalities side thats being sorted as we speak.

[USasBRIEFED]

Axe?

Austerity forces defence firms onto the back foot | Mail Online

From today's Mail on Saturday. Very worrying times.

[Biggus]

I'm not saying that the MRA4 is safe, or should be....however. Given that, in my understanding, nothing apart from Trident was safe in the SDR, are there not going to be a series of internal MOD papers offering, MRA4, GR4, Harrier, FSTA, Chinook, etc up to be cut for savings, i.e. papers on just about everything? Each paper will discuss cost savings from removing a fleet, and the effects such removal will have, and then make a recommendation.

For example there might be a paper saying that axing the Chinook fleet will save £250M, but given it is committed to current operations its withdrawl would be catastrophic and is not recommended. Journalists then get wind of certain papers (perhaps by selected leaking?) and some stories of proposed cuts leak out. It doesn't necessarily mean those cuts will happen, just that they are being considered along with other options.

[fincastle84]

Mail defence article-Nimrod cancellation

The Mail states that a £3.65 billion contract for Nimrod aircraft has been cancelled. Is this correct? There's no mention in the Telegraph or on the other news sites as far as I can see.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

It was mentioned at ISK yesterday that there was likely to be some media interest in MRA4 this weekend. We were informed that the Janes' article was based on the writers personal views. The fact that MRA4 is not at RIAT is due to the fact that post maintenance paperwork has not been completed. No mention of contract cancellation - in fact the first MRA4 conversion (other than the instructors) starts on Monday.

Duncs

[The Old Fat One]

F84

Speaking personally, my default position on anything in The Mail (in any of its manifestations) is total disbelief - it's a hideous publication.

That said, Biggus is right, there will certainly be a paper proposing its demise somewhere in the MOD and (although you and I would see it otherwise) it is clearly "at risk", along with many other sacred cows.

Aside from the obvious security implications of an island nation removing one the layers of its maritime defence there are a couple of factors in the project's favour, which will be featured in any paper opposing its cut. Specifically, much of the money has been spent and it is an inherently flexible vehicle, especially when tasked as a stand-off weapons carrier.

I'd say it was too close to call and if I was one of the guys or girls whose future was tied up in this project, I would be keeping my options very much open and preparing for the worst whilst hoping for the best.

[RumPunch]

Duncs ,

Your not the first one to say that the journo wrote his own stuff rather than facts, something about pushing the MOD for a release date and getting nowhere decided to make up his own story.

Dunno if there is truth in that ?

[BEagle]

The fact that MRA4 is not at RIAT is due to the fact that post maintenance paperwork has not been completed.

If that's true, then someone needs a severe kick in the dangly bits. It would have been obvious even to the meanest intellect that there would clearly be considerable media interest in MRA4 at RIAT, particularly with SDR just around the corner. So, as ugly as the aeroplane undoubtedly is, those responsible should surely have been working 25/8 to ensure that it would make the show....