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
Tourist
Thats strange I am sure the citation from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), we received after my son was killed in an un-airworthy ac said he was performing peace keeping duties !!!
I accept that some would like us to just leave the war zones immediately
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb
My interest here is simply interest, call it an engaged curiosity.
On the subject of agendas (whether valid or otherwise); then if you believe that no posters here have any, then imho you are being rather naive.
My interest here is simply interest, call it an engaged curiosity.
On the subject of agendas (whether valid or otherwise); then if you believe that no posters here have any, then imho you are being rather naive.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries, I have been called very much worse.
Would you care to explain what aspect or nuance of the law Mr Andrew Walker, Coroner, trained Barrister, missed in his Inquest verdict last week?
Would you care to explain what aspect or nuance of the law Mr Andrew Walker, Coroner, trained Barrister, missed in his Inquest verdict last week?
Last edited by nigegilb; 29th May 2008 at 21:41.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He didn't necessarily miss any point of law on which he was asked to preside. IMHO he also didn't necessarily consider ALL pertinent aspects of the whole case at hand.
Finally, it is not my place, nor is it really possible to attempt to explain his reasoning in reaching the conclusion he did.
Finally, it is not my place, nor is it really possible to attempt to explain his reasoning in reaching the conclusion he did.
Last edited by kennymac; 30th May 2008 at 00:30. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 69
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tourist,
I agree with what you are saying to a large extent (oddly enough) - the point is that I also think the government should pay whatever it takes to visibly reduce the Nimrod risk, to ensure ALARP is what it says on the tin. It's the government's turn to take the extra step.
I also think that funds should be provided to fund our wars, if they can prop up N Rock then they can afford to keep squaddies in body armour - there is a difference between saying you want the best kit (Raptors instead of F3s, for example) and saying you want what you've got to work (keep the F3s but the wings don't fall off unexpectedly). The RAF has a history of not quite as good as the opposition kit (Hurris v 109's, Buffaloes v Zeroes, oh what fun it must have been in a Whitley or Coastal Hudson on the first 1000 bomber raid) but that doesn't mean they didn't rapidly fix problems when they arose. (Typhoons, for example, tended to lose their tails at first).
Regarding whether we ought to be in Afghanistan or not, and ignoring the shift in emphasis of our cousins over the years (the humble poppy wasn't always anathema to the CIA...Centre for Interesting Agriculture?) it's quite remarkable how we, a nation devoted to maintaining peace and responding vigorously to the evil doings of other nations, seem to be going to war quite so often. I imagine most on here share the 'we're in it, so support the troops regardless' bracket - I can't help but think that maybe the politicians deserve our support to a rather lesser extent., we get in more fights these days than a Glaswegian drunk wearing hoops down the Rangers end of the ground. It's a sad day when you start thinking Tam Dalyell might not have been so daft after all...
Dave
I agree with what you are saying to a large extent (oddly enough) - the point is that I also think the government should pay whatever it takes to visibly reduce the Nimrod risk, to ensure ALARP is what it says on the tin. It's the government's turn to take the extra step.
I also think that funds should be provided to fund our wars, if they can prop up N Rock then they can afford to keep squaddies in body armour - there is a difference between saying you want the best kit (Raptors instead of F3s, for example) and saying you want what you've got to work (keep the F3s but the wings don't fall off unexpectedly). The RAF has a history of not quite as good as the opposition kit (Hurris v 109's, Buffaloes v Zeroes, oh what fun it must have been in a Whitley or Coastal Hudson on the first 1000 bomber raid) but that doesn't mean they didn't rapidly fix problems when they arose. (Typhoons, for example, tended to lose their tails at first).
Regarding whether we ought to be in Afghanistan or not, and ignoring the shift in emphasis of our cousins over the years (the humble poppy wasn't always anathema to the CIA...Centre for Interesting Agriculture?) it's quite remarkable how we, a nation devoted to maintaining peace and responding vigorously to the evil doings of other nations, seem to be going to war quite so often. I imagine most on here share the 'we're in it, so support the troops regardless' bracket - I can't help but think that maybe the politicians deserve our support to a rather lesser extent., we get in more fights these days than a Glaswegian drunk wearing hoops down the Rangers end of the ground. It's a sad day when you start thinking Tam Dalyell might not have been so daft after all...
Dave
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 69
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kennymac,
are you suggesting that you know of material factors in the loss of 230 that the coroner was unaware of?
Would being told by a raft of witnesses (including the company that built it) that the aircraft wasn't actually airworthy (although nobody knew that at the time) be a reason why he might have said the aircraft wasn't airworthy, perhaps?
Dave
are you suggesting that you know of material factors in the loss of 230 that the coroner was unaware of?
Finally, it is not my place, nor is it really possible to attempt to explain his reasoning in reaching the conclusion he did
Dave
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KENNY MAC
"There's so much bluff and bluster on this thread, it really amounts to little more than a hill of beans. ALARP is being bandied about with such abandon by individuals who either have a rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept, or are deliberately misinterpreting and overlooking finer points to advance their agendas."
Sorry Kenny not good enough. You have criticised very many people with your last statement. Please explain our rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept.
You clearly think the Coroner was naive (just like me), in his narrow judgement, or lacking the real evidence to proclaim Nimrod not airworthy. Please enlighten us, otherwise disappear from wherever you came.
Edited to add that I can agree with one thing in your last statement. Original drafts of QQ reports strangely went missing and were not able to be presented at the Inquest. Funny that!? So yes, he didn't have all the facts at his finger tips.
"There's so much bluff and bluster on this thread, it really amounts to little more than a hill of beans. ALARP is being bandied about with such abandon by individuals who either have a rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept, or are deliberately misinterpreting and overlooking finer points to advance their agendas."
Sorry Kenny not good enough. You have criticised very many people with your last statement. Please explain our rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept.
You clearly think the Coroner was naive (just like me), in his narrow judgement, or lacking the real evidence to proclaim Nimrod not airworthy. Please enlighten us, otherwise disappear from wherever you came.
Edited to add that I can agree with one thing in your last statement. Original drafts of QQ reports strangely went missing and were not able to be presented at the Inquest. Funny that!? So yes, he didn't have all the facts at his finger tips.
Last edited by nigegilb; 29th May 2008 at 22:46.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: uk
Age: 60
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davejb,
No.
Of course this would form part of his reasoning.
-----------------------------------------
nigegilb,
No, do your own research on the subject, like I recommended everyone with an interest in this case should do in my post.
With pleasure... but do your homework everyone, and do it with a fair and open mind to ALL issues at hand. I genuinely hope (and believe) that a common sense and a just outcome is achievable here, but this will only be possible if an all encompassing perspective is maintained.
are you suggesting that you know of material factors in the loss of 230 that the coroner was unaware of?
Would being told by a raft of witnesses (including the company that built it) that the aircraft wasn't actually airworthy (although nobody knew that at the time) be a reason why he might have said the aircraft wasn't airworthy, perhaps?
-----------------------------------------
nigegilb,
Please explain our rather limited and simplistic grasp of the meaning of the concept.
Please enlighten us, otherwise disappear from wherever you came.
Last edited by kennymac; 30th May 2008 at 08:54.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigegilb,
Re: the vent pipe whistle test: This is not within my area of expertise. As far as I know, the vent system wasn't tested at all before the accident. After all, it was designed to pass air through it, so a little bit of air leakage, either back into the tank, or elsewhere wasn't even thought about. It was the BOI investigators who first thought about fuel choking the vent pipes and they then enquired about any leak testing, to be told, no, it isn't done, for the reasons I've just indicated.
So, IMHO the whistle test is probably an additional test outwith the mandated servicing, as a consequence of the accident. I stress that this is only my personal view.
My apologies to Gp Capt Hickman, for a cheap shot.
I will read the QQ report again, including its recommendations, but I'm sure that the system, today, carries only broadly acceptable risks and not tolerable risks.
In fact, it would actually be risk free if we didn't have to open the crossfeed pipe to start the engines on the ground. The corroding hot air pipes are either out of service or in fire zones. The fuel seals are no more likely to leak than those in other old aircraft worldwide and even if one or two do leak (XV235) there is no consequent fire hazard if the leak is outside an engine (hot) zone. These are the bits of the jigsaw, Nige, that combine to produce the big picture of airworthiness.
Airworthiness, or otherwise, is not established by debate or discussion on line, in the newspapers or in a Coroners witness box under oath. Airworthiness is established by physical inspection, knowledge of the subject and identification of what is possible. I do not care one jot about what the politicians, air officers and IPTLs say to the media or the Coroner. I care only about what my colleagues and I know to be the facts.
We do not need anyone outside of our environment at Kinloss to patronise us by fighting a case for us. I can assure you all, that if we at Kinloss believe this aircraft to be unsafe, your opinions on the matter would be academic. Do not insult us, please, by inferring that we do not know what we are doing with our own aircraft.
Regards
Ed
Re: the vent pipe whistle test: This is not within my area of expertise. As far as I know, the vent system wasn't tested at all before the accident. After all, it was designed to pass air through it, so a little bit of air leakage, either back into the tank, or elsewhere wasn't even thought about. It was the BOI investigators who first thought about fuel choking the vent pipes and they then enquired about any leak testing, to be told, no, it isn't done, for the reasons I've just indicated.
So, IMHO the whistle test is probably an additional test outwith the mandated servicing, as a consequence of the accident. I stress that this is only my personal view.
My apologies to Gp Capt Hickman, for a cheap shot.
I will read the QQ report again, including its recommendations, but I'm sure that the system, today, carries only broadly acceptable risks and not tolerable risks.
In fact, it would actually be risk free if we didn't have to open the crossfeed pipe to start the engines on the ground. The corroding hot air pipes are either out of service or in fire zones. The fuel seals are no more likely to leak than those in other old aircraft worldwide and even if one or two do leak (XV235) there is no consequent fire hazard if the leak is outside an engine (hot) zone. These are the bits of the jigsaw, Nige, that combine to produce the big picture of airworthiness.
Airworthiness, or otherwise, is not established by debate or discussion on line, in the newspapers or in a Coroners witness box under oath. Airworthiness is established by physical inspection, knowledge of the subject and identification of what is possible. I do not care one jot about what the politicians, air officers and IPTLs say to the media or the Coroner. I care only about what my colleagues and I know to be the facts.
We do not need anyone outside of our environment at Kinloss to patronise us by fighting a case for us. I can assure you all, that if we at Kinloss believe this aircraft to be unsafe, your opinions on the matter would be academic. Do not insult us, please, by inferring that we do not know what we are doing with our own aircraft.
Regards
Ed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed Sett 100: Sorry, but the QinetiQ report sets the risk as being tolerable (see para 1 of conclusions). Throughout the report it sets "Broadly Acceptable or tolerable and ALARP" as a goal, but we only achieve "tolerable and NOT ALARP". That is what drove Mr Walker to declare the Nimrod unsafe and not airworthy.
On the question of the whistle test, the problem here is that only certain couplings in the vent line can be tested, and leaks can come from any defective coupling within that line. By the way, blowing air through the line makes seals worse because it dries them out.
According to EATON the real problem is not the seals themselves, but misalignment of the connecting pipes at the coupling. The alignment should be within 1 decree, and Hickman said that this was being checked every 30 days "visually". The coroner said that if alignment was so critical then some form of alignment device should be used when assembling couplings. MoD stated, at the inquest, that 300 seals will be change at every Major (EQ6), which comes around every 5-6 years and means that some aircraft will never get them. However, this is a wasted excerise if couplings are not aligned correctly
With regards to hot air pipes, MoD stated, again at the inquest, that all hot air pipes in the engine bay areas will be changed by the end of the year. Because, they finally recognise that whilst the x-feed pipes have be isolated (in flight) there are pipes between the engines and the x-feed shut off valve that are still hot and pressurised. These pipies, along with those in the x-feed section were declared "life expired and require replacement" in a 2005 BAE Systems report.
Finally, can I remind you of what Air Marshal Sir Barry Thornton said, when reviewing the BOI report: " Prohibiting the use of the SCP removes this ignition source but we must not allow ourselves to be convinced that consideration of other potential sources of ignition can be thereby be excluded".
So you see, we have a long way to go before the Nimrod is safe to fly.
DV
On the question of the whistle test, the problem here is that only certain couplings in the vent line can be tested, and leaks can come from any defective coupling within that line. By the way, blowing air through the line makes seals worse because it dries them out.
According to EATON the real problem is not the seals themselves, but misalignment of the connecting pipes at the coupling. The alignment should be within 1 decree, and Hickman said that this was being checked every 30 days "visually". The coroner said that if alignment was so critical then some form of alignment device should be used when assembling couplings. MoD stated, at the inquest, that 300 seals will be change at every Major (EQ6), which comes around every 5-6 years and means that some aircraft will never get them. However, this is a wasted excerise if couplings are not aligned correctly
With regards to hot air pipes, MoD stated, again at the inquest, that all hot air pipes in the engine bay areas will be changed by the end of the year. Because, they finally recognise that whilst the x-feed pipes have be isolated (in flight) there are pipes between the engines and the x-feed shut off valve that are still hot and pressurised. These pipies, along with those in the x-feed section were declared "life expired and require replacement" in a 2005 BAE Systems report.
Finally, can I remind you of what Air Marshal Sir Barry Thornton said, when reviewing the BOI report: " Prohibiting the use of the SCP removes this ignition source but we must not allow ourselves to be convinced that consideration of other potential sources of ignition can be thereby be excluded".
So you see, we have a long way to go before the Nimrod is safe to fly.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 30th May 2008 at 08:06.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV...so is that a vote for;
a) Ground it, rip it apart, change all the seals (or not) and all the pipes, put it back together again and call it safe.
or
b) Ground it and scrap it.
a) Ground it, rip it apart, change all the seals (or not) and all the pipes, put it back together again and call it safe.
or
b) Ground it and scrap it.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oil Can: It is a clear vote for ground the aircraft, and put right all the items on the ALARP check list.
Let me ask you a question. If your car fails its MOT because of brake problems do you:
(1) Continue driving the car, because you haven't crashed it to date,
(2) Repair the brakes, then re MOT, or
(3) Apply the "Hickman solution". Continue driving, but inform everyone that you intend to get the brakes fixed by the end of the year?
DV
Let me ask you a question. If your car fails its MOT because of brake problems do you:
(1) Continue driving the car, because you haven't crashed it to date,
(2) Repair the brakes, then re MOT, or
(3) Apply the "Hickman solution". Continue driving, but inform everyone that you intend to get the brakes fixed by the end of the year?
DV
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed Sett 100; You said,
Up until now I have always respected your views. I have not always agreed with them, but I have respected them. However, this statement takes your credibility rating to zero.
Many of your colleagues were in court to present the facts, for all I know you were there as well. All the facts were examined, and the end game was "ground the aircarft". Now if you, or any other member of MOD can present sound evidence supporting your "gut feeling" claim, then do so.
By the way, the families are not only trying to protect the current crews, many of whom do not know the full story, but also people on the ground over whom the aircraft fly.
DV
I do not care one jot what the politicians, air officers and IPTL's say to the media or the Coroner, I care only about what my colleagues and I know to be the facts
Many of your colleagues were in court to present the facts, for all I know you were there as well. All the facts were examined, and the end game was "ground the aircarft". Now if you, or any other member of MOD can present sound evidence supporting your "gut feeling" claim, then do so.
By the way, the families are not only trying to protect the current crews, many of whom do not know the full story, but also people on the ground over whom the aircraft fly.
DV
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ed,
I have also admired your in-depth knowledge of the aircraft and have enjoyed reading your cohntributions to the debate. They ahve always seemed well-balanced, sensible and reasoned but this latest outburst is most out of character for you, and I feel obliged to tell you that I do think you're wrong on this occasion.
The one and only absolute FACT here, is that an aircraft caught fire, was destroyed, and many of our friends died (unneccesarily IMHO)
Now we can keep hypothesising about what did or did not happen on that day, and you can convince us all with your own arguments and agenda, and as I said, I for one admire your knowledge, but I doubt if you speak for all Nimrod aircrew when you say that you and they know 'the facts' - suggesting that others don't! If you know 'the facts' then I suggest you tell us all and put us out of our misery please.
I still have many aircrew friends at ISK and some of them very experienced, and whilst some aircrew are happy to continue with the 'business as usual' attitude (typical aircrew 'can-do' attitude, dare I say?) quietly, many of them are extremely concerned about the state of the aircraft.
I'm not advocating grounding the fleet, but I do feel the time has come for a concerted effort to get them fixed once and for all, and if that is unachievable, then maybe we should just bite the bullett and scap them.
I have also admired your in-depth knowledge of the aircraft and have enjoyed reading your cohntributions to the debate. They ahve always seemed well-balanced, sensible and reasoned but this latest outburst is most out of character for you, and I feel obliged to tell you that I do think you're wrong on this occasion.
The one and only absolute FACT here, is that an aircraft caught fire, was destroyed, and many of our friends died (unneccesarily IMHO)
Now we can keep hypothesising about what did or did not happen on that day, and you can convince us all with your own arguments and agenda, and as I said, I for one admire your knowledge, but I doubt if you speak for all Nimrod aircrew when you say that you and they know 'the facts' - suggesting that others don't! If you know 'the facts' then I suggest you tell us all and put us out of our misery please.
I still have many aircrew friends at ISK and some of them very experienced, and whilst some aircrew are happy to continue with the 'business as usual' attitude (typical aircrew 'can-do' attitude, dare I say?) quietly, many of them are extremely concerned about the state of the aircraft.
I'm not advocating grounding the fleet, but I do feel the time has come for a concerted effort to get them fixed once and for all, and if that is unachievable, then maybe we should just bite the bullett and scap them.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 900 says it all. Well said that Man.
DV, re the cars brakes..........
Only a liar or a fool would do anything but option 2.
Here's a question (with obvious opsec implications.)
IF Nimrod was grounded NOW........ Is there a combination of packages and stuff that various members of the coalition can put together and achieve the same taskings and aims??
Now I expect there is and I would not be suprised if it initially was a right royal goat f**k to get going, funny thing is though, our service men and women are able to do these very difficult things.
If there is then I say we ground the damn things until they be airworthy, with a name on a piece of paper that says so.
Lets not forget that we have pushed the edge of the "airworthy" to the absolute edge and beyond.
I did get a pax trip on the mighty 'rod several years ago, would I go up in one now.......??
would I f**k.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the crews and the engineers trying to make the best of this awful situation, I also have a horrible feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge and a lot of fleets are going to see this situation come up.
DV, re the cars brakes..........
Only a liar or a fool would do anything but option 2.
Here's a question (with obvious opsec implications.)
IF Nimrod was grounded NOW........ Is there a combination of packages and stuff that various members of the coalition can put together and achieve the same taskings and aims??
Now I expect there is and I would not be suprised if it initially was a right royal goat f**k to get going, funny thing is though, our service men and women are able to do these very difficult things.
If there is then I say we ground the damn things until they be airworthy, with a name on a piece of paper that says so.
Lets not forget that we have pushed the edge of the "airworthy" to the absolute edge and beyond.
I did get a pax trip on the mighty 'rod several years ago, would I go up in one now.......??
would I f**k.
I have nothing but the utmost respect for the crews and the engineers trying to make the best of this awful situation, I also have a horrible feeling that this is the thin end of the wedge and a lot of fleets are going to see this situation come up.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornish Stormrider:
The Reaper may go some way to plugging the gap, although Caroline Wyatt says it cannot replace the Nimrod.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7419752.stm
IF Nimrod was grounded NOW........ Is there a combination of packages and stuff that various members of the coalition can put together and achieve the same taskings and aims??
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7419752.stm