nigegilb
 

check your PM's

Winco,

The reason why the only absolutely safe aircraft are the ones that don't fly is because that transport, aviation, and military aviation are, in that increasing order, risky activities. The risks can never be removed completely - risk of systems failure, structural failure, human error (be it aircrew, air traffic or maintenance) - but can only be reduced ALARP. Whether through reducing risks by designing out hazards, redundancy, or high integrity systems for single points of failure, the possibility will always exist that an accident will occur. If you want to try and contract someone to build you an aircraft that is perfectly safe, good luck - it will cost a mint (that is if anyone is prepared to accept the commercial risk of doing so).

I don't know if the risks are intolerable or tolerable - I don't have access to the safety case or the evidence supporting it. But yes, part of an ALARP consideration is a cost benefit analysis to establish that "simply spending money" is "reasonably practical". Unfortunately, those making such decisions may not be best equipped or informed to do so and while a crown censure may make people "uncomfortable", I think that only a court of law would actually hold people to account.

sw

Everyone,

Once and for all, the Nimrod MRA4, is not a "brand new aircraft", at least not in the way you mean....

Yes, it is "new metal", and yes, it is a "new" design, i.e not just a re-worked MR2. However, the design of the MRA4 was 'frozen' many years ago, probably at least 10 years ago. The design was 'frozen' before bomb bay extinguishers and fuel tank protection were considered issues. Yes, no doubt they could be added - and I'm not saying they shouldn't - but don't assume just because the aircraft are only being built now that they are in any way state of the art!

The design for Typhoon was frozen in the early 90s, F-22 probably at least 10 years ago. There is one school of thought that says by the time any complicated military aircraft enters service these days, given the time taken for the programme (JSF anyone?), it is already obsolete!

biggus
 

"However, the design of the MRA4 was 'frozen' many years ago, probably at least 10 years ago."

Credibility…..Lost!!

Touring industry in 1991 I discovered that the design of Typhoon was 90% frozen, with tight weight/space limitations.

While I can fully appreciate that some tweaks to MRA4 will result from the development programme, if you are telling me the design is not largely 'frozen' then I suggest the one lacking credibility is yourself!

Engines, sensors, fitments, basic structural layout, all designed and frozen probably several years ago. Any major changes resulting from prototype development will add years, and a lot of money to the programme.....

Which of course does not mean that major changes have not/will not happen!

The MRA4 design was 'frozen' (AVDS) last November (NOV 2006)...... Endex

Biggus..
 

The AVDS (Air Vehicle Design Standard) was frozen as stated....... The only change to the design will be that which is required to meet said standard or that which is mandated by the customer....

Just found this on Egoat! reassuring isn't it? it's from a liney at Kinloss, and people still wonder why we are in the state we are in! the groundies are being treated like !!!!, poorly supported, undermanned, under equipped and dangerously low on morale, Aircrew are frustrated and hitting skill fade really hard and we are all expected to maintain the op output in an ancient Aircraft with large safety concerns hanging over it:mad:

"We have civvies (ex snec's, 1 ex liney getting paid more now than he did when he was in the mob doing same job and not having the whole gulf / guard / ccs hassle!) working here too now.

The PVR's are starting to hurt the manpower now, along with permenant gulf rotation there is a serious shortage of trade knowledge and experience. I can't even get onto any of the 'q' courses due to lack of manpower! The whole system, is crazy and bordering on unsafe for flying!"

Quite
It is a newbuild ac based on a proven, relatively elderly design, with a mature fuselage that is built like a brick !!!!!house
Everything else, apart from the tube, is 'brand new' (circa 1997-2007)
How many of you out there are buying washing machines, microwaves, cars etc which are 'brand new' because they haven't been used but were manufactured in 2005?
I think the XV230 BOI and other ac incidents in AFG and IRQ will have an impact on the outcome of the initial front line delivery ac
To say that the design is "frozen" is a political, money saving statement
Engineers that design and build things never 'freeze', they look for new ways and inovation - and the lads at Woodford will find a solution.
The major modifications suggested on this thread could be incorporated much like an SEM, LMI, STI etc, within the overall cost
However, the Baron of Profit at BWOS might scupper that

Whoever released the protectively marked documents (available as links on the Sunday Times story) to the press has overstepped the mark :=. Stuff like individuals' names, times, dates, heights, frame no.s etc ... (available on the www) is a bad thing.:=

Well done Mick, now that is Investigative reporting at its best.

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nirmrodreport1.pdf

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nimrodreport2.pdf

Looks like there are two crews lucky to still be here, I won't say which crews, read them yourself !!!

I Have to agree with OHP 15M, the IR's complete with personal details should not have been leaked to the press. I would not be happy if it were my crews details. The person who passed them to the Times should have a serious think about the information they are putting onto the WWW, the protective marking of Restricted is there for a reason :ugh:

TD
I have never directly corresponded with you but I knew Ben (and the other crew members) and I am extremley sorry for your family's loss, he was a great lad, fun to be around and is sorely missed.
Best wishes
DA.

Just read Mick Smith's article. If nothing else it does provide the evidence that the AAR system is flawed. That should answer your point WasNaeMe And Safeware, I am not sure what the risk factor is for one accident and two major incidents involving AAR in four months (Sept, Nov & Dec). I suspect it is worse than 1:1000.

And we still fly.

DV

DV,

I'm not in a position to disagree with you. As I said, all I'm trying to do is illustrate objectively what should be happening. I'm not trying to defend what is going on.

sw

Safeware: I undersatand.

It is just frustrating to constantly hear from MoD that Nimrod has a good safety record, and so it is fit to fly. To use their own definition of safety case in DEF STAN 00-56I know it has been said before but,
DV

The fuel leak incidents referred to in Mick Smith's article occurred after SOP's were changed following the XV230 crash.

An unofficial view.

"Since the incident, the SOP for refuelling nimrods has changed. The carter pump is not switched on until asked to by the Nimrod and it is turned off for the final stage of the refuel. I also think they no longer fill to full.
I am positive there will be no blame whatsoever attached to the Tri-Startanker crew. You cannot refuel at the incorrect pressure as the system is automatic and if a carter pump is left on as the flow rate reduces the system will knock it off. It may be put down to the practise of staying in contact after tanks are full, a practise that was also carried out on the VC10. This could have led to the tanks and the vent system being exposed to pressures the system was not designed for."

Furthermore, the incidents continue, this one happened this year.

One of the Nimrods recently landed with 7 tons of fuel sloshing around in the bomb bay, another fuel migration and one which could have seen a repeat of Afghanistan.
I will dig out the Parliamentary answer and compare.

Good work Mick Smith :ok:

Restricted document or not, whoever leaked them obviously feels very strongly that safety is being compromised and has had the balls to do something about it. What it highlights is gross negligence on the part of the RAF and MOD.

I know the Nimrod and it's crews perform a crucial role and I know a new jet cannot just be magically brought on line but for the love of god someone with influence has to find a solution before more people die. They've already lost a £70m > jet and a crew with a combined experience of 200 years, somebody please wake up and smell the coffee. :ugh:

Safeware
Do you think therefore, that all aircraft are inherintly unsafe then? I'm not sure Mr Boeing would agree with you or Airbus Industries, or anyone else for that matter. Don't let the airlines know that their aircraft are unsafe either will you??!!!

The thing is, MR4 may or may not be a new build (depends on who you talk to) but there should be no question that following the loss of the Hercules, and the the loss of XV230, any aircraft coming into service today, should be fitted with todays safety equipment. It is unacceptable to say that as the design/build was done 10 years ago, then it is OK to put 10 years old and out-of-date safety kit onto the aircraft.

We need to get real about this. No one is expecting an aircraft that is 100% safe, but we are expecting is an aircraft that is as safe as it possibly can be. Following the loss of XV230, to NOT fit the bomb bay with some form of fire extinguishant or suppresent is bordering on criminal negligence. It must be done. You appear to be saying that it isn't necessary, and that I find a little uncomfortable. Clearly you don't fly Nimrod for a living!

OHP 15M & DA
I would normally agree with your comments, but on this occasion I don't. I hope that the incident reports get printed in the press, so that MPs, the government and the public can all see what is going on. They are only restricted documents, and if you read the definition of that, then you will understand that there has been no harm done to the service whatsoever. As for the Captains name being published, come on guys, have you never read the RAF news where the whole crew has been named?? Of course you have.

toddbabes comments make for seriously disturbing reading. When you have the groundcrew saying things like that, clearly they are in a bad way and seem to be hurting big time. It makes it even more important and worthwhile therefore that all this stuff gets out into the public domain.

TSM

Eric Bedford
 

Nothing to do with current problems, however this thread needs an inject of good news.

Nim mates, esp of the 80's period will be delighted to know that Eric Bedford, a well respected Nav Capt who lost his sight at the age of 44 is alive and kicking and looking good. I know this cos he's just beaten the banker on Deal or No Deal.

On this show, he was not only an inspiration to anyone with impaired vision, but was a credit to the RAF - he displayed all the qualities and values we should all aspire to and gave this organisation the best PR it's had in years.

Well done Eric. :D