The documentary alluded to in the e-mail on LaboratoryQueens post and it's specific request for any faults on the Nimrod plus levels of PVR rates etc rather sounds like a trawl for dirt on the fleet and not a request for information that may help make the events of September last year any clearer...

According to who you listen to the fleet is suffering from low morale as it is without labelling every hydraulic problem on start-up as a life threatening drama in direct consequence to government under spending...

Surely the search for the truth should begin when you've officially been told a lie?

I have not made a personal attack on Tappers Dad nor anyone else here, my only comments which have been directed towards him alone have been enquiring as to the BBC program, my request for the cessation of speculation into this accident have been made as a sweeping comment, not aimed at just one person, I too am wanting the truth which is why I'm awaiting the BOI findings

LabQueen - you keep contradicting yourself! :=

You say:

"I have no confidence in the government."

Then you say:

"I too am wanting the truth which is why I'm awaiting the BOI findings"

Who do you think signs off the BOI report?

Secondly if you were as up to speed on the whole situation as you claim to be then you would know that the members of the Knight family have been in communication with Angus Robertson who has as a result raised very significant questions in parliament.

As for the BBC programme I hope it's impact and ability to influence those in power is not harmed by your determined efforts to undermine it's making.


All

I think we have all lost sight of the fact that we all have the same goal, that is to get to the bottom of what happened on 2nd September and make sure it never happens again. Whether we agree on the scale of the problems at Kinloss or not, one thing that we all seem to agree on is that the MOD is seriously degrading the British military and something needs to be done before we are relegated to a third world fighting force.

Not a contradiction at all, as I have previously stated, with the findings of the BOI we will then have the facts at hand to be given the answers to those questions we seek, I may have not have confidence in the government however the BOI is at least based on hard facts and not on heresay and rumour, only facts will give us the answers.

As to your second point Tappers Dad states I support my families local MP and not one in Kinloss.

As for the BBC program, if it appeared to be an informative and factual portrayal of the fleet and appeared to be an attempt at putting pressure on the government for change then it would have my support, however I was shocked to find that if a program such as this is in production then surely those at ISK themselves would have been made aware of this, after all, they are some of the people who are being fought for in these calls for change

1. I believe the programme is being made under the Panorama banner which has a very good track record of uncovering some uncomfortable truths.

2. How do you know that the programme is not "informative and factual", it hasn't been made yet.

3. Do you think personnel at ISK would be allowed to be involved in the programme? This is the airforce not the Navy!

4. I'm sure that the RAF and the MOD will be given every opportunity to comment on the programme before it is aired.

5. The fact that you did not deny that you are trying to undermine the making of the programme and you persisent disapproval of it suggests that it may have been you who tipped off the MOD about it. If it was, and your actions serve to reduce it's impact or undermine it's ability to influence then I hope you can sleep easy at night. A lot of people have spent a lot of time on that programme, as you appear not to have been involved I suggest you are doing little more than speculating about its content!

The programme it was stated in the mail I received, is said to be expected to be broadcast to coincide with the BOI release, so if it's broadcast at that point how can it have the actual facts from the findings.

If the programme is solely about putting pressure on the government to force a change then why did the RAF or MOD need tipping off, surely they would have been involved at some point or simply just informed of the intention to make such a programme.

Don't give the man a hard time
 

I'm a former journalist ( flight International et al) and now work in the IT industry - and worked with the guy who blew the Chinook story onto the front page of Computer Weekly.

Ever since dawn of history the people at the top have made it their business to create SNAFUs and hide behind the men on the ground who take the cr@p. Now someone for whatever reason is offering to listen to the guys who are in the front line.

Don't knock it, there are far too many suits in Whitehall / Westminster who only ever listen to 'advisors,' almost all of whom have wealthy paymasters with axes to grind. HEre's one MP who sounds like he's doing the job he was elected to do.

If you want to preserve anonymity, get yoursellf a Yahoo or Hotmail email address, give some examples that show you know what you're talking about and write to him from that email - just make sure you don't leave a trace on home PC or use on on base.

:ugh: Labqueen - Have you ever thought of a career in politics?

Da4orce...By the knowledge you admit to having about this programme are you a journalist yourself or a blue suiter a little too involved?

“however the BOI is at least based on hard facts…..”.

In an ideal world, this would be true. But I’m afraid there are many examples in this forum where their rulings have, demonstrably, been based on incorrect or incomplete information. Also, it is crystal clear that BOIs take an enormous step back when they come across something that could upset the political imperative or senior staffs (often the same thing).

Nor, seemingly, do BOIs ask obvious or penetrating questions, or dig deeper. Some would say they only dig as deep as the pre-judgement permits. The most obvious example in recent years is the Tornado / Patriot incident. The BOI recommended “The Tornado IFF installation be modified to ensure that the cockpit warning (sic – singular) is triggered in all modes”. In a report which points the finger straight at the Patriot crews and their procedures, is it not an obvious question, “Why was the cockpit warning not integrated in the first place, given it is a fundamental safety feature of the system design?” And perhaps, “Has such a failure/omission occurred before, on other aircraft, and been condoned?” Or how about, “Was a 2* personally advised the previous year to have all Tornados’ IFF systems checked for precisely this failure/omission?”

Or how about the multiple fatality incident where the BOI slammed an on-board system as “unfit for purpose” yet didn’t ask why contemporary photographs show the system was not installed in the trials aircraft. (Answer – it had been assessed as unfit for purpose and removed before experimental flight approval could be granted).

I do not fully understand the powers of a Coroner, but the admirable Mr Walker in Oxford has been very robust with the MoD over their pompous deceit. I only wish he could order BOIs to reconvene to take into account the evidence placed before his court which has clearly been withheld from the BOI. Perhaps he’s being removed from post before he does just that, or starts ordering judicial reviews.

My apologies if this upsets anyone, but I have a grave sense that natural justice is being swept aside under the BOI system. It may well be that the Nimrod (or any other) BOI takes an honest view of the evidence before it, but I sincerely doubt if that evidence will be as complete as it could be.

Da4orce, I must be reading Laboratoryqueen's inputs somewhat differently to you, as nowhere do I see anything written that deserves your comment of . A tad harsh I feel and is neither warranted nor helpful to the thread topic.

LabQueen,

I hate to say this, but I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.
This is, granted, a rumour forum, however there is an immense wealth of experienced people who post valid, constructive and more importantly accurate postings here. Some will undoubtebly be wrong, but in the main, a lot of what has been posted is factually correct, albeit a rumour. You are correct in having faith in the BoI, and if you prefer to wait for its outcome then thats fine, but I would therefore suggest you don't read this forum frankly, if you don't want to hear other peoples views.

As for the BoI, I have a limited knowledge of the workings of a BoI, and do not profess to be up-to-speed on them, however I do believe that the report will be as comprehensive as possible, and certainly 'the Wincos' explanation of them and what the job of the board seems correct from what I can remember. Da4orce, your comment about the signing off of the report? you suggest that the government are somehow involved in this process? I'm afraid you are incorrect Sir. The report goes from the board, initially to the Station Cdr, then the AOC and then finally to CAS (perhaps via ACAS also) but at no stage is the government involved. The SoS will most definately get to read the report, but he certainly does not 'sign it off'

This thread has cast doubts over the real reason for the intervention of an MP in the loss of the Nimrod. Tappers Dad has also come in for a bit of unwarranted attention, and those responsible for these personal attacks should be ashamed of themselves. Tappers Dad, perhaps more than anyone on this forum, has a fundamental right to seek the truth about the accident and has the right to ask some far-fetching questions about the tragic loss of his son and the others on XV230. Those who question that right need to stop for a second and think about what they would do in his position, and I for one would do exactly the same.

The same applies to this MP quite frankly. He is the MP for the Tappers, and is doing what we all pay him to do, and that is to represent us in parliament. I don't care what his underlying motives may or may not be. As far as I'm concerened, he is doing his job representing the Tappers, and we should all be grateful for that. I haven't heard too many other MPs kicking off about this or other losses in the Gulf - have you?

TSM

I think what Da4orce (One of my sons) is trying to say is .
As long as the desert sand is stained with my sons blood and that of his fellow crewmen , we as a family will talk to the BBC, ITV, Sky, MPs Minister, Prime Ministers, Newspapers and Coroners.
Whoever we have too, to find out why we shall never welcome him home again and put my arms around him.

All accidents have a cause We want to know what caused the fuel to leak, what caused the fuel to ignite. Maybe the BOI will have the answers if not then maybe the answers will come at the inquest.

I know this though,we will never give up asking the questions ,never.

Tappers dad...If the BOI offer you a reason that lays the blame on nobodies doorstep i.e. a terrible accident would you accept it or would you carry on until someone/anyone has a finger pointed at them?

Tappers Dad,

You and I have correponded before Sir, and I for one applaud you and all of your family for your courage and steadfastness in the search for the truth. You and all of the families deserve nothing less and I sincerely hope that this MP finds the answers you so rightly deserve.

Da4orce - I hope you understand that I wasn't having a go, just pointing out that the BoI is in the hands of the RAF and NOT politicians.

Ben and all the crew are still very much in my thoughts and those of many others I'm sure. God Bless them all.
TSM

I am not looking to blame anyone, I don't know what the BOI is going to say .If they say it was the Kapton wiring that arced and caused the ignition who do you think I should blame?
The people who wired the plane 30 years ago ? The manufactures of Kapton wiring? The Government for knowing that

http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/...on_mangold.htm

"Despite ample warning about its dangers, the Royal Air Force took delivery of Kapton-wired Harrier GR5s. Two crashed because of the wire before the RAF embarked on a program to modify the use of Kapton in all the vulnerable parts of their planes."

Who would I blame "THOSE WHO KNEW AND SAID NOTHING"

Tappers Dad
 

I have spoken via email to Tappers dad on two occasions, and believe him to be an honourable man.
There are many post's before this one, and many Ppruner's clearly find the whole Nimrod safety issue a very serious matter. I have never been to ISK, and can only go on the rumours and comments mentioned on this site. But, if we all took a step back for one minute, then surely none of us would wish to be in Tappers dad's position. While some might think we know how we would act or behave in his position, none of us ACTUALLY know, and cannot know, until we were stood in his shoes.
Here is a man who is grieving for his son, but also trying to be of help to others, so that no other parents have to go through what the Tapper family have had to endure.
So please, lets support Tappers dad and his local MP.

Personally I don't care what the motives of the MP are, but I think I fully understand the need of a parent to come to terms with this event.
If some of you don't want to help, then that is your choice, but please don't bicker, as this all to easily leads to things being ignored. Or classed as service squabbling, and a divided lobby, is a powerless lobby.

It's been said there, what would we do in his position, and also none of us actually know what it's like to be in that postion.

You want to bet on that

The arguing that is going on here really cuts me to the marrow. Can't we just let them all Rest In Peace? Witch hunt's won't achieve anything IMHO.

Kapton Wiring
 

Tapper's Dad: Are we sure that that Nimrod has Kapton wiring? According to Hansard (9th Dec 1999), Nimrod has PVC/Nylon wiring.

Maybe others can help on this one?

DV