| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mark occomore
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 9955
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:47 pm Post subject: Nimrod Fleet Should Be Grounded |
 |
|
The entire RAF Nimrod fleet should be grounded, a coroner has urged as he concluded the inquest into the deaths of 14 servicemen in a crash.
The fleet had "never been airworthy", Andrew Walker said, recording narrative verdicts at the Oxford hearing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7416627.stm
_______________________________________
If all Governments ploughed money into building new aircraft years ago then this many not had happened? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SantaFefan
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 11258
Location: top of the cliffs in Norfolk
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't help but feel it's a little embarrassing for such an old aircraft to be part of today's Air Force but what do I know?
How is it a Coroner considers he has the authority to say such a thing when the Chief Engineer of the RAF say's it a safe aircraft?? 
_________________
Johnnie Walker read out my message on Pirate Radio!  13/8/07
I have heard how radio should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lord Evan Elpuss
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 3417
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
|
| Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SantaFefan wrote: | I can't help but feel it's a little embarrassing for such an old aircraft to be part of today's Air Force but what do I know?
How is it a Coroner considers he has the authority to say such a thing when the Chief Engineer of the RAF say's it a safe aircraft?? |
If the Nimrod wasn't a safe aircraft then how has it survived in service since the 1970s? Boeing 737s & 747s have crashed killing thousands of people. How come no-one is calling for the grounding of these?
_________________
Lord Evan Elpuss, Your ideal job is a Lumberjack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cherskiy
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3701
Location: near Amble, Northumberland
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lord Evan Elpuss wrote: | | If the Nimrod wasn't a safe aircraft then how has it survived in service since the 1970s? Boeing 737s & 747s have crashed killing thousands of people. How come no-one is calling for the grounding of these? |
It depends on your definition of "airworthiness" and "serviceability". The old MR.1s (converted from Comet 4C airliners back in '69) were just fine in their intended environment - ASW against the Russian submarine fleet in the Atlantic and the North Sea, but doing MR, ASR support and fisheries protection patrols as secondary duties. The Kipper Fleet's recent recon role involves a lot of 'bolt-on' bits - recon over sand-pits wasn't exactly in the airframe's repetoire when the MR.1 was conceived. That said, they were still not "airworthy" under official standards....
The problem seems to lie in the proximity of the hot air ducts and fuel systems in the original conversions - either the MOD/Hawker Siddeley did not realise or chose to ignore the ramifications of such a conflict, with the MOD not knowing about or deciding to exempt the conflict under the terms of AvP970 as it was back then - whichever is correct, following AvP970 to the letter, the aircraft was not "airworthy". It was "serviceable", since it could fly - but there was always the possibility of hot air igniting any leaks from the adjacent fuel systems. Nothing has changed since the introduction of the first MR.1 airframe, ergo Mr Walker's comments.
This potential problem was exacerbated with the MR.2 update, since a secondary cooling unit was installed in the rear fuselage. When in use, this unit had to be pressurised using hot air. Of course, this extended the time frame when hot air was exposed to any possible fuel leaks. No action was taken to rectify the original conflict between the hot air ducts and the fuel system. Therefore, the MR.2 has flown when not compliant with AvP970 (later DefStan 00-970).
Of course, the investigation couldn't tell whether the hot air ignited the fuel to cause the fire, or whether there was another reason for the fuel fire that caused the incident. That still doesn't excuse an inherent design fault in the airframe that negates its airworthiness under the terms of the MOD's own standards.
According to Pprune, which is always a good source of info on aviation matters (although you have to wear blinkers sometimes), Gp Cpt Hickman (the Delegated Airworthiness Authority) said in court that "Nimrod is tolerably safe but not ALARP" (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) - apparently they were expecting the Kipper Fleet to be ALARP by the end of this year(!) - no consolation to the families of the aircrew that were lost.... I wonder whether said Gp Cpt would be happy crewing in a Nimrod tomorrow knowing that the airframe he was trusting his life to was only "tolerably safe" and the risks had not been reduced to ALARP?
There's quite a few P-3Cs at AMARC that the Americans could sell us on the cheap instead of soldiering on with the existing Kipper Fleet.... lots of Air Forces around the world swear by them for ASW, MR and ELINT/SIGINT work.
Seems like Swiss Des managed to be elsewhere (i.e. an "official visit" in Europe) to escape the verdict - how predictable.
_________________
Author: “To the Ends of the Earth: A Snapshot of Aviation in North-Eastern Siberia, Summer 1992”
(Free to read via Kindle Unlimited) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
