Machrihanish:Closed
Buchan:Closed
Saxa Vord:Closed
Boulmer:Too far south for me!

I'm based at the Northen Air Weapons Range.

Hope you have a fast shutter speed then.....:8
But then again, you are too far out of the way to be affected by an E3Dink.....so don't get so frothed up about someone elses illicit piccies.:sad:

Bet the NAAFI bop is a real killer up there!!!:ok:


MOG:cool:

Ranger havent got a clue what ukar is ? certainly haven't posted on any other sites, just think you are talking horse!
I don't see any harm in that Photo rules or no rules.
SADDO

Sorry Ranger, that was slightly tongue-in-cheek....:)


Out of interest, are the images on here a link to the originals or copies that have been posted here? The post from which they came has gone so I suspect the person responsible has decided to take them off ... maybe someone should do the same here since he obviously doesn't want them online anymore....

pictures
 

hello gents

well this is my first post......:)

all i want to say is............##I am the person who put these pictures on another website, infact i have put them on several websites........:hmm:

i was merly pointing out that the wind has caused havoc.......
sorry to say as a result of some comments made on this forum, one site has removed my post....

all i will say is, i know full well the rules of photography in the military,
and i will also go on to say i will and shall do as i please, :ugh:

if anyone has a problem with what i post on the internet, please feel free to send me an e-mail or personal message, i will be more than pleased to talk about my actions....

there are no dead bodies here....i did my fair share of repatreating them from iraq!!

pictures
 

no actually im a bit annoyed that my post was removed from the other forum,

i posted the pictures, on several sites actually, as a point of interest not to point blame,

i know the rules on piccies in the military, but hey, i thought someone might have been interested!

not many here im guessing!!!

if anyone else feels they need to point out how wrong i was, feel free to email or pm me, i will be happy to discuss it!

no not tired ratty....lol:}

just bloomin anoyed at the pettyness of some people:mad:

never mind, i will get some sleep....:zzz: ...honest:{

Oops. Stand corrected :sad:

Since the images here were posted my someone other than yourself, I wasn't sure if you actually knew they were here - I think most assumed you had asked from them to be removed from CBFS. Hope you didn't think I was trying to put word in your mouth....:sad:

As it happens, they were indeed very interesting to see :)

Interesting discussion about possible security breach, but as a member of the public I reckon that this is something that shouldn't be covered up. The taxpayer will have to pay to fix it.

We had a B767-300 suffer similar damage at Heathrow when the handling agent's tow tug ran away and took a bite out of the forward hold's belly skin. Repair was by replacement of the damaged frames, stringers and skin. Follow-up was an 'overblow' check to seat all the parts and work harden the repaired area. Total bill came to just over US$8 million. Plus the aircraft was out of service for nearly three months.

I believe that wind damage is classed as an Act of God by the insurers. So, now you know the awful truth. God is a Mover... :}

Given that He moves in mysterious ways that are beyond the congnisance of mere mortals, I'd have thought that was obvious... ;)

It's easy to underestimate the power of a good blow......:ooh:

Some years ago, an unforecast hurricane hit Bermuda where we were positioned for an air show with a VC10K. It was so suddent that we were locked in the hotel and unable to take any additional precautions over the routine ones of asking for extra chocks to be lashed in place.

The wind and driving rain hosed the chocks out from under the aircraft, which then went for a little walk before being stopped by spectator 'bleachers' set up for the air show. Damage was one bent pod impeller and one scratched slat; both were soon repaired. As an extra precaution, the ground crew also carried out the 'after flight through severe turbulence' and 'heavy landing' procedures - nothing untoward found.

We were very lucky, having been parked on the USN side of the base; the USN runs a tight ship and there was no gash or loose rubbish to dmage the aircraft any further. Whereas a Nimrod wasn't so lucky, with substantial damage over at the civil side of the airport.

When Big G / Big A (delete as applic) decides to show who's boss, you can take all the precautions imagineable, but at the end of the day the wind will often win.

Some thread creep here me thinks?

Someone puts some pics of an E3 on here, damaged in a freak accident. Its hardly a secret aircraft?! You could probably have seen the damage from the road/viewing area with binos.

I seem to remember (although my mind has been warped by 3 pages of tedium) that it was asked as to a likely cat of damage and how likely it was to be back in service?

I would say Cat 3/4 at a guess with a Boeing /whoever working party required and a rather nice repair scheme .

Not being one of you technical types, what does cat 3/4 mean and what do the rest mean. Does it go up to seven?

Safety_Helmut,
What an utterly stupid statement to make!
How on earth can the damage cat be possibly 'frigged' to let the aircrew off the hook? How stupid of you to even suggest a thing.
Just for the record, this particular piece of ground equipment, is operated solely by the ground crew and has got nothing to do with the aircrew whatsoever - arse!
TSM

Safety_Helmut

Sir, I do not believe you frankly. I am either being extremely naiave or you are telling big porkies. Accident catagories are NOT determined by someone's opinion, and cannot be frigged at all. They are a judgement (yes) based on actual damage to an aircraft, NOT the circumstances, and are judged by an independant team of experts (not, as you imply, the culprit of the damage and his mates) If you are really suggesting that you know factually of 'cover ups' on this matter or instances where damage has NOT been accurately reported, then I (and probably the staff at IFS and AAIB) would be most interested in hearing about them.

To suggest that... 'repair work took place at an inappropriate level of repair organisation' is disgraceful, appalling and if it is true, then it is almost certainly illegal and I would suggest that you either retract your remarks immediately or give some examples that can be investigated by the appropriate authorities to substantiate the 'illegal' repairs.

Comments of this nature will undoubtedly find their way into the press, and that is the last thing the RAF needs right now. Allegations of mis-practice, concerning aircraft engineering and ultimately safety will be investigated, make no doubt about that. Nevertheless, I am certain there will many aircrew who are now wondering if the aircraft they are flying has been fixed/repaired by the appropriate or maybe inappropriate organisation as you suggest.

You might have just opened a big can here Helmut, and I am genuinely shocked by your accusations!

Regards to all
TSM

TSM

You have a PM

S_H

Presumably Safety_Helmut has deleted the post which had TSM so worked up????

I cannot comment on current aircraft damage assessment methods but I doubt if they are much different from when I had the pleasure of being an Aircraft Surveyor (431MU, Brueggen). On notification of damage that the parent Station felt was beyond their capabilities, one of us would hot foot it, armed with the appropriate Vol 6's etc and carry out an in-depth examination. This is not just of the immediate visible damage but also looking for secondary damage caused, for example, by transmission of shock loads. If the damage could be repaired in accordance with (iaw) the Vol 6, the aircraft would be deemed Cat 2 but the Station could ask for help from the MU (Cat 2 Assist). Cat 3 would result in the arrival of an MU working party armed with repair schemes (in some cases drawn by the Aircraft Surveyor) and detailed repair instructions. Depending on the findings, we may well have needed to contact the Design Repair Authority for authority and/or additional repair schemes.
Damage beyond the MU's capabilities is CAT 4 (repair by Contractors working party) and if beyond economical repair then CAT 5.

I cannot imagine that standard of the actual repair work has ever been influenced by what earlier posts imply but politics can and did influence whether something was deemed as CAT 3 or CAT 4.

Lyneham Lad

Could you elaborate on what you mean by politics affecting categories? I was always of the opinion that, as you state, the difference between 3 and 4 is down to an MU being able to repair as opposed to a civilian organisation/manufacturer? I don't see where politics comes into it.

Clearly S_H you have rattled TSM's cage somewhat! What did you say? From the Monkeys comments it must have been something pretty serious!

As for the AWACS, I too am not an expert, but I would have thought cat4 myself, if for no other reason than Mr Boeing will be wanting to fix the aircraft correctly and properly. That said, the bill from him will be astronomical, and if Joe Bloggs down the road will do for a bit less, chances are he'll get the job!

The Winco

Winco

I mentioned in #5 that Northrop Grumman are now the Design Authority, as well as prime contractor for the Sentry support. The decision will be, as I understand it, either the team at Waddington or RSS (or whatever they are called nowadays) from St Athan. The last repair for spar corrosion was carried out by a St Athan team. HTH

I seem to recall being told in the dim distant past that one of the differences between Cat 3 and Cat 4 (other than the obvious damage and repair means) was that the cause of / reason for a Cat 3 could (but not necessarily always) be investigated by a Unit Inquiry (appointed by, and reporting to, the stn cdr) whereas the cause of / reason for a Cat 4 or Cat 5 had to be investigated by a Board of Inquiry (convened by, and reporting to, the AOC). Maybe this is the politics that Lyneham Lad refers to?

Purely out of curiosity I would be grateful if anyone who knows for sure could confirm if this is one of the markers for deciding whether to run a UI or BoI.

W

I cannot possibly comment on the above............

The particular case I had in mind when I made my comment was about a Harrier in RAFG. It suffered engine failure on the approach and impacted very heavily in the undershoot at Guetersloh. The damage to the fuselage in particular was very extensive and even BAe (as was) sucked their teeth and shook their heads. However, 431MU was short of work and was fighting to justify it's existence as a repair organisation so (AIUI) a political (or perhaps deemed tactical) decision was made to declare the aircraft Cat3 in order to justify keeping a RAFG aircraft repair resource.

We ended up carrying out repair work that went beyond even what BAe had carried out previously and for the first time ever (AFAIK) BOTH of longitudinal beams for the main U/C were replaced as well as much other work to the fuselage. Nigh on 3 years of continuous work by the team saw the aircraft successfully returned to Guetersloh in fine fettle.

The military Vol 6 is called the Structures repair Manual or SRM in civil parlance. Damage beyond the SRM requires a repair design done by a suitably approved design organization. Looking at the damage to that E3 I'd say its well beyond a B707 or KC135 SRM and is therefore beyond the RAF Vol 6. Boeing would easily design a repair and also provide many of the parts needed to carry it out, but its well within an M.U.'s capability to accomplish it. I don't know if any RAF M.U. has the overblow equipment to 'work' the completed repair, but that could be hired in from Boeing too. Repair design contracted out with accomplishment in-house? I reckon that makes it Cat 3.

Sorry to digress, Ratty 1 stated :
Yet again another sensible thread has an attempt to hijack it into being a "we all hate movers" list.
Ratty, was your mother shagged by a mover or maybe you were rejected by the movements trade ? either way :
http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/...CLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
My apologies to all for the interuption.:ok:

I think the quote above touches on the political side. Ie the time factor to repair.

Let us say the damage is borderline Cat 3/4. In other words the station resources could do a competent repair to the same standard as the contractor. If the work is Cat 4 it will cost money to the contractor but free up station resources and possibly be done quicker.

OTOH as Cat 3 it will eat up station resources but cost less and may take longer.

How you pay therefore is the political drive to fudge the Cat.

Could that be the case?

Having spent many hours arguing with the structures desk at the IPT, I would say that Damage Cats are often determined purely by one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage. The issue is not, however, anything to do with a cover up, it is purely a battle of wills over who has the money and manpower to carry out the repair.

N Joe

N Joe,

I have been on a couple of BoI's and I am slightly bemused by your comments also. Are you actually saying that, in your opion and experience, an individual can make a decision of an aircraft damage cat based purely on 'one individual's opinion with only passing regard to the actual extent of the damage' ??

In my experience, the issue has been about getting together a bunch of experts to inspect, determine and try to put a value on the amount of damage the aircraft has sustained. I would agree perhaps, that station resources and £££ may have a very slight effect on the final outcome, but I can't agree about the 'passing regard' bit.

The winco

E3 Storm damage
 

Is the jet fixed and flying now?

Two SAC riggers an a roll o speed tape slapped her up an said "She'll be right boss, it'll do a trip!!":p

Not!!

I would surmise it's still sitting somewhere waiting for the flying buns to finish before a man with egg on his hat makes a decision

Repair contract now awarded.....

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=215832

Didn't take too long :rolleyes:

And the repair will only take another 11 months :eek:

Just glad it's being fixed. Had visions of her being laid up in Alpha as a hanger queen with no chance of being repaired.

Why is it being fixed? Do we need 7 E-3's in the forseeable future, aren't we looking to save £1 billion

Compare to the time scale for this repair:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=301696&page=4

OK, the E3 puncture is far "deeper" than the B737, and will require further interior strip out, but the 737 damage is spread over a larger area.

The construction / build / repair of the E3 / B707 / B737NG is very similar.

So whilst the 2 year repair drags on, RAF down another airframe and increased pressure for all concerned to maintain the few left not in repair or sched maintenance!

WOW after all this time am i right in thinking this jet has been hangared and has not flown and only now are they going to repair it ?

Yep, that's normal speed for the Ministry.

By comparison, when I worked for TNT we once tw@tted a 146 in similar style at LGG when the tractor pushing the aircraft out of a hangar following maintenance lost traction in the snow and skidded around on the towbar, taking out two fuselage frames. The aircraft was repaired on site inside four weeks, IIRC.