Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Nimrod XV 256 accident (1980)

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Nimrod XV 256 accident (1980)

Old 19th Nov 2020, 11:30
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno
Age: 71
Posts: 260
DV, 40 years ago an aircraft taking off tragically hit some birds and crashed. A tragedy, but sadly, shit does happen. But what - exactly - is your point? That military aircraft shouldn't fly in the dark, or that they shouldn't crash? Both of these propositions are curious, and if implemented would severely curtail any air force's ability to function. So again - and with the great respect, what - exactly - is your point?
Thud105 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 11:40
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,037
Big birds are an awkward subject. One brought down ZG708 in Glen Ogle. Allegedly. No claim was made as to breed. Just that it was BIG.

But I think it is fair, on an aviation forum, to highlight the inconsistencies that exist within UK countries whenever there is a military fatality. Remember the ill-conceived Coroner's Act proposal after the XV230 Inquest. MoD and government clearly agreed with the Scottish system of ignoring military deaths, and wanted to severely curtail the powers of Coroners. Distant Voice, alone, got the Scottish system changed. When both systems are implemented consistently, and fairly, then by all means stop the drum.
tucumseh is online now  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 11:58
  #23 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 868
So you have the full summary, you have read it, but you chose to cite the ASN over the MoD summary for bird types?
I guess you must have your reasons.
The ASN and the MOD summary are identical in the opening paragraphs, apart from the following.

ASN: "shortly after takeoff, at an estimated height of 20 ft, the aircraft flew through a dense flock of Canada Geese flying in arrowhead formation between overnight roosting and daily feeding grounds. It suffered numerous bird-strikes"
.
MoD: "shortly after takeoff, at an estimated height of 20 ft, the aircraft flew through a dense flock of sea birds and suffered numerous bird-strikes"

Why would anyone want to insert "Canada Geese flying in arrowhead formation between overnight roosting and daily feeding grounds", or perhaps remove it.

DV





Distant Voice is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 12:23
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,052
A vee of geese at 20 feet would be a pretty impressive sight.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 12:25
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 55
Posts: 5,085
Why would anyone want to insert "Canada Geese flying in arrowhead formation between overnight roosting and daily feeding grounds", or perhaps remove it.
Well

From the ASN:
Sources:
Mike Wain
UK Ministry of Defence MAAS 10/82
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikewain/ ?

212man is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 12:31
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Trumpville, on the edge
Posts: 73
This red herring should be easy enough to clarify: Were any dead Canada geese subsequently found either on the airfield, or in the vicinity of the wreckage?

Irrespective of the semantics, the tragic outcome was the same.
Trumpet trousers is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 12:34
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 53
Posts: 389
DV, please take it from one who does know, they were Gulls which were congregating in a farmers field in the undershoot. The farmer had taken to using this area as a tip.

ps Chugalug2, the crew member who ran quite a distance from the aircraft with a broken femur was the Flight Engineer (his name slips my memory); he was found to be in shock, unsurprising considering what had happened to the other 2 Flight Deck crew.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 12:42
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 868
DV, 40 years ago an aircraft taking off tragically hit some birds and crashed. A tragedy, but sadly, shit does happen. But what - exactly - is your point? That military aircraft shouldn't fly in the dark, or that they shouldn't crash? Both of these propositions are curious, and if implemented would severely curtail any air force's ability to function. So again - and with the great respect, what - exactly - is your point?
My point, in a nutshell, is that there wasn't an independent and open inquiry, with cross examination. What bird strike risk assessment had been carried out for the Findhorn Bay area (end of Kinloss runway) where the winter population on Canadian geese can be around 20,000? What risk assessment had been carried out regarding 'first light' take-offs, when bird/gulls/geese are on the move? How effective can a dawn search for roosting birds be around the Findhorn estuary? An MOD in-house BOI is unlikely to admit that they were inadequate. Remember, it was the Coroner at the XV230 'independent' inquest who was bold enough to say that the Nimrod was not airworthy, and never had been, not the BOI.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I served as a Nimrod Flight Line engineering officer for several years, I do know the area and the risks involved

Waiting for a link to the BOI report to be provided.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 13:44
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 53
Posts: 389
Having flown Nimrods out of Kinloss for many years, I'm well aware of the issue and the development of regulations which cover it. I don't really understand why you are dragging up what is a very bad memory for most Nimrod operators, and then trying to link it to policies which were not in place at the time, just to prove a personal point or points score.

Why the focus on the bay, its the other end of the runway; the issue was with the farmer and his approach to the MOD presence. This had nothing to do with the Canadian Geese, if you are as familiar with Kinloss and as informed as you say, you would know this.

Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 19th Nov 2020 at 14:06.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 14:22
  #30 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 868
I don't really understand why you are dragging up what is a very bad memory for most Nimrod operators, and then trying to link it to policies which were not in place at the time, just to prove a personal point or points score.
Sorry Bob, you are wrong. The Fatal Accident and Sudden Death Act 1976 was in force but was bypassed, as it was for the next 35 years. The 'collusion' between the MoD and the Crown Office of Scotland deprive military personnel of their basic rights. I don't have to prove a point, I did that before the Justice Committee in 2015; didn't see you there.

You say that the Gulls were using a farmer's field in the 'undershoot', so it was a known problem. What action was taken to overcome that problem?

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 14:29
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: home for good
Posts: 494
I had tried to be polite and circumspect in my post. I know the area well and some of those on the aircraft that day. The birds were gulls as Sideshow Bob has elaborated. I'd suggest if there is a campaign to wage against FAI/BOI/Scottish Law/English Law etc, it be taken to a legal forum rather than a military aviation forum.
Sandy Parts is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 14:38
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Once a Squirrel Heaven (or hell!), Shropshire UK
Posts: 773
I'm intrigued at the number of 126 birds found on the runway. In early '73 I landed back at Kinloss before dawn after an AEW sortie 'up North'. On round out a large flock of seagulls lifted off the runway in front of us, nicely illuminated by the landing lights - we went straight through them with lots of thumping. A large number of birds and remains were removed from the engines and leading edges and the Shack was hosed down and declared 'S'. We were later told 126 had been found/removed from the runway as well, and I remember making out a 'Birdstrike' report including that information. What happened to it I don't know.
Shackman is online now  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 14:40
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 53
Posts: 389
DV, sorry I can't be as polite as my former colleague Sandy Parts, not only are you rude but you are extremely disrespectful. I am an ex member of 206 Sqn, I have many friends who were on XV256, as I did on XV230 (the crew compromised mainly of ex 206 Sqn personnel). The The Fatal Accident and Sudden Death Act 1976 is not the point, it is the aspersions you are throwing around about how flights were authorized and conducted in 1980. Try researching the regulations of the time before you try applying MAA risk management to 1980's aviation.

The main issue with your argument is that you have made a conclusion that you are trying to make the facts fit rather than following the facts to the conclusion they represent. It's the basics of accident investigation.

Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 19th Nov 2020 at 15:15.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 15:12
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 51
Posts: 594
Originally Posted by Distant Voice View Post

For the avoidance of any doubt, I served as a Nimrod Flight Line engineering officer for several years, I do know the area and the risks involved


DV
Originally Posted by Distant Voice View Post
My point, in a nutshell, is that there wasn't an independent and open inquiry, with cross examination. What bird strike risk assessment had been carried out for the Findhorn Bay area (end of Kinloss runway) where the winter population on Canadian geese can be around 20,000? What risk assessment had been carried out regarding 'first light' take-offs, when bird/gulls/geese are on the move? How effective can a dawn search for roosting birds be around the Findhorn estuary? An MOD in-house BOI is unlikely to admit that they were inadequate. Remember, it was the Coroner at the XV230 'independent' inquest who was bold enough to say that the Nimrod was not airworthy, and never had been, not the BOI.

DV
Surely if you were a Nimrod Flight Line Engineer Officer, wouldn't that have put you a great position to find the above answers out.
MATELO is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 15:18
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 4,554
If this had been a civilian accident, fatal or otherwise, the accident report and any other FAI/Coroners Court finding would have long since been posted here or linked to. This was an RAF fatal accident in Scotland though, with no such links, as they either don't exist or have yet to be posted. If the former then it rather underlines the OP's point, if the latter then the sooner the better to avoid any further bickering.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 15:50
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 53
Posts: 389
There is only an accident summary, as was the norm then and already read by DV. Having read the summary, the actions taken to mitigate birds are normal and advice had been sort from the ABU; mitigations had been put in place in line with ABU advice.

Last edited by Sideshow Bob; 19th Nov 2020 at 16:15.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 17:08
  #37 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 868
This was an RAF fatal accident in Scotland though, with no such links, as they either don't exist or have yet to be posted.
They do not exist. Confirmed by the Crown Office and Prosecution Service in a letter to the Scottish Justice Committee in 2015. The only 'military' FAI to have taken place was for the MOK accident and only because civilians were on-board the helicopter.

As far as I can make out the exclusion started with the XV256 accident. That is why it is important to understand the full story.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 17:23
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 868
There is only an accident summary, as was the norm then and already read by DV.
Bob, most unlikely, the clue is in the word 'summary'. There had to be a full inquiry which was summarised.

In the early 1970's I was the President of a Kinloss Unit Inquiry into mercury contamination found in a Nimrod in NMSU. I had a board member to assist me and written statements taken. A full report was prepared, signed by myself and the board member, which included all statements and photographs along with conclusions and recommendation.

DV
Distant Voice is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 17:36
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 53
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by Distant Voice View Post
Bob, most unlikely, the clue is in the word 'summary'. There had to be a full inquiry which was summarised.

. A full report was prepared, signed by myself and the board member, which included all statements and photographs along with conclusions and recommendation.

DV
By norm, I mean that in those days full reports were not released, just summaries. Even then, summaries were not issued for all accident; it depended. Again, this was long before current data rights were in law so there was no requirement to make these things public.
Sideshow Bob is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2020, 20:27
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 80
Posts: 4,554
It would seem that the FAI that should have been triggered by this tragic accident was denied to the families of the deceased because of a cosy stitch up between the MOD and the Crown Office that, according to DV, probably began with this very accident . He has managed to ensure that such a disreputable stitch up has now ceased. I cannot understand the hostility that his enquiries into this fatal accident have engendered. Every time a light is shone into the murky corridors of the MOD the same knee jerk responses occur. The cover up of the illegal actions of RAF VSOs who subverted the UK Air Safety system has been exposed, not by the MOD, not by Judicial Inquiries, not by Parliament, not by the Media, but by a bunch of civilians. So nothing happens, the wagons draw closer, the cover up continues, and avoidable accidents and needless deaths continue.

If professional aviators can't be bothered to demand a reform of this rotten system they should at least desist from denigrating those like DV who work to stop the gross waste in blood and treasure going on and on.

Beating my drum? Bloody right, and I'll go on doing so!
Chugalug2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.