Yes there is.
I understand that there were fuel leaks in the following areas of XV230 in December 2006:
Port Side
Tank 2
Rib 3 Rear Main Spar
Rib 3 Fwd Main Spar
Rib 7 Inboard Rear
Rib 7 Inboard Fwd
Tank 3
Rib 7 Outboard Fwd
Rib 7 Outboard Rear
Stbd Side
Tank 2
Rib 3 Rear Main Spar
Tank 3
Rib 7 Inboard Rear
Rib 7 Outboard Rear

Were the repairs carried out by the CWP/FRA tank team ?

I cannot comment on these as I do not have access to the paperwork, that will be with the BOI.

What I will say however is that there probably were fuel leaks in those areas and if you have had access to information then I believe you.

These can be categorized using the 2(R)1 Lft 11, the limits I have stated on here before, and rectified as required.

If a jet is sent to the Gulf then leaks out with the limits are rectified before the jet goes out. What would be the point in sending a jet out that would have to be rectified in theatre where there is neither the relevant manpower or equipment to do such a task?

I wasn't aware that anyone was pointing the finger of blame for 30's crash on the leaks on the wings. If this is the case then we can ground the fleet right now as I am not aware of one jet that doesn't have adf's for acceptable leaks.

MightyHunter AGE

I don't know if you fly in the Nimrod but if the present restrictions Re Tank 7 , SCP and AAR were lifted would you still be happy to fly in it not knowing the cause of the crash?

"That is a totally pointless question, as it would just not happen."

Apart from the AAR bit of course...........

Apart from AAR and renewed pressure to bring MRA4 in ahead of the agreed timeline by reducing development testing because the RAF needs the capability.

An aircraft destined for the front line without armour or fuel tank protection....

Mad Eng,

No. Don't confuse the conduct of AAR Ops with the restrictions on AAR.

I standby my original statement.

TD said
I don't know if you fly in the Nimrod but if the present restrictions Re Tank 7 , SCP and AAR were lifted would you still be happy to fly in it not knowing the cause of the crash?

I am not an aviator but an AGE but I do fly in the jet to get on dets etc.

The cause of the crash has not been ascertained yet so until that point is reached then the SCP and 7tk question would never be an issue as it won't be reinstated until after the BOI findings..
As for AAR it has/is/will be used whenever necessary in theatre and as such I would not be allowed on board for such operations due to operational reasons.

I am however happy to fly in any Nimrod that has been signed as serviceable by any ground crew.

And that includes aircraft with ADF's wing tank leaks that are within the laid down limits of our maint AP's.

AGE, can you explain one thing to me. The fuel seals may have melted or failed in some way. I have been told that they were life-exed but that this has been extended recently.

Is it normal for the maintenance/ replacement program to be altered in this way?

The wing leaks that are being talked about here are from integral tanks and therefore the only 'seal' that is there is PRC, a sealing compound that stops fuel leaking from inside the tank through the weak points i.e. bolts, rivets etc (not rubber seals in the meaning of ring seals etc on fuel pipes).

I am unaware of any seals being re-lifed but that would be down to the DA/IPT/manufacturer to do a test on whatever seals were in stock and batch test a cross section to gain information as to whether they were acceptable for use or not.

Not something NLS gets involved with I'm afraid so therefore I cant comment on this.

Thanks AGE. The re-lifing of seals is not something that I have been able to confirm, would appreciate any other info out there concerning this subject.

I understand that there are moves afoot to reduce testing on MRA4, cut corners and basically get it to the front line ASAP. Thought it timely to summarize where we are now, in terms of ac protection.

MR2 has underfloor fire protection- MRA4 does not


MR2 has probe inerting system, for pressurixed fuel- MRA4 does not

Neither MR2 or MRA4 has bomb bay fire protection

Neither MR2 or MRA4 has fuel tank protection

MRA4 does not have flight deck armour

What exactly has the MoD learnt after this tragedy?

Misleading posts again??
 

If you are one of the more impressionable viewers of this forum, I think you should be aware that the previous post (1014) contains at least one statement that is not true and hasn't been for at least 18 months - i.e. before September 2nd.

It also contains another statement that is possibly correct but maybe irrelevant. I cannot be more specific since my employer does not approve of me posting here.

Nige

As always, sterling work on the campaigning front!

However, in the interests of accuracy, and before anyone else jumps down your throat, you may wish to review one of your statements above.

Departmental policy prevents me from discussing the specifics with you.

Sorry. :rolleyes:

Well done Spider, you beat me to it - now get back to work. :suspect:

Rumour has that the BOI report will be published by the end of October 2007. So we may all get some answers then.

MRA4 does not have inerting system in the probe, but even though AAR will not be necessary the probe remains pressurised with fuel. As for flight deck armour, I concede my info might be out of date for MR2, however, I am sure MRA4 does not have fda.

Apologies for any inaccuracy. It is important that my statement is correct so please PM. I don't want the messenger shot, I want 100% accurate info to be posted here, for obvious reasons.

Surely the probe is pressurised with Nitrogen prior to, and after re-fuel, which is inert?

I understand the MR2 AAR probe has a nitrogen inerting system, surprisingly, this system was not deemed necessary for MRA4. With the enhanced range offered by MRA4 there is no requirement for it to be AAR ready on delivery. Unfortunately, the MRA4 probe will contain pressurized fuel regardless.

My main point in Post 1014, is that MRA4, will have significantly less protection than the 1950s ac it replaces. It is foolish and I would say criminal to procure such an aircraft, especially after XV230 and especially at a time of war.

I am struggling with some abbreviations can anyone help please.
Could you tell me what the following are and a brief explaination either in a pm or on the forum.

RAMS
NSG
CWP/FRA
NAEDIT/NLS
NLS
FSS
COS(Ops)
MPI
ASIPT
FS EP+R
OC L5F
FRA
WO L5W
AOC
OC L5F
DAS
OC COS
PJHQ
ACC

Its a long list i know but the BOI is on it's way in about 6 weeks so I need to get into the jargon.

Thanks for the information ??? You know who you are.

I don't wish to sound patronising, but you have to stop being such a SAD character & get over it!!

I was widowed many years ago (not giving too many details) & left on my own with 2 young children as a result of losing my husband (aircrew). Your attitude is apalling!

Perhaps when you get the BOI you will finally SHUT UP & leave the other families involved & widows in peace to get on with their lives instead of constantly lambasting everybody involved!! I only hope for your sake that you eventually come to terms with what has happened & find peace!