Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nimrod "has Never Been Airworthy"  
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3899 times:

In his verdict on the deaths of 14 British servicemen in 2006, a Coroner has said that:

Quote:

In his view the entire Nimrod fleet had "never been airworthy from the first time it was released to service" nearly 40 years ago, he added.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7416627.stm

Quite a claim, 40 years of unairworthy aircraft being operated?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3884 times:

Heres another link explaining why.

Quote:

The tragedy is believed to have been caused by fuel leaking in one of the plane's dry bays, then igniting on contact with a hot air pipe, the inquest into the deaths has heard.

The hearing in Oxford was told yesterday that a section of hot air pipe in XV230's dry bay seven was not lagged to protect it from igniting fuel in the event of a leak from a fuel pipe below it.

Although the hot air pipe is insulated in most parts of the aircraft, it remains uncovered in dry bay seven.

Andrew Walker, the coroner, said: "What we have here amounts to a serious design flaw, because we could have a single point failure (where just one fault could cause a serious problem)."

Martin Breakell, BAE's chief Nimrod engineer, agreed, although he stressed that this scenario would be unlikely.


http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news...serious_design_flaw_on_Nimrods.php



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4,
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3759 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
Quite a claim, 40 years of unairworthy aircraft being operated?

Perhaps he is suggesting that the Comet was a poor choice of platform to start...



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3739 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 2):
Perhaps he is suggesting that the Comet was a poor choice of platform to start...

I don't necessarily see that in his opinion - the problem that brought down the Nimrod in question was in no way shape or form related to the problems the Comet had, its 100% to do with the implementation of the conversion from Comet to Nimrod.

The pipe in question is related to the air-to-air refueling system, which would be a conversion addition rather than base Comet equipment.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3733 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 3):
I don't necessarily see that in his opinion - the problem that brought down the Nimrod in question was in no way shape or form related to the problems the Comet had, its 100% to do with the implementation of the conversion from Comet to Nimrod.

I think my point is that he probably knows about the Comet's history and has a tainted perception of the whole platform.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3726 times:



Quoting N328KF (Reply 4):
I think my point is that he probably knows about the Comet's history and has a tainted perception of the whole platform.

Ahh fair enough then.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

What the hell does a coroner know about aerodynamics/physics and anything else to do with aeroplanes flying?

How many other airplanes have fallen from the sky like that?

Is a plane that flies for 40 years safely having an accident an indication of anything more than inevitability?



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineFlyUSCG From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 656 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3604 times:



Quoting Moo (Thread starter):
a Coroner has said that



Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
What the hell does a coroner know about aerodynamics/physics and anything else to do with aeroplanes flying

Bingo! I bet you can all imagine what we would be told if we walked into a morgue and started explaining cause of death for all the bodies in there. But hey, since when has the news let common sense get in the way of picking a interviewee.



Go Trojans! Fight On!
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

There is an old adage "if it looks good it will fly good". I don't think anything else needs to be said about the Nimrod!

User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3581 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
What the hell does a coroner know about aerodynamics/physics and anything else to do with aeroplanes flying?



Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 7):

Bingo! I bet you can all imagine what we would be told if we walked into a morgue and started explaining cause of death for all the bodies in there. But hey, since when has the news let common sense get in the way of picking a interviewee.

Contrary to belief on A.net (this exact view came up on another thread a while back), British coroners do not simply form opinions in a vacuum - during the process of the inquest, they hear evidence (just like a court) from many expert witnesses, people involved in the actual maintenance of the aircraft, people who built the aircraft, people who fly the aircraft, and significant amounts of written evidence such as the design blueprints, maintenance schedules, upgrade schedules etc etc.

This isn't an uninformed idiot blowing smoke up other peoples assholes, this is someone who just spent the past several weeks reaching this verdict with the help of many many others.

For example, the '40 years unairworthy' comment was made off the back of BAE head of airworthiness Tom McMichael saying it was likely that, if the evidence was correct, the aircraft had been flying in an nonairworthy state for 37 years.

Another BAE expert, Martin Breakell, BAEs chief Nimrod engineer, commented about the original Nimrod engineers failure to lag the pipe.

Two significant people making significant comments.

So no, don't think that the Coroner is uninformed or unable to make the opinion that he did.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
How many other airplanes have fallen from the sky like that?

Is a plane that flies for 40 years safely having an accident an indication of anything more than inevitability?

Weirdly enough, that viewpoint doesn't seem to be valid in A.net CivAV whenever Concorde is discussed.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3579 times:

This coroner has no power to implement his decision.
However, this is serious, you cannot expect the general public to see it any other way.

I agree that the problem stems from the very hurried conversion for AAR gear, with all the associated plumbing, during the Falklands War, allowing coverage of the S.Atlantic from Ascension Island.
Something done with this urgency is a lash up, there were plenty of these, however, these others were not still in use a quarter of a century later.
Even then, it seems another factor was the greatly increased tempo of AAR ops, in recent years.
Post Falklands, actual use of the AAR was rare, not really used for Nimrods primary role then, ASW in the Atlantic.
The odd deployment exercise, not much more.

All this changed in recent years, with the type now doing largely overland work, in the recce/ELINT/C3 role, often needing to be on station for extended periods, so much more use of AAR.
Not only in Iraq, as we saw from this terrible loss, over Afghanistan too, I'd bet the distances from base here meant even more AAR, with gear quickly assembled/fabriacted way back in Spring 1982.

Could it also be the case that support levels declined, what with these new, challenging tasking, while the RAF lost people, had reviews, changes, helped worsen the situation?
Plus let's face it, the aircraft was aging.
Then perhaps the final act in this tragedy, the severe delays to the replacement, the Nimrod MRA.4.
Had that kept to schedule, very likely this accident would not have happened, since that airframe would not have been flying, in that mod state at least.

MRA.4 is effectively a new aircraft, hence conversions getting new serial numbers.
But, to get it past the Treasury in 1996. making it a conversion of existing airframes was proposed, they'll think it's cheaper by default, can say we have not funded a brand new ASW type now the USSR has gone.
But they clearly did not take on board that each MR.2 to MRA.4 only left the original fuselage pressure shell, everything else was new, inside and out.
Clearly, a new production MRA.4 (which BAE said they could do), would have been quicker, cheaper, since the main delays to MRA.4 have, it seems, in areas like re-joining new wings to the original fuselage.

During this period, as costs escalated, the Nimrod MR.2 fleet was reduced further, meaning each remaining airframe was used more, as these new missions emerged.

Since Nimrods are still being used over Afghanistan, but AAR has been suspended, it could be that they are being supplemented by some of those UAV's the RAF has got quickly under Urgent Operational Requirements, supplementing the formal 'Watchkeeper' procurement.

What to do now? Could it be possible to rush newly completed MRA.4's into service, albeit fitted for the Afghanistan mission, leaving equipment for the main ASW mission until the fleet builds in numbers?

Finally, this must be hellish for those loved ones of the ill fated crew, they have every right to be angry on the broader aspects to this case, never mind specifics we can talk about safely here.
While understanding the sentiments, I could not though agree with one of them who stated that Nimrod should be grounded whatever the effects for the troops on the ground.
Since the danger the troops face is in another league, if the MoD are right in that they have identified and corrected the main risk factors and have increased maintenance schedules to account for the issues raised by the accident-only if that really is the case though.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3568 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 10):
Clearly, a new production MRA.4 (which BAE said they could do), would have been quicker, cheaper, since the main delays to MRA.4 have, it seems, in areas like re-joining new wings to the original fuselage.

Hell yes, I read in one journal that BAE was having huge issues because they discovered that there was actually no production standard across the entire Nimrod fleet - each and every Comet was basically hand crafted and then each and every conversion to Nimrod was hand crafted, so there is no single standard that BAE can produce parts to for the MRA.4 body - every single aircraft is unique.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3561 times:



Quoting FlyUSCG (Reply 7):
But hey, since when has the news let common sense get in the way of picking a interviewee.

This is a stupid comment. These stories cite expert opinion presented as evidence at a coroner's inquest, and the coroner's comments and conclusion based on what he heard. You're making it sound like some sensationalist attempt by the news media to concoct a good story out of nothing.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 6):
What the hell does a coroner know about aerodynamics/physics and anything else to do with aeroplanes flying?

Did you actually read the stories? Some telling excerpts:

This week a senior engineer from defence and aerospace firm BAE Systems told the inquest that his predecessors, who made the Nimrod some 40 years ago, failed to fit a fire protection system on a key area of risk on the aircraft. And the firm's head of airworthiness Tom McMichael said that if the evidence heard was correct, the Nimrod planes had, at the time of the tragedy, been flying in an unairworthy state for 37 years.

Sounds to me like the coroner nailed it.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13229 posts, RR: 77
Reply 13, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Funny you should mention that Moo, since when we did the Concorde return to flight conversions, we found that each set of fuel tank liners had to to made for each aircraft-after we tried to do G-BOAF with standard sized ones!
We'd known they were hand built of course, since this was seen in more routine work.

The Coroner-could he be applying civil aviation criteria to Nimrod?
If so, is it appropriate for a military aircraft.
And losses or not, could it be that other military aircraft could potentially fail this coroner's definition of airworthiness?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3546 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
The Coroner-could he be applying civil aviation criteria to Nimrod?
If so, is it appropriate for a military aircraft.
And losses or not, could it be that other military aircraft could potentially fail this coroner's definition of airworthiness?

I hope so - while I believe that the definition of airworthiness should be lower for military aircraft than civilian ones (for obvious reasons), I don't think it should be much lower and there should be an independent body with the ability to conduct checks and balances.

I wonder if its possible to get a copy of this Coroners report, and see exactly how they are defining 'airworthy'.


User currently offlineJutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3453 times:

While I was in CFB Comox during Ex Fin Castle, or something like that, there was a visiting Nimrod from what I'm guessing Britian. I think it flew twice and was grounded the rest of the ex due to maint probs. I didn't know it was that bad.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Nimrod "has Never Been Airworthy"
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Badges Of Secrecy" posted Thu Mar 6 2008 13:07:58 by Fumanchewd
Canadian "Air Force One" Getting New Paint posted Tue Dec 18 2007 14:42:36 by YOWza
Report: Third Of RAF Bomber Sqns "To Be Culled" posted Sun Oct 7 2007 11:19:25 by RC135U
Who Designed The "Air Force One" Scheme? posted Sun Jun 10 2007 18:47:46 by JayDavis
First New IAF "Air Force One" posted Thu Nov 30 2006 23:26:51 by DEVILFISH
Rotary Wing Pilots: "I've Always Wondered..." posted Tue Nov 21 2006 06:28:44 by MCIGuy
"Stars Of Sukhoi" Video (Su-27, 30, 33, 47) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 04:47:29 by BEG2IAH
First Embraer "Air Force One"? posted Tue Oct 3 2006 23:17:08 by DEVILFISH
"A Spaceship Has Landed On Earth" posted Fri Sep 28 2007 10:59:52 by StealthZ
Is The B1-B A "bad" Bomber posted Sun Apr 27 2008 16:38:23 by CO787EWR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format