Nimrod Safety - post afghan tragedy
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story has undoubtedly been sensationalised, and yes, it is very easy, with expert knowledge, to rip parts of it to shreds. But I think it’s probably true that most news stories could be taken apart by those in related fields.
There are numerous comments on various threads here on pprune that allude to what is alleged in this story. The effects of leaning, shortage of aircraft and spares, de-skilling of the engineering trades, under-resourcing of critical systems and equipment and the mass exodus, both on redundancy and PVR of skilled and experienced tradesmen.
Don’t kid yourself, there are ways of clearing the F700.
You’re right, nothing new, but we are currently fighting a war, this kind of situation is unacceptable. It was exactly the same in GW1. I would suggest that the constant robbing and refittment of critical parts and systems, whilst not an explicit threat, is not conducive to safety.
S_H
There are numerous comments on various threads here on pprune that allude to what is alleged in this story. The effects of leaning, shortage of aircraft and spares, de-skilling of the engineering trades, under-resourcing of critical systems and equipment and the mass exodus, both on redundancy and PVR of skilled and experienced tradesmen.
> If the F700 isn't cleared, then the jet isn't serviceable and the captain can't sign for it.
And the provision of spare parts is so shoddy that in order to keep one plane flying, the No2 plane in operations is routinely stripped to the extent that it can't be used.
> Nothing new there then, but again, not an explicit threat to safety
> Nothing new there then, but again, not an explicit threat to safety
S_H
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unserviceable kit listed in the ADD log can only go in there if it won't materially affect the safety of flight AND won't affect the execution of the mission, ie, sometimes an ADD log entry would be unacceptable for certain missions but OK for others.
Then there are unserviceabilities that occur during the start and taxy cycle. Often a captain would weigh up the risk to safety against loss of mission. For example, I decided to get airborne with a u/s hydraulic pump for a war mission - something I would not have done for a training sortie.
The Record article is pure sensationalism - it sold a few extra papers on the day, and the individual got a chance to vent his spleen. The RAF authorities will do exactly what they should - ignore it and it will go away.
I lost a good friend on that flight, and I am angry that an individual has used this accident to come up with an attack on engineering practices in the RAF. The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.
FJJP
Then there are unserviceabilities that occur during the start and taxy cycle. Often a captain would weigh up the risk to safety against loss of mission. For example, I decided to get airborne with a u/s hydraulic pump for a war mission - something I would not have done for a training sortie.
The Record article is pure sensationalism - it sold a few extra papers on the day, and the individual got a chance to vent his spleen. The RAF authorities will do exactly what they should - ignore it and it will go away.
I lost a good friend on that flight, and I am angry that an individual has used this accident to come up with an attack on engineering practices in the RAF. The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.
FJJP
Not all embarrased, Safeware. As others have pointed out, it depends on the task at hand and circumstances. Those of us who've been there are annoyed at the article's implicit scaremongering, but having had to endure the contents of this so-called 'newspaper' in my current employment, I can hardly be surprised, can I?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Forres
Age: 59
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is a shortage of spares, yes the crews and engineers are stretched and yes, we all have our opinion on the issues ( past and present ) but we really ought to close ranks on the press and give them nothing to go on. They will never get the story correct and will misquote anyone to make sales.
However,if the Nimrod is flying with non acceptable faults then the RAF is truely in a poor state. The whole issue of ADF ( Acceptable Deferred Fault ) means just that! There is a whole chain of experienced technicians to make the decision on what is and what is not airworthy. There is ultimately a decision to be made and they are not made lightly in my experience. If technicians and their respective bosses are allowing the aircraft to fly in a non-airworthy condition then perhaps they need to take a serious look at what they're trying to achieve and to loose the "can do" attitude which does pervade throughout. Ultimately, if the aircraft has ADFs raised against it ( and they all do! ) then the captain is responsible for accepting that as an airworthyness issue when he signs for the aircraft. If, of course, this is hidden from him, where does that leave the crew? Engineers, stand up and be counted.
Let's give the BOI some space to come up with the facts!
However,if the Nimrod is flying with non acceptable faults then the RAF is truely in a poor state. The whole issue of ADF ( Acceptable Deferred Fault ) means just that! There is a whole chain of experienced technicians to make the decision on what is and what is not airworthy. There is ultimately a decision to be made and they are not made lightly in my experience. If technicians and their respective bosses are allowing the aircraft to fly in a non-airworthy condition then perhaps they need to take a serious look at what they're trying to achieve and to loose the "can do" attitude which does pervade throughout. Ultimately, if the aircraft has ADFs raised against it ( and they all do! ) then the captain is responsible for accepting that as an airworthyness issue when he signs for the aircraft. If, of course, this is hidden from him, where does that leave the crew? Engineers, stand up and be counted.
Let's give the BOI some space to come up with the facts!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Jockland
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys!
sorry about dropping the article on you and vanishing in thin air, but kind of a hectic day yesterday. just enough time to cut and paste what i thought was an issue at least worth discussing, and putting in the wrong newspaper
... shows how much attention i'm paying at the mo. thanks for the responses though, didn't think anyone would pick it up.
sorry about dropping the article on you and vanishing in thin air, but kind of a hectic day yesterday. just enough time to cut and paste what i thought was an issue at least worth discussing, and putting in the wrong newspaper
... shows how much attention i'm paying at the mo. thanks for the responses though, didn't think anyone would pick it up.
Unserviceable kit listed in the ADD log can only go in there if it won't materially affect the safety of flight AND won't affect the execution of the mission, ie, sometimes an ADD log entry would be unacceptable for certain missions but OK for others.
<snip>
The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.
FJJP
<snip>
The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them.
FJJP
Of course all aircraft accumulate ADF entries, and there are many Lims which sit there for ages, but the rules do require that they get reviewed periodically rather than sit there for years as they used to once. The rule I always used was "can I justify that signature to a subsequent BoI?" If there was doubt, then there was no doubt, it didn't fly.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acceptable Faults or "Risk Management"
The biggest threat to everyones safety at he moment is the "creep" that is happening under the term "Risk Management". Gone are the days of "if there is any risk then there is no doubt, don't do it". Only a few years ago we would have never got airborne with some of the faults that we are regularly carrying into the air now.
The nimrod line is desperately under manned and add to that the effect of manning 2 DOBs (Seeb and Basrah) the engineers are spending more time away from home than ever. No wonder so many are now voting with their feet and leaving to a more secure future in the offshore industry, even if that means spending a long time away... At least they are getting paid for the discomfort.
As to the reply that the MOD had increased the engineering budget by x%, totally meaningless and full of *****. That was inevitable, the old girl should have been retired long ago when Nimrod 2000 came into service but the Treasury decided to keep slipping the programme to the right. We are now spending money to keep an ageing aircraft flying when the only money that would have been spent on it by now would have been the transport costs of sending it to the scrap yard. No wonder there has been an increase. I wonder what the normal budget should have been in real terms???
The nimrod line is desperately under manned and add to that the effect of manning 2 DOBs (Seeb and Basrah) the engineers are spending more time away from home than ever. No wonder so many are now voting with their feet and leaving to a more secure future in the offshore industry, even if that means spending a long time away... At least they are getting paid for the discomfort.
As to the reply that the MOD had increased the engineering budget by x%, totally meaningless and full of *****. That was inevitable, the old girl should have been retired long ago when Nimrod 2000 came into service but the Treasury decided to keep slipping the programme to the right. We are now spending money to keep an ageing aircraft flying when the only money that would have been spent on it by now would have been the transport costs of sending it to the scrap yard. No wonder there has been an increase. I wonder what the normal budget should have been in real terms???
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Safety is even MORE important in war-time, especially as the RAF is constantly shrinking and we are putting all our eggs in the same, smaller basket.
If we lose an ac to anything other than enemy action (or, possibly, NOH) we are then doing the enemy's job for him!
Its worth remembering that in the 'risk management' (Yukspeak Alert) process.
Flip
If we lose an ac to anything other than enemy action (or, possibly, NOH) we are then doing the enemy's job for him!
Its worth remembering that in the 'risk management' (Yukspeak Alert) process.
Flip
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possel,
My pleasure. You're right about the ADF/Lim logs; I didn't want to get into a huge debate about the differences, so I lumped the 2 together for the argument.
However, there has been the odd occasion where a captain has refused to accept an ADF entry for a flight; one springs to mind immediately where a captain refused to accept a delaminated windscreen because the night was particularly filthy and he didn't want any obstacle in forward vision for the landing.
In my experience, any issues over the logs are settled at the programme planning stage, where an ac is offered that is safe and fully mission capable.
My pleasure. You're right about the ADF/Lim logs; I didn't want to get into a huge debate about the differences, so I lumped the 2 together for the argument.
However, there has been the odd occasion where a captain has refused to accept an ADF entry for a flight; one springs to mind immediately where a captain refused to accept a delaminated windscreen because the night was particularly filthy and he didn't want any obstacle in forward vision for the landing.
In my experience, any issues over the logs are settled at the programme planning stage, where an ac is offered that is safe and fully mission capable.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I lost a good friend on that flight, and I am angry that an individual has used this accident to come up with an attack on engineering practices in the RAF. The engineers I worked with over a long and fulfilling career [almost 10,000 hours] were a bunch of top blokes - I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I had any issue with them."
FJJP
Nobody is saying that the engineers are at fault! they are being flogged by the decisions imposed on them! over forty techies at NLS pvr'd this year 2006, before the third tranch of redundancies were even announced. When they go, plus the redundancy people from tranch 3, plus those that will now pvr since they didn't get redundancy you are going to be left with a desperatly short force, both physically and experience wise.
When you put two shifts of largely inexperienced men together, both working 24 hour shifts in hot desert conditions with the pressures of providing jets for operational sorties, you might at some point stretch them that bit too far! as you say they are professional but they can't work miracles, especially when you add to the equation Old aircraft, shocking lack of spares, poor accomodation (basra) (noise,crowding) leading to accumalitive fatigue.
By anyones standards this is a recipe for disaster!
I would have said waiting to happen but that may yet prove to be too late.
Hundreds of us lost friends fjjp, this individual should be applauded for speaking out and further highlighting the shortcomings in Raf expenditure and manning levels, without his and others voices we could find ourselves mourning yet more!
FJJP
Nobody is saying that the engineers are at fault! they are being flogged by the decisions imposed on them! over forty techies at NLS pvr'd this year 2006, before the third tranch of redundancies were even announced. When they go, plus the redundancy people from tranch 3, plus those that will now pvr since they didn't get redundancy you are going to be left with a desperatly short force, both physically and experience wise.
When you put two shifts of largely inexperienced men together, both working 24 hour shifts in hot desert conditions with the pressures of providing jets for operational sorties, you might at some point stretch them that bit too far! as you say they are professional but they can't work miracles, especially when you add to the equation Old aircraft, shocking lack of spares, poor accomodation (basra) (noise,crowding) leading to accumalitive fatigue.
By anyones standards this is a recipe for disaster!
I would have said waiting to happen but that may yet prove to be too late.
Hundreds of us lost friends fjjp, this individual should be applauded for speaking out and further highlighting the shortcomings in Raf expenditure and manning levels, without his and others voices we could find ourselves mourning yet more!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok lets get the terminoligy right
The F700C has a Limitations log (Pink pages) - it may even include Red Line entries from the Design Authority or HQ, Stn Cdr, OC Ops, SEngo - This section is mandatory, for safety reasons - some kit will be fitted and collared out - but non-use must be observed
An Acceptable Defered Defects log (Green pages) ADD not ADF!!!! - DA, Stn Cdr, OC Eng, Line level decision to meet the flying prog - kit will work within defined acceptable limitations
A current defects log (white pages) which records the latest snags but may allow the aircraft to complete another sortie (acceptable by the on-coming Capt) in the same BF period (24 hrs) depending on sortie profile
Now to the nitty gritty points, which might answer some of Steve's concerns to Shona about most of the kit not working - does it matter ??
The Nimrod is the only true multi-role ac in the RAF inventory - The Falklands and OP Granby started a chain of modifications and events which was to propell this ac into front line operations (always had been, tracking real Russian submarines, surface units, and SAR in peacetime etc) - this never made the press - in fact it was only years later in PM Questions that the contribution made by MR2 became public - this accelerated the improvement programme within timescale - nothing like a good war eh!
The MR2 in AFGAN is presently doing an MRA4 job -
I acheived 9760 hrs on Nimrod - Wet, Dry, and having been a Nim Capt twice I always remembered the Task needs, Team needs, Individuall needs - vital - essential - desirable
When I was alocated an ac, I would never let it go unless the wings fell off
No Acoustics, No Radar, No ESM, No MAD, No HF -It was ok for an SCT
Yes , I'll take it
So Steve's complaint to Shona is nearly correct - most of the kit is not working - but can the ac do the job?
Task need - "Comms relay for ground forces over AFGN for 8 hours"
Capt - "Hello Chief is so and so working?"
Chief "Yes Sir, checked out 3 times"
"Good we'll go!"
The F700C has a Limitations log (Pink pages) - it may even include Red Line entries from the Design Authority or HQ, Stn Cdr, OC Ops, SEngo - This section is mandatory, for safety reasons - some kit will be fitted and collared out - but non-use must be observed
An Acceptable Defered Defects log (Green pages) ADD not ADF!!!! - DA, Stn Cdr, OC Eng, Line level decision to meet the flying prog - kit will work within defined acceptable limitations
A current defects log (white pages) which records the latest snags but may allow the aircraft to complete another sortie (acceptable by the on-coming Capt) in the same BF period (24 hrs) depending on sortie profile
Now to the nitty gritty points, which might answer some of Steve's concerns to Shona about most of the kit not working - does it matter ??
The Nimrod is the only true multi-role ac in the RAF inventory - The Falklands and OP Granby started a chain of modifications and events which was to propell this ac into front line operations (always had been, tracking real Russian submarines, surface units, and SAR in peacetime etc) - this never made the press - in fact it was only years later in PM Questions that the contribution made by MR2 became public - this accelerated the improvement programme within timescale - nothing like a good war eh!
The MR2 in AFGAN is presently doing an MRA4 job -
I acheived 9760 hrs on Nimrod - Wet, Dry, and having been a Nim Capt twice I always remembered the Task needs, Team needs, Individuall needs - vital - essential - desirable
When I was alocated an ac, I would never let it go unless the wings fell off
No Acoustics, No Radar, No ESM, No MAD, No HF -It was ok for an SCT
Yes , I'll take it
So Steve's complaint to Shona is nearly correct - most of the kit is not working - but can the ac do the job?
Task need - "Comms relay for ground forces over AFGN for 8 hours"
Capt - "Hello Chief is so and so working?"
Chief "Yes Sir, checked out 3 times"
"Good we'll go!"
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An Acceptable Defered Defects log (Green pages) ADD not ADF!!!!
I haven't looked at a F700 in anger for a few years, but it cahnged from ADD to ADF a long time ago, it hasn't changed back again has it ?
S_H
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe ADDs changed to ADFs (and yes it was a long time ago - early 90s if not earlier) because someone somewhere didn't like the idea of having Defects because it made it sound like the equipment was delivered Defective.
Or that could be another urban myth.
And 'aircrew accepts' could be accepted until the next AF, being After Flight.
sw
Or that could be another urban myth.
And 'aircrew accepts' could be accepted until the next AF, being After Flight.
sw
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety
That Link is aimed at contractors and is at variance with RAF procedures
viz: CH4 para 1401 " In AFTRA regulated ac, the Captain is to be a pilot"
Reading on, it appears I also forgot to sign up for Pt5 of the 'Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003' - how remiss of me
Just had a quick glance at the Oxford Concise
Defect - "Lack of something essential to completness - shortcoming or failing"
Fault - " Defect, imperfection, blemish of character, structure or appearance
There is a lot of other yuckspeak sh*te in that publication, but there again, it has been staffed and published by a Capt RN
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
That Link is aimed at contractors and is at variance with RAF procedures
viz: CH4 para 1401 " In AFTRA regulated ac, the Captain is to be a pilot"
Reading on, it appears I also forgot to sign up for Pt5 of the 'Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003' - how remiss of me
Just had a quick glance at the Oxford Concise
Defect - "Lack of something essential to completness - shortcoming or failing"
Fault - " Defect, imperfection, blemish of character, structure or appearance
There is a lot of other yuckspeak sh*te in that publication, but there again, it has been staffed and published by a Capt RN
Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe!
Agree with you Buoy 15 at the end of the day it is the crew who accept the aircraft for the task and they will not go if an essential piece of kit is not working. The groundcrew work with what they have got and I for one appreciated the long almost thankless hours they put in to get the aircraft ready for us to fly........I was crew on the Nimrod a long time ago Mk1 and then Mk2 in them days there was a lot of experience both on the ground and in the aircrew and things were sorted very quickly, very few questions asked just done. I left the RAF in 96 when the problems were starting to surface more and more and feel the problem lies with the hierarchy totally, lack of manpower and spares being major factors that with increased tasking in inhospitable conditions only make things worse. I applaud all you guys out there doing it think long and hard with what you take flying dont be pressurised if in doubt there is no doubt!!! I remember being in ops at ASI and the crew chief calling me up and asking me to come and sort out the Jengo. He wanted to let one of the Nimrods get airbourne with ONE generator his view was that we flew on two at most of the times so we had only lost half of our generators!!!!! Both myself the crew and the groundcrew were speechless, the poor guy was a relatively young newcomer to the fleet with all good intentions.....needless to say the aircraft was fixed before it flew....pressures of war was getting to us all......
Remember guys take it easy out there old and bold and all that.
Remember guys take it easy out there old and bold and all that.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bouy 15
I used the link merely to illustrate that the terminology is now ADF not ADD. Bear in mind that contractors operating to AvP67 may be using the F700. I have now confirmed that it is ADF, by looking at the relevant JAP.
So when you blunder in with:
and then go on to spout off on something that changed about 15 years ago.........
I think Safeware is correct, defect implies something that was present when equipment is delivered, a fault would be something that develops during use.
S_H
I used the link merely to illustrate that the terminology is now ADF not ADD. Bear in mind that contractors operating to AvP67 may be using the F700. I have now confirmed that it is ADF, by looking at the relevant JAP.
So when you blunder in with:
Ok lets get the terminoligy right
I think Safeware is correct, defect implies something that was present when equipment is delivered, a fault would be something that develops during use.
S_H
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And finally, B15, as I am sure you are aware, an ADF should NEVER be used for a Limitation, only faults that have a maintenance effect on an aircraft. Limitations on an aircraft are exactly that. It does not work/should not be used as advertised.
Further to several of the above, I seen to recall that Defect was changed to Fault as long ago as 1985 (the time we went from F720B to F707B), and that the reason was European conformity because the word Defect had a legal connotation of fundamental design flaw.
I am sure someone will correct me if the grey cells have got confused with the passing of time.
I am sure someone will correct me if the grey cells have got confused with the passing of time.
