EdSet100: As a follow-on from my last posting, I note that in para 29 of the Flight Safety Investigation Report for XV227 it states
So the BOI did need the BAE duct report.

DV

Coroner's Inquest
 

See Daily Mail online report http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dms...n_page_id=1766

Nimrod inquest coroner refuses to hand back top-secret papers to MoD lawyers
 

An MOD blunder that may actually be of some benefit .....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dms...n_page_id=1216

Well done, Mr Walker. There have been far too many instances of BoIs and the Coroners not being given sight of crucial evidence.

Not reported in the newspapers was that I held up a copy of JSP 553 Military Airworthiness Regulations in the Coroners court. I asked the Coroner if he had been given a copy by the MOD. He said he hadn't and asked the MOD lawyer why he hadn't had a copy ,to which he said he hadn't given him a copy because he didn't think it was relevant to the case. The Coroner disagreed and ordered copies for all the families.

The full inquest starts May 6th for 3 weeks.

Graham what you have done is truly inspirational. The only way to take on the MoD/Govt is through the Court system. Coroners like Mr Walker show that there are still fully functioning, independent and fearless aspects to our democracy, untainted by issues of sham secrecy and political heavy handedness.

People like Mr Walker, assure me that I am not yet living in a semi-stalinist state.

They don't like it up 'em.

So, in summary and in chronological order;

• Previous BoIs – Airworthiness regs are not implemented properly

• Ingram – Airworthiness regs are implemented properly

• Nimrod BoI report / ACM Sir Clive Loader – Airworthiness regs are not implemented properly

• MoD – Airworthiness regs are not relevant


Well, at least they’re consistent with their deceit, contempt and criminal negligence.

Mick Smith. It's interesting to see that NATO Codification is alive and well and not foremost in Air logistics.

Jane's: UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade

Safety concerns have prompted moves to significantly reorganise UK plans to upgrade Royal Air Force (RAF) British Aerospace Nimrod R.1 electronic intelligence (ELINT)-gathering aircraft and to start efforts to find an alternative platform.

The loss of a RAF Nimrod MR.2 maritime patrol aircraft - which has the same airframe as the R.1 variant - in a mid-air fire over Afghanistan in September 2006 was subsequently linked by investigators to safety problems with the aircraft's fuel systems. Jane's understands that this has forced the UK to think again about the GBP400 million (USD786 million) Project Helix to sustain the three-strong Nimrod R.1 fleet in service until 2025.

UK military sources have told Jane's that alternative platforms are now being considered and proposals have been made in the current defence spending round to secure additional funding to allow the Helix mission system to be installed in a different airframe.

Following a competition against Lockheed Martin, US company L-3 Communications was selected in April 2007 to upgrade the Nimrod R.1s and was awarded a GBP11 million assessment contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD).

In a tightly worded statement an MoD spokeswoman moved away from the commitment to upgrade the R.1s. She told Jane's that the MoD was "currently assessing a range of options and it is too early to get into details.

Mike, relatives/families do not need legal representation in these inquests, they are non-adversarial, did you not realise that?

Mention the word malfeasance a few more times and just watch the reaction.

Interesting example, there are other parallels to Matty Hull's case, TD is aware of them, I won't state them here, but the potential for blood on the MoD carpet is a very real possibility.

Poor air worthiness procedures are central to this case, ignorance or malfeasance? The MoD spend too much on their own commercial legal representation for it to be ignorance......

Air Chiefs May Halt Nimrod Fleet Upgrade
 

Don't normally read the (print) Torygraph much, but happened to do so today - and fascinated to find this small piece:
Surprised not to have heard about this here first. Anyone any ideas where this comes from, and whether there's anything in it?

airsound

Since posting this, have tracked down the (unbyelined) writer of the piece, Thomas Harding, Def Correspondent, who says it came from a piece by Tim Ripley of Janes. On consulting that, find that it refers only to Nimrod R1s - a fact not mentioned in the Torygraph piece.

So, it's all covered in the UK considers alternatives to Nimrod R.1 upgrade thread. D'oh

No 1 Tank Blow-Off
 

Can anyone tell me the new fuel contents limit for No 1 tank, in order to prevent blow-off?

DV

10,000 Lbs during AAR. Normal max contents: 16,000 Lbs

Ed Sett

Have you resumed AAR?

DV

DV You asked a question......You got an answer......You are now trying to make something out of the answer, you are sounding like a reporter looking for a story......There are probably still limitations on the Nimrod for dropping Mk1C buoys but that dont mean that they still drop them. Be happy that people are still answering your questions just dont push your luck with it.

Who pulled your chain, fergineer. I am not a reporter, and I am not looking for a story. I simply posted a follow-up question to someone I respect. Your remarks were uncalled for.

DV

Way past pushing his luck.
 

Which is why a lot of his questions don't answered that often!
Maybe explaining why the info is required may help!:ugh:

Errm? - DV, I trust you know where No1 tank is situated don't you?

DV I never said you were a reporter just that you were beginning to sound like one......Spanners123 is correct that your answers are not being answered by many because they may not know what you intend to use the answers for. Secure as they are with their names are some people may guess their real identities causing untold problems for them. Cut the guys some slack and you may get more information. My remarks are just that MY remarks....you can take them or leave them.