Bingo Handjob

You asked me;

"Do you know if the Nimrod publications are out of date?"


Yes. I've formally complained about it. The point I made above is that most Tech Pubs are not unique to one aircraft. Yes, the Nimrod MR2 has a suite of unique pubs for the airframe etc, but an awful lot of the aircraft equipment is common to other types. The failure to maintain a single equipment AP can adversely affect many aircraft.

This is compounded by the stovepiping in the MoD. I have managed programmes where, as part of risk reduction, I've had the aircraft data set assessed for currency (which really annoys people). Invariably it's grossly out of date, by years, not months (that's why they were annoyed, they were found out). Tough **** I say, they don't sign for airworthiness. But, I am only given funding to update MY pubs. And MY equipment. (And only if I ask for it and make a good enough case, which is where experience and competence in IPTs comes in. If you don't know to ask, or what to ask, you don't get). If other aircraft are affected (i.e. their equipment is out of date or lacks functionality because the pubs were outdated) all I can do is advise the other IPTs, as the process in not a centralised function anymore. Invariably they don't do anything, so different aircraft will be carrying the same equipment, but at different build standards. This matters little on a one off basis for Class C and D mods, but does (by definition) for Class A and B. The cumulative effect can be disastrous, particularly in a system of systems.

You will also appreciate that equipment at grossly different build standards, yet bearing the same NATO Stock No, can and does migrate between aircraft types. I've seen other countries complain about our aircraft lacking important functionality and interoperability precisely because of this. And in an aircraft like Nimrod it is entirely possible for crew stations to have different functionality for this reason. Come to think of it, that's what they were complaining about..... And then there's the simulators/RCTs etc. Very often they are ignored altogether. Stovepiped again. And so on. Not a big deal in isolation you may think, but just occasionally the cumulative effect and years of neglect causes events to conspire against you.


I'd go further and say that the risk classification matrix used to assess safety case risks and hazards (Criticality vs Probability) should be reassessed. It assumes a constant - that the build standard is maintained. This is NOT a constant - it is highly variable, and I would hazard a guess that some risks currently classed as "B" would change to "A". That is, given the outcome is "Catastrophic" should the event occur, you would only need to raise the probability from "Remote" to "Occasional" for the clasification to change from B to A. And that is defined as unacceptable, intolerable and should lead to grounding. When the fleet was 30+, one loss may be tolerable, barely. But when it happens in a fleet of 12, does this perception change? I'm not privvy to the flying rate but I'd definitely ask the question.


May I recommend you glance at this. Dated 1998, it is fair warning of the problem to MoD (if they needed it).

http://www.publications.parliament.u.../300/30003.htm

In it, there are references to various aircraft which, in a management sense (i.e. same people involved) are closely related to Nimrod. That is, management sets the tone. Any decision affects a wide range of aircraft and equipment. And one of the decisions was - there is no need to maintain the build standard, which includes safety. CDP is asked a very specific question on the general subject (Configuration Control) - see "Cost of Modifications" section. He was, shall we say, economical with the truth; made possible in part by the question being too specific. And, as ever, the Committee doesn't follow up to see if his promises were met.


Sorry for the length of reply, but this is a very complex subject, and one often ignored.

Phanphix
 

Phanphix


I know the board of inquiry has put back its findings on two separate occasions because that has been confirmed by the MoD. I can say when it happened but I cannot of course say why.

But that this happened on each occasion directly after information emerged in the media is not in doubt and if you go back a few pages to the emails released by Tapper's Dad you will find him being blamed by one of your colleagues at Kinloss for delaying the report.

I assume that the response you quoted is a post at the end of the TimesOnline article since it is not awaiting moderation on my blog. I'm sorry it hasnt been put up there but were I you I should not assume that this is some sort of conspiracy. I've posted politely on numerous occasions at the end of articles on football and never managed to get one published. They all have to be moderated and I doubt this is done on either a 24-hour or a full-time basis. Please feel free to put it on my blog ref-ed by DV and Tucumseh.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/mick_...-report-i.html

I can guarantee it will go up - I moderate it myself - and it will have more longevity there than at the end of an article that has already been swallowed up by the next day's news.

If you look at everything which has been discussed, be it in the media or in this thread, it becomes obvious that this is not just speculation about what may or may not have taken place on board XV230 to cause the explosion, it is about who is accountable, who is to blame.

Comments have been made that the RAF are to blame, this does make me question who exactly that would be. The RAF are not a single minded entity, the RAF is made up of individuals. Is there a need to have someone stand before us, someone to shout at, scream at, vent all the frustration and grief on, to be able to have someone to actually look upon and to demand why, why our loved ones died.

Personally I feel this was a tragic accident, my reason for this, because I have 100% confidence in the ground crew. I do not believe they would be aware of any fault and allow the plane to fly. I have 100% confidence in the captain, as I do not believe he would sign for the plane if he thought there was a fault. I have 100% confidence in all the crews abilities. I do not believe for one second any of them would have allowed XV230 to fly, knowing or even suspecting it may end lives.

I have not yet seen or heard anything to lower my confidence, I have not yet heard anything which holds exact factual evidence, up to date evidence with regards to XV230. Up to now all which has been stated has not been in direct relation to XV230 on the date of her final flight and a great deal is an attempt to find accountability.

The great thing about this site, is that everyone is entitled to an opinion.
If I thought the RAF would have insisted on every Herc being sent into theatre with fuel tank protection I never would have started the Herc thread.

If I thought the RAF would insist on Nimrod getting bomb bay fire protection and fuel tank protection I would never have posted on this thread.

As for accountability, in the case of the Hercules it came down to a culture. A "can do" culture from aircrew right the way up to CAS and Defence Ministers. A willingness to take risks with other peoples lives, a willingness to take risks with one's own life. Believe me, I have been there. I have no reason to believe this culture does not exist throughout the AF, it is what we are admired for. It is also an achilles heal

Don't expect objectiveness from the guys in the thick of it, from people with no money to spend, or from Chiefs of Staff with a whole host of problems and pressures to deal with.

We need more independence both in the make up of the BoI and the way RAF engineering is regulated.

The great thing about this site is that we are free to express an opinion.

With due respect, Nige, I would differ. I do expect objectiveness from Chiefs of Staff and would expect them to give way to others if they find themselves unable to express it.

Amen to that. IMHO it can only happen if Military Airworthiness Regulation is removed from the MOD to an independent authority, per the CAA. Cracked record? More like an endless tape that has to be on continuous play until the penny drops.

The great thing about this site is that we are free to express an opinion. Really!
It seems freedom of opinion is only acceptable if it ties in with others views. I remember the Hercules debate well. There was certainly very little freedom of expression there and this one is heading the same way. Or can't I express that view as it does not tie in with others feelings. The unpleasantness voiced on the Herc site and the language that often accompanied the vilification of others was disgusting. I hope against hope that this doesn't happen here. More families have become involved on this thread, what greater insult than to use the same attitude.
Whilst everyone squabbles about who is right and wrong - let us remember that our guys live and die to afford us this freedom. It should not be squandered.
By all means debate, discuss, philosophise, pass comment, but please please don't belittle other peoples views. No one is perfect, everyone feels they are right and we only have that right because of the sacrifice of others.
At what point do we accept an objective view as being objective, at any given time a decision is made that person feels he is being objective.
When joining up, when getting married, when flying , when driving - each decision is objective at the time but can be construed in another way later. We must give all our service men and women respect in as much as they make each decision to the best of their ability otherwise we will end up questioning every single thing ever done.
Life would not be worth living if that were the case. And life IS for living, the best way we can, making decisions we hope and believe are best for us, take that away and there is no point in life at all.

Chug,

It all comes down to an attitude to risk, be it the guys and girls on the front line, or the Chiefs of Staff in control. This is what a highly experienced Nimrod pilot, in a position of influence thought of AOC 2 Gp's decision to continue AAR Ops last year.

" Worst part has been the release of info. We've not heard a dicky bird then suddenly the ACC in the Gulf wants us airborne and tanker capable again. One of the SDs says that if operationally essential and if no other alternatives exist then the aircraft can tank, albeit with AOC 2 Gp permission. So, we had a jet AARing over Kandahar 4 days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management. The Staish here wanted to get airborne on the Tuesday after the crash as a flag waving exercise for the press and RAF! Why not tell the ACC to back off and wait until we had a better idea of what happened and what we could do about it. AOC 2 Gp should have fired it up STC and through them into PJHQ that we needed to be patient and make sure we were not going to put another Nimrod unnecessarily at risk. We should have told the press the same thing and they would have gone away happy."

Maybe you are right Chug, the Chiefs have their eyes wide open when they make decisions, it is just that they have a different attitude to risk management. In the end, the Nimrod pilot was right, the huge fuel migrations continued, thankfully with no further loss of life.

The problem with risk, is that it is impossible to do anything risk free. Politicians twist this and use the argument to justify sending British troops to war under-equipped to do the task in hand. Hence, the siren call for more independence to prevent things going wrong and more independence when investigating when things have gone wrong. The BoI reporting chain goes to the Station Commander, then to AOC 2 Gp for his comments and upwards from there. The make-up of the BoI often includes colleagues and superior officers in the same world. I am not doubting integrity here, I am just trying to explain why I believe more independence is required. The Herc BoI, completely failed to explain why foam was not on that aircraft. I hope that the Nimrod BoI will at least explain why XV230 did not have fire protection in the bomb bay. The flimsy reason that has been offered so far, under FOI request cuts absolutely no ice.

There has been much criticism of speculation on this thread. For what it's worth the decision to carry on tanking regardless, will be severely tested when the BoI is published.

Do we pressure test the AAR fuel lines on the ground? And if so, at what pressure?

DV

Good question, some more

Is there a system in place to ensure these checks are carried out at scheduled intervals, on component replacement, and/or before an AAR sortie?

Has this requirement been properly identified, investigated, and documented in the Nimrod Air Publications?

Is there sufficient serviceable test equipment to carry out these checks, at base, and in theatre?

Is in theatre Engineering Authority allowed to waive this requirement due to 'Operational Requirement' ?

Is it possible that the 'can do' attitude of the overworked, undermanned, demoralised engineers could lead to short cuts being taken, in a misplaced attitude of getting the job done?

Is it possible that personnel would give false testimony to a BoI?


SPHLC (Not on Nimrods)

Good question, some more

Is there a system in place to ensure these checks are carried out at scheduled intervals, on component replacement, and/or before an AAR sortie?

Has this requirement been properly identified, investigated, and documented in the Nimrod Air Publications?

Is there sufficient serviceable test equipment to carry out these checks, at base, and in theatre?

Is in theatre Engineering Authority allowed to waive this requirement due to 'Operational Requirement' ?

Is it possible that the 'can do' attitude of the overworked, undermanned, demoralised engineers could lead to short cuts being taken, in a misplaced attitude of getting the job done?

Is it possible that personnel would give false testimony to a BoI?


SPHLC (Not on Nimrods)
Yes there is. Happy now.
YES
YES
NO
Definitely not
Wouldn't think so but you'll believe what ever suits your agenda irrespective of the truth.

Mick Smith

'.......I know the board of inquiry has put back its findings on two separate occasions because that has been confirmed by the MoD. I can say when it happened but I cannot of course say why......'

Do you/MoD mean that the board has put back its findings, or that the publication date of the report has been put back. The two things are very different. After the 3-4 man board has finished its report it goes into the senior officer/politician/MoD lawyer loop - which, considering the high profile nature of this report, may (and I say may) be where the delays have occurred.

Just because the publication of the report has been delayed at least twice it does not automatically mean the board has been reconsidering it's findings!

"Is it possible that personnel would give false testimony to a BoI?"


The answer is "yes" but the more likely scenario, and one which clearly occurred in the two Boards of Inquiry I mentioned above, is;

a. The Board don't ask the correct question
b. They don't follow up or dig deeper when the answer is clearly rubbish
c. "Witnesses" know what the correct question is and withhold relevant information
d. Information/records go "missing"
e. The existence of such records is denied in the first place


Why else would a supposedly knowledgeable BoI, who can order staff to seek out answers, release a report stating that, for example, a system which they note as a likely cause of the crash is unfit for purpose and doesn't remotely comply with airworthiness regulations, but not ask questions like "Why was it fitted", "By whom?", "Was it trialled properly?", "Did the ADA appraise it (as it was a Service Engineered Mod)?", "Were pilot training and operating procedures updated?" and so on. Not to ask ANY of these questions is negligence. Or collusion.

But, worse, when all of the questions ARE answered after the BoI report is issued, and are entered into the official record, why were they not addressed at the inquests?

I concede not all BoI are conducted this way, perhaps very few, but the common denominator (to me) seems to be the protection of senior people who were forewarned but did nothing. It was, essentially, performance (in these cases, safety) being knowingly traded out - and one should ask why, given time and cost were not factors in either case.

WCB Handjob: Perhaps you can answer my question. Do we pressure test the AAR pipes and joints? and if we do, to what pressure?

DV

All fuel lines, pipes, joints, seals and anything connected to them are checked at 50 PSI, whenever required.

101: Many thanks for that information.

DV

DV, if Techie101 had answered your question he would deserve your thanks. But his general statement is rubbish.

However, with respect to the refuel pipes and AAR pipes, they can be tested to 50 psi.

Handjob

I already knew the answers to my questions (you failed the quiz) Its just my way of steering this thread away from integral fuel tank leaks, and towards where the clues are pointing.

No hard feelings.

Sir Peter, you seem to be a nice chap, but I am missing your point. I asked a question on the pressure testing of AAR fuel lines, because I am aware that during AAR pressures of 80 psi have been recorded. A simple "yes we do test" was not good enough, I wanted to know to what level. Now I know; 30 psi lower that that experienced in flight.

By the way according to the QinetiQ report, AP are not up to date.

DV

Okay, as far as I know, we get up a ladder and fit a special adapter to the refuel probe, which then takes the coupling from a fuel truck. Delivery pressure from the fuel truck would be 50 psi. And only if the tanks are shut, other wise there would be no back pressure.

I stand to be corrected here, but that's the gist of it, there's not much more we could do.

If the tank cocks are shut then 50 psi is the instantaneous px in the system and is checked. If you carry our replacement of any component do you carrry out MPxx-xx yes, does this involve this check yes. Is this routinely carried out before AAR sorties, yes. Can this be waived? No. Is this routinely carried out at a certain calendar periodicity? yes. Do Groundcrew pay lip service to this check? No but if you can prove otherwise then I would be surprised and definitely disappointed. Do people lie to BoI my conscience is clear and having a quiz that you don't know the answer to proves you to be a fool and not a knave. Best of luck with Bienvinida Sir Pete.

Oh yes the equipment is available at isk and any responsible sooty would have the kit available at a detached location chin chin old boy.

SO Wg Co and Sir Peter; Where does this put in-flight surges of 80psi in terms of safety. I might add that this figure was recorded after the AAR SOP's had been modified to allow a 1485 lbs "headroom" in No1 tank. This change, of course, was introduced after the XV230 accident.

DV