Top Cover
 

The use of a Nimrod to act as Top Cover (or Aircraft Coordination) in Large Scale Disaster situations is recognised as 'needed' not just 'desirable'. This allows the SAR helo crews to do their job with the Nimrod crew providing procedural coordination (not control).

The Piper Alpha incident was an example of this, where further risk to the rescue services involved was minimised by coordinating action from the On-scene Commander, a Nimrod.

The relatively short PLE of helos can also be used to greatest efficiency by employing Nimrod in the initial location of those in distress.

I'm pretty convinced that a closer look at previous SAR incidents will confirm this efficient use of resources. I'm sure the ARCC will put you right Strato Q.

strato q do you remember the incident recently where a rig anchoring vessel in the North Atlantic was pulled under and sunk killing most on board including a father and son? that was a nimrod job giving top cover to helo's as well as comms relay and control.

Its been used in the past on mountain rescue call outs

If the Sea King loses an engine in the hover with the fuel tanks half full, unless there is a strong wind the crew will be ditching. A little bit more than a safety blanket if you ask me.

Sea King engines DO fail, but we've been lucky in recent years that it hasn't been at long range. Would you be happy in an aircraft with just one engine and no ejection seat whilst 240 miles offshore?:ugh:

DV
On the 12th of May you said you thought "Kapton wiring has been used for additional equipment fits such as Yellowgate".

I have been told on good authority that Kapton cabling was used in the creation of Yellowgate wiring looms. And Kapton has been used in loom repairs.

Hope this helps DV

I'm pretty sure that Kapton wiring is used in the aircraft that might be taking people on holiday this Summer as well??? It isn't exactly uncommon in aircraft is it? :eek:

LJ

Kapton Wiring
 

TD: Many thanks for that information. I have arranged for a PQ to be tabled, so we will see what the Sec of State for Defense has to say.

LJ: Yes I take your point. Just as well Joe Public does not know that Kapton wiring is highly dangerous.

DV

If you all trawl back through the posts you will see where Kapton and Yellowgate was discussed and the same things were said before. You will also see bits on civil aviation and kapton together with the appropriate links.

LJ
Perhaps if you were to read .
http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/91213-03.htm

And

http://www.fourfax.co.uk/wordpress/?page_id=96

And

http://www.geocities.com/Eureka/Conc...9/270fire.html

You may then understand some peoples concern re Kapton wiring.

Can anyone tell me how long it would have taken the Nimrod to have descended from 23,00ft to 3,000 ft given they were in an emergency situation. In other words what is that maximum rate of descent in ft per min ?

TD

You obviously know far more about the incident than I ever will, but here is a thought.

Why would they necessarily be descending at the maximum rate? From what I have read here people say they only put out a Pan call, not a Mayday. Suppose the incident happened 70 miles from the airfield (I don't know the specifics as I have said). Would you want to descent at a maximum rate down to say 3,000 ft, and fly 30 miles to the airfield at lowish level, in a country where people are potentially trying to shoot things at you.....or would you balance your rate of descent to get down to a specific height at a specific distance from the airfield? You would want to get on the ground as quickly as possible, and you can travel faster at a greater height. Just a couple of thoughts.....

As I hope you can see there are probably a lot of variables involved.

Biggus
I am trying to get some idea of the time scale from the fire breaking out at 23,000 ft to when it exploded. I know the BOI will have this in their report but I was keen to find out.

Also can anyone tell me or point me in the right direction what fire fighting epuipment is there onboard a Nimrod. Hand held/Automatic/Mechanical.

Can anyone tell me where I can obtain a copy of the Nimrod Safety Case with reference to Def Stan 00-56 issue 3??

Nimrod Safety Case Question
 

TD

The IPT should certainly have a Safety case for the aircraft. All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was. The quality of these safety cases differed between IPTs, some very good, normally when developed using outside help, some very poor, both developed internally and some of those using outside help. It would be interesting to see if the Nimrod Safety Case has been independently assessed, and by whom ?

I am not sure whether the case will be classified, I think that varies between IPTs.

Issue 3 of 00-56 is relatively new, and the Nimrod Safety Case will not be developed against that standard.

The IPT Safety Case should demonstrate the safety of the aircraft in all operational scenarios, not just peacetime. It wouldn't really be much good would it, if restricted to peacetime.

It should also be more than just a set of glib claims amounting to an argument that 'the aircraft has proved to be safe so far, so will be alright in the future', an attitude that exists in many IPTs, and not just the aviation ones.

Remember the old safety adage:
absence of evidence (of failure) is not the same as evidence of absence
I think you could read this across to several other safety threads on here.

Hope this helps.

S_H

S-H

“All IPTs were mandated to have safety cases in place by end of March 04 I think it was”.

I do not doubt this for one minute, but it merely demonstrates the complete disconnect between elements of MoD. At precisely the same time, CDP and Ministers were still upholding numerous previous rulings that safety (in general, including airworthiness) and adherence to Defence Standards (for example, 05-123) was optional, both for MoD employees and industry – the latter regardless of what their contracts said. And have continued to. These written rulings were made in the context of project managers appealing against criticism in annual reports for (allegedly) wasting time and money by striving for airworthiness and safety in various helicopters and their equipment, in accordance with said Def Stans.

It is also important to note that, while a Safety Case may exist, it has to be relevant to the aircraft build standard at any given time. It is one thing to deliver safety in the first place, but maintaining safety through life is grossly underfunded and considered a “waste of money” by many IPTs, presumably in sympathy with these CDP/Ministerial rulings.


S-H – I think I prefer your way!

BAE Systems
 

Thanks SH and tucumseh

I have emailed BAE Systems asking for a copy of the Safety Case.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B5810...ws38_oct05.pdf
Page 9 October 2005


The Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems and the Nimrod Integrated Project Team (IPT), recently won a bronze award under the pan-BAE Systems chairman's award for innovation scheme.

All IPTs must have a robust safety case and hazard log that can be fully
audited. The joint team, led by the Nimrod IPT, took the pragmatic
approach that past history and a range of traditional methods
(certification and continued integrity testing) gave an intrinsic high level of confidence in the level of safety of the aircraft. A top down approach,
identifying potential hazards, was then taken. This was followed by a
review of previous accidents and incidents to prove that the aircraft
was within acceptable safety bands (What ever that means).The approach taken to prove the safety of the Nimrod fleet is now being adopted by BAE Systems across other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights.

Thats Ok then then so after they reviewed all the accidents and incidents it was within accepable safety bands. :=:=

Perhaps I’m being unfair, but this seems a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

“Top down”? I hope they reached the aircraft equipment and ensured it was safe.

“other legacy equipment for which they hold Design Authority rights”. They don’t “hold the Design Authority rights” – they are appointed Design Authority or Custodian by MoD. And that appointment can be withdrawn.

The phrase “other legacy equipment” seems a little dismissive to me. By definition, everything in our inventory is legacy, to varying degrees. Hope they’re not too interested in big bucks for future kit to worry about maintaining the build standard of “legacy” kit.

Topcover
 

toddbabe & XferSymbol

Without getting in to a pi55ing contest with you, "topcover" has nothing to do with On Scene Commander or Aircaft Co-ordination duties, where of course a Nimrod provides a valuable contribution - Piper Alpha being an excellent example. Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore.

Mr Point - no I would not be happy on one engine 240 nm from the shore, that is why I tend to have 4.

I seem to remember a Sea King ditching in the N Sea when it went out to rescue a ditched Jaguar (?) pilot. The accidents were not far from shore, but it proved the need for caution when flying with only one engine over the sea.

Nimrod Top Cover
 

Strato Q

The term Top Cover actually covers more than one task. With a Sea King at the limit of range, the last things it need is to go searching for a vessel that requires its assistance. Therefore the main purpose is for the Nimrod to locate said vessel and home the helo to its position, at the same time acting as a comms relay to the vessel to speed the operation. In addition passing weather reports also helps the helos.(because it always occurs during bad weather and 90 kt headwinds!) It is also a better comms platform to maintain contact with the RCC, removing one other job for the Helo. As a bonus the Nimrod is there should anything go amis.

As far as the Nimrod crew is concerned, it is routine job and seldom taxing. To the Sea King crew it makes a very difficult job that little bit easier; I have never known a crew to be anything other than greatful for the company.

StratoQ
Don't know what you do, but I do know, YOU, know sod all about Nimrod SAR
I have at least 50 Top Cover entries in my log book for SeaKing, Dauphin, SR61, plus umpty SAR Trails etc,etc
The advantage of Nimrod on Top Cover is it can locate and mark the casualty day and night in all weather enabling the helo to go in and lift at extreme range when on tight fuel and lift time criteria - plus being a real time comms link to ARCC
It also gives the helo crew a nice warm feeling when at extreme range over hostile conditions that someone is watching and there to help if they get into trouble
I previously posted details of the La Parrane incident in Feb 2002 where a SeaKing lifted 22 fishermen in 17 mins at extreme range (240nm) in the north atlantic, but for some reason my post was removed
That was a classic example of Top Cover - talk to the guys at Lossie

StratoQ me thinks Buoy15 must have been crewed with you:eek:, you have even earned a lecture from a really old wetty and not for the first time:=.
Gentlemen start your bladders
Charlie sends

tucumseh
 

Whilst I do not doubt your assertion over your observations of said DefStan implementation policy, I do know that any DefStan non-compliance has to be covered by a concession, detailing any relevant impact (risk management - safety case gurus) on all manner of things (including airworthiness) before it can be signed off.
Of course, this does assume that any relevant DefSTan's were refered to in the original Spec/Contract/MOU with the supplier!

SFO

Guys, don't get too excited about that. The Chairman's Award is little more than a lightweight "tick-in-the-box-ooh-aren't-we-good-with-our-people" exercise. The fact that this case won an award is no reflection at all of how good it is.

Different departments get targets for the numbers of awards that must be submitted, the result is that towards the closing date, any old rubbish is submitted just to look good. Some people just do it in order to get a freebie p*ss-up at the award "ceremony." The current Nimrod programme's target was reduced from 2006 and I still don't believe hit the target. (If we did, it'll just prove what a farce the CA is)

SFO

“Whilst I do not doubt your assertion over your observations of said DefStan implementation policy, I do know that any DefStan non-compliance has to be covered by a concession, detailing any relevant impact (risk management - safety case gurus) on all manner of things (including airworthiness) before it can be signed off.
Of course, this does assume that any relevant DefSTan's were refered to in the original Spec/Contract/MOU with the supplier!”


Thank you. This is why I referred to a “disconnect” in MoD. Clearly, the Def Stans exist for a reason. Many were written by people with intimate knowledge and long experience of delivering to time, cost and performance – long before this became the SMART procurement mantra. What you describe is what I was taught from Day 1. And any competent contractor would INSIST on them being in the contract if MoD omitted them for any reason. So, over a hundred projects later, it came as a shock when a few non-entities (but with the patronage of their seniors) denounced me openly for striving to deliver airworthiness and safety iaw these Def Stans. And, as they had that patronage, the seniors, all the way up to junior ministerial level (the latter, I concede, merely signed what was put in front of them – but nevertheless I have the papers in question under FOI), continued to dig deeper and deeper holes for themselves through their bizarre decisions to uphold the actions taken against me. However, you’ll be glad to know I completely ignored them and, despite their efforts, the aircraft in question are safe.

"Topcover is the support of a Sea King beyond a distance from the shore, which to my recollection the Nimrod has not been needed. The same reason we do not support SAR Trails airborne anymore."

You may want to have a word with the OCU and standards team.

No pissing contest at all, its a discussion forum and we all have the right to add our ten pence worth.

:}

Changing the direction of the subject slightly, I found this thread on The Telegraph website, seems the lack of Nimrod spares is by far from a new problem...

http://my.telegraph.co.uk/claves/jun...s_problems.htm

One Question

If a Nimrod has a fire in the Bomb bay is there any way to extinguish it.

No speculation please just facts

TD, yes.

There was a bottle on the forward face of the galley bulkhead port side. Its use was practised regularly.

I always thought that the fire bottle in the pt side of the galley was there for the Hyd, Aileron and Elevator bays and not the bomb bay, hence the three positions the hose can locate into marked 'H', 'A' and 'E'.
Cant remember one marked 'BB', had a look today, no.

TD in answer to your question to my knowldge there are no fire bottles fitted to a Nimrod in the bomb bay.

"Regarding the bomb bay fire extinguisher issue. The Nimrod has a 'trooping role' and in order to be used in that manner 6 extended range fuel tanks would be fixed in the bomb bay. With this fit 10 fire extinguishers would also be fitted. However, in the normal fit we do not have either the extended range tanks or the fire extinguishers fitted. That means that day to day there is no fire protection in the bomb bay. However, the bomb bay fire drill calls for all stores to be jettisoned, and to my knowledge there has only been one actual bomb bay fire in the life of the ac. This was caused by an electrical fault causing a flare to ignite when power was supplied to the weapons carrier."

Kapton Wiring
 

For those interested in the Kapton wiring debate. From Monday's written answers.

Mick,

That looks like a typical politician's answer, explicit and precise and at the same time avoiding the issue.

TD, getting the BAES safety case may not provide the answers you are after. JSP 553 has 3 level of safety case:

1) that produced by the designer (essentially covering what they have sold you)

2) that produced by the IPT - The IPTL's safety case consists of the Designer’s safety case for the as-built standard of aircraft plus the safety justifications used by the IPTL to underpin his certification of the initial draft RTS or, for legacy platforms, the issue of the MA Release.

3) that produced by the Release to Service Authority (RTSA)- The RTSA’s safety case will initially comprise the IPTL’s safety case plus the safety justifications used by the RTSA to underpin the issue of the RTS and is applicable to the configuration of the aircraft ‘as-flown’ by the Service.

tuc, there is nothing wrong with the concept of the top down approach as long as it goes far enough in getting the evidence required. I understand that some well known people in the field were brought in by the IPT to provide a top down argument in Goal Structuring Notation. However, I know nothing of the content of that argument.

sw

Wader2 are you referring to firing an extinguishant down a tube? If so, I recall that it is one shot in nature. Can you explain a little more?

Safeware

I agree -re top down. I just expressed the hope they reached the equipment level. Routinely maintaining the build standard of equipment (which includes safety) was ditched as a policy in around 1991. I worry there is insufficient funding and experience to resurrect these build standards - in which case the 3 levels you describe are immediately compromised, as there is no seamless audit trail.

This is entirely relevant to, for example, Mull.

XferSymbol - don't need to ask the OCU or Standards - I taught most of them.

Buoy 15 - I may not have 50 topcovers in my log book, but from my seat I have a better grasp of Nimrod SAR than a wetty, even a really old one. I agree that a Nimrod is useful at extreme range, but I have no recollection of a topcover SAR where the rescue WOULD not have happened if the Nimrod was not there. Although nice for the SAR crews to have a Nimrod there, when the fleet is struggling it is an inefficient use of the a/c, which is the reason that over the last year there has been a reduction in the number of topcover sorties flown, not because fihermen are being more careful.

The topic has diverged from the original thread so my rant is over.

As ex SAR, I have to say that when you are 200 miles out, a Nimrod is very reassuring.

Never been exactly sure why, because we would still be in the water, but nice to know someone would be calling for help etc

tuc,
Defining the assessed standard is one of the key things about the advice from Boscombe (and any VALID safety case). However, how an IPT maintains their audit trail, or how the precession of evidence through the 3 safety cases is justified may be another matter. Reminds me of the story about the crock of sh!t that becomes policy.
sw

Strato Q: You may be alright Jack with 4 engines, but the Sea King won’t be after a single engine failure in the hover. Unlike the pilots, the rearcrew don't have their single-seat dinghy attached to then via a lanyard and are almost certain to end up in the water in just an immersion suit.

Having a Nimrod available to give you an accurate position on the way out to an incident means that you don't have to waste precious fuel searching for the vessel in distress. This gives you the largest possible margin for error when it comes to on-scene endurance during a long-range incident.

There hasn't been a long-range ditching of a Sea King because of good fortune, not because of planning: the Wessex force wasn’t quite so lucky.

As a crew member on an aircraft with 4 hydraulic systems that can serve the flying controls, and also 4 engines, do you really think that providing topcover once every 6 weeks is really burdening the Nimrod fleet?

Mr Point, I reckon you're wasting your breath.

Some people are way above being told anything - read the arrogance showing through in some of the replies.

There will be a reply - I can't see me being allowed anything like the last word!

:hmm:

Gents, gents, gents

Topcover is a very good idea - I have many in my log book from SAR trails to shepherding a 100Kts Sea King home from 200+ miles off shore (Not easy at 200Kts-lots of dog legs). Even went out to meet a helo trogging down from Kef and followed her back.

However, that was a while ago. I seem to fell that, once we went to a 2hr call out time, the number of helo top covers reduced dramatically. Shame, nothing worse than waiting to go flying, and not. (Not wishing ill on mariners etc. Bit like being an Ambulance Paramedic - a job is good for you, but bad for the poor injured person!)

And as for spares - I recommend you read Vulcan 607. I was astounded, it was my life only 25 years ago.

Can do, will do, have to do - that's all there is. No maliciousness, no weak leadership (a little misunderstanding perhaps), but years of reduced funding and not being able to justify to the Politicians maintenance of a capability that doesn't appear to be required.

Tappers Dad. I do sympathise with you tremendously. I lost friends and wish there had been a way of avoiding it - of course, for the grace of God, it could have been me for I would have flown equally willingly. I'm afraid I can't see any one root cause. We had hoped, (and the precautions we took to reduce the risk of fire worked), hoped that one of last year's fuel leaks would provide the answer to XV230. It didn't. The aeroplane is just old. I hope you get the answer you need. You may not be ultimately satisfied, because I don't believe there is an answer. But PLEASE, don't get involved in all the other speculation on this site - it appears to degrade your core search.

We will remember them. Rest well.

Snow Dog