Ainsworth's assurance over "safe" Nimrod
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FZ The article is about a QinetiQ report into the hot air system that reported in draft form in June 2008 and in final form in February 2009.
Whatever people might think about Ainsworth is irrelevant. He is of course taking the rap here but he is not the expert, he is only a politician spouting what he is told by senior RAF officers. I doubt Ainsworth personally read the report, it is the senior officers who told him QinetiQ backed what they were saying that are the ones to blame here.
Whatever people might think about Ainsworth is irrelevant. He is of course taking the rap here but he is not the expert, he is only a politician spouting what he is told by senior RAF officers. I doubt Ainsworth personally read the report, it is the senior officers who told him QinetiQ backed what they were saying that are the ones to blame here.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick, you and I were in the room when Ainsworth went out on the airwaves to rubbish the coroner's conclusions at the nimrod inquest. He hadn't read the coroner's conclusion, if he is that stupid, he shouldn't be in office. And he really is that stupid, this being another example.
I do agree that it appears senior military officers do not have a clue about airworthiness requirements and safety management systems. Their advice and the advice of civil servants was misguided and incorrect driven by the narrow minded approach of achieving the task at any price. Doesn't detract from the awful, self regarding instincts of the new man and "former" marxist in charge of the MoD.
I am not sure if you realise, but Sec State for Defence has overall responsibility for implementation of airworthiness regulations. The buck really does stop with him.
Scary, hey?
I do agree that it appears senior military officers do not have a clue about airworthiness requirements and safety management systems. Their advice and the advice of civil servants was misguided and incorrect driven by the narrow minded approach of achieving the task at any price. Doesn't detract from the awful, self regarding instincts of the new man and "former" marxist in charge of the MoD.
I am not sure if you realise, but Sec State for Defence has overall responsibility for implementation of airworthiness regulations. The buck really does stop with him.
Scary, hey?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
A touch of realism from a sarcastic old b45t4rd.
Aviation carries risk - ask Airbus about pitot tubes, the ATR42/72 about tail plane ant-ice, the Boeing 737 about uncommanded rudder deflection. I'm not saying that there isn't another non reflective object in the pile of wood with Nimrod, simply that the case is the same with any aircraft. Test and evaluation can only go so far.
As a Nimrod aviator with 23 years on type, I am as happy as I can be flying an aircraft that is older than I am. I still have some doubts but then again, if I strapped in without a care in the world then I wouldn't be a professional.
Stop bleating please and stump up with some proper evidence. we had a tragic accident. Measures were taken, some right, some based on guess work. However, we are now at a stage where the aircraft is as safe as it can be. Just please take the line out of the RTS thst refers to the Safety Case!!! We haven't got one yet as far as I know!
Hurry up Mr Haddon Cave - put the story to bed once and for all - the aircraft will be out of service before you report - or is thst the intention?
A touch of realism from a sarcastic old b45t4rd.
Aviation carries risk - ask Airbus about pitot tubes, the ATR42/72 about tail plane ant-ice, the Boeing 737 about uncommanded rudder deflection. I'm not saying that there isn't another non reflective object in the pile of wood with Nimrod, simply that the case is the same with any aircraft. Test and evaluation can only go so far.
As a Nimrod aviator with 23 years on type, I am as happy as I can be flying an aircraft that is older than I am. I still have some doubts but then again, if I strapped in without a care in the world then I wouldn't be a professional.
Stop bleating please and stump up with some proper evidence. we had a tragic accident. Measures were taken, some right, some based on guess work. However, we are now at a stage where the aircraft is as safe as it can be. Just please take the line out of the RTS thst refers to the Safety Case!!! We haven't got one yet as far as I know!
Hurry up Mr Haddon Cave - put the story to bed once and for all - the aircraft will be out of service before you report - or is thst the intention?
However, we are now at a stage where the aircraft is as safe as it can be.
It might be serviceable, but is it airworthy?
What a stupid remark Beags if it were not airworthy the guys would not fly it.........what is the status of any aircraft these days if you want to be really picky......am flying back to the UK in the next few weeks and have no fear at all of flying and if it were a Nimrod would be happy to fly in that as well. Why do you people all want to try and scare people.......the only people that you are upsetting are the true blue crews that are flying the aircraft and more importantly their families if they keep having to read this rubbish......if the crews aint happy they would not fly the aircraft end of story and I hear none of them refusing to fly.
Whilst your loyalty towards the old beast is commendable, despite the intemperate tone of your post, the question really is do you know that the aircraft is really airworthy? Which is not the same thing as having a snag-free F700, for example.
'True blue crews and their families' need absolute assurance that they are not being lied to by a cash-starved MoD glossing over airworthiness issues.
'True blue crews and their families' need absolute assurance that they are not being lied to by a cash-starved MoD glossing over airworthiness issues.
Did I know that any of the aircraft that I flew were airworhy?????Do I know that my car will not fall apart tomorrow........will the rescue boat I go on sink next time we get a call out......so I suppose the answer to your question is no I dont know the aircraft is airworthy but do you know that its NOT.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fergineer:
The trouble is, the guys who fly it do not have the full story. The guys in XV230 believed that the aircraft, along with the rest of the fleet" was airworthy, but it wasn't. This was agreed by MoD at the inquest.
DV
if it was not airworthy the guys would not fly it
DV
DV the guys that fly it know exactly what they are flying in, they are proffesionals and the Air Engs are the best in the world. That goes for all fleets. They will know what is what, they will have been over the NMSU hangar and seen for themselves and they in turn will tell the rest of the crew, thats how it works they trust each other.
fergineer, your blind faith is touching, but misplaced; no-one is casting aspersions on the professionalism of the crew.
DV has summed up the situation very well.
One thing I find hard to comprehend is why some in the Nimrod force simply cannot seem to understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness - and seem to take any adverse comments concerning airworthiness as a personal affront.
DV has summed up the situation very well.
One thing I find hard to comprehend is why some in the Nimrod force simply cannot seem to understand the difference between serviceability and airworthiness - and seem to take any adverse comments concerning airworthiness as a personal affront.
No blind faith Beags.......when I fly now I put my trust in the ground crew who service the aircraft and the flight crew who fly me.......I have heard and read lots of things about other aircraft/ airlines read many reports but still have faith in the airline business.......would I fly on an A330 yes would I fly on older generation 737's yes......hercs nimrods even the old L1011....I trusted the people who serviced the aircraft when I was in service and flying civvy trusted the men and women who serviced the aircraft. If it is not airworthy they will ground it trust me no-one will sign an aircraft off if in doubt.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please...
Why is it that everyone outside the Nimrod world appear to be enlightened, yet those who fly it are posted as apparently ignorant. No, those words don't appear in the posts, but what effect are those implications having on those who still climb into the dear old aircraft?
Yes, questions need to be answered. Yes, worryingly, it could have been anyone of us and yes, we have the deepest sympathy for lost friends and their families.
If the aircraft was to be in service for a lot longer, more changes would be implemented. That doesn't mean that the aircraft is unsafe as it is, it just means that it has lost some of its capability; the obvious being AAR.
I have no problem getting into the aircraft and flying it. Please stop telling the crews that you understand something that they don't - I am sure they are more up to date and in the midst of it than you are.
Yes, questions need to be answered. Yes, worryingly, it could have been anyone of us and yes, we have the deepest sympathy for lost friends and their families.
If the aircraft was to be in service for a lot longer, more changes would be implemented. That doesn't mean that the aircraft is unsafe as it is, it just means that it has lost some of its capability; the obvious being AAR.
I have no problem getting into the aircraft and flying it. Please stop telling the crews that you understand something that they don't - I am sure they are more up to date and in the midst of it than you are.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snow Dog;
How many crews have read the latest QinetiQ report on the hot air system? How many crews are aware that a temperature sensor is recommended for the cross-feed pipe, because the in-flight temp is unknown?
OK, I am no longer a member of the Nimrod fleet, but I can assure you I am more up to date on the underlying problems than most crews.
I am sure that when the QC produces his report in Oct, you will then realise how much you have been kept in the dark. Of course there will still be those who will reject the report because the QC is not a Flt Eng. Sometimes when you are sick, you need to see a consultant, not a GP.
DV
How many crews have read the latest QinetiQ report on the hot air system? How many crews are aware that a temperature sensor is recommended for the cross-feed pipe, because the in-flight temp is unknown?
OK, I am no longer a member of the Nimrod fleet, but I can assure you I am more up to date on the underlying problems than most crews.
I am sure that when the QC produces his report in Oct, you will then realise how much you have been kept in the dark. Of course there will still be those who will reject the report because the QC is not a Flt Eng. Sometimes when you are sick, you need to see a consultant, not a GP.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 24th Jun 2009 at 10:24.
DV
Why are you going on about the cross feed hot duct? One, it is longer in use in the air - and never will be used again. Two, even with QQ recommending a cockpit temp sensor, there is not enough life left in the MR2 fleet for it to be designed and embodied before the out of service date. You know it has taken long enough to manufacture and fit new hot pipes within the present design. Therefore, it does not matter - it will never happen.
Why are you going on about the cross feed hot duct? One, it is longer in use in the air - and never will be used again. Two, even with QQ recommending a cockpit temp sensor, there is not enough life left in the MR2 fleet for it to be designed and embodied before the out of service date. You know it has taken long enough to manufacture and fit new hot pipes within the present design. Therefore, it does not matter - it will never happen.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Softie;
We are talking about a simple mod, involving a simple thermocouple and a connecting wire to a display. It could have been installed during the pipe replacement programme. Complex equipment was fitted to the aircraft, in double quick time, for opertions in Afgahistan.
I think you, and others, are missing the point regarding the need for this mod in the interest of flight safety. Yes, we all know that the cross-feed is de-selected in flght, but we do not know what the residual temp is after a ground start. Data has been collected, but not reported on. Also, in the event of "leaking" cross-feed valves in flight, the ducting will rise in temp without the crew knowing.
DV
We are talking about a simple mod, involving a simple thermocouple and a connecting wire to a display. It could have been installed during the pipe replacement programme. Complex equipment was fitted to the aircraft, in double quick time, for opertions in Afgahistan.
I think you, and others, are missing the point regarding the need for this mod in the interest of flight safety. Yes, we all know that the cross-feed is de-selected in flght, but we do not know what the residual temp is after a ground start. Data has been collected, but not reported on. Also, in the event of "leaking" cross-feed valves in flight, the ducting will rise in temp without the crew knowing.
DV
DV
There is no such thing as simple mod.
As someone who knows, there is a major difference from installing new mission equipment (down the backend) under an Operationally-driven UOR as a Service Designed Mod and a manufacturer designed Mod under peacetime conditions.
Such effort is not warranted when it is not needed.
The temp in the crossfeed at engine start is too low to represent a danger (around 160C). On XV230 it took 4 engines running at full power for 10-15 mins with the SCP switched on to provide the very high temps (450C+) and a place for the fuel to pool for several minutes (ie. SCP pipe insulation) to obtain auto ignition conditions. No leaks in the crossfeed values without a flow of air would recreate these conditions.
We are talking about a simple mod, involving a simple thermocouple and a connecting wire to a display.
It could have been installed during the pipe replacement programme. Complex equipment was fitted to the aircraft, in double quick time, for operations in Afgahistan.
Such effort is not warranted when it is not needed.
we do not know what the residual temp is after a ground start. Data has been collected, but not reported on. Also, in the event of "leaking" cross-feed valves in flight, the ducting will rise in temp without the crew knowing.
As a UAS APO many years ago, I flew on a C130 sortie. The air engineer pointed out the duct pressure gauge and explained why it was needed - and the consequences of a bleed air duct failure.
Some years later I flew the Vulcan. That also had a crossfeed air duct, access to which was controlled by 'engine air switches'. But it had neither pressure gauge nor temperature gauge. So you never knew whether the engine are switches had closed off their respective valves. However, remembering the words of that Herc Air Engineer, I worked out a method of my own. Hold the AVS valve open with one's finger, just before take-off turn off all the engine airs and see whether the AVS flow stopped - if it didn't, then one valve was probably not closing fully. Exercising the engines up and down in turn would allow the faulty valve to be identified. One day we binned a late night take-off to Akrotiri because an engine air valve wouldn't shut.
A Waddington crew later suffered a hot air ducting leak. This was obvious before they set out across the Atlantic due to a multiplicity of unconnected system failures. But, with Offut in their sights, on they pressed....and were very lucky not to have suffered an in-flight fire or critical structural failure. If I recall correctly, the aircraft stayed at Goose and was subsequently written-off due to the severity of the damage.
The moral of this lantern-swinging being that a bleed air duct leak may happen in anyaircraft so equipped. Without any temperature or pressure indications, you are very poorly placed. Even a simple thermocouple and display is better than nothing but blind faith.
Some years later I flew the Vulcan. That also had a crossfeed air duct, access to which was controlled by 'engine air switches'. But it had neither pressure gauge nor temperature gauge. So you never knew whether the engine are switches had closed off their respective valves. However, remembering the words of that Herc Air Engineer, I worked out a method of my own. Hold the AVS valve open with one's finger, just before take-off turn off all the engine airs and see whether the AVS flow stopped - if it didn't, then one valve was probably not closing fully. Exercising the engines up and down in turn would allow the faulty valve to be identified. One day we binned a late night take-off to Akrotiri because an engine air valve wouldn't shut.
A Waddington crew later suffered a hot air ducting leak. This was obvious before they set out across the Atlantic due to a multiplicity of unconnected system failures. But, with Offut in their sights, on they pressed....and were very lucky not to have suffered an in-flight fire or critical structural failure. If I recall correctly, the aircraft stayed at Goose and was subsequently written-off due to the severity of the damage.
The moral of this lantern-swinging being that a bleed air duct leak may happen in anyaircraft so equipped. Without any temperature or pressure indications, you are very poorly placed. Even a simple thermocouple and display is better than nothing but blind faith.
Last edited by BEagle; 24th Jun 2009 at 15:51.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Softie;
"allowing for a reasonable margin of error ...10%" QinetiQ came up with cut-off temperature of 180 C for auto ignition.
I think you with find that IPT expect leaking valves will cause the cros-feed duct to rise above 200 C. (Read UTI 051A)
DV
"allowing for a reasonable margin of error ...10%" QinetiQ came up with cut-off temperature of 180 C for auto ignition.
I think you with find that IPT expect leaking valves will cause the cros-feed duct to rise above 200 C. (Read UTI 051A)
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 24th Jun 2009 at 13:02.