E-3D Storm Damage
 

Found these pic's on another website today. Looks like the storms managed to cause a bit damage to one of Waddo's E-3D's. Maybe the greound equipment should have been tied down, doh :ugh:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...356/prang2.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...356/prang1.jpg

It is an 'aircraft simulator' used for towing practice, it was chocked but the high winds caused it to jump the chocks and it set of down the pan and stopped where it is shown in the pictures.

I was wondering when these might end up on the internet, I just hope they do not have an 'inquest' on how they got there. Could make life interesting if they do.

Any engineer-types willing to comment on a possible "cat". Looks pretty serious??? :*

It is still being assessed by RAF & Northrop Grumman (who are now the Design authority for the aircraft), then it will be decided who is to repair it, when and how long it will take. If I find out I will post info, unless someone here beats me to it or I am spoken to (see comment in my previous post).

I don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!! :ugh:
Take cover!

Hmm rocket science dept will no doubt look at cctv tie to images at 13:33 and 15:55, wonder who's there then?:ugh: An interesting way to hand in your notice!:uhoh:

TheWizard

don't think it will take even the slowest sleuth very long to find the source of these pics as the original poster on 'another' forum lists his location and eludes to his job with his forum name! Doh!! :ugh:

Sorry, I never thought to find the original site to see if I know who it was, but I am intrigued so will look.

No joy so far, so not very good at the old sleuthing business.

Jumpseater: Most of the station was there around those times with more than one digital camera being used to record the event for prosperity.

As I've said on another forum,this is exactly the type of publicity that the recent DIN about capturing images was supposed to prevent.

Chances are though the guy who took the pic will just plead ignorance and be given a caution.

Looks like the witch hunting culture is rearing its ugly head again. What happened to the "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." environment that the military were trying to foster?:yuk:

Or is it due to the shiney ar$ed office types who will be baying for blood because their entire 2007- 2008 budget has just been swallowed by an E-3D?:{


TW

I did not think that my comments were taken as meaning that it is the start of a witch hunt by me when I get back to work, I was merely intrigued as to wether it was someone I knew. As to "Let's find out what went wrong and stop it happening again." that is the culture in the RAF that I was used to during the latter part of my career, and is normally what I find in inustry since I have left, unfortunately Planet Waddington is in a time warp and they have yet to catch up with the rest of the RAF.

Exrigger.


Certainly wasn't a jibe at yourself. Sorry if you if you took my comment badly.

It was merely an observation and my own opinion of the event and the whole tone of the thread.


TW

There were actually two aircraft damaged! Still, it won't make any impact on current Ops as the E3-D don't do Ops; only exercises. They are, however, still very, very important so they keep telling us (especially those ground trades in a temporary flying role who think they are aircrew).

Despite the apparent damage shown on the photo's, I will stick my neck out and say it's probably nowhere near as bad as it appears. Think of like a head wound---lots of mess, but when you clean up there's usually very little real damage.

Mr Boeing's skins are not that thick really ( based on personal experience with 707 / 737 / 757 types ) and the structures are equally, comparatively speaking "flimsy" to save weight as I recall. Hence, when you get a crimp, they tend to look far worse than they are. What damage has been done to any systems behind the skin is another matter of course.

I am sure though, that the anal palpitations of the beany brigade will reduce in intensity once it is assessed. Who does the repair will be interesting though---CWP from Boeing perhaps ?.

Shame the powers that be decided it was a good idea to get rid of the deep repair and maintenance capability---or MU's in another time and place-because, whilst they may not have been able to do the complete repair, much of the nitty gritty and clean up / rectification would certainly have been within their capability. As it is, I bet this all goes on the bill.

To be honest, I dont see what the problem is? If you have read through the DIN with regards to photography you will notice two things. One, its total b:mad: k's and virtually stops you taking any photographs of military aircraft on an RAF base whilst you are serving in the RAF. Two, its clearly been written for the muppets who insist on going OOA and taking pictures of dead bodies, POW's etc.

What harm has posting these pictures done?

samuraimatt:

I was not particulary looking for anyone, I happened to mention to my partner, after it happened, that I wonder if any photos would end up on the web and then on here. When they did appear here I was merely wondering out loud, so to speak, who of the people I know who took photos it might have been. Nothing sinister, but as it seems that my comments have been taken to mean I am fishing for information to report them on Monday, I will not make any further attempt to find out. Nor will I be shouting guess what I know, please sir, me sir on monday either.

As might be apparent, I work there so know what happened and that another aircraft recieved a glancing blow on the nose as the equipment travelled past at approx 30 mph (rumour estimate) before embedding itself into the other aircraft, there was a fuel loss as well.

Amended to add that I do not believe any harm has been done in posting these pictures.

The harm is that what this person has done is not permitted,full stop!! Whoever took the pic is obviously employed to work on a military establishment,whether the person is military or civilian is irrellevant.To be allowed to take pictures on a military establishment you require a photo permit issued by the Security Flight regardless of what it is you want to take pictures of.If you then want to publish any pictures that you have taken, you require to have the pictures vetted and authorised by the Security Flight.

Although the recent DIN issued by the MOD was primarily to stop pics from ops or in theatre being published,it was also introduced to stop this type of picture getting into the public domain.

If the RAF or the MOD wanted pictures of this incident to be released into the public domain they would have done so themselves.Rules are rules and the person that posted these originally has broken them,thats where the harm is.

Rules are rules?!!

I always thought they were for the guidance of wise men and adherance by idiots.

There is a massive difference between doing things right and doing the right thing and attitudes that 'Rules are Rules' and must be obeyed have contributued to the downfall of this once fine service.

I do not think fantaman, and I certainly did not think that this thread would turn into what was intimated by others. fantaman posted the pictures from else where as a point of interest, I merely mentioned a few facts behind the pictures and was not expecting it to turn into anything else.

Maybe the moderators would consider removing the thread as it seems it may get blown up out of proportion.

I do not believe this is a sacking/disciplinary offence either especially when it is considered the other threads on this site that are discussed in minute and accurate detail of what is currently going on within the services.

Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not? :ouch:



Are you setting up the if, no and but, argument to a Witchfinder general type of outfit?


If you are, you should be ducked at the stake whilst wearing a parsnip for a nose.

You should note my point though.


TW

All he's done is taken a photo of a bit of GSE that just so happens to have an aircraft in the background.

Some people get their kecks in a twist over bugger all.

Rules may be rules but you can never put the genie back in the bottle.
The Official Secret's Act of 1911 made great play of the offence of sketching military facilities etc. Mainly, I imagine, because a sketch was a more covert means of gathering intelligence than a photograph and did not need bulky equipment.
Furthermore naval officers had been instructed in the skills of sketching and drawing as the only viable way of securing intelligence.
Clearly new technologies can reduce the need for sketches etc hence the need to widen the scope of the Act. But the speed technology and the affordability of image capture devices far outstrips the ability of the plods to police it.
As thrashed out earlier on the DIN Photography ban, you can capture an image, transmit it, and delete the evidence such that it cannot be proved locally who did it.
When you find the camera, telephone, webcam, CCTV or whatever you still have to prove who captured the image.
"Not me Gov, I always leave my . . . in my desk."

Nice to see the speculation about how much effort may be expended tracking down the photman - will anyone put any time into finding out which group of monkeys were responsible for the damage in the first place? Obviously we can add 'effects of wind' to 'effects of snowfall' - in the list of natural phenomena that catch us out very time they occur! It's not as if we had no idea it was going to blow a hooley that day? Just as well we have a huge budget to pay for all these c*ck-ups...doh

Pontius,
I remember being taught at school that the train was a form of communication. In other words, it enabled people to take information from one place to another.
All that is happening now is an extension of the mode of communication.
If you put the tools of communication within reach of the communicator, then despite DIN, this will happen wether it is liked or not.
With the advent of the digital camera and the mobile phone, which usually now are equipped with a digital camera, is it not correct to say that such a method of communication will preside over more "normal" methods?
I agree with what you say. Have you seen the reports about the withdrawal from Google earth's sensitive coverage? I hope so.
In my own opinion,
The event has not breached any security issue other than the fact it has put only one aircraft out of action. Apart from a few tell tales, who knows where the aircraft is from or operates from apart from this thread.
Lessons can be learned and so they should,UNDER OPEN REPORTING PROTOCOLS, although that will not be open to debate (and should not,)here on this site.
The event could have happened to any aircraft at any airbase or airport worldwide.
So let us stop the witch hunt now.
Has someone shouted "Beadwindow" ?
No they haven't and there is no need to.
TW

If someone learns something about securing ground equipment in windy conditions the photos will have been well worth showing.

I remember reading lots of articles about the conflicts in the first gulf conflict. How everyone overcome the 'problems' and managed to get the job done. The trouble was nobody would say what the problems were, so how was anyone to learn? After gulf war 2 I read similar about similar problems...

If we supress our mistakes they will be made again by someone else. Lets at least take something positive out of this unfortunate incident.

Authorities are furious about this, the safe working max speed for the equipment is 20 mph ;)

Important Aircrew
 

OOOOH Avtur, Harsh words. That will upset them, especially the ones who've gone and bought real aircrew flying jackets aswell!:=

Ranger get a life! who cares it's just a pic of some storm damage?
Sanctimonious twaddle!

Having browsed his photo collection and knowing the real photographer of some of the images therein, can I suggest that he may not be the photographer at all, and that he has borrowed them from elsewhere. In which case he is only guilty of providing a link here.

His interest in bling riddled cars and Page 3 models with their clothes on, suggests a young man in his early twenties, as his interests are identical to my son. The Nimrod nose cone with damage (Lightning? ice?) looked like it had an interesting story attached to the situation. Probably old news, but can anybody expand?

A recent BOI for an aircraft lost in theatre saw most of the pics used as evidence leaked onto the net. Not aware of any action taken against anyone despite the sensitivity of the subject so whoever posted these pics should be safe.
I saw the RAFP unable to make charges stick to one of our techies who launched an unprovoked attack on a colleague at a station function in front of several hundred witnesses; so, even if they go after this guy, I would still say he's safe.
By the way, if you've seen this, should you report it to avoid being an accomplice?
N Joe

Further to my earlier posts which I omitted to say and something picked upon by Mike Jenvey.
AT LEAST NO ONE WAS HURT.
What costeth a life :uhoh:

Are you talking about me?

That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!;)

Has Ranger just 'outed' himself as a scuffer?

Obviously someone has, as the original post with the pics on another forum has been deleted!!:hmm:

My comment related to the fact that from my source, peeps 'close' to the incident were told in no uncertain terms that if piccies did appear, it would be 'goodnight Vienna' for the culprit. I didn't mention the second damaged frame though I knew of it before Avtur's post. That the pics have dissapeared from the other forum could indicate that the threat is being taken seriously!

Rules are fools and for guidance of the wise are they not?
They certainly are and I hope I have been wise in following them.
Sanctimonious twaddle!
Certainly not,its fact.
That'll be exactly the same wording you posted on UKAR 6 minutes earlier....have you got an axe to grind here?!
Certainly not,same subject happened to be on another forum that I am a member of Mr.P.You have done the same on occasion albeit under a different pseudonym.
Whats a scuffer???

I just get a bit peeved when I am told I can no longer bring my camera into work to take pics, although I have followed the rules over the years and had everything I have taken on base vetted prior to release.A DIN gets issued and I get told my photo permit is no longer any good regardless of my rule abiding.I ask why and am told its because of images appearing in the public domain without MOD approval or security clearance,such as the examples at the start of this thread. All I'm trying to say is that rule breaking by some,regardless of how petty some may think it is,screws it up for others.

So then Ranger;

Why would you want to take your camera to work anyway...
You previously stated that if the MOD/RAF whoever wanted photos released, then they would do so themselves.:D

You are obviously not a Station clickie....so your photos are not official either!!!:=

Hope they guy responsible for this accident (for it seems to be) gets reminded of his area of responsibilty in an appropiate and measured way. Aircraft can be fixed...just takes unnecessary time, manpower & money..

Later;
MOG:cool:

I take my camera to work to capture images that Station clickies are not interested in,see my numerous threads on UKAR,also there is no station phot at my unit.I take pics whilst 'off duty'albeit still on a military establishment and I have DPA authorisation to do so,I also have my pics vetted when I have taken on other miltary establishments.They are not 'official'pics but they are approved and authorised.I have taken plenty of pics from 'on base' that have not been approved for one reason or another and these remain in my personal collection.

What station is that then...without a Clickie...

Macrihanish/ Buchan/ Saxa Vord/ Boulmer?????

not interested in UKAR...

MOG:cool: