Nimrod MRA.4
You refer to the "misquoting of a QQ safety report". Would it be the one that states "Furthermore, due to the lack of any safety target, no statement can, or has been made made as to whether the hot air system risks identified in this report have been reduced to As Low As Reasonably Pracitcable (ALARP) in line with the requirements of JSP 553", or do you have another one in mind.
I think you're now proving the fact that the report was not trying to make any such assertion. Thank you.
JFZ90, Charlie etc
You entirely miss the point. I can only speak for myself, but for 20 years, since first being ordered to ignore the airworthiness regulations, and make false declarations that they had been complied with, I have fought daily to prevent the problems reported by Haddon-Cave. In that time I have been threatened with dismissal and, to ensure my aircraft and equipments were safe, had to lie through my back teeth and disobey direct orders. If any aircrew don’t like what I’ve done, please come forward.
On MRA4 in particular, next time you are in AbbeyWood or Wyton, please ask the team leader or Risk Manager for sight of his Risk Register. The regulations require their 2 Star to personally assess the top 10 risks, once a month. The risk that the MRA4 programme would be delayed by years and exceed budget by over £2Bn would be more than sufficient for it to be Number 1 risk. The secondary risk, to MR2, would be equally serious. What comments are appended by the 2 Stars each month?
Let me give you a clue. In 7 years managing concurrent and in many ways equally complex programmes, that very 2 Star did not approach me once on matters of risk. However, I approached him. He is on record as refusing me the resource to manage risk, instructing that it not be done in “company” time. In other words, DIY, at home, at week-ends – and it had better not cost anything. From memory, my Risk Mitigation plans, including ensuring airworthiness, cost over £35M to implement, expenditure I was told not to incur. (Where do you think that money came from?).
If the loss of MRA4 is the penalty for correcting these systemic failures, so be it. But, as many have pointed out, that is not the same as losing capabilities. If CAS fought for retention of MRA4 and lost, my question would be what alternative was suggested. He should have ascertained the reason for cancellation. Was it because MRA4 safety was suspect and the programme no longer viable, or because UK don’t need the capability? The implication is that Cameron decided it should be cancelled for the latter, because no compensatory provision has been made to replace the capability. Whose fault is it if CAS can’t make a case for ASW, ASuW, SAR etc. First things first. Why remove the capability?
If the official reason is we don’t need the capability, you should ask who this (ludicrous) decision protects. They are the only ones to gain. It is the same leading question as the Mull case. Who is protected? If we do need the capability, the Public Accounts Committee, HoC Select Committee and every other public auditor I can think of should be digging into this gross waste of public funds. They aren’t. Funny that.
You entirely miss the point. I can only speak for myself, but for 20 years, since first being ordered to ignore the airworthiness regulations, and make false declarations that they had been complied with, I have fought daily to prevent the problems reported by Haddon-Cave. In that time I have been threatened with dismissal and, to ensure my aircraft and equipments were safe, had to lie through my back teeth and disobey direct orders. If any aircrew don’t like what I’ve done, please come forward.
On MRA4 in particular, next time you are in AbbeyWood or Wyton, please ask the team leader or Risk Manager for sight of his Risk Register. The regulations require their 2 Star to personally assess the top 10 risks, once a month. The risk that the MRA4 programme would be delayed by years and exceed budget by over £2Bn would be more than sufficient for it to be Number 1 risk. The secondary risk, to MR2, would be equally serious. What comments are appended by the 2 Stars each month?
Let me give you a clue. In 7 years managing concurrent and in many ways equally complex programmes, that very 2 Star did not approach me once on matters of risk. However, I approached him. He is on record as refusing me the resource to manage risk, instructing that it not be done in “company” time. In other words, DIY, at home, at week-ends – and it had better not cost anything. From memory, my Risk Mitigation plans, including ensuring airworthiness, cost over £35M to implement, expenditure I was told not to incur. (Where do you think that money came from?).
If the loss of MRA4 is the penalty for correcting these systemic failures, so be it. But, as many have pointed out, that is not the same as losing capabilities. If CAS fought for retention of MRA4 and lost, my question would be what alternative was suggested. He should have ascertained the reason for cancellation. Was it because MRA4 safety was suspect and the programme no longer viable, or because UK don’t need the capability? The implication is that Cameron decided it should be cancelled for the latter, because no compensatory provision has been made to replace the capability. Whose fault is it if CAS can’t make a case for ASW, ASuW, SAR etc. First things first. Why remove the capability?
If the official reason is we don’t need the capability, you should ask who this (ludicrous) decision protects. They are the only ones to gain. It is the same leading question as the Mull case. Who is protected? If we do need the capability, the Public Accounts Committee, HoC Select Committee and every other public auditor I can think of should be digging into this gross waste of public funds. They aren’t. Funny that.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ever there was a case of someone shooting the messengers, then your ignorant rant is just that. After all the posts on all the threads; Sea King, Tornado, Hercules, Nimrod and of course the most long running and most shocking of all, Chinook, you just don't get it do you?
I think it is you that "just don't get it do you". Whilst I would prefer what I fly to be 100% safe, I know enough about Airworthiness and Risk Management to know that achieving that is not cost effective. Hence I am prepared to accept some risk to get the job done; a job that as CAS admitted himself still needs doing. I remember arguing on here before, that we don't all drive the safest cars available on the road because we can't afford to buy them. Hence we all accept some level of risk every time we get behind the wheel - or do you walk everywhere?
As Charlie Luncher said a few posts ago, certain poeple on this thread have got their way - Nimrod MRA4 is now 100% safe because it will never fly operationally. Unfortunately, in certain areas the capability it bought to the party is now also 100% gone and I can confidently predict that in 10 years time we will be able to look back at several cases where people have died, and be able to argue that they would not have done had Nimrod MRA4 still been in existence. That number is highly likely to be higher than the number of Nimrod MRA4 aircrew that might have died doing the job they were trained for and love doing.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can confidently predict that in 10 years time we will be able to look back at several cases where people have died, and be able to argue that they would not have done had Nimrod MRA4 still been in existence. That number is highly likely to be higher than the number of Nimrod MRA4 aircrew that might have died
I'm off to become a banker as it is the only job this government is willing to support.
Winco
Well outside the 10sec rule, I know, but if "contribution" requires you to shoot something down or drop something on it - just remind me, how many ships/subs has the Nimrod sunk since it came into service? By your inference of "contribution" then the Nimrod has never contributed to maritime warfare!
By the way, I believe the MR2 was a cracking bit of kit and it did its job through DETERENCE. The F3 is a similar argument, not a single Coalition aircraft has been lost whilst the F3 has been on CAP whilst EF aircraft have been airborne - QED the DETERENCE worked!
LJ
Well outside the 10sec rule, I know, but if "contribution" requires you to shoot something down or drop something on it - just remind me, how many ships/subs has the Nimrod sunk since it came into service? By your inference of "contribution" then the Nimrod has never contributed to maritime warfare!
By the way, I believe the MR2 was a cracking bit of kit and it did its job through DETERENCE. The F3 is a similar argument, not a single Coalition aircraft has been lost whilst the F3 has been on CAP whilst EF aircraft have been airborne - QED the DETERENCE worked!
LJ
JFZ, you have lost me.
Answer this simple question, "Which QQ report was misquoted, and how?"
DV
Answer this simple question, "Which QQ report was misquoted, and how?"
DV
This is a while ago now, but as I recall it:
a) SofS makes statement to house about Nimrod being safe etc.
b) Armchair safety "experts" quote QQ fuel report to counter his assertion.
c) Times runs article building on this saying "QQ report says its not ALARP, SofS has lied"
As the QQ report didn't infact say its not safe (arguably quite the opposite), or infact make any assertion about ALARP, you can see how its message was misused in the press to achieve an aim - i.e. make the public believe Nimrod was unsafe & SofS has lied. Result = newspapers sold.
This is an MRA4 thread, but if you think none of the MR2 mud has stuck to this decision, well come on....
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern Elmo the wing issue was fixed; the P-8 also had a wing issue resulting in a different wing. AFAIK it was known about and was actually down to two different CAD systems not speaking the same language, one measuring the fuselage and one building the wings. At the time of the MRA4 contract a new build would have been ideal as a new production line could well have lead to orders from across the world including the US, 200 to 300ish MPA required within the next 20 years or so. I believe they reused the fuselages from MR2s hoping to secure the contract by making it sound like a modification to the Government, it was a poor decision then and became another mill stone round the neck of the project for various reasons since. The reason an Airbus airliner type wasn’t pursued at the time is because there would have to be too many compromises in performance and capability, the USN chose the 737 as it couldn’t afford a better solution. Rather than a P-8 competitor the MRA4 should have been new build, maybe the US would have shown interest and assisted in R&D and we would all have ended up with the best platform.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ PN
Re the Victor (and presumably the other "V"s.
There was apparently "shock, horror and cries of blasphemy" at Sir Fred's outfit when a visiting USAF officer (with status) commented that the Victor was a pretty fine aircraft - "But why d'ya build it in a hobbies shop?" - and that was in about 1959/60 ...
Later thoughts (years later, because the jibe still rankles a bit)supposed that if only about 50 were going to be built, "decent" jigs were going to be far too expensive.
Par for the UK industry then ...
There was apparently "shock, horror and cries of blasphemy" at Sir Fred's outfit when a visiting USAF officer (with status) commented that the Victor was a pretty fine aircraft - "But why d'ya build it in a hobbies shop?" - and that was in about 1959/60 ...
Later thoughts (years later, because the jibe still rankles a bit)supposed that if only about 50 were going to be built, "decent" jigs were going to be far too expensive.
Par for the UK industry then ...
zedder
Agree entirely.
However, Haddon-Cave reported systemic (not isolated) failures. There was no reasoned case for ignoring safety. He stated it was ignored because of the perceived need to save money. Safety is an intangible to beancounters (it doesn't produce a due-in on the stock computer) so it was deliberately targetted.
MoD(PE)'s (first) objection to this RAF policy is dated 14th January 1988. As author, I retain my copy, because I run the risk of being called to account for my airworthiness decisions (including just such engineering judgments as you mention), unlike the BCs. Similar objections over the next decade would fill a filing cabinet. We need to question why nothing was done. Unfortunately, Mr Haddon-Cave did not make such a recommendation. As I asked before, who did this protect?
Whilst I would prefer what I fly to be 100% safe, I know enough about Airworthiness and Risk Management to know that achieving that is not cost effective.
However, Haddon-Cave reported systemic (not isolated) failures. There was no reasoned case for ignoring safety. He stated it was ignored because of the perceived need to save money. Safety is an intangible to beancounters (it doesn't produce a due-in on the stock computer) so it was deliberately targetted.
MoD(PE)'s (first) objection to this RAF policy is dated 14th January 1988. As author, I retain my copy, because I run the risk of being called to account for my airworthiness decisions (including just such engineering judgments as you mention), unlike the BCs. Similar objections over the next decade would fill a filing cabinet. We need to question why nothing was done. Unfortunately, Mr Haddon-Cave did not make such a recommendation. As I asked before, who did this protect?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all a BIG SORRY to those who want this to be a pure MRA 4 thread, but I do believe that it is important that JFZ 90's points are addressed;
(1) The SoS, stated on 4th Dec 2007 that "QinetiQ has conducted an independent investigation into the fuel system and confirmed that, in light of the measures taken since the crash, the fuel system is safe to operate"
(2) In the Exec Summary of the report to which he refers, dated Oct 2007, QinetiQ state, "the recommendations summarised at Section 6 should be considerd and acted upon, where appropriate, before it can be considered that the equipment risks are ALARP. There were some 30 recommendations listed.
(3) In the Exec Summary of the QinetiQ report, dated Feb 2009, it states "no statement can, or has been made as to whether the hot air system risks identified in this report have been reduced to ALARP".
Yes mud does stick, but it stuck because the aircraft had major safety issues. Issues which if they had not been uncovered by "armchair safety experts" would never have been uncovered.
DV
(1) The SoS, stated on 4th Dec 2007 that "QinetiQ has conducted an independent investigation into the fuel system and confirmed that, in light of the measures taken since the crash, the fuel system is safe to operate"
(2) In the Exec Summary of the report to which he refers, dated Oct 2007, QinetiQ state, "the recommendations summarised at Section 6 should be considerd and acted upon, where appropriate, before it can be considered that the equipment risks are ALARP. There were some 30 recommendations listed.
(3) In the Exec Summary of the QinetiQ report, dated Feb 2009, it states "no statement can, or has been made as to whether the hot air system risks identified in this report have been reduced to ALARP".
Yes mud does stick, but it stuck because the aircraft had major safety issues. Issues which if they had not been uncovered by "armchair safety experts" would never have been uncovered.
DV
DV
Thank you. Your selective quoting of the SofS & QQ reports without the required context proves my point more perfectly than I could hope.
You appear unaware of the significance of the inconsistency between the 2007 and 2009 reports, why it is there, and why it further helps prove my point.
A lot of the mud was, IMO, unwarranted. It is debateable whether the HC report alone would have cast a big enough shadow over MRA4 to undermine its future, or whether the overall campaign, Times articles and SNP sniping (stoked by many on here) made a significant further impact. We'll probably never know.
This statement is so arrogant and patronising.
To be clear, you haven't addressed my points, you've proved them!
I'll leave you to your armchair.
Thank you. Your selective quoting of the SofS & QQ reports without the required context proves my point more perfectly than I could hope.
You appear unaware of the significance of the inconsistency between the 2007 and 2009 reports, why it is there, and why it further helps prove my point.
A lot of the mud was, IMO, unwarranted. It is debateable whether the HC report alone would have cast a big enough shadow over MRA4 to undermine its future, or whether the overall campaign, Times articles and SNP sniping (stoked by many on here) made a significant further impact. We'll probably never know.
DV: First of all a BIG SORRY to those who want this to be a pure MRA 4 thread, but I do believe that it is important that JFZ 90's points are addressed
To be clear, you haven't addressed my points, you've proved them!
I'll leave you to your armchair.
Last edited by JFZ90; 24th Oct 2010 at 16:11.
Zedder:
When did I ever call for MRA4 to be "100% safe?". What aircraft has ever been "100% safe"? I merely call for aircraft that receive a UK military RTS to be knowingly airworthy. You don't. Tuc's 2* didn't. You are in good company it would seem! If you claim that the MRA4 is now airworthy, then why has it been effectively cancelled? Because of a story in the Times? Because "call me Dave" just doesn't like it being called Nimrod? Or is it because a bottomless bucket threatened to go on gobbling up even more tax payers money for ever and a day, and all to no avail? This fiasco has cost us now an essential military capability, one that has to be plugged. It cannot be plugged by MRA4 it would seem, or any other other product of BWoS. Time for the CAS to put up or shut up for good. I don't know what the answer to this conundrum is, but he has to. It's his job. If he's not up to it he must go now to make way for someone who is.
Chugalug2,
I think it is you that "just don't get it do you". Whilst I would prefer what I fly to be 100% safe, I know enough about Airworthiness and Risk Management to know that achieving that is not cost effective. Hence I am prepared to accept some risk to get the job done; a job that as CAS admitted himself still needs doing.
I think it is you that "just don't get it do you". Whilst I would prefer what I fly to be 100% safe, I know enough about Airworthiness and Risk Management to know that achieving that is not cost effective. Hence I am prepared to accept some risk to get the job done; a job that as CAS admitted himself still needs doing.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite rightly some have commented on my claim
I did not mean to imply that it could operate without fighter cover with a Red air threat, it was in response to B Word
we were the HVU on CQWIs and other exercises so I am well aware how dead we were without OCA (DCA?) in the first day or two of full on hostilities, I just don’t see the need for so many FJ in future scenarios, especially when they are allegedly so much more capable than before.
As to the furthest forward RAF aircraft during GW2, obviously I should have said during parts of GW2. Granted it is a second hand story, but I have no reason to disbelieve the person who told me, he was on the aircraft. It was not meant to prove how invulnerable the MR2 was to missiles or cannon fire, more that despite all the doctrine written and plans made we (Nimrod MR) continuously found ourselves operating in totally different environments and situations to that envisaged or practiced for, due to the flexibility of the platform and crews.
Many have already spotted the crux of the SDSR MRA4 matter, did they bin the capability or the project. I believe it was the project and they now have to wait a suitable length of time to ensure it is unrecoverable. This way they aren’t seen to be throwing £3.5? billion away.
FWIW I appreciate all that has been done to make the Nimrod a safer platform by everyone, it is naïve to think that the huge amount of work would have been done without external pressure. For those that are happy the MRA4 is no more, sometimes it’s better the devil you know, the aircraft has been under the microscope and fixed where required, what problems do other platforms have that we just don’t know about yet?
I’ve probably said enough and need to start looking for a new career so I shall now retire form taking an active part in this thread, esspeciallee as the spoolin poliss are akteve. Whoray four spool chucher
Try and keep it civil
MRA4 has better DASS than many other platforms; I understand the MR2 was the furthest forward RAF aircraft during GW2.
On the saving of fast jets, I can only conclude that MRA4 would be next to useless in a contested environment without FJs to provide localised air supremacy/superiority - so I guess a "chicken and egg" decision had to be made?
As to the furthest forward RAF aircraft during GW2, obviously I should have said during parts of GW2. Granted it is a second hand story, but I have no reason to disbelieve the person who told me, he was on the aircraft. It was not meant to prove how invulnerable the MR2 was to missiles or cannon fire, more that despite all the doctrine written and plans made we (Nimrod MR) continuously found ourselves operating in totally different environments and situations to that envisaged or practiced for, due to the flexibility of the platform and crews.
Many have already spotted the crux of the SDSR MRA4 matter, did they bin the capability or the project. I believe it was the project and they now have to wait a suitable length of time to ensure it is unrecoverable. This way they aren’t seen to be throwing £3.5? billion away.
FWIW I appreciate all that has been done to make the Nimrod a safer platform by everyone, it is naïve to think that the huge amount of work would have been done without external pressure. For those that are happy the MRA4 is no more, sometimes it’s better the devil you know, the aircraft has been under the microscope and fixed where required, what problems do other platforms have that we just don’t know about yet?
I’ve probably said enough and need to start looking for a new career so I shall now retire form taking an active part in this thread, esspeciallee as the spoolin poliss are akteve. Whoray four spool chucher
Try and keep it civil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today 11:47
Well said Leon, well said. 
It would indeed be interesting/satisfying (in a v-small way) if any of the video material gathered was ever used in the Hague.
ICTY - TPIY :: About the ICTY
It would indeed be interesting/satisfying (in a v-small way) if any of the video material gathered was ever used in the Hague.
ICTY - TPIY :: About the ICTY
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK last one,
Wokka of course
but they don't exist.....................
although there was a brief at Waddington a few years back. EO footage of some Chinooks on infil somewhere hot and sandy in about 2003, the chap proudly stated that the footage was from a UAV very far forward, it wasn't
Wokka of course
but they don't exist.....................although there was a brief at Waddington a few years back. EO footage of some Chinooks on infil somewhere hot and sandy in about 2003, the chap proudly stated that the footage was from a UAV very far forward, it wasn't
Last edited by Ivan Rogov; 24th Oct 2010 at 21:22.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JFZ90;
Please enlighten us as to the inconsistancy, and its relevance, of the two reports. Agreed one is for fuel the other for hot air, but both conclude that the systems can not be declared ALARP. The 2007 report talks about a system being "tolerably safe", but as H-C states this is not ALARP.
DV
Please enlighten us as to the inconsistancy, and its relevance, of the two reports. Agreed one is for fuel the other for hot air, but both conclude that the systems can not be declared ALARP. The 2007 report talks about a system being "tolerably safe", but as H-C states this is not ALARP.
DV