Report published on loss of RAF Hercules XV206 in Afghanistan
 

MoD website report here

Nige

The article I linked to above states in the first paragraph

Sounds fairly explosive to me :confused:

What strikes me as a bit strange about this 'news' is that, in a seven paragraph report, the MoD chooses to put the fact that in the second para after the initial summary, and before the rest of the findings.

Methinks they do protest rather a lot.

airsound

"Destroyed by an uncontrollable fire"

Looked okay (apart from the landing gear and wing damage) on the video they took before it was BLOWN UP by the EOD's!!!

I think you're getting 2 different events, in 2 different countries concerning 2 similar, (although different marks) of aircraft mixed up.

Wrong aircraft.

You are referring to ZH876 and not to XV206 as in this case.

You will find the full BOI at the link below.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ardsOfInquiry/

Suprised to see how un-coperative the SIB were :ugh:

as nige states the full BoI needs to be seen but it would be interesting to know whether it was fuel or vapours( ullage) that contributed as clearly the piercing of the fuel tank seems instrumental in the outcome, as i read it. apologies for being an utter pleb if wrong. airsound's point of view about the inclusion and placement of the esf statement does encourage a raised eyebrow at the very least at the eagerness to state their beliefs. i am very sceptical of ever saying the word findings as i'm afraid my confidence in the system is more than a little dented at the mo given the issues arisen from XV179.

Not true - ESF does contain leaks to some extent. It causes them to become seeping leaks rather than running leaks. The ESF will expand somewhat to fill holes. Fuel will leak out through the foam, but not run out of a hole. Rather like putting a sponge over a hole; you cannot stop the leak with the sponge, but it will slow it considerably and any "burn back" will be unable to ignite vapours in the tank.

In this incident, it is highly likely that it would have contained the fire rather than explosively fuelled it.

A direct comparison can be made to the MC-130H that crashed on landing at Q-West two years ago last Jan & ended up impacting a construction crater. The #3 engine caught fire & burned through the wing. The fire was contained to just the inboard fuel tank, there was no explosion, and it was doused with a slack handful of fire bottles - no fire truck. There was fuel all over as well because the port wing snapped off on impact just outboard of the #2 engine.

The MC-130H that had to divert to Turkey during the opening night of Iraq experienced no significant fuel loss despite being riddled with holes from smarms/lt AAA throughout the wings.

I'm with airsound - this is propaganda.

I thought the very same thing.

Mazkirovka from the Ministry of Truth.....:hmm:

I am also minded of the words of Mandy Rice-Davies:

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he."

Report now available.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Ab...ardsOfInquiry/

Sorry for appearing so dull earlier. We all knew this aircraft was taken out by a mine 16 months ago. The explosive event that I was referring to was a fuel tank explosion caused by fragments piercing the fuel tank. Have been flying, not had a good chance to look carefully at the BOI, but if someone can post the pictures of the ac on the strip again, it looked very much as though the fuel tank exploded. The BOI referred to a subsequent fire with no mention of a fuel tank explosion. Would appreciate some confirmation was this an omission or did it not happen?

Nige, this was the link posted previously on the XV206 thread. Hope that it is what you wanted!
http://p076.ezboard.com/fc130hercule...art=21&stop=30
Chug

All Very Academic
 

Well done gentlemen for raising this important issue. However, it would/should have been academic if whoever was looking after the TLZ had done the FP properly. But, that's what happens when you trust non-experts to do what is an increasingly important job. Anyone care to place a wager on the BOI for the most recent C130 (Iraq) loss saying much the same?

I've just read the BOI report. Sounds like the Board did a sterling job in difficult circumstances, marshalling resources well and reaching a sound conclusion in spite of the actions of other investigative services.

The crew showed great leadership and gallantry. I hope they are rewarded.

No doubt it is par for the course now, but is anyone else astounded by the lack of any AAIB type qualified personnel in the RAF, and its utter dependence on the RNSFAIC or AAIB for such vital expertise?
Like Nigegilb, I find the observations re ESF somewhat disingenuous, for they state:

"The Board assessed, from the DTSL Porton Down Trial, that a C130 would have a high chance of survival after trampling and detonating an **** but, will sustain significant damage if it tramples an ****."

Presumably, in the case of trampling the former ****, the "high chance of survival" would be even higher if ESF were indeed fitted! I think we may be seeing the "DS solution" which has taken so many months of rewrite before publication!

Finally I totally agree with previous comments re the crew's actions in getting out everyone safely from the aircraft. Well done all!

Why were the SIB involved? Hardly their area of expertise (if they indeed have one).

Chugalug - the RAF has hardly enough people to do it's primary business let alone support a cadre of AAIB lookalikes waiting around for, hopefully few, chances to test their skill? And it's not the sort of job that someone could do as a 'secondary duty' - no need to be astounded though!

I take it from the above that the blame for the Mull of Kintyre Chinook crash was apportioned by other personnel/inquiries independently, and not from the BOI? or have I misunderstood.

You are, of course quite right to admonish me, Mmmmnice, I should have learned long since not to be astounded by anything that I read here. But is there not something deeply worrying (there I go again!) when:

"As the RAF does not have AAIB technically qualified individuals, the BOI advisors from RAF Bentley Priory request support from the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Accident investigation Centre RNAS Yeovilton"

given that the raison d'etre of the RN is the sea while that of the RAF is the air? Given the various threads running on this forum concerning the possible Airworthiness and Flight Safety deficiencies exposed by accidents to the Hercules, Nimrod and Chinook fleets of the RAF, particularly with respect to the decision making process by the MOD and higher commanders of the RAF, is that not at the very least a cause for concern? Flight Safety should be fundamental to any aviation activity, civil or military. It used to be paramount in the RAF. I am not persuaded that remains the same today.

A Few Thoughts
 

Should the RAF have its own AAIB type people? No. We are not big enough for the individuals to gain the required breadth of experience maintain currency. Furthermore, unless it was a branch in its own right, the rotation on 3-year tours would exacerbate the problem. The Navy try, and do a reasonable job regarding "normal" helicopter incidents, but struggle with more complex investigations. The real senior investigators from the real AAIB are ridiculously highly qualified and have many years' experience of numerous crashes. We would be far better served by forging closer links with the AAIB and negotiating a formal arrangement for support for OOA accidents (we don't have one!).

Would ESF stop a fuel leak? No. If it only allowed "seepage", it could interfere with the fuel flow from the main tanks into the collector tanks for the fuel system. ESF does what it says on the tin - it suppresses explosions. There are self-sealing bladders that can be used in tanks but even these will not stop leaks caused by anything above a medium-calibre round. Unfortunately, the structure in the outer-wing tanks prevents the use of the bladder system.

Was there an explosion? Apart from the mine, I don't think so. We've all seen the pictures of the aircraft on fire and the fire clearly seems to be outside the wing, with no obvious damage to the wing structure from any kind of internal explosion.

Do I think there's any hint of the widely rumoured cover-up? No. In fact, I'm surprised how little has been redacted.

N Joe