Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would just like to thank all those PRuNers who have helped me collect information over the last year.
A special thanks goes out to tucumseh and his expert knowledge of the regulations on Airworthiness of Military Aircraft. I only wish you could have been there but I know why you couldn't.
It will be left to Politicians or Nimrod Aircrew's now to take forward the fight.
I can only hope that Charles Hadden-Cave QC having had two of his staff there throughout the Inquest will come to the same conclusion . And those responsible are found.
Thank you all
A special thanks goes out to tucumseh and his expert knowledge of the regulations on Airworthiness of Military Aircraft. I only wish you could have been there but I know why you couldn't.
It will be left to Politicians or Nimrod Aircrew's now to take forward the fight.
I can only hope that Charles Hadden-Cave QC having had two of his staff there throughout the Inquest will come to the same conclusion . And those responsible are found.
Thank you all
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When a civilian Aircraft Captain signs the tech log, he takes responsibility for the safety of the aircraft and crew (amongst other things).
If the a Nimrod Captain takes similar responsibilities on signing the military equivalent of the tech log, how does he do this in the knowledge that the aircraft is not safe to fly (not ALARP) ?
If the a Nimrod Captain takes similar responsibilities on signing the military equivalent of the tech log, how does he do this in the knowledge that the aircraft is not safe to fly (not ALARP) ?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have quoted an editorial from The Sun and now I am going to quote from another newspaper I don't habitually read.
This was the view from Michael White (I think) from The Guardian, by way of reply to TD's gracious post.
....That said, Mr Walker is not alone in pointing out these problems; a separate RAF inquiry that reported last year heard from other critics, including air chief marshals - and even a senior engineer from BAE Systems, the Nimrod's manufacturer. The public might not have known about these expert reservations had it not been for pressure put on the Ministry of Defence by the families of the 14 servicemen killed in the crash. What stands out from the inquest is not so much the technical arguments about using a particular aircraft but the fight involved in bringing such details into the open. Since the explosion in September 2006, the servicemen's relatives have campaigned for these safety issues to be made public. One spent over a year making his own investigations; it was only by lodging a freedom of information request that he learned that BAE's recommendations of safety improvements to Nimrod craft had not been implemented by the MoD. Had the advice been followed, the explosion in Afghanistan might well have been prevented.
British forces put their lives at risk on the command of their country. In return they are due a reasonable level of protection. This inquest shows that the MoD failed terribly. Defence officials should now make public all the various safety recommendations made about the Nimrod fleet - and explain how and when they will follow them. That might provide some satisfaction for the relatives of the lost servicemen - and some reassurance for those aircrew asked to fly in these old, dangerous planes.
Well done TD and everyone else. Tuc I was there on the last day, really wished you could have been alongside, would have been a privilege.
Nige
This was the view from Michael White (I think) from The Guardian, by way of reply to TD's gracious post.
....That said, Mr Walker is not alone in pointing out these problems; a separate RAF inquiry that reported last year heard from other critics, including air chief marshals - and even a senior engineer from BAE Systems, the Nimrod's manufacturer. The public might not have known about these expert reservations had it not been for pressure put on the Ministry of Defence by the families of the 14 servicemen killed in the crash. What stands out from the inquest is not so much the technical arguments about using a particular aircraft but the fight involved in bringing such details into the open. Since the explosion in September 2006, the servicemen's relatives have campaigned for these safety issues to be made public. One spent over a year making his own investigations; it was only by lodging a freedom of information request that he learned that BAE's recommendations of safety improvements to Nimrod craft had not been implemented by the MoD. Had the advice been followed, the explosion in Afghanistan might well have been prevented.
British forces put their lives at risk on the command of their country. In return they are due a reasonable level of protection. This inquest shows that the MoD failed terribly. Defence officials should now make public all the various safety recommendations made about the Nimrod fleet - and explain how and when they will follow them. That might provide some satisfaction for the relatives of the lost servicemen - and some reassurance for those aircrew asked to fly in these old, dangerous planes.
Well done TD and everyone else. Tuc I was there on the last day, really wished you could have been alongside, would have been a privilege.
Nige
Press Notice from the Nimrod Review
Here's the next step.
23rd May 2008
CONCLUSION OF THE INQUEST INTO THE DEATHS OF THE FOURTEEN
SERVICEMEN WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF THE LOSS OF XV230 IN
AFGHANISTAN ON 2 SEPTEMBER 2006
• The Inquest into the loss of those on board the Nimrod XV230 before HM
Deputy Assistant Coroner for Oxfordshire, Mr Andrew Walker, has now
concluded after 3 weeks.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC has taken a close interest in the hearing and the
evidence presented. He has had counsel present throughout the
proceedings, Mr Peter Ferrer. Much of the evidence has also been observed
by Counsel to the Review, Mr Luke Parsons QC and Miss Caroline Pounds.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC and his team with be carefully studying the transcript of
the hearing and the documents and statements in evidence, together with the
narrative verdict of the Coroner.
• It is likely that Mr Haddon-Cave QC will want to see, and further question, a
number of the key witnesses who gave evidence at the Inquest.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC has noted the Coroner’s Rule 43 recommendation that
the Nimrod fleet be grounded, pending demonstration that airworthiness risks
have been reduced to ALARP. Mr Haddon-Cave QC will be closely
examining all the currently available evidence, including that relied upon by
the Coroner, before reaching his own conclusion.
• As he has previously indicated, Mr Haddon-Cave QC will issue an interim
report if he decides any matter requires urgent action.
Notice to Editors
The Terms of Reference for the Nimrod Review were announced by the Secretary of
State for Defence on 13th December 2007.
Further information on the Nimrod Review can be found at
www.nimrod-review.org.uk.
23rd May 2008
CONCLUSION OF THE INQUEST INTO THE DEATHS OF THE FOURTEEN
SERVICEMEN WHO DIED AS A RESULT OF THE LOSS OF XV230 IN
AFGHANISTAN ON 2 SEPTEMBER 2006
• The Inquest into the loss of those on board the Nimrod XV230 before HM
Deputy Assistant Coroner for Oxfordshire, Mr Andrew Walker, has now
concluded after 3 weeks.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC has taken a close interest in the hearing and the
evidence presented. He has had counsel present throughout the
proceedings, Mr Peter Ferrer. Much of the evidence has also been observed
by Counsel to the Review, Mr Luke Parsons QC and Miss Caroline Pounds.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC and his team with be carefully studying the transcript of
the hearing and the documents and statements in evidence, together with the
narrative verdict of the Coroner.
• It is likely that Mr Haddon-Cave QC will want to see, and further question, a
number of the key witnesses who gave evidence at the Inquest.
• Mr Haddon-Cave QC has noted the Coroner’s Rule 43 recommendation that
the Nimrod fleet be grounded, pending demonstration that airworthiness risks
have been reduced to ALARP. Mr Haddon-Cave QC will be closely
examining all the currently available evidence, including that relied upon by
the Coroner, before reaching his own conclusion.
• As he has previously indicated, Mr Haddon-Cave QC will issue an interim
report if he decides any matter requires urgent action.
Notice to Editors
The Terms of Reference for the Nimrod Review were announced by the Secretary of
State for Defence on 13th December 2007.
Further information on the Nimrod Review can be found at
www.nimrod-review.org.uk.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lab queen, thanks once again, but more clarification please. 
To state that a misaligned pipe can cause seals to leak is rather stating the obvious. Of the two misaligned pipes that were found, did either of them leak and where are they fitted?
The fuel ‘vent’ system is primarily to allow the inflow/outflow of air. It is also deliberately pressurised with air to allow for jettison from the main tanks. Fuel submersion of ‘vent’ system seals would only occur in abnormal circumstances. I note that the seal manufacturer appears to say they shouldn’t have been used in the first place, nevertheless, which ones currently pose a threat?
The AAR system simply taps into the normal ground refuelling system pipework. A procedure known as ‘suck back’ was used to ensure that gallery was emptied of residual fuel after every ground refuel. Interesting to note this procedure was stopped a number of years ago, ironically to prevent damage to part of the AAR section. So constant submersion of some of the AAR/refuel system couplings is more likely today than it ever was. Again, which ones currently pose a threat?
Which couplings in the feed system are not constant submersion?? If any were ‘dry’, would my engines not also be dry and stop??
Mick/Da4orce
Ref the 1Tk blow off tracking back. Could you describe in detail how the BAe experts showed conclusively that this could not happen. Is this the video referred to by airsound?
Finally, can anybody enlighten/remind me of the incident on XV230 two weeks prior. What exactly was the source?
To state that a misaligned pipe can cause seals to leak is rather stating the obvious. Of the two misaligned pipes that were found, did either of them leak and where are they fitted?
The fuel ‘vent’ system is primarily to allow the inflow/outflow of air. It is also deliberately pressurised with air to allow for jettison from the main tanks. Fuel submersion of ‘vent’ system seals would only occur in abnormal circumstances. I note that the seal manufacturer appears to say they shouldn’t have been used in the first place, nevertheless, which ones currently pose a threat?
The AAR system simply taps into the normal ground refuelling system pipework. A procedure known as ‘suck back’ was used to ensure that gallery was emptied of residual fuel after every ground refuel. Interesting to note this procedure was stopped a number of years ago, ironically to prevent damage to part of the AAR section. So constant submersion of some of the AAR/refuel system couplings is more likely today than it ever was. Again, which ones currently pose a threat?
Which couplings in the feed system are not constant submersion?? If any were ‘dry’, would my engines not also be dry and stop??
Mick/Da4orce
Ref the 1Tk blow off tracking back. Could you describe in detail how the BAe experts showed conclusively that this could not happen. Is this the video referred to by airsound?
Finally, can anybody enlighten/remind me of the incident on XV230 two weeks prior. What exactly was the source?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Terms of Reference are particularly weak. I'd like to have seen some legal force behind this too, with the ability to compel witnesses to attend and/or provide testimony.
Oilcan, I can partly answer two of your queries, from evidence at the inquest.
Couplings can dry out after 5 days with no fuel contact. This is most likely during long periods of maintenance when engines are not run.
No, the video was on the ground, made by techies who discovered the leak and decided to video it. It shows a panel off in the dry bay 7 area, and fuel is pouring out from a coupling onto the ground. It was used to show how bad a leak on the ground could be. There was no video shown at the inquest (as far as I know) of airborne leaks.
airsound
constant submersion of some of the AAR/refuel system couplings is more likely today than it ever was
Is this the video referred to by airsound?
airsound
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oilcan
I don't recall how they showed that 1 tank blow off tracking back could not happen, forgive me but there was so much evidence heard, just the Coroners summing up ran to 40 pages.
Regarding the incident 2 weeks earlier again I cannot recall the detail with enough certainty to post here at present, suffice to say that the Coroner made reference to the incident in his extensive summing up. I believe and that it related to a similar fuel feed system leak that had occurred 2 weeks earlier but which had clearly not resulted in a fire. I am seeking to source a copy of the Coroners full summing up, at which point more detail will be available.
Mick/Da4orce
Ref the 1Tk blow off tracking back. Could you describe in detail how the BAe experts showed conclusively that this could not happen. Is this the video referred to by airsound?
Finally, can anybody enlighten/remind me of the incident on XV230 two weeks prior. What exactly was the source?
Ref the 1Tk blow off tracking back. Could you describe in detail how the BAe experts showed conclusively that this could not happen. Is this the video referred to by airsound?
Finally, can anybody enlighten/remind me of the incident on XV230 two weeks prior. What exactly was the source?
Regarding the incident 2 weeks earlier again I cannot recall the detail with enough certainty to post here at present, suffice to say that the Coroner made reference to the incident in his extensive summing up. I believe and that it related to a similar fuel feed system leak that had occurred 2 weeks earlier but which had clearly not resulted in a fire. I am seeking to source a copy of the Coroners full summing up, at which point more detail will be available.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked in
Seems you lot intend to milk this accident till the MK2 goes out of Service in 2012 - not to worry, youv'e got your experts, Jimmy James and Deputy Coroner Walker to help you - Have Fun
By the way - the present Mk2 will fly safely until 2012, because I know the genuine people who service and fly it; they are more familiar with things that you lot could not even guess at and have something called moral fibre!
How about changing thread and trashing the RN for crashing a Nuc T boat into the seabed through negligence at a cost of £5m rather than demoralising ISK personnel with your vendetta about compensation which the MoD have already agreed to
Please tell me in man readable English what this saga is about and what your narrow minded objectives are - because if you can't see them, I can
Compensation
Compensation
Compensation
Ah Yes! Lets ground the MR2 and close Kinloss?
And before you know-alls get on your high horses - I played golf today with one of the 2 best Air Engineers in the fleet who attended the inquest - what he doesn't know about Nimrod systems you can write on the back of a stamp, and he is happy to keep flying
Can we now put this to rest, and let ISK get on with the job of fighting a war in Afgan and Iraq, plus SAR, JMC, OPS CT, Spec Ops, OCU, whilst still finding time to raise money for charities in their 'spare' time and wish them well
Seems you lot intend to milk this accident till the MK2 goes out of Service in 2012 - not to worry, youv'e got your experts, Jimmy James and Deputy Coroner Walker to help you - Have Fun
By the way - the present Mk2 will fly safely until 2012, because I know the genuine people who service and fly it; they are more familiar with things that you lot could not even guess at and have something called moral fibre!
How about changing thread and trashing the RN for crashing a Nuc T boat into the seabed through negligence at a cost of £5m rather than demoralising ISK personnel with your vendetta about compensation which the MoD have already agreed to
Please tell me in man readable English what this saga is about and what your narrow minded objectives are - because if you can't see them, I can
Compensation
Compensation
Compensation
Ah Yes! Lets ground the MR2 and close Kinloss?
And before you know-alls get on your high horses - I played golf today with one of the 2 best Air Engineers in the fleet who attended the inquest - what he doesn't know about Nimrod systems you can write on the back of a stamp, and he is happy to keep flying
Can we now put this to rest, and let ISK get on with the job of fighting a war in Afgan and Iraq, plus SAR, JMC, OPS CT, Spec Ops, OCU, whilst still finding time to raise money for charities in their 'spare' time and wish them well
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy15
You've been told on a number of occasions by family members that this isnt about compensation but you just cant resist being offensive to people who have lost their relatives and listened to three weeks of evidence as to why it happened. If you're happy, I'm glad for you. I'm sure we all are since it means you have no need to read this thread. So why dont you just **** off and keep your offensive, drunken, pathetic rants to yourself.
You've been told on a number of occasions by family members that this isnt about compensation but you just cant resist being offensive to people who have lost their relatives and listened to three weeks of evidence as to why it happened. If you're happy, I'm glad for you. I'm sure we all are since it means you have no need to read this thread. So why dont you just **** off and keep your offensive, drunken, pathetic rants to yourself.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moray
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy15
Compensation
compensation
compensation
I thought it was Bob Ainsworth who had insulted the families with his comment about being airworthy but I think you have just beaten that with your above comment.
Having sat through three weeks of all of the evidence and been with all the families this was and never has been about compensation.It is about the truth and making sure this never happens again.
I am fully aware of all the genuine guys that still fly as do the families and it is about protecting their arses. I am glad to say that they do not talk out of theirs like you do.
compensation
compensation
I thought it was Bob Ainsworth who had insulted the families with his comment about being airworthy but I think you have just beaten that with your above comment.
Having sat through three weeks of all of the evidence and been with all the families this was and never has been about compensation.It is about the truth and making sure this never happens again.
I am fully aware of all the genuine guys that still fly as do the families and it is about protecting their arses. I am glad to say that they do not talk out of theirs like you do.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Durham
Age: 50
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked in
Seems you lot intend to milk this accident till the MK2 goes out of Service in 2012 - not to worry, youv'e got your experts, Jimmy James and Deputy Coroner Walker to help you - Have Fun
By the way - the present Mk2 will fly safely until 2012, because I know the genuine people who service and fly it; they are more familiar with things that you lot could not even guess at and have something called moral fibre!
How about changing thread and trashing the RN for crashing a Nuc T boat into the seabed through negligence at a cost of £5m rather than demoralising ISK personnel with your vendetta about compensation which the MoD have already agreed to
Please tell me in man readable English what this saga is about and what your narrow minded objectives are - because if you can't see them, I can
Compensation
Compensation
Compensation
Ah Yes! Lets ground the MR2 and close Kinloss?
And before you know-alls get on your high horses - I played golf today with one of the 2 best Air Engineers in the fleet who attended the inquest - what he doesn't know about Nimrod systems you can write on the back of a stamp, and he is happy to keep flying
Can we now put this to rest, and let ISK get on with the job of fighting a war in Afgan and Iraq, plus SAR, JMC, OPS CT, Spec Ops, OCU, whilst still finding time to raise money for charities in their 'spare' time and wish them well
Seems you lot intend to milk this accident till the MK2 goes out of Service in 2012 - not to worry, youv'e got your experts, Jimmy James and Deputy Coroner Walker to help you - Have Fun
By the way - the present Mk2 will fly safely until 2012, because I know the genuine people who service and fly it; they are more familiar with things that you lot could not even guess at and have something called moral fibre!
How about changing thread and trashing the RN for crashing a Nuc T boat into the seabed through negligence at a cost of £5m rather than demoralising ISK personnel with your vendetta about compensation which the MoD have already agreed to
Please tell me in man readable English what this saga is about and what your narrow minded objectives are - because if you can't see them, I can
Compensation
Compensation
Compensation
Ah Yes! Lets ground the MR2 and close Kinloss?
And before you know-alls get on your high horses - I played golf today with one of the 2 best Air Engineers in the fleet who attended the inquest - what he doesn't know about Nimrod systems you can write on the back of a stamp, and he is happy to keep flying
Can we now put this to rest, and let ISK get on with the job of fighting a war in Afgan and Iraq, plus SAR, JMC, OPS CT, Spec Ops, OCU, whilst still finding time to raise money for charities in their 'spare' time and wish them well
I am not speaking for all the families on this, I can never do that as I can only say what my family and myself believe in, though none of the families seemed to be gunning after anything more than to know the Nimrod is safe for those who still fly in her and those who work on her.
As you ask for a family member to answer your question here you are.
I have many friends at ISK, ground crew and aircrew and many others, my boyfriend is also there and all of them are well aware of my views. I went on the Nimrod shortly after the accident, I am doing it again next week.
I have only ever wanted facts, to know why I lost my brother, and since his death, to know it could be prevented from happening again. I do not want to see ISK grind to a halt, I only want to know the fleet is being given all which has been promised.
According to several witnesses the resources are provided upon request so if they claim this, they should now put their money where their mouths are and give the fleet what it needs to allow it to be safe and to do the job it needs to do.
The coroner isn't an expert, he made his decision because of the evidence he was presented and by the witness statements. As there was such an overwhelming amount of evidence and even an IPTL stating the fleet was not airworthy and never had been, what choice did he have. The coroner has not asked for the fleet to be grounded permanently, he has asked for it to be grounded and made ALARP. Once that standard is reached there would be no problem with flying.
My contributions are solely from evidence which was presented in court, I am not an expert on the Nimrod, I am just a family member of one lost on 230, I am just a friend of those who service and who fly on her, I am just someone who does not want to lose another person I love because the MoD screwed the fleet.
You keep saying about compensation, no amount of money will ever compensate the loss, no amount of money will ever bring them back, personally I would give anything to have him alive. The best compensation package I could ever receive is to have my friends still flying and safe.
I haven't ever said anything against those at ISK, apart from saying I have the utmost respect for them, The IPTL, the MoD and BAe however have made many mistakes and it is those at ISK who are paying for them.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy 15
You are an utter disgrace to the RAF and you bring shame on the service.
You are entitled to your opinions about what happened to the jet on that day and you are equally entitled to your opinions as to the aircrafts current safety/airworthiness, I have no problem with either.
What you are NOT entitled to do, is to make outrageous, unfair, untrue and offensive statements about the families of those left behind by this tragedy. Your friends and colleagues at ISK must be really proud of you.
Moderator, if this isn't a good enough reason to ban someone from this forum, then I don't know what is. Please delete buoy 15 asap, his comments are offensive and liabelous IMHO
You are an utter disgrace to the RAF and you bring shame on the service.
You are entitled to your opinions about what happened to the jet on that day and you are equally entitled to your opinions as to the aircrafts current safety/airworthiness, I have no problem with either.
What you are NOT entitled to do, is to make outrageous, unfair, untrue and offensive statements about the families of those left behind by this tragedy. Your friends and colleagues at ISK must be really proud of you.
Moderator, if this isn't a good enough reason to ban someone from this forum, then I don't know what is. Please delete buoy 15 asap, his comments are offensive and liabelous IMHO
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy 15,
It must be about 4 years since you left the fleet but you insist on posting arrogant and offensive comments that cause far more damage, in my opinion, than any previous speculation.
Having read your recent comments I suggest that you get on with your life outside the Nimrod front line and leave those of us still flying the aircraft to get on with our jobs. I for one, as ISK currently serving aircrew, would like the whole situation resolved safely and quickly.
Yes, there have been procedural changes to reduce risk. No, I do not feel that the aircraft is as safe as it needs to be.
Please do us all a favour and f*ck off back to your precious golf course and leave the families, and others who care about the safety of the crews still flying, alone.
It must be about 4 years since you left the fleet but you insist on posting arrogant and offensive comments that cause far more damage, in my opinion, than any previous speculation.
Having read your recent comments I suggest that you get on with your life outside the Nimrod front line and leave those of us still flying the aircraft to get on with our jobs. I for one, as ISK currently serving aircrew, would like the whole situation resolved safely and quickly.
Yes, there have been procedural changes to reduce risk. No, I do not feel that the aircraft is as safe as it needs to be.
Please do us all a favour and f*ck off back to your precious golf course and leave the families, and others who care about the safety of the crews still flying, alone.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsound, forgive me, I am still confused.
Running engines will use the ‘feed’ gallery, how can this prevent seals in the AAR/refuel gallery from drying out? They are completely separate galleries.
Prolonged maintenance beyond 5 days is a regular occurrence. Any degradation of seals in the AAR/refuel gallery would become apparent during the next ground refuel and/or preparation for the next flight. Fuel feed seals would remain submersed because the tank isolation cocks are closed after the engines have been shut down, thereby trapping fuel in the feed gallery. After a certain period of inactivity (7 days ISTR), then a procedure of antidet runs, or in the case of scheduled maintenance, post recovery checks are required specifically to guard against such degradation. I fail to see how any ‘dried’ seals would go undetected.
I’d like more info on the video. When/how was it found? Which gallery? If it were to occur again in flight, what potential ignition sources are in proximity?
Da4orce, I look forward to any more details you can offer on the 1tk blow off tracking and the previous leak incident.
Thank you both for your continued patience. I hope you have gathered, I am not just an interested bystander, but one of the many now stuck in the middle trying to reconcile the views of so called experts, and some not so expert.
buoy15, please close the door on the way out.
Running engines will use the ‘feed’ gallery, how can this prevent seals in the AAR/refuel gallery from drying out? They are completely separate galleries.
Prolonged maintenance beyond 5 days is a regular occurrence. Any degradation of seals in the AAR/refuel gallery would become apparent during the next ground refuel and/or preparation for the next flight. Fuel feed seals would remain submersed because the tank isolation cocks are closed after the engines have been shut down, thereby trapping fuel in the feed gallery. After a certain period of inactivity (7 days ISTR), then a procedure of antidet runs, or in the case of scheduled maintenance, post recovery checks are required specifically to guard against such degradation. I fail to see how any ‘dried’ seals would go undetected.
I’d like more info on the video. When/how was it found? Which gallery? If it were to occur again in flight, what potential ignition sources are in proximity?
Da4orce, I look forward to any more details you can offer on the 1tk blow off tracking and the previous leak incident.
Thank you both for your continued patience. I hope you have gathered, I am not just an interested bystander, but one of the many now stuck in the middle trying to reconcile the views of so called experts, and some not so expert.
buoy15, please close the door on the way out.
buoy15, how anyone who describes himself as
could write such offensive drivel as you do is beyond my comprehension.
One hopes you will b*gger off and spend more time ruining good walks with your wretched golf bats rather than upsetting relatives of the Nimrod accident victims on PPRuNe.
a retired Senior Officer
One hopes you will b*gger off and spend more time ruining good walks with your wretched golf bats rather than upsetting relatives of the Nimrod accident victims on PPRuNe.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy15
If only you had told us about this round of golf before we could have saved a whole load of public money and distress and heartache for the families by cancelling the Coroners Inquest.
So how did the golf go, let me get it right there was you, 2 engineers from ISk and expert from Rolls Royce, an expert from Eaton, Head of Engineering from BAEs, expert from Qinetiq amongst others?
I'm just going to email Hadden-Cave QC to tell him he needn't bother with his review because you have sorted it all out!
If only you had told us about this round of golf before we could have saved a whole load of public money and distress and heartache for the families by cancelling the Coroners Inquest.
So how did the golf go, let me get it right there was you, 2 engineers from ISk and expert from Rolls Royce, an expert from Eaton, Head of Engineering from BAEs, expert from Qinetiq amongst others?
I'm just going to email Hadden-Cave QC to tell him he needn't bother with his review because you have sorted it all out!
Buoy 15
The Nimrod MR2 will not fly safely until 2012......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
if only because it is going out of service in
2011
2011
2011.
So much for basic credibility. Oh, and JMC as such doesn't exist any more. Your Ops comment is also incorrect.
Perhaps you should get your Air Eng friend to tell the MOD/RAF/IPT that the aircraft is safe to fly, and they don't need to carry out any of the BOI recommendations, like replacing fuel seals. The MOD could then save a small fortune!
I suggest you just enjoy your retirement, and carry on boring everyone else at the 19th hole with your tales of being a 'cold war warrior'.
Why is it that I just know you'll be back?
The Nimrod MR2 will not fly safely until 2012......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
if only because it is going out of service in
2011
2011
2011.
So much for basic credibility. Oh, and JMC as such doesn't exist any more. Your Ops comment is also incorrect.
Perhaps you should get your Air Eng friend to tell the MOD/RAF/IPT that the aircraft is safe to fly, and they don't need to carry out any of the BOI recommendations, like replacing fuel seals. The MOD could then save a small fortune!
I suggest you just enjoy your retirement, and carry on boring everyone else at the 19th hole with your tales of being a 'cold war warrior'.
Why is it that I just know you'll be back?
Last edited by Biggus; 26th May 2008 at 08:37.
