TD, the MoD could put an end to all the speculation by publishing the BoI now, in full. Unlike XV179, Nimrod was not brought down by enemy action.
I disagree with Snowdog. What is to say this will not happen again? The majority of the AA refuel system is retained on MRA4. ie.. we keep the MR2 bits. There have been serious fuel leaks since the tragedy, and yet the RAF orders the continuation of AAR days after the event without knowing the full facts. No announcement to protect the fuel tanks of MR2 or MRA4. We all know, the RAF has no money, and safety is no longer the highest priority for Commanders.

Someone has to ask the difficult questions, TD might upset a few people, but if it leads to a safer future for Nimrod crews he will have achieved a great thing.

re post 431,

From what I can remember, Raychem 44a & 55A burnt very nicely, which is why the comany I used to work for never used it in their avionics. We specified PTFE insulation.

No, I defer to MightyHunter AGE. My experience was on theMk 1, a long time ago, and it was not my job. You need an AEOp, AEO or AE to comment.

The bottle to which some of you are referring is indeed fixed to the forward bulkhead of the galley...Under normal circumstances it would be operated by the AEO...After the bay has been checked and fire confirmed by one of the back enders via a shufty scope (small black item that you shove into a small access hole in the bay) the AEO will ensure the extinguishers hose is fitted correctly into the appropriate bay's 'hole' on the bulkhead next to it...The holes are labelled H, A or E for the three bays...Then he'll give the trigger a ten second press and ask for a report from the bay...if it's still on fire another ten second press followed by a further report...if it's still on fire then another press but this time unless they've changed it recently the AEO will go till empty as the thing only holds enough for about 3 times 10 seconds presses anyway...

Hope this helps.

There have been lots of replies to this question, but very few knowledgeable answers. The Nimrod MR2 does NOT have a fire suppression system for the bomb bay.

The bomb doors can be opened in an attempt to blow out any flames (although this may exacerbate the problem) but there are no fire extinguishers that can reach the bomb bay.

The fire bottle in the galley can only be used for under-floor fires in the hydraulic, aileron and elevator bays, all of which are above the bomb bay.

Thank you Mr Point

I have had many PM's about this and they appear to agree with you.

So once the fire started in the bomb bay basically the a/c and the 14 souls onboard were doomed unless it could land.

Mick Smith posted

<<Mr. Ingram: Kapton wiring is not used in the Yellow Gate system on the Nimrod aircraft but KTCL, a hybrid Kapton wiring, was introduced on the Nimrod MR2 as a part of the Yellow Gate modification programme during the period 1980 to 1985. The wiring used in the electrical systems of the Nimrod MR2 and Rl consists of: Nyvin, Minyvin, Efglas, KTCL, Febsil, ACT260, Raychem 44A and Raychem 55A.>>

This appears to open up other questions. Searching for each of these wiring types throws up some interesting links.

A link to the technical specification shows that Nyvin dates from 1961 and Minyvin from 1980.
http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/de...uct_id=1109036

The link shows Nyvin and its replacement Raychem 55 now being fitted to the Vulcan to the Skies.

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/forum/cgi-bin/...Print;f=35;t=7

The most interesting link is http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/AIL0140.PDF which refers to Minyvin and the possibilty of arc tracking, sheath damage and fluid contamination.

The CAA link refers to EFGLAS and how it should be used to replace Minyvin. It also lists Nyvin, Minyvin, and KTCL as obsolete. It lists both Raychem 44 and 55.

A quick search did not turn up Febsil or ATC 260.

I think the Nyvin/Minyvin information is interesting.

Erratum
 

I'm coming in rather late on this one as things take a long time to reach the Swamp, so have only just watched Panorama. Was pretty disappointed, though I guess it's spread the word to a wider audience.

Spent the first few minutes getting a bit emotional with the shots of the homecoming, Q and Steve + revisiting the Memorial; then spent a few minutes scratching my head as to who the heck Jimmy Jones was (thanks for the info on that earlier in the thread - glad to see they're digging out current people); and then sat staring incredulously at the screen, pausing and rewinding the Sky+ box as I watched an 'MRA4 on a test flight' - except it was an MR2 - in fact unless my eyes were wrong it was 2 x MR2s - XV248 taking off and XV246 going round the corner with the bomb doors open. Oh, and of course there was the aircraft taking a swim in the Moray Firth - first loss of an MR2 in 25 years apparently - except that it was an R1. And if another journalist refers to an MR2 as a 'spy plane' again, I think I'll scream.

Like most people on this thread, I lost good friends last year. I know that the general public won't be bothered by the errors above (and plenty more that were in there), and that the programme achieved a bit of publicity for the state of the armed forces, but I just wish that these programme makers would get the simple things right so that those in the know could believe in them a little more.

Live from the Swamp :}

Chaps, I'm a civvy now but was on the Kipper fleet from 90 to 94 ish. I knew some of the guys who were lost and have the utmost sympathy for their loved ones who bare the burden of their loss.

But when did it become acceptable to discuss technical and procedural topics in an open forum? I don't buy the "its already in the public domain" argument. Many of you are bound by the Official Secrets Act, just as I still am.

As for the panorama program it added nothing to the debate and was factually incorrect on many counts.

Whilst I fully understand the desire to get to the bottom of this. There are people doing just that and I think we would all do well to wait to hear what they have to say.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone as that was not the purpose but I had to pipe in when i saw procedures being discussed.

Swamp Thing:

Perhaps they had problems getting a shot of a MRA 4 in flight.

How current do you have to be on a 38 year old a/c with 38 year old fuel and hot air systems?

What is important, Tapper's Dad, families of the lost crew and millions of the general public believe in what they saw. This thread has had just 61,000 hits with a few hundred comments; it is just "noise in the system" compared to the impact that Panorama had.



DV

You'd better keep screaming Swamp. Given its role in Iraq/Afghanistan that is what it is.

Is that Mick Smith, former Nimrod Crew Chief and former lead guitarist with Nimrod Line Sqn's band....'Sir Peter Hardings Lovechildren'

If it is...(hello from the bass player & vocals)

Tappers Dad
The crew have no control over a Bomb Bay fire
It's external of the pressure hull and there are no systems on board to sort the problem - there is a Bomb Bay periscope to monitor what's going on, and that must have been very frightening
Decisions about keeping the Bomb Doors closed which might 'stifle' the problem through lack of oxygen have to be balanced against opening which might blow out, but also feed the fire
I know most of all that crew, and I'm convinced that Al Squires, Adey and the guys down the back would have been trying every trick in the book to get down safely - but in my heart - and had I been on board - I would have known we were in serious trouble and in a situation which we could nothing about - I would have been praying to reach Kandahar as I'm sure they all were

B15, there is no fire extinguishant in the bomb bay, but is that where the extra equipment is carried for the role the aircraft is tasked with?

Wader,
re post#448, try a search for FEPSIL. See Table 1 on page 4 of
this document.

PW

So despite the fact there had been a bomb bay fire in the Nimrod XV257 St Mawgan incident.Where the Bomb Bay Fire led to a number of consequent failures as a result of the damage sustained and had to be scrapped.

As Distant Voice said back in April "It is obvious to everyone that bomb bay fuel leaks did not start on 2nd Sept 2006, the accident simply brought an ongoing issue to a head".

So why Oh why after "A top down approach,identifying potential hazards, was then taken" in the Nimrod Baseline Equipment Safety Case compiled by BAE Systems 2005.
Did they not think, given the facts that a Fire Extinguisher perhaps using Inert Gas should be fitted in the Bomb Bay.

I am no engineer but common sense tells me that it is pretty clear that any Crew in a Nimrod with a Bomb Bay fire in the future has very little chance of survival .

LETS HOPE AND PRAY THEN BECAUSE THATS ALL WE APPEAR TO BE ABLE TO DO.

A WING AND A PRAYER SEEMS TO BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY

Swamp Thing:

'MRA4 on a test flight' - except it was an MR2 - in fact unless my eyes were wrong it was 2 x MR2s - XV248 taking off and XV246 going round the corner with the bomb doors open.

I have it on good authority that the BBC asked the MOD for footage of the MRA4 and were supplied with the pictures you rightly point out of MR2's .
Is this the fault of the BBC or is it just a MOD discrediting exercise .I leave you to make up your mnds.

TD
 

Sorry to say this , but if you really believe that last statement, you are starting to lose the plot on this one. :confused:

I'm also sorry but I must say that I agree with DFM :(

I am sure the BBC must have stock footage of an MRA4 in flight, even if that taken on its first flight. Even so, there is no excusing the, once again, slack journalism of not checking what is transmitted (a bit like the BBC Scotland news, when referring to Panorama and the loss of XV230, saying 'the Nimrod from RAF Lossiemouth' - FFS :mad::mad:). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to check facts - a Google search takes only a few seconds!


MadMark!!! :mad:

I have worked on a few items with telly journalists in the past. They kindly allowed me to take a peek at the script to check for obvious factual errors. It is not possible to do that with the filmed clips. It is a shame that obvious errors were made but people in my village have spoken to me about the program and all made the same point. They were concerned about the state of the RAF. Panorama made a very big point, the detail is less important. If tha lack of funding of the RAF and Armed Forces gets into the psyche of the British people they will be less likely to oppose an increase in Defence Budget at expense of other big ticket public spending options.

No point in giving TD a hard time about something he had no hand in.