Wader 2

I agree.

But I must say I’m impressed that the MoD could actually produce such statistics, given that the funding necessary to collect, collate, analyse and report was largely pulled from 1991-93, and never resurrected. I’m not saying it wasn’t done thereafter, but it became optional. You’d be unlikely to have similar detail for most avionics. And it certainly wouldn’t be accurate, or have been subjected to a thorough engineering appraisal.

The very existence of the data may indicate concern over the failure rate. A fuel system failure every 12 flying hours (regardless of their definition which, if anything, is likely to tend to make reliability look good) would, in my experience, lead to Engineering Authorities and MoD Technical Agencies begging, stealing or borrowing money to investigate potential safety problems VERY URGENTLY. (Bearing in mind that money to investigate safety problems was also slashed at the same time. I do not mind admitting that I lied through my back teeth on many an occasion to acquire or re-direct funding to investigate safety issues I’d been instructed to ignore).

Assuming such investigations and subsequent product improvement (modifications , changes, SEMs etc) took place, it would be reasonable to assume they were “firefighting” just to keep the failure rate stable over that period. I know nothing of Nimrod (MR) support, so am willing to be put right. But it emphasises your last point that accurate information is required, which requires a properly phrased question.

tucumesh, altering the statistics to 1 every 12 hours, given sorties of 6-9 hrs and not counting flight refuelling means either every other flight or, assuming no faults during shorter sorties, one flight on every LROFP or whatever they call them now.

As a matter of interest, it took MoD just 7 working days to come up with those detailed stats. The question was placed by the MP on 19th April and an answer given in parliament on 1st May. It could indicate that the figures were at hand, at the time the question was placed, in support of a BOI finding that the Nimrod's fuel system is sound and has shown no deterioration over the last decade. But you would have to be of a suspicious mind to think that of MoD.

DV

Its odd as the question was clearly planted - how on earth did the MP know which units to ask the question in? Not exactly household knowledge to ask for defects/50Flight hours is it?
I'm not really sure what it shows - the problem has not got worse, but is a known issue with Nimrods for many years, and is being tracked. Its also clear there have been alot of incidents without serious incident if you see what I mean.
I personally don't suspect any cover up here - its not really part of UK flight safety culture is it? Which, on the whole, I think should still be regarded with respect and integrity, no? (I was last involved in 2003).
Look at the Mk3 Chinooks - left in a shed for years over the faintest whiff of a safety issue (which IMHO is something of a statistical red herring, though I note many a Boscombe purist (with a vested interest mind) would disagree).
On the whole I think its still true that UK engineering culture is one that DOES NOT cut corners on air safety issues and if anything errs on caution and retains a healthly open attitude to understand crashes / human factors issues properly & places correct emphasis on learning from mishaps and not apportioning blame.
(yes, yes noting early Chinook Mk3 architecture decisions etc. - but its STILL in the shed remember, never fully cleared, so the culture persists at the end of the day).
NB Whilst I also believe Mull was a crew issue, not technical, the blot on the above is the decision of the BoI re the crew blame for which I offer no defence - their loss and the knowledge that the Mull incident was down to crew should have been enough to learn from for the wider RAF aircrew community. This incident rather flys in the face of the "no blame" culture which I think still prevails in air accident investigation, or do the learned here think this has really changed?

"....Further, on inspection of another ac in theatre a small hole was found in the pipe. The pipe is welded to several brackets which are themselves attached to the supporting rib wall and the hole was close to one of the welds.

It is not uncommon for there to be pressure spikes during the refuelling process as refuel valves are closed elsewhere during the process. It is possible that repeated pressure spikes or repeated applications of normal pressure during either ground refuelling or AAR might have lead to the weakening of the weld and the subsequent hole. Atomised fuel could then escape into the space. What is missing, however, is an ignition source and that is a bit of a stumper.

If we assume that somehow ignition took place it is conceivable that the fire could then heat a fuel tank that is positioned in the wing root area, and this may have led to the explosion.

What is interesting to ponder is that the same airframes are generally being used for the Gulf theatre due to their fit. These few frames would be used in AAR more frequently than the other ac in the fleet. This argument might also be backed up by the fact that the fuel pipe hole was found in another Gulf ac in theatre."

I know the above quote is supposition, but this was known when AOC2Gp ordered nimrod crews to continue AAR sorties 4 days after the tragedy. I have no idea if the BoI has since discovered the source of the ignition which led to the explosion. What I cannot understand is the decision to go ahead with a single skin AAR system which was designed on the back of a piece of paper 25 years ago. Furthermore, to protect the crews from a fuel tank explosion it would be relatively simple and cheap to fit a nitrogen inerting system to the current nimrod fleet and the MRA4 replacement.

Safety does not appear to have been given the highest priority here.

"Safety does not appear to have been given the highest priority here."

Do you know that to be true, or is this speculation? Can you draw these conclusions from the info above - not sure you can.

“On the whole I think its still true that UK engineering culture is one that DOES NOT cut corners on air safety issues and if anything errs on caution and retains a healthly open attitude to understand crashes / human factors issues properly & places correct emphasis on learning from mishaps and not apportioning blame”.


Correct, but note key word – engineering.

As I said, I’ve been INSTRUCTED to ignore safety problems, but ALWAYS by non-engineers who have authority but no commensurate responsibility, precisely because they are not engineers and therefore do not (cannot) sign for airworthiness, type approval and have no delegated Financial & Technical approval powers. (One hell of a list of limitations which means, by definition, they are of limited value to MoD and the real responsibility in these domains rests with lower grades/ranks). The problem is they are now the majority in an organisation whose job is to – acquire technology.

Don’t agree –re Mull. The aircraft was not airworthy. Full stop. MoD can’t answer the key questions on airworthiness and safety. There is no seamless audit trail. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons why they are better prepared on this one, so think you are right linking Nimrod and Chinook. Look at the MoD family tree. Look at the common denominators. Look at their benchmark decisions. Maintaining safety is a waste of money. Airworthiness is optional. Wasting money is of no concern to them. Heads above the parapet are to be lopped off.

I made that statement on the basis of detailed contact with nimrod crew and engineers. I did not make that statement lightly. The contacts made it clear that they were not happy with the continuation of the original AAR system on the MRA4, they also made it clear that there is no current plan to fit fuel tank protection to the nimrod. Both of these statements contradict your argument that air safety considerations are not being compromised.

Until the BOI report is given then it will be just speculation as to what happened and why.

I'd say that safety is a high priority, especially to those who work with the Nims. Precautions have been made and are being followed.

JFZ90: This wasn't a planted question, it was a PQ raised by a member of the general public (Nimrod experienced) through an MP. The MP responded in a very efficient way. You can do the same, through the same MP if you wish.

DV

"I made that statement on the basis of detailed contact with nimrod crew and engineers. I did not make that statement lightly. The contacts made it clear that they were not happy with the continuation of the original AAR system on the MRA4

WHY - without sustance this is just personal opinion, not a valid robust technical judgement on its safety

they also made it clear that there is no current plan to fit fuel tank protection to the nimrod.

SO WHAT - fitting system X does not automatically a safe aircaft make. Assumption & speculation.

Both of these statements contradict your argument that air safety considerations are not being compromised."

I didn't say this - you are implying that these statements PROVE that air safety considerations are being compromised - seems to me THEY DO NOT.

Must stress I have no direct knowledge here, but until BoI is out we should not speculate or feed the MP with "potentially suspect but unproven either way" motives with potentially misleading facts.

"This wasn't a planted question, it was a PQ raised by a member of the general public (Nimrod experienced) through an MP. The MP responded in a very efficient way. You can do the same, through the same MP if you wish."

Errr - thats what I meant - it was planted by someone with inside Nimrod knowledge to try and create a certain effect with its answer. I assume the "planter" knew the answer, so not really sure what they thought this would achieve as its not really damning as far as I can see (noting that the incident rate has been consistently high per FH, but as stated above this proves little).

"Correct, but note key word – engineering.

As I said, I’ve been INSTRUCTED to ignore safety problems, but ALWAYS by non-engineers who have authority but no commensurate responsibility, precisely because they are not engineers and therefore do not (cannot) sign for airworthiness, type approval and have no delegated Financial & Technical approval powers. (One hell of a list of limitations which means, by definition, they are of limited value to MoD and the real responsibility in these domains rests with lower grades/ranks). The problem is they are now the majority in an organisation whose job is to – acquire technology.

Don’t agree –re Mull. The aircraft was not airworthy. Full stop. MoD can’t answer the key questions on airworthiness and safety. There is no seamless audit trail. I strongly suspect this is one of the reasons why they are better prepared on this one, so think you are right linking Nimrod and Chinook. Look at the MoD family tree. Look at the common denominators. Look at their benchmark decisions. Maintaining safety is a waste of money. Airworthiness is optional. Wasting money is of no concern to them. Heads above the parapet are to be lopped off."



I'm surprised by this. Have you REALLY been instructed to ACTUALLY ignore real safety problems? Find this hard to believe, but if true worrying. My experience in these kind of areas has been one of universal caution in the UK when it comes to managing real airworthiness risks. I've never observed the "non-engineers" overrule engineers in cases where there is tangible risk of loss/incident. I have seen alot of pressure applied to FIX problems (i.e. restore safety), and weak/unsubstantiated safety concerns challenged - but this is quite different to ignoring valid safety issues.

JZF90: The planter did not know the answer. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH? ARE YOU A MEMBER OF MOD?

The design for the MRA4 was frozen as of December. It is perfectly relevant to challenge the thinking behind bringing into service a multi million pound military ac with no fuel tank protection, which, if built in the US would have been given state of art protection as a matter of course. Instead, it is being provided with a flawed AAR system, subject to scores of emergency engineering measures, which has not been designed to a civil standard, when there is a much safer design already in service.

Nobody can talk in absolutes here, it is in everyone's interest that the BoI report is published ASAP.

Nobody has said finding the truth is wrong, we all want the truth, what is wrong is speculating about events. The BOI report is being given next month to the families, so until then, there can be no absolute truths. Once the BOI report is then published, any questions can and should be brought up then, as how can they answered before that point.

I'm not MOD, I'm not RAF, but I's obvious to me that until the BOI report is made, then anything which it states is pure and simple guess work.

Speculation on what happened can and does have serious consequences on those involved

JZF90: The planter did not know the answer. WHAT IS WRONG WITH TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH? ARE YOU A MEMBER OF MOD?

Hey calm down. Just curious about the obviously set up question, so thanks for the inside info. Nothing wrong with the truth - it is probably out there. I'm surprised that the "insider" felt compelled to use his MP to find out - much easier ways for an "insider" to get the info, though it is an excellent way to get the info out in public and discussed / speculated about in an inappropriate way - which is why I'm going to follow LabQueens senitments and stop debating pre BoI.

JFZ90

“I'm surprised by this. Have you REALLY been instructed to ACTUALLY ignore real safety problems?”

Yes.


“and weak/unsubstantiated safety concerns challenged”


An example? I wouldn’t call “smoke in cockpit”, “crash landings” and “aircrew injured”, in the same sentence, in the same serious incident signal, weak. The supplier, who controlled funding (!) and refused to release funds to investigate and fix, obviously disagreed. Many more, but that’s the one I always remember. Ignored him, transferred money, fixed in 48 hours. Got bollocked. Aircrew safe. Next?

" I wouldn’t call “smoke in cockpit”, “crash landings” and “aircrew injured”, in the same sentence, in the same serious incident signal, weak."

No I wouldn't either. Not quite what I meant. I would have thought the above would fall into the (at least consider) "grounding fleet" category.

If anyone has details of the warranty period, written in contract, on nimrod fuel seals and would prefer to PM, I would appreciate any info. I will clear my box.

JFZ90

Thank you. Grounding was avoided, but only just.

I said “Next?”.

Same supplier. Same time. Instructed me, to direct contractor, to SCRAP £2M worth of spares, primarily used on C130, VC10 and Nimrod. At same time, instructed me to then let a contract on same contractor to immediately replace same spares. And gave me the money to do so. That is, knowingly waste £2M. Same applied to almost every contract we had at 4th line. (Many tens, if not hundreds, of millions).

I replied that the £2M would fix a lot of problems, including smoke in cockpit. I refused to waste money.

Next? Visit from Air Vice Marshall. Threatened with dismissal unless I comply with his staffs instructions.

Next? Initiated audit report which trashed AVM and his staff. Report rejected by….. see common denominators above.

Having followed this thread since it started, with much personal interest, I can't help thinking that we've all lost sight of what we all want. The reason this tragic accident occurred. The result of the Board of Inquiry is upon us. Finally, an end to the speculation. Let's wait for the result before we retire the fleet.
However, with all of the questions being asked in parliament (and here on PPRUNE!!) if the board does cast doubt upon the future servicability of the fleet, what happens then? Let's hope that someone has the balls to do .....On second thoughts, hmmm.

FEWNCOP

If you read the original posts, the concern boils down to money and how it is allocated and spent.

…”concerns about the state of the fleet”.

…”without the proper kit”

…”especially through procurement”

…”defence is not cheap”

…”cutting too many corners and procuring nothing but danger”


If you read my posts, you (and Mr Ian L-G) will see they directly address all these concerns. They distil the issue down to two simple facts – the MoD wastes money on an industrial scale and this is condoned at the highest level.

I think that last bit “the highest level” makes the majority stop. (It’s ok, I get that in the MoD. It gets above their pay grade – they’re only a 2* after all - they step back, and suddenly you’re alone against the big hitters). The point I’m making here (Mr Ian L-G) is that, having witnessed and proposed a solution to the basic problem, in my case face to face with a number of 2* who did nothing (except threaten me, or have me threatened), I elevated it to 4* and Ministers – who did nothing. I have their responses, in writing under FOI, so it’s hardly a secret. Clearly, the Ministers involved simply signed drafts prepared for them but if you read the lies the MoD are prepared to tell to protect the guilty, you’d begin to appreciate how much they have to hide. These are the benchmark rulings you are faced with when you take on waste and inefficiency in the MoD.

I wish Mr Ian L-G well, but his starting point needs to be SofS, and then work upwards. Not many will do that.

tucumseh

Have followed this thread and your posts with great interest.
I hope Mr. I. L-G and others have the good sense to take your advice on where to start looking and the tenacity to follow it wherever it leads, whatever level that may be.

The financial waste is of great concern but is as nothing compared to the loss of life as a direct result of the uncaring incompetence of those "professional" politicians and civil serpents who regard it all as a great game.

With my respect.
S37

Mr I L-G is on BBC Parliament at the moment - spouting anecdotes & suggesting to a public services exec director that he should ask Tescos for help making the queues at Passport control in Heathrow shorter / improve public services (!?).
Comes across as a bit of a know-it-all patronising smart ar*e, but is probably genuine in the context of the original post here.

(PS - should say I don't normally watch BBC P - just by co-incidence I had a look at what the committee were upto and there he was)

A few have stated that they believe in the BOI, but I personally have concerns over what will be published, the very fact that I and many others are concerned about it's integrity speaks volumes about our trust in the Government,Mod,and Airforce as a whole.
What a sad and sorry state of affairs, good luck to those of you who work in recruiting, you have got your work cut out! still you can put a positive spin on anything if you try!

I will always have confidence in those who work with the Nims and especially in those at ISK, albeit I have no confidence in the government. I am wholly confident in myself that all relevant checks were made before XV230's final flight not only by the ground crew but also by crew 3 themselves. I have spoken to a majority of those involved and have met some of them too, I get my confidence from people such as them.

I don't claim to know or understand the principles of the firewalls or anything else to do with major safety on board, but I do know that what the guys can feasibly do with what they have now is being done to try and prevent this tragic fate happening to anyone else.

I have had a vast amount of support from those concerned with XV230 and from many others, I've formed strong friendships with many at ISK, and they have helped me come to some form of understanding and acceptance.

I know there are problems but I do not wish to speculate on what problems could have caused the deaths of 14 men, I wish to wait for the BOI report to be given and then, and only then will I be able to look for the answers to the many questions I have as to why this happened, until the BOI report is made there are no answers which can be given, only speculation, and I know how much speculation does hurt and the damage it has done. Too many details have been leaked into the press, which never should have, and have caused immense pain and extra suffering, all of which could have been avoided, and so much of that suffering is felt by the children of the crew. Some of the speculation and many of the remarks and quotes made have been ignorant to the feelings of the others involved.

I have seen endless newspapaer reports with false information, full of speculation on what may have been, interviews and quotes, I'm aware that a BBC program is being made to coincide with the release of the BOI report, how can that hold the truth when It's made before the information is released and without the RAF's knowledge of it.

I do know intimately the cost of the lives from this accident, I know the grief and I know the suffering this has caused, I live with it every single day, yet I will still not speculate on what may or may not have happend as I remember that I'm not the only one who lost a great man on board, there were 13 others, and that means 13 other families struggling like I and my family are.

How would you like to hear of details of what might have occured reported in the press, what state the bodies were in, how do you then explain those details to young children. Some of the details were given in strict confidence to the families at the time of the accident and as each fact was leant, and were never to be made public due to the harm it would cause the children.

Speculation does have consequences and so yes, I do have faith in the BOI, even if that just means that then we can ask the relevant questions, and we can be given the truth, and not more of the guess work because then we will at least have the facts to be able to quote to find the answers.

Laboratoryqueen
I thought this thread was called NIMROD Information please
Not Nimrod stop talking about it !!!!!!!

Whilst I sympathise with you, this is a rumour network were people discuss rumours if you don't like rumours and speculation then don't use the network.

“this is a rumour network were people discuss rumours if you don't like rumours and speculation then don't use the network”.


This may only be a rumour, but I heard on the grapevine that if Mr Ian L-G opened a parliamentary speech with “Based on Pprune rumour, I’d like to voice concern over the state of the Nimrod fleet” he’d be slapped down by Gorbals Mick. (Who would invite a Government Minister to speak – they don’t deal in rumour or fact, just lies).

The man sought facts. It just so happens his immediate interest is Nimrod, but the underlying issues apply to Defence as a whole. (A fact I hope he has taken on board from the verifiable facts that have been posted).

This is, apparently, your first post. Quite robust, I’d say. I can think of quite a few in MoD who’d want to undermine Mr Ian L-G before he got started. Among them those who condone wasting money that could otherwise be spent on saving lives. A couple of verifiable, if inconvenient, facts there.

Too serious an issue to contaminate with rumour, I suggest.

tucumseh

This may only be a rumour, but I heard on the grapevine that if Mr Ian L-G opened a parliamentary speech with “Based on Pprune rumour, I’d like to voice concern over the state of the Nimrod fleet” he’d be slapped down by Gorbals Mick.

Thats almost exactly what he did say read the thread PPRuNe mentioned in the House of Commons
This is only my second posting but I have noticed loads of people talking about Nimrod safty so there must be something seriosly wrong

I have seen the effects of the BoI process and I have a couple of criticisms.

In the case of XV179, the BoI completely failed to explain why it was that 30 years after the US started fitting fuel tank protection, the RAF did not have a similar protection on its Hercules aircraft. Neither does the Nimrod.

The BoI recommended that the RAF urgently look at fitting foam to the Hercules fleet. This urgency stalled weeks later, the BoI findings do not have enough clout when dealing with the purse string holders or military commanders willing to send crews to war without protection.

The BoI process is fundamentally flawed, staffed by contemporaries and immediate seniors of those involved in the incident. IMO the BoI process is nowhere near independent enough and does not have sufficient power to ensure its recommendations are followed.

At several recent inquests, the Coroner has criticised the BoI findings.

Finally, the likes of Ingram will refer to the BoI report as the only version of events that the Govt will work with. Witness Chinook and XV179. For months the Govt refused to accept that the crew of XV179 would probably have survived if they had had foam on board.

The spate of articles and the press interest in the Nimrod tragedy will ensure a microscopic examination of the BoI. The families will also know the right questions to ask on the day. In the case of XV179 the relatives had no legal advice and were given no preparation when faced with terms like ESF etc.

I was amazed to hear that decision about not to proceed with fuel tank protection but to continue with the single wall IFR have already happened, ahead of the BoI. It is for this reason that I put forward my own criticisms.

When the train crash occured at Hatfield the report concluded that it was due to a systemic failure. Railtrack was re-nationalised, and things changed.

Everyone has their own opinion of airworthiness management within the MoD, but I would ask whether the BoI will have either the remit, or the authority to question the balance between task and risk across the wider STC operations.

The results of the BoI may answer the question of what happened, but I hope that someone (maybe Mr Ian L-G) can ensure that the strategic circumstances that caused it are investigated.

Military operations cost money.

The MoD is bankrupt.

Gordon does not want to give any more money.

Military commanders provide can do solutions.

You make your own mind up as to what is going on.

I welcome enquiries from interested politicians.

Good on you Mr. L-G

Without wishing to sound a sour note, I presume people have considered the possibility that the BOI findings themslves may, and I say may, have to be little more than speculation - more a case of ruling out certain possibilities rather than ascertaining what actually happened?

Due to the location of the crash site, and the type of incident itself, the BOI may have minimal physical evidence to work on? No doubt all will be revealed shortly.

Agree with Biggus, real problems with physical evidence, I doubt the BoI will be able to state the cause of ignition with any certainty. An enormous amount of work has been done since the crash to remove venting, hot air, etc etc. Various ideas have been put forward and the leaks have continued. Sadly, none of the executive at Kinloss are pushing fuel tank protection and are sleep walking into an unsuitable AAR system for the replacement.

I have just read the BoI for the Lynx, it is so heavily redacted it is not worth publishing. I have heard what people are saying about the crash and I would suggest it has been heavily redacted for reasons other than simply national security.

I have much more faith in the Inquest. I have taken a small part in the Inquest for XV179, and I am confident that a root and branch investigation is now taking place including an examination of the wider picture.

I agree with you nigegilb have a look at the BOI reports on the MOD page and they have great big holes in the text were they sensored it, or XXXXX everywhere.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...oardsOfInquiry
I think it will be at the Iquest were the real questions will be answered.

Tappers Dad oops sorry I meant TheStrawMan, thanks for the PM by the way, didn't realise my mentioning the BBC programs production could make you so irrate.

You may notice I'm not the only one to ask for the speculation to cease and to await instead the findings of the BOI report, I have explained the reasons for my request, without making demands, I have given my opinion as have many others, it just happens that my opinion differs from your own.

I always thought information was based more on factual findings, not on rumour or speculation, so if actual information is being sought, why ask on a rumour network, instead of awaiting the facts. I would have thought that for any change to be brought about by an MP he would arm himself with actual facts and not with "what may have been", and surely having the MP for Kinloss as the representative in this case, would have been more appropriate, maybe even if both MP's had become involved.

Surely it would have more effect if instead of saying based on rumour, it was based on fact

Labotatoryqueen
http://www.publications.parliament.u...07041770000476
17 Apr 2007 : Column 49WH
My first trip to Afghanistan was a grim reminder of just how dangerous the place is; the wreckage of the RAF Nimrod that came down last September was still in the desert. The plan was to lay a wreath there for those killed in the accident, but the last resting place of this huge aircraft was slap bang in the middle of an effective Taliban firing range. So I had the great honour of laying a wreath at the memorial in the Kandahar base on behalf of the Knight family. I got to know some of the brave airmen, and they told me harrowing stories about the conditions in which they are working and the equipment that they are expected to use.

Thats why I support my Families local MP and not one in Kinloss

This is a copy an e-mail I received on the 21st March this year

Hello
The Knight family have been liaising with a L*** M******** from the BBC in relation to a programme that they are making highlighting concerns over Nimrod safety and the implications of the XV230 loss. The programme is likely to be broadcast to coincide with the release of the RAF Board Of Inquiry which is expected to be released in the next few weeks
L*** is keen to hear from anyone with concerns about the Nimrod, safety issues, overstretch, PVR rates etc. He is also interested in what life is like working relentlessly in the Gulf and also any incidents which they are aware of, fuel leaks, fires, hydraulic leaks, concerns about air-to-air refueling.


Bearing in mind that production started well before the BOI report was complete, it's not even been released to the families yet, so it can't exactly hold true facts as to the cause and effect of the loss of XV230. If it were to be a factual account, surely it would be produced after the BOI has been published

Now I find it a bit of a coincidence that the MP is asking along the lines of the same information, would he perhaps also be appearing in this program?

Lab Queen

I'm with your thinking over this lengthy thread on the poor old Nimrod - let's await the BOI. Also, let's not turn this whole thing into a conspiracy theory, please; I've seen enough with the Chinook, C-130, the A-10s and the 2x F15Es.

I dread the speculation and the so-called experts that will come out of the woodwork on the Nimrod BOI - some of whom will only have very untasteful £-signs in front of their eyes. Furthermore, I have huge distrust of MPs, regardless of their past (sorry, my honourable friend, if I'm wrong).

Nige - please stop harping on about nitrogen inerting systems and ESF. IF it was a fuel leak in a pipe like the rumour describes then neither would work would they? ESF and nitrogen only work by displacing the explosive vapours in fuel tanks...:= ..and will not inert a leaky pipe or union!

Finally, I hope that once this sad accident is closed off we can let our brothers rest in peace and stop trying to blame people - the loss of the Nimrod was never a deliberate act. Aviation is inherently dangerous and all of us that fly for Queen and Country are volunteers. Yes, we deserve the best, but at the same time we recognise that aviation is a compromise between safety, operational capability, technology, performance and budget - those that aviate for Queen and Country know this and do so with pride and dignity; those that don't, leave the Service disgruntled and often post on this forum...

Rant over and out.:ok:

LJ

LJ
I was interested in reading your post, right up until the point where you say ".....we can let our brothers rest in peace and stop trying to blame people" I can find nowhere in this thread where any one individual has been blamed or where it is even suggested that there is blame attached to them, other than to those responsible for procurement, whether that be spares, manpower or whatever.

The cold, hard and brutal facts are that our Royal Air Force, yours, mine. everyones has been starved of the financial support vital for any organisation to survive. There is not enough money given for manpower, and there is not enough money for spares. Throughout the whole of the services you will see evidence of cost cutting measures to a degree that borders on the ludicrous and now the dangerous. Of course we all know that in fact there is plenty of money around, just not for our Armed Forces any longer (dome, Olympics, Asylum seekers, Refugees - you name it!) And so the only real people to blame is the government for the starvation of those funds, and the hierarchy for not making a stand over it. But who elected them to power? Unfortunately we did. Not me personally, but the British public did, and therebye lies the problem Sir.

Tappers Dad has every right to demand the truth about XV230. He has a duty to his son and to the rest of his family, to learn about the tragedy of XV230 and I find peoples inability to understand and accept that as disturbing and unfair on him. I would feel exactly the same if it was my son also. I would want answers.

Lab Queen, I am aware of who you are, and you have my sympathy, but try not to stoop to personal attacks on individuals who are dealing with their loss in a different way to the way you are dealing with yours.

Nige, I have (sadly) been on a BoI and would just point out that in the main, the job of the inquiry is to (try) and ascertain the facts immediately leading up to, during and immediately post the event. The BoI can make recommendations, but I would stress that they are only recommendations, and nothing else. At the end of the day, it is up to the airships to decide how and where they spend the money, and therebye also lies another problem.

We all complain about MPs, and I would be the first to say that they are in the main untrustworthy andunderhanded, but we cannot condem one of them for doing his job and representing his constituant can we? Lets give the man the opportunity to do the right and proper thing and then pass judgement on the outcome.

The Winco