True but also:
True also but - any possible sources of ignition inside the bomb bay have been removed since 230 - but apart from all these other measures imposed post 230, i agree that nothing has been done!!:ugh:
As I said before, I'm not saying there isn't a leak problem :rolleyes:- just that everything possible has been done to mitigate the risk of a subsequent fire. And yes, I was on board the ac quoted in one of the other 2 IRs from last Nov/Dec.
This is my last post on this subject as, in my mind it has deteriorated far enough. However, as i said before, the only way to stress major concern is for those who are not happy to vote with their feet - come to think of it, I might even get another whacking big FRI then!!:D [just thought I'd better point out aircrew sarcasm to those who post on here!]

The above comments appear to represent most of the views that disagree with mine, so I'll answer them.

Fuel and ignition. As aircrew we, and our leaders, always consider the effects of the next failure. ie if fuel leaks on a hot engine will the engine catch fire? yes, so we make sure that we have sufficient extinguishant available because we can never guarrantee that fuel will never leak onto a hot engine. That same principle of considering what could happen next with a fuel leak in the nimrod bomb bay, since Sep 06, has been very carefully thought through by specialists who know what it takes to ignite AVTUR, and it is not easily achieved. No-one ever said that fuel will never again leak in a Nimrod bomb bay. If the Nimrod leadership has any belief that there is any possibility of a fire developing (the next failure) with a fuel leak in the bomb bay, there is no way that we would be AARing (or indeed routine flying) if that were the case. We cannot guarrantee no leakage. No-one operating any aircraft in any organisation in the World can do that.

Do you believe that the leaders are that reckless?

There were no noxious fumes in the cabin while the aircraft was airborne. It was pressurized so the fuel vapours would not have entered the cabin. Shortly after landing, the fans at the back of the cabin drew the fumes up into the cabin from the bomb bay through an open valve near to the leak and dumped the fumes overboard at the back. That is the route that the air takes while on the Nimrod is on the ground.

Unstable load? The aircraft weighs more than 100,000 lbs. The unregulated movement of a few pounds is not going to change anything.

Reduction in available fuel: when it was first observed, the leak could have been in either a feed pipe or a refuel pipe. Stopping the AAR was clearly correct and that action would indicate if the leak was in the refuel pipes. The leak did abate after disconnect, and because it was therefore in a refuel pipe, the tanks had enough fuel to take the aircaft to its planned destination. There is no way that the crew would ever be without enough fuel to go home. If the leak had been in a feed pipe, we have a drill to stop it. Again, there would have been enough fuel on board to go to the destination. In either case, if there was insufficient fuel to go to the destination, for whatever reason, and that was the only concern, the crew had Kandahar a few miles away to use as an en route diversion in a routine manner.

Should they have been concerned? Yes, because they are human and they read the critical opinions on pprune and Timesonline and they lost some friends last year and no-one has yet told them why, and not everyone on the crew fully understands the logical and very careful thoughts of their leaders (my first answer above). On the day the aircraft was light enough for an immediate, safety first, landing at a friendly airfield. To continue with the AAR while the pipe was seen to be leaking would have been reckless. To stop the leak and contine to the destination with some residual fuel in the bay was an option (and it has happened many times before), but the crew are human. I don't believe I have been critical of their actions. I do believe that I have brought some balance to this dicussion about leadership and duty of care.

Vage Rot: This is the attitude that the politicians admire - let's not make the aircraft safer, let's just back the aircrew into a corner! With mortgages to pay, kids to support and no topcover from senior officers, it leaves personnel taking risks that they feel very uncomforable with.

Vage Rot: Does this mean that there is now no chance of a future bomb bay fire?


AC Ovee,

You appear to have knowledge of the ignition source that caused the loss of XV230. If this ignition source has now been removed, please enlighten us as to what caused the fire.

I fear to post on this thread, however I am adding my thoughts on Al_R's question regarding opening the bay doors to dispose of fuel leaking in there.

I would say that it depends on by what means the bomb bay doors are actuated. If they are operated by hydraulics, cables, levers, etc, then I can't see any problem.

However, if they are operated by electric motors, and if the motors are located in the bay itself, and if the motors are not insulated or isolated from the air space in the bomb bay, then that could make a difference. Any electric motor sparks when it is running - between the commutator and brushes. So there could be a potential ignition source, as long as all the above condition are met.

Techies will no doubt put me straight with the facts.

AC Ovee,

The incident report shows that extensive investigation was carried out on XV235 whilst on the ground at Kandahar. On completion of this work the ac was released only for a ferry flight to the DOB, for further investigation.

This would seem to indicate that the engineering authority, IPT and ADA were not as confident as you that the event was quite so benign.

From a CRM perspective, it would be fascinating to hear a tape of a Nimrod captain proposing to continue the sortie under such circumstances.

Nigegilb:
No, not at all. A great deal of research into the types and methods of extinguishing any fire in any area of the bay would have had to be carried out. Then it would need design drawings and consent and then manufacture and finally fitting and testing, etc. With the best will in the World, it would never have happpened in 15 months. Even at the time of the rejected Qinetiq proposal a few years ago, the MR2 would have out of service before any big system like that could have been installed upon that recommendation. My own view is that it is an impossible concept anyway, but its only my view (like yours I guess), so it carries no weight.

I am sure you are aware that the MR2 is fitted with fire extinguishant when flying with long range tanks in the bomb bay. The precedent is there. BAe recommended it in 2004, how much time do you want?

I understand the arguments about increased volume and leakage rates when the tanks aren't there, but it can't be beyond the wit of an RAF engineer to come up with a workable design to see the aircraft out.

The time to design it for MRA4 is now. But it has not been requested by the customer.

Of course, safety is of personnel is of paramount importance.

AC Ovee a detailed answer but I have a 'what if' for you.

What if the jet had been at an extended range from Kandahar when it was discovered that fuel was spraying into the bomb bay.

Given that there is apparently no longer an ignition source within the bomb bay (presumably due to the isolation of the SCP?) we perhaps would not have seen an explosion but it is possible is it not that the jet would not have had sufficient fuel to make it back to a safe airfield?

Would we still be talking about a near tragedy or would we have another memorial thread?

Da4orce,
Im not aircrew but im pretty sure that there is always enough fuel left for a diversion..You see there are always 'what ifs?' in avaition. What if the tanker goes u/s? .... what if the probe breaks due to turbulance....?

This wouldn't be a problem as prior to the AAR, the ac would have had enough fuel to RTB inc div fuel etc. I believe the fuel that leaked was indeed fuel that was taken from the tanker and not what the ac had prior to AAR. Hope that makes sense. JB

nigegilb

That is factually incorrect; there is no formal requirement to monitor the bomb bay during AAR.

AC Ovee

Nice post :D

Bomb bay fuel tanks haven't been fitted in decades, and never will be. All the tanks were scrapped years ago when the aircraft were fitted with AAR.

Would fire protection be of any use? Doubtful - with a static air pressure in the bomb bay itself and a dynamic air flow on the outside, anything gaseous or liquid that enters the bomb bay will more than likely be sucked out fairly sharpish - it is not a completely sealed unit. This includes fuel and vapours. Would extuinguishant be effective enough in that situation? If they fire in XV230 was large enough to bring the aircraft down, then I doubt there would be any amount of fire extuinguishant short of that foam stuff used in Demoliton Man that could successfully put it out.

At the risk of probing too deep, neither can you guarantee no ignition! By ground testing the AR system and over pressurising it at that, it would seem that consistently no leaks resulted, but as you say that did not guarantee no leakage, indeed it occurred, and seemingly in some abundance. A classic case of 'ground tested and found serviceable'? By the same token by removing obvious sources of ignition from the bomb bay you can't guarantee no source of ignition! Yet with all this known, AR continued and even now there seems to be a nudge, a wink, that a mayday and immediate diversion was a bit OTT. This can do, push on, culture is the antithesis of what prudent operation should mean. Having called for the CAS's resignation, the grounding of the fleet until it is made airworthy, and an independent inquiry into Military Airworthiness Regulation, I was content to hold my peace but:

Nice post :D Today 19:16

referring to the top quote could not go uncontested I'm afraid.

Different roles - ASTOR tracks moving objects just like JSTARS (but with much reduced pie-carrying capacity due to MOD scrimping on airframe choice). The SAR image it takes is intended for general identification of those objects, these would then be passed to other platforms such as Watchkeeper for a more detailed look.

The MR2 is basically acting as a big Predator/Watchkeeper, using the MX-15 turret to keep an eye on the bad guys just like the US do with pred but with considerably more risk and much poorer access to Vegas.

The bit of kit MOD intends to do this job in the future is either Pred B or the new King Air 350ER's (also fitted with MX-15 - again with minimal pie-lift capacity).

AC
Yes, I would. And yes, I would do AAR. Why? Because AAR in a Nimrod is no more dangerous than AAR in any other aircraft. XV230 experienced a fuel fire due to any one of a number of causes, and I know that ALL of those causes have since been identified and mitigated. XV235 suffered ONLY a fuel leak. Yes, it sprayed into the bomb bay, but it would never have become a fire because there was nothing in there to ignite it. AVTUR and air (even at the correct ratio) will only ignite with an enormous amount of heat to create the chemnical process known as oxidization (fire). Sufficient heat is supplied by either a small spark with a lot energy which is only achieved by HE ignitors (there are none in the bomb bay) or sustained heat energy created by a hot surface (air pipe), and there are none in the bomb bay, now.

Those who know what a Mayday means will form the impression that the crew were in imminent danger. They were not. They never were. However, in fairness to them, they were scared and feared for their lives. Why? Because the situation was very similar to XV230 and no-one has yet told them (BOI report) why it was actually very different. It is because of this lack of crucual info that they did what they did and they, my friends and colleagues, did it well.

The underlying reason for the crew's decision to divert off task lies not with the aircraft. It lies with those who have not released the findings of the senior officers on the BOI.

Spot On A/C as myself a non aircrew dude but an engineer with many years on type perfect words indeed. As for people asking questions about ignition etc there is nothing in the BB now to cause a spark if you wish to call it that. As engineers and aircrew, the people that ask silly questions like you must have inside info on the BOI , its utter rubbish, if you work directly on the aircraft we have a knowledge of the systems and what if possablities. We cannot disclose information as much as we would love to as I for one value my job too much to give out information before the BOI do there thing (nobody on this thread has any idea what they know). When that is done then the questions will be answered.

Nigegilb.
Would fire protection in the bomb bay be of any use? NOT IF THE FIRE SOURCE WAS NOT IN THE BOMB BAY!!! Bomb bay firewire may well give a warning, but it doesn't necessarily mean (on the MR2) thats where the source of the fire is / WAS !!
DS

DS

I cant find any firewire being in the bomb bay !!! Maybe there is!! i cant say ive noticed ever :/ damm shows how much i know

Dink Dang Doo ;o)

edit. firewire only has a small current i believe anyway , surely it cant produce high ignition sparks :/

QUOTE "DS
I cant find any firewire being in the bomb bay !!! Maybe there is!! i cant say ive noticed ever :/ damm shows how much i know
Dink Dang Doo ;o)
edit. firewire only has a small current i believe anyway , surely it cant produce high ignition sparks :/"...



Magnersdrinker, you've obviously been drinking magners. Of course there is firewire in the Bomb bay and if you read my previous post PROPERLY you would see that I was not at all implying that Firewire would be a source of ignition.
DS

from:- http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/astor/

It is obvious (from the above) that ASTOR is not a current option (even if it was role-competent) as it won't be operational until 'end of 2008'.
Question:- Does it really take twelve to eighteen months to go from system delivery to operational deployment?

hey shagger
 

Vage come on now you know that all the experts on here know better than you, remember they have left and are much smarter now. What is next lets use E3s or even UAV to replace the old girl?? Why do coalition troops ask for me in my ageing LRMPA to cover them when they have all the toys to choose from?? I am sure it is not for my good looks wit and charm.:ugh::ugh:
I have asked for restraint and consideration on this post but no you just cannot help yourselves. So when and if we meet I will ignore your calls for restraint, take your frustration with your lack of promotion or importance to another cause or shall we have to wait until something other than a Chinook/Herc/Nimrod is lost.
To the dudes at ISK keep the faith brothers and sisters, hopefully will catch up in a month halaal non-pork sausage side.:hmm:
Charlie sends