That would make one hell of a thick F700 :rolleyes:

MadMark!!! :mad:

DV said
2000hrs or 1 year, it does not matter. What is significant is that when, on 7th June 2006, XV230's Limitations Log read "Wing stations at rib 7 port and stbd not to be loaded. Fuel leaking ......", neither period had been achieved. So, I ask again, what claims have been made against MPI?

And what is SIGNIFICANT is that this fuel leak would have been rectified otherwise IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GULF WITH BOZ PODS FITTED. You yourself have just stated it said in the lim said that boz pods were not to be fitted. So the leaks would HAVE to be RECTIFIED before the pods were put onto the jet. What part of this do you fail to understand?

What type of claim should be made against MPI and for what tell me? Me thinks your years away from engineering are clouding your memory of the basic principles of aircraft servicing and airworthiness.


As as for that or any other jet having hundreds of faults, you are all living in cloud cuckoo land.
Mad Mark hit the nail on the head, what size of 700 do you think that would take to hold.
Sure jets have ADFs and Lims but do you honestly think that we just stick everything in the book, or even don't bother and just lets jets fly around unsafe. Keep putting into question the ground crews professionalism and you will get no more help or comments from us.

MH AGE

Like everyone else involved in servicing, you and your colleagues can only work to the publications provided. Long ago, I did the same, and it never really crossed my mind to ask if the pubs were correct, up to date or if they reflected (or were traceable to) the build standard of the tail number that was presented for CA (MA) Release, and which the Release to Service was based upon. Yes, I could raise a MF765, but only for simple things – if something was omitted I wouldn’t necessarily know that. This is a fundamental requirement of airworthiness - the build standard of all aircraft in a given fleet must be traceable to that first aircraft. Not necessarily the same, but traceable. The process which is designed to ensure this is largely ignored and under funded.

I can cite hundreds of examples where the above traceability doesn’t exist. I’ve seen units get a replacement LRU and say “WTF is this”?” as its mod state bears no resemblance to what’s in the Topic 2. An example. One LRU, in one of our more recent aircraft, has over 60 mods missing from the Topic 2 compared to the DA approved build standard. Complete areas of functionality are missing. If you don’t maintain that build standard, your APs aren’t current and, unwittingly, you don’t maintain it to the correct standard. That particular LRU was also procured for Nimrod MR2. I don’t know if it’s been fitted yet (it’s only 17 years since it was delivered).

Related to this, a good question is not what the build standard is, but what it would be if all ADA Engineering Change Proposals were accepted and incorporated in the design. We already know of one important one that was not – fire suppression. I suspect these decisions are now taken almost exclusively on financial grounds, with engineering / safety a poor second.

So, I do not think anyone doubts your professionalism. Rather, it is the lack of professionalism and integrity of our masters. Apologies for repeating previous discussion from the Mull thread, but it is important to appreciate the common threads that run through these tragic incidents. Chinook, too, did not have up to date pubs, or this traceability. MoD says it doesn’t matter. They are wrong.

TS-1 jet fuel
 

I understand that XV230 was using TS-1 jet fuel which is a kerosine type fuel with slightly higher volatility (flash point is 28°C minimum) and lower freeze point (<–50°C) compared with Jet A-1.jet fuel.
What type of fuel does Nimrods use in the UK and what are the flash point temp for the fuel and what is th freeze point compared with its normal aviation fuel ?

I have never intentionally called into question the ground crews professionalism, I have no evidence with which to do so. Appologies if that is how it has come across.

As the F700 was lost with the jet I can't comment on it's thickness. Unfortunately I can't respond any further at this time other than to say that the FOI Act makes it very difficult for this Government to hide the facts.

Mighty Hunter AGE: No the years are not clouding my memory. In fact, as the song goes " I see much clearly now .....".

The point I am making, which I will put across in a polite manner, is that I have assumed that on 7th June 2006 XV230 was in the Gulf when the leaks at rib 7 were reported. If this is the case and MPI carried out repairs back at base before its departure then claims are in order. Do you get the message.

By the way, try and be polite with your replies

DV

DV

Apologies if you were offended by my last post, it is no worse than some of the strong posts put on here by others.

MHAGE out.

Mighty Hunter AGE: Many thanks, no problems.

Would be useful if you could confirm that XV230 was in Gulf in June 2006.

DV

The normal fuel used by Nimrods in the UK is AVTUR/FSII.

The properties for this fuel are defined in Defence Standard 91-87, currently at Issue 5 Amendment 2, which specifies the flash point to be a minimum of 38C and the freezing point to be a maximum of -47C.

I have followed this thread from day one but I don't recall any reference before to something Da4orce mentioned yesterday re the F700 being lost with the aircraft. It's many years since I left the RAF but I'm sure that back then an aircraft carrying it's own F700 was a no no. Normal procedure in the event of an accident was the "locking away" of the F700.
s37

Thanks DaveyBoy

Shack37
Heres a snippet from an FOI request.
These records were reconstructed by BOI from MWOs. Original Limitations Log lost with F700 carried on aircraft.

Unless someone else knows different ?

TD,
Thanks for that, has anyone queried why this document was on board the aircraft during an operational mission? I can understand it (just maybe) if it was a transit.
Keep searching.
s37

Gents it is standard practice on the Nimrod fleet (and I suspect other large aircraft fleets) for the F700 to fly on the aircraft on EVERY sortie not just transits.

I must admit I was shocked when I first saw this (Hunters, Buccs and Tonkas certainly don't carry them unless on a transit) and asked the question why.

The answer was (i) its always been like that at Kinloss (standard answer there) (ii) there is always a danger that an aircraft diverts to another base and (iii) it is inconvenient for the aircrew (bless, how do other aircrew manage then?).

Well I have been at ISK for 6 years now (yes I know compared to some but at least I have worked on other jets!) but I cant remember the last time a jet diverted away from base.

I thought this practice would change post crash but it hasn't. Maybe post BOI it will, who knows.

MHAGE

Shack,
There is no reason why a F700 cannot be taken airborne in its aircraft. Every page in the F700, with one exception, has supporting and validating entries in other documents held on the ground. Although there might be original signatures in the F700, the signatories must also sign verbatim records in the ground-only documents that give rise to the entries in the F700. Therefore there is no vulnerability to losing unique records. The only pages which must not be carried are the flight servicing certificates because they hold unique records. When away from base, the certificate should be posted home.

MH AGE & AC

Thanks for your replies. Back in the dark ages, I guess what we called Job Cards would provide that info with more detail than just a line in the F700. These recorded the details of the work done and were signed and, if necessary, oversigned. Last entry was always the loose article check.

s37

I can say that it has not always been the case that the F700 flew with Nimrod a/c.

People that I have spoken to can not believe that the main a/c document, which contains the basic history and from which all other document flows, is allowed to fly with the a/c. I my time if an accident happened the first thing that was done was to impound the F700.

No wonder it is taking the BOI so long, they are having to work backwards.



DV

In my just over 21 years it always has...The chief took the servicing certificate and any last minute crew-in completed job cards before he scuttled off and the 700 was placed in a stowage behind the aft galley seat...We would then add snags into it as the sortie progressed or as we were on the approach.

Probably worth remembering that the F700 has lots of information in it that aircrews need to be able to operate the aircraft. Where there are a great many systems associated with a number of roles, the F700 may need to be referred to in flight. This is perfectly normal and understandable - one would not expect the crews to remember the faults/limitations/config of a particular aircraft and is particularly true of most of the big toys.

And of course if it was a Det/Post-Det transit the paperwork was swapped between aircraft. Bit of a bummer if there was a mid-air but fortunately, touchwood, that is unlikely.

I can say that when I first flew the Nimrod in 78 the F700 was carried on board.