DV excellent analogy, like hiding under the duvet rather than seeing what that noise was, I believe it is also a river in Africa?

Hi Nige, I thought the MR2 was working towards ALARP with a cut off of date of 31 MAR 09 for airframes to comply?
BTW thanks for all the hard work you do representing us from the outside, it is a sign of the times that we need people like yourself lobbying the MOD etc. to make things happen. :D

Hi Ivan, there is a bit more work to do on other aircraft types, I have had a few months off, but am just about to get stuck in again!

My question was genuine, I was told that this work was peripheral to the question of achieving ALARP and that the considered view, was that some of the evidence presented at the Inquest was inaccurate, for another want of a better word.

I note that there have been several changes of personnel since the Inquest, both military and civilian. It is not for me to speculate why.....

Distant Voice telegram for you:

If you are so concerned why not identify yourself and the position of authority from which you appear to speak.....STOP

Do you honestly think that the crews flying the aircraft would get onto the jet if they were not convinced it was safe to do so....STOP

If you are so intent on making sure the crews have not had the wool pulled over their eyes why not use a more public vehicle than pprune in which to air your concerns.....STOP

Why don't you just....STOP

Regards

Nige, just re-read Gp Cpt Hickman's (Nimrod IPTL) statement at the inquest:

Hickman: Yes. I am stating that the aircraft is tolerably safe but is not yet ALARP because there are a number of measures we have yet to take to reduce the risk to as low as reasonably praciticable, we have not taken them yet.

Coroner: What are these other matters, these areas you have not taken yet?

Hickman: There are several, but the major ones are the semi fuel coupling inspection and replacement has to be conducted on every aircraft. In addition, we want to replace the hot air ducts that are still used, that are still hot, and have not been switched off. Now, these are the measures we need to take to reduce the risk and we have not taken them yet and therefore we are not ALARP.


So clearly, without the modidifications the aircraft is not ALARP.

DV

Distant Voice,

Firstly let me apologise for my outburst this morning, having received a message pointing out who you are I know you have the crews best intentions at heart and perhaps I am a little too close to the coal face to be able to take a step back at times. I do believe though that your reply to Nav Attacking was a little curt and dismissive, especially as it was directed at current Nimrod Aircrew.

Sideshow Bob;

Thank you, and no offence taken.

DV

DV, I am aware of what Hickman said at the Inquest. I am also aware that some evidence presented to the Inquest is considered to be inaccurate. Check out what the Minister said after the Inquest. We are being asked to effectively discount what Hickman said and consider this work to be applicable to ALARP plus standard.

At least this is how it was described to me by a credible source.

Is Hickman still in post?

An interesting twist, Nige. If I understand you correctly, the MoD is effectively rewriting history, since whatever the Gp Capt said at the inquest was said under oath, to HM Coroner. What he said clearly influenced the coroner's findings.

I wonder what else that was said in that legally constituted courtroom is being 'discounted' - and by what right.

airsound

Yes, perhaps I should clarify my own post. I understand that some of the evidence presented to the Coroner was considered by the RAF/MoD to be inaccurate. Quite whether the RAF/MoD have informed the Coroner of any alleged inaccuracy I have no idea. Quite why the RAF/MoD did not send an even more knowledgeable/senior witness to correct any alleged inaccuracy I can only guess. From my experience of these things it is most useful, from the Ministry's point of view, to keep the damage away from the higher military echelons and God forbid, the Politicians.

Damage limitation?

I just find it strange the word ALARP is always used, Flying is never safe and things will always happen. The checks on Nimrod these days im surprised they ever get airborne as it takes so long to get one ready for flying .
Its just a shame the poor guys on the ground will now be without a good bit of kit above them. I guess now there ALARP status on the ground will change too or is ALARP only allowed on aircraft. Im sure they will have to take risks without top cover to carry on there job which Im sure is about 1000 times more dangerous that flying safely at altitude.

Ivan Rogov,

Being well clear of the MoD, I hope my “rant” at Post #36 simply outlines what was, and from my contacts, appears still to be the norm within the MoD as a whole. It is really a mix of a cultural and knowledge issues when it comes to RM. I hope none of what I have said has been taken as a personal attack on anyone on the Nimrod team. I don’t know them (or the details of this case) so could not/would not comment on the decisions taken in this case – even if I did know. Besides, those who knew H ‘n’ H in the Mil were well aware that if something needed saying, it got said. Blew my promotion prospects to hell :\ but, as one AD once said “at least I know he will tell me what I don’t want to hear … but, sadly, I need to hear!” :ok:

I guess all we all want to achieve is a robust Safety Case for a platform to enable the crews to conduct their tasks in relative safety. This is an ongoing cultural and knowledge change throughout the procurement/support chain. A lack of real knowledge-based cultural support to RM in the MoD means that, either we miss the simple opportunities to improve levels of safety or, unnecessarily, we artificially restrict capability because it seems that to assess the situation is too difficult. Everyone is trying (some just to save their skins – again, no link to the Nim IPT intended here!) and it will get better.

KeepItTidy - There will be a link to the Risk Assessment for those on the ground - but that should be included in any withdrawal of capability decision - and may also be mitigated by operational changes on the ground. No further comment there! Also, the "A" word is used precisely because flying will never be 100% safe. Therefore, we need to make sure it is acceptably safe. Again, end of that (see my noddy diagram in my first post if you want). Any more on ALARP and I'll be sent to the "ALARP Playpen" by Nav Attacking so I'm off!!!! :O

Hopefully not too many effigies of H ‘n’ H have been constructed and I’ll leave the specifics of this topic to those in the “know”! Thankfully, not my problem – but would still like to see things improve – particularly for the guys and gals currently being shot at in sunnier climes!

As Ivan wisely says, Stay Safe!!! H ‘n’ H

KeepItTidy,
As it says in the Press Release, there will be assets available to the guys on the ground, one being a new(ish) system being introduced under a UOR. We always said, when we first started this role back in 2001 and again when we deployed to PSAB for the Iraq war with the new camara (which my crew nearly lost due to bracket failure during the first sortie), you don't need a crew of 13 to operate a flying camara, we pushed for min crew whilst in arms way, but were told to put up and shut up

You're quite right, KIT, to remind us of the broader picture about why the airborne guys and gals are putting themselves in harm's way.

However, I think it's also worth remembering that the risks for troops on the ground come, at least partly, from the enemy.

On the other hand, the risks we're talking about on this thread are exclusively home grown, and have been shown to be due to failings on the part of officials, both civilian and military. Surely, we need to take all possible steps to minimise those risks.

airsound

KIT, anyone familiar with the previous thread will understand the commitment that is omnipresent on the front line. At the same time it has to be remembered that the loss of XV230 represents the greatest single loss of life to UKAF since the Falklands War. As Airsound has reminded us, the guys were not killed by the enemy, they were killed by a studied indifference to safety management which I view as negligent.

Us REMFs as we are so eloquently described are just as keen as you guys to prevent unnecessary loss of life. The hardened bods on the front line might not give a stuff about this legalise "nonsense", doesn't mean to say they are right.

I have an interest in issues regarding SH in Afg that is totally unconnected with XV230, but just wanted you to know that I do not have tunnel vision on this issue and I share your concerns about the protection of the guys on the ground.

Nigegilb: You asked me to check out what the Minister said after the Inquest.

Of course we we all know the answer, he claimed that the aircraft was ALARP. His statement was based on the "Notes of Minutes from the Extra Ordinary Nimrod platform Equipment and Environmental Safety Working Group held on 4th Jun 08 in RM 044 Bazalgette Pavilion RAF Wyton"

The minutes indicate that "The Chairman asserted that, in principle, they (the IPT) were content that the risk is ALARP. However to substantiate this, the IPT agreed to produce an ALARP statement that formally identified the mitigation measures already taken to date and why they reduce the risk to ALARP"

The minutes go on to say that BAES stated that "Given that BAES has not been directly involved in all the factors leading to the statement that the system is ALARP we, BAES are unable to support the statement directly."

So we go from a statement from Gp Cpt Hickman on 21st May 2008 that the Aircraft is not ALARP, and will not be until specified ducts and seal are replaced, to a total reversal at a quickly arranged meeting less than two weeks later.

Clearly, the latter was damage limitation, and an attempt to discredit the inquest findings.

DV

I'm no lawyer, but might it not also be contempt of court?

airsound

"At the same time it has to be remembered that the loss of XV230 represents the greatest single loss of life to UKAF since the Second World War"

Well Im sure for the majority of families involved they are trying to remember in a good way , not to see this quote constantly splashed across every TV report/newspaper.

Either way thats not a personel dig at anyone , it just seems to be the same story everytime Nimrod is on the news. So much has happened that outways the bad press but needless to say that fails to make good press.

DV, the Defence Minister assured MPs at a Parliamentary meeting following the Inquest that BAeS fully supported the Govt view that Nimrod was ALARP. Perhaps BAeS should clarify the situation? Is Angus Robertson aware of your info? It is the first time I have seen this.
Certainly when I was given my mini-brief Iwas told that Industry concurred with the Govt line.

I think the argument as to if it is ALARP, Tolerable or whatever has been answer by Bob Ainsworth.

From the MOD website
Ergo after the 31st March they remain neither ALARP or Tolerable, otherwise they would continue to fly them. I understand from the media that the MOD are refusing to say how many of both types of Nimrods have had the modifications done. And will not say why those operating in the sand can't be replaced with Nimrods that have had there modifications completed.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions. It does mean that a number of NImrods will be grounded , whoops I mean in maintenence when Mr Haddon Caves report comes out in early June. Are they hedging their bets ?

I understand that only ONE Nimrod has been modified (ducts and seals), and a new series 10 seal is being used. What was wrong with the old series 1?

DV