Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 3,399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggus.
My point exactly. The new kit has been arriving for the troops, but they certainly did not leave the country whilst waiting for it to arrive, and it is not as if they would have been leaving others in the lurch if they had.
Don't get me wrong, I would be first in line for firing party duties if the cretins who have got Nimrod and the like into the current parlous state ever stand trial, I just think grounding the fleet is a very short sighted view.
My point exactly. The new kit has been arriving for the troops, but they certainly did not leave the country whilst waiting for it to arrive, and it is not as if they would have been leaving others in the lurch if they had.
Don't get me wrong, I would be first in line for firing party duties if the cretins who have got Nimrod and the like into the current parlous state ever stand trial, I just think grounding the fleet is a very short sighted view.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 50
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of the many who sat through the entire three weeks, heard many painful things and cried many tears but also had a few laughs.
Mr Walker came by his verdict not because of his own personal views or because he's a wannabe engineer but based solely on the comments of witnesses and the full evidence presented before him. The respect he showed to all of us families was clear.
To have anyone state that a payout is important in this is deeply wrong, the important factors here is that we finally learnt what happened to our boys, no matter how hurtful that was to hear and to view, we know without doubt and so do others that they died in the most professional manner and I, as well as every single family member, is extremely proud of them and to have hope that this may be prevented from happening again. My wish, my hope, is that all those who work on and those who fly on the Nimrod can do so without fear and with the knowledge that everything which can be done to ensure their safety is being done.
From my family to the 13 others, our thoughts, love and wishes remain always with you.
From me to TD,
Mr Walker came by his verdict not because of his own personal views or because he's a wannabe engineer but based solely on the comments of witnesses and the full evidence presented before him. The respect he showed to all of us families was clear.
To have anyone state that a payout is important in this is deeply wrong, the important factors here is that we finally learnt what happened to our boys, no matter how hurtful that was to hear and to view, we know without doubt and so do others that they died in the most professional manner and I, as well as every single family member, is extremely proud of them and to have hope that this may be prevented from happening again. My wish, my hope, is that all those who work on and those who fly on the Nimrod can do so without fear and with the knowledge that everything which can be done to ensure their safety is being done.
From my family to the 13 others, our thoughts, love and wishes remain always with you.
From me to TD,
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 69
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
with respect - supporting the other servicemen in theatre is going to be very dear to all other servicemen, including Nimrod aircrew.
The problem is that the government repeatedly (and I am not referring solely to the current incumbents) absolutely rely on this sense of duty while they callously skimp on the resources provided to the MOD to carry out the policies they themselves have dictated. Now, finally, in the 21st century, it is becoming more common to haul the politicians who make these crass decisions over the coals instead of simply covering up needless casualty figures.
Stop for one tiny moment and ponder what the MOD could do with the money used to prop up Nothern Rock - a bank that should have collapsed due to gross mismanagement, having followed a policy that an O level economics student would have considered unsustainable...why? Well, turn the cash over, regardless of risk, because the turnover dictates your bonus size. That the government can spare whatever it takes to provide N Rock with a lifeboat, whilst fighting wars in two countries on sub-peacetime budget levels, is a scathing indictment of our political leadership.
It does nobody, ESPECIALLY those on the ground in Afghanistan, any favours to prop up a mismanaged system - the ground troops would be infinitely better supported if the government provided ALL in theatre forces with the level of support they provide as a matter of course to greedy financial mismanagers. The big difference is that the banks carry more weight in discussions than soldiers lives.
The aim here is really to make the government provide the cash needed to produce whatever the troops need - 'candoitis' is playing right into the hands of those who we have entrusted to do better, but would rather cement votes from the city.
with respect - supporting the other servicemen in theatre is going to be very dear to all other servicemen, including Nimrod aircrew.
The problem is that the government repeatedly (and I am not referring solely to the current incumbents) absolutely rely on this sense of duty while they callously skimp on the resources provided to the MOD to carry out the policies they themselves have dictated. Now, finally, in the 21st century, it is becoming more common to haul the politicians who make these crass decisions over the coals instead of simply covering up needless casualty figures.
Stop for one tiny moment and ponder what the MOD could do with the money used to prop up Nothern Rock - a bank that should have collapsed due to gross mismanagement, having followed a policy that an O level economics student would have considered unsustainable...why? Well, turn the cash over, regardless of risk, because the turnover dictates your bonus size. That the government can spare whatever it takes to provide N Rock with a lifeboat, whilst fighting wars in two countries on sub-peacetime budget levels, is a scathing indictment of our political leadership.
It does nobody, ESPECIALLY those on the ground in Afghanistan, any favours to prop up a mismanaged system - the ground troops would be infinitely better supported if the government provided ALL in theatre forces with the level of support they provide as a matter of course to greedy financial mismanagers. The big difference is that the banks carry more weight in discussions than soldiers lives.
The aim here is really to make the government provide the cash needed to produce whatever the troops need - 'candoitis' is playing right into the hands of those who we have entrusted to do better, but would rather cement votes from the city.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some on here are missing an important point.
Whether or not the aircraft meets some definition of safe is unimportant in my view compared to whether not having it flying makes the guys on the ground safer.
They are the ones who are facing by far the biggest risk of death or injury.
If, by flying the Nimrod we accept a higher risk than we would like, but lower their frankly horrendous risk levels, we should do it.
Whether or not the aircraft meets some definition of safe is unimportant in my view compared to whether not having it flying makes the guys on the ground safer.
They are the ones who are facing by far the biggest risk of death or injury.
If, by flying the Nimrod we accept a higher risk than we would like, but lower their frankly horrendous risk levels, we should do it.
The Nimrods are supporting ground troops because their resourcing and mission require this. There are not enough troops and, as usual, the UK is picking up the tab and getting sucked into Enduring Freedom (certainly is enduring - seems like a long time ago since I heard the op name!). The question is not as simple as "we are where we are, we need the Nimrod". This is a coalition operation, why is the Nimrod the only solution? Most of us armchair commentators think that the Afghanistan situation is irrecoverable, certainly with the limited numbers of troops in theatre. Why throw more lives onto the bonfire? That argument stands for the soldiers as much as for the aircrew and we all share the anger about equipment shortages that have led to deaths amongst soldiers. Resource the operation properly, get coalition and alliance partner support, or get the hell out. This is not 1940 and Dunkirk.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouldn't normally quote The Sun, but what the hell,
Blood on Government's hands
By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor
THE Government has the blood of 14 servicemen on its hands this morning.
Yesterday’s kicking over ageing Nimrod spy planes from campaigning coroner Andrew Walker was no surprise to top brass.
Privately, they told me weeks ago it was coming. They know how many corners have been cut in aircraft funding over the past ten years. It is a national embarrassment that airmen should fly a 1960s plane in today’s wars.
But that’s all the once-proud RAF can afford. As Chancellor for a decade, Gordon Brown is responsible.
It would have cost a few hundred thousand to fit fire extinguishers on doomed jet XV230.
Yesterday a senior air marshall insisted the Nimrod fleet is safe. They have to say that – because the truth is that entire offensives could be lost without them.
Yet again this morning, our incredibly brave crews will take to the skies despite the risks.
So, Mr Brown – how many heroes must die before you pay for the wars you want to fight?
Blood on Government's hands
By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor
THE Government has the blood of 14 servicemen on its hands this morning.
Yesterday’s kicking over ageing Nimrod spy planes from campaigning coroner Andrew Walker was no surprise to top brass.
Privately, they told me weeks ago it was coming. They know how many corners have been cut in aircraft funding over the past ten years. It is a national embarrassment that airmen should fly a 1960s plane in today’s wars.
But that’s all the once-proud RAF can afford. As Chancellor for a decade, Gordon Brown is responsible.
It would have cost a few hundred thousand to fit fire extinguishers on doomed jet XV230.
Yesterday a senior air marshall insisted the Nimrod fleet is safe. They have to say that – because the truth is that entire offensives could be lost without them.
Yet again this morning, our incredibly brave crews will take to the skies despite the risks.
So, Mr Brown – how many heroes must die before you pay for the wars you want to fight?
It is obvious to me that the Nimrod has to be kept flying as top cover and the apparent steps taken, no AAR and making the SCP redundant, should make the aircraft that much safer to operate even ALARP. But no AAR must severely restrict operations in the war zones, as sorties must be that much shorter than ideal and we must use more aircraft to provide the necessary cover which is quite possibly unobtainable, thus making our gallant troops more vulnerable.
JessTD mentioned the lack of available troops, I saw a post which said the we had 22,500 troops in Germany, surely 90% of these could be released from NATO duties in this day and age and utilised wherever they are more needed, when I served in Germany it was the Cold War, but I do not think that we should maintain such high levels of troops in 2008.
I saw one post that suggested that the army could not operate if their risk on patrol was ALARP, but they would not expect that their most dangerous risk would come from their Land Rover et al.
JessTD mentioned the lack of available troops, I saw a post which said the we had 22,500 troops in Germany, surely 90% of these could be released from NATO duties in this day and age and utilised wherever they are more needed, when I served in Germany it was the Cold War, but I do not think that we should maintain such high levels of troops in 2008.
I saw one post that suggested that the army could not operate if their risk on patrol was ALARP, but they would not expect that their most dangerous risk would come from their Land Rover et al.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 50
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the evidence given in court with regards to the FRS couplings, they were never designed to be used in a system which allowed the seals to come in contact for periods of time with air. They were only designed with the assumption they would be used in a constant fuel supply system. In only five days of contact with air the seals begin to degrade and will be more prone to leaks. This fact is one of the main factors in the process of them not being safe.
The fact that Hickmann stated one of the tests on if there were leaks was to blow air through the pipes and listen for a whistle caused a great deal of concern, as this would aid degredation of the seal, seemed to be totally lost on him. His arrogance was an insult. While I still hold my view of respect to the ground and air crews of the Nimrod fleet, I also hold my view of him.
It's not just the SCP pipe or the engine cross feed, it's not just AAR being a factor, it's more now to do with the FRS couplings being used in areas which do not have constant fuel submersion.
The fact that Hickmann stated one of the tests on if there were leaks was to blow air through the pipes and listen for a whistle caused a great deal of concern, as this would aid degredation of the seal, seemed to be totally lost on him. His arrogance was an insult. While I still hold my view of respect to the ground and air crews of the Nimrod fleet, I also hold my view of him.
It's not just the SCP pipe or the engine cross feed, it's not just AAR being a factor, it's more now to do with the FRS couplings being used in areas which do not have constant fuel submersion.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We shouldn't get too worked up about the seals drying out. The same seals are used throughout the aviation industry and the Nimrod is certainly not the only aircraft that goes into a hangar for weeks on end and dries out the seals. However, it is the post dry-period test that is crucial. The company recommends that the seals are ground-tested to normal working system pressure when re-wetted. Coroner suggested that a test to max working pressure would be better. Company engineer agreed. Nimrod is currently tested to 50psi, although spikes up 90 psi during AAR have been observed. But we do not do AAR now, so we are OK.
Also, for those interested in pressure spikes: the seal company has no problems with spikes up to 120 psi. None has been witnessed at that pressure, so that issue is now irrelevant.
Temperature profile limits given by the company: -45C to +70C. Seal and pipe have similar co-efficient of thermal expansion. So, temp limits are not exceeded, unless an adjacent hot air pipe leaks onto it or warms it up due to radiation. Possible scenario pre-Sep 06. Not possible now.
Fuel pipes must align within one degree of each other for the coupling to guarantee no leakage. hmmm
As TD pointed out, to the seal company's chief engineer, the only difference in the use of the seals between Nimrod and the rest of the customers is that we do AAR. However, it is/was carried out within the temp and pressure limits set by the company.
The seal company has decided, as a result of the accident, to change the life of their seals from unlimited (with 5 years inspection) to 25 years, with 5 years inspection. This forces the airline industry to change seals as well. Before the accident the company had not received any significant reports of seal failure on the unlimited life policy, so the change of life policy might not be soundly based. Obviously this policy change means that 300 seals on most Nimrods will have to be changed.
Changing 300 seals on a Nimrod will create more leaks. This is why we, and other operators have a corrective maintenance policy. It is inherent in this policy that we accept that occasional leaks might occur (though seal company says that they will not leak). However, it is a fact that in the long term there will be less leaks than those that will ocur if the system is disturbed under a replacement policy, due to human factors. Therefore, due to the inherent expectation of fuel leaks it is vital that the fuel system is not co-located with ignition sources, such as hot pipes, outside fire zones. This has now been satisfied.
300 seal changes per aircraft....this is going to cause us more problems. I guess the VC10 (more than 25 years old) is in the same can of worms.
The first Nimrod to have all its seals changed will leak on test. Those leaks will be identified and cured. Then, the first flight (post major air test?) will suffer leaks due to flexing and, despite a safe flight and landing, that will be the last flight of the Nimrod fleet. All under the guise of working towards ALARP. This is a complete mess.
Ed
Also, for those interested in pressure spikes: the seal company has no problems with spikes up to 120 psi. None has been witnessed at that pressure, so that issue is now irrelevant.
Temperature profile limits given by the company: -45C to +70C. Seal and pipe have similar co-efficient of thermal expansion. So, temp limits are not exceeded, unless an adjacent hot air pipe leaks onto it or warms it up due to radiation. Possible scenario pre-Sep 06. Not possible now.
Fuel pipes must align within one degree of each other for the coupling to guarantee no leakage. hmmm
As TD pointed out, to the seal company's chief engineer, the only difference in the use of the seals between Nimrod and the rest of the customers is that we do AAR. However, it is/was carried out within the temp and pressure limits set by the company.
The seal company has decided, as a result of the accident, to change the life of their seals from unlimited (with 5 years inspection) to 25 years, with 5 years inspection. This forces the airline industry to change seals as well. Before the accident the company had not received any significant reports of seal failure on the unlimited life policy, so the change of life policy might not be soundly based. Obviously this policy change means that 300 seals on most Nimrods will have to be changed.
Changing 300 seals on a Nimrod will create more leaks. This is why we, and other operators have a corrective maintenance policy. It is inherent in this policy that we accept that occasional leaks might occur (though seal company says that they will not leak). However, it is a fact that in the long term there will be less leaks than those that will ocur if the system is disturbed under a replacement policy, due to human factors. Therefore, due to the inherent expectation of fuel leaks it is vital that the fuel system is not co-located with ignition sources, such as hot pipes, outside fire zones. This has now been satisfied.
300 seal changes per aircraft....this is going to cause us more problems. I guess the VC10 (more than 25 years old) is in the same can of worms.
The first Nimrod to have all its seals changed will leak on test. Those leaks will be identified and cured. Then, the first flight (post major air test?) will suffer leaks due to flexing and, despite a safe flight and landing, that will be the last flight of the Nimrod fleet. All under the guise of working towards ALARP. This is a complete mess.
Ed
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige, tuc, labqueen and others, thank you for your informed replies, I think I’m beginning to understand the concerns a little better.
However, as I do have fairly intimate knowledge of the systems I’d like a little more specifics if possible. Which pipes are misaligned? Which couplings can’t be checked? Where are the remaining hot/electrical sources? Which FRS couplings do not have constant fuel submersion? Are there any Nimrod specifics in the QQ report other than policy and generic issues?
Also, I note that the Coroner challenged the BoI version of the fuel leak source. Is he therefore discounting the AAR as a red herring and merely coincidental to another problem in the fuel feed gallery?
Neppie
The Mk1 did have an APU. The Aircrew Bk1 used to state “An APU is provided for starting engines when away from base or if there is no external air source available”
I believe in those early days there was an abundance of small, man portable (ish) air start trolleys around and they were perceived as the normal method of starting. Didn’t last long! – or - of course, your APU could have been U/s.
As for starting engines in the taxi – possible & probable - with the early converted ex ‘Shac’ crews and before the proper establishment of ‘standards’.
However, as I do have fairly intimate knowledge of the systems I’d like a little more specifics if possible. Which pipes are misaligned? Which couplings can’t be checked? Where are the remaining hot/electrical sources? Which FRS couplings do not have constant fuel submersion? Are there any Nimrod specifics in the QQ report other than policy and generic issues?
Also, I note that the Coroner challenged the BoI version of the fuel leak source. Is he therefore discounting the AAR as a red herring and merely coincidental to another problem in the fuel feed gallery?
Neppie
The Mk1 did have an APU. The Aircrew Bk1 used to state “An APU is provided for starting engines when away from base or if there is no external air source available”
I believe in those early days there was an abundance of small, man portable (ish) air start trolleys around and they were perceived as the normal method of starting. Didn’t last long! – or - of course, your APU could have been U/s.
As for starting engines in the taxi – possible & probable - with the early converted ex ‘Shac’ crews and before the proper establishment of ‘standards’.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woodbine
You have really confused me with your posting. You appear to be quite knowledgeable about the Nimrod, yet you make such a blatant and stupid statement about the APU. How did you manage that?
You know all about future programs and intricate details, yet the simplest of things, like the APU, you get 100% wrong!
How strange also, that such an 'expert' is at Lossie, and not ISK??
I just wonder who you really are??
You have really confused me with your posting. You appear to be quite knowledgeable about the Nimrod, yet you make such a blatant and stupid statement about the APU. How did you manage that?
You know all about future programs and intricate details, yet the simplest of things, like the APU, you get 100% wrong!
How strange also, that such an 'expert' is at Lossie, and not ISK??
I just wonder who you really are??
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 50
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However, as I do have fairly intimate knowledge of the systems I’d like a little more specifics if possible. Which pipes are misaligned? Which couplings can’t be checked? Where are the remaining hot/electrical sources? Which FRS couplings do not have constant fuel submersion? Are there any Nimrod specifics in the QQ report other than policy and generic issues?
Also, I note that the Coroner challenged the BoI version of the fuel leak source. Is he therefore discounting the AAR as a red herring and merely coincidental to another problem in the fuel feed gallery?
Also, I note that the Coroner challenged the BoI version of the fuel leak source. Is he therefore discounting the AAR as a red herring and merely coincidental to another problem in the fuel feed gallery?
The FRS couplings which do not have a constant fuel submersion are in the vent system and the AAR system. The AAR system is not used now so to a point may be ruled out, unless it comes back into play. There are FRS couplings in the feed system, which again isn't a constant submersion.
Yes the Coroner challenged the BoI version of events, that is his job to do so. He is required to take any possible cause and to investigate with the intention of acceptance or to disregard. He praised the BoI on their findings but he must not simply accept what is presented to him, he has to challenge every angle on every aspect.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my Lightning days we had big problems with FRS couplings going through hot areas. (No fire suppressant aft of the Turbines)
Every time we disturbed the fuel system the couplings were X-rayed to check for alignment and the image was clipped to the paperwork.
Any Nimrod techies confirm if this is the case at ISK?
Every time we disturbed the fuel system the couplings were X-rayed to check for alignment and the image was clipped to the paperwork.
Any Nimrod techies confirm if this is the case at ISK?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oilcan
My recollection is that the Coroner believed on the evidence presented to him that the fuel leak occurred in the fuel feed system forward of dry bay 7 and tracked back to dry bay 7 where it came into contact with the heat source.
Anyone who has the transcript of his verdict please correct me if I am mistaken.
On The Top Bunker
Group Captain Hickman described the maintenance procedure in court, the alignment is done by eye. The manufacturer said that it was almost impossible to achieve the degree of alignment required to prevent leaks using naked eye alignment.
Also, I note that the Coroner challenged the BoI version of the fuel leak source. Is he therefore discounting the AAR as a red herring and merely coincidental to another problem in the fuel feed gallery?
Anyone who has the transcript of his verdict please correct me if I am mistaken.
On The Top Bunker
Every time we disturbed the fuel system the couplings were X-rayed to check for alignment and the image was clipped to the paperwork.
Any Nimrod techies confirm if this is the case at ISK?
Any Nimrod techies confirm if this is the case at ISK?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK, sometimes!
Age: 74
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da4orce ,
From the copy of the verdict posted by TD...
MadMark!!! 
Anyone who has the transcript of his verdict please correct me if I am mistaken.
The fourteen members of crew and passengers of the XV 230 Nimrod mark 2 aircraft which left from an operational base to fly a mission into Afghanistan on the 2nd September 2006 at 9 13 were lost when shortly after air to air refuelling when fuel from a fuel leak, most likely from a fuel feed pipe, was ignited by a hot duct within or closely associated with dry bay 7 on the starboard side of the aircraft.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mark. I believe that the Coroner actually went into more detail earlier in his summing up, he also made mention of a similar incident on XV230 just 2 weeks earlier. I will endeavour to find the full transcript of his summing up.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MK1 and MK2 used an APU as the primary method of starting engines.
The APU was very much a last resort and, from memory, often unsuccessful.
(No, I am not a pilot/flight engineer either but we were all on Crew intercom at that point.)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: North of Down There!
Age: 53
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole APU argument is a red herring in this thread, and to treat it as a points-scoring or name-calling exercise it is even less worthy, but the APU in the MR1 (and, IIRC, THE MR2 also) did not provide a reliable method of starting an engine. The much preferred method was to use the GPU electrical output or a Palouste (if a serviceable one cold be found) to provide an air start.
The APU was very much a last resort and, from memory, often unsuccessful.
(No, I am not a pilot/flight engineer either but we were all on Crew intercom at that point.)
The APU was very much a last resort and, from memory, often unsuccessful.
(No, I am not a pilot/flight engineer either but we were all on Crew intercom at that point.)
I can't speak for MR1 but that has been the case on the MR2 since I joined the fleet nearly 20 years ago.
Regards,
DA.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Especially as it involves routing pipes through "hot" areas with a similar risk level due to lack of extinguishant.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ray,
I agree with your sentiment regarding the APU as a red herring - other than using the same pipework.
You state above 'THE MR2' when suggesting that a LPAS was the preferred method of start. Unless you are talking about a very long time ago (os a specific ac) then, I'm afraid that you are incorrect; the preferred method of engine start is APU, then No3 from the APU, then the rest using bleed air from No3 at 75% HPRPM. The LPAS is only used if the APU is u/s.
Duncs
I agree with your sentiment regarding the APU as a red herring - other than using the same pipework.
You state above 'THE MR2' when suggesting that a LPAS was the preferred method of start. Unless you are talking about a very long time ago (os a specific ac) then, I'm afraid that you are incorrect; the preferred method of engine start is APU, then No3 from the APU, then the rest using bleed air from No3 at 75% HPRPM. The LPAS is only used if the APU is u/s.
Duncs