Nimrod families take legal action

BBC News Scotland reports that some of the families of those killed in the crash of the RAF Nimrod XV230 are to sue the government. Demands for legal action have been led by Graham Knight, whose son Ben was among those killed when the aircraft crashed in Afghanistan two years ago.

I have blogged on this a number of times and I am not surprised by this turn of events. The government see it as an embarrassment and try to put their heads in the sand and ignore the problem hoping it will just disappear. The coroner has already ruled that the planes are "not airworthy" and should be grounded.

Apparently lawyers will argue the basis of the case would be in relation to Article 2 of the Human Rights Act the thrust will be that the airmen were sent into the theatre of war ill-equiped.

Mr Knight told BBC Scotland:

"Fourteen men died on that plane and apart from apologies nothing has really been done about it and although the planes have been deemed un-airworthy, they're still flying. Had it been a bus company and it had been an un-roadworthy bus, legal action would have been taken against the bus company. I feel that something needs to be done as nobody has been brought to task."

Let us only hope that by doing this it will keep in the minds of the current government that they cannot keep cutting back defence expenditure and still send our soldiers into action ill-equipped. The Nimrod is just the toip o f the iceberg.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Nimrod families take legal action

Nimrod families want safety talks

The BBC reports that the families of 14 Servicemen killed in and RAF Nimrod crash in Afghanistan in 2006 want to have safety talks with the Armed Forces minister. They are upset about how the minister was able to make immediate comment about the airworthiness of the Nimrod without reading the coroners report. Robert Dicketts, father of L/Cpl Oliver Dicketts, 27 - who was killed in the explosion - has written to Mr Ainsworth on behalf of all the families of those killed as follows

First of all we were all very upset that you felt able to make an immediate comment about the airworthiness of the Nimrod fleet before you even had the chance to read the coroner's verdict.

Bearing in mind the seriousness of the matter we would have thought that you should have first read it, and then called in your experts to advise you before making any comments.

It is clear to us that your experts have completely different information to that which we heard in the coroner's court.

In view of this we would ask that we have a meeting to both review your experts' evidence and that which we heard.

He also added that the minister would be aware several experts had

Stated quite clearly the fleet was still not airworthy and continued that in cases where the experts thought the plane was still airworthy they had, in some cases, had their evidence "discredited".

Speaking after the inquest coroner Andrew Walker said the fleet had "never been airworthy" as he recorded narrative verdicts.

Des Browne reacted by saying changes made to the Nimrod meant it was now safe for crews.

All in all this is most unsatisfactory. We have a government insisting something is OK and a Coroner saying it isn't. Who are we to believe, we know now that the initial design of the Nimrod was unsafe so even with the modifications it still has the design problems. The Nimrod is still essential to the RAF's role in Afghanistan let us also hope it is also up to the job of keeping its crews safe.

More posts about the Nimrod here.

BBC NEWS UK Nimrod families want safety talks

Ten Kinloss pilots left RAF over Nimrod safety fears

According to the Independent

At least 10 pilots and crew have quit their posts at RAF Kinloss in the past decade because of safety concerns over the ageing Nimrod fleet

This is a based upon reports from David Morgan a newspaper Editor in Forres and apparently an Aviation Expert.

Not a statistic the MOD or RAF has advertised.

Despite this the same avation writer contends, in the Scotsman, that the Nimrod is not "un air-worthy" but rather that the aircraft should just have been grounded.

Now I'm not sure exactly what the difference between being un-airworthy and requiring to be grounded is. Both should mean the aircraft does not see service again until all the faults have been rectified. The un-airworthy verdict applies to the fact that the Nimrod had for all it's flying years a fault that was waiting to be exposed, the grounding means that that fault has now been exposed alongside others that mean the aircraft should not now be in service.

David Morgan when asked what should be done with the aircraft said

There's no doubt that the aircraft are in desperate need of retirement becausethe systems are so complex and difficult to maintain that there is really no
option but to release them.

The Press and Journal also reports here that not all the faults identified in the Nimrod have been fixed. It has the following

Moray MP Mr Robertson asked Mr Browne how many of the 30 recommendations in a Nimrod fuel system safety review of October 2007 had been complied with.

He replied: “Twenty-one have been accepted and are being implemented, three are being considered for implementation and a further six are on hold as they relate to air-to-air refuelling.”

Mr Robertson said yesterday: “Who are we to believe when the coroner says Nimrod are not airworthy and the defence secretary says they are, but admits that vital safety changes, recommended by his own safety review, have not been made?”

He added: “Des Browne needs to give a very good reason to why the Nimrod fleet should not be grounded until all these requirements have been fulfilled.

“If he cannot satisfy me that the safety recommendations have been fulfilled, I do not see how the Nimrod fleet can continue to operate.”

More blogs by me on this subject here.

Ten Kinloss pilots 'left RAF over Nimrod safety fears' - Home News, UK - The Independent

Can we ban the RAF Nimrod from British Airspace?

The Press and Journal has the following to say after the verdict of the Coroner into the the crash of the RAF Nimrod XV230 yesterday.

The Government’s record of looking after its own forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has been called into question repeatedly, but the deaths of 14 Nimrod crew was its darkest moment.

Ministers last night refused to bow to pressure from bereaved families and the coroner who called for the entire Nimrod fleet of aircraft to be grounded.

The Government claimed that modifications to operational procedures now made the aircraft safe to fly. This might well carry a hollow ring to it given the Ministry of Defence’s previous record of looking after Nimrods, which was condemned by both the inquest and an RAF board of inquiry. Had new corporate manslaughter laws been retrospective in nature the Government could easily be facing extremely damaging and expensive legal action.

Critics will suspect that the Government is taking a huge gamble that its new procedures will work.

If there is any further loss of life by Nimrod crews for similar reasons, there will be a clamour for manslaughter charges to be brought.

I can only agree and perhaps go further and ask if we can ban this plane from British Airspace?

If the Coroner's verdict is that it should be grounded surely the Civil authorities can ban it from our airspace and particularly from landing and taking off from such airports as Aberdeen.

I realise that the Nimrod is of great use in Afghanistan but surely other countries could fill this position temporarily whilst the Nimrod if properly checke and updated to ensure it is safe to take to the skies again.

Is Government taking a gamble? - Press & Journal

Families react to Nimrod verdict - Bob Ainsworth a Disgrace

I'll let the families of those killed on-board Nimrod XV230 do the talking.

Follow the link to see what they think of the Coroners verdict and also the disgrace of a statement by Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth.

BBC NEWS | UK | Families react to Nimrod verdict

Coroner for XV230 says Nimrod fleet was 'not airworthy'

According to the Coroner

The RAF's entire Nimrod fleet has "never been airworthy",

For more information on Nimrod XV230 see here

BBC NEWS | UK | Nimrod fleet was 'not airworthy'

Appalling admission about doomed plane - Nimrod XV230

According to the "Press and Journal"

IT WOULD be wrong to attempt to prejudge the outcome of an inquest into the deaths of 14 RAF Kinloss crew in a Nimrod crash in Afghanistan, but the evidence which is unfolding will take a lot of explaining.

Statements by experts are becoming more incredible by the day. Yesterday, aircraft manufacturer BAE Systems’ chief engineer admitted, under intense questioning, that the doomed plane, the 37-year-old Nimrod XV230, was not airworthy when it went on active operations against the Taliban.

It is little wonder that this appalling admission brought gasps of horror at the inquest from bereaved relatives of the crew.

There have long been doubts about whether or not this illustrious, but ageing, fleet of aircraft was fit to perform at the required standard.

A previous RAF board of inquiry into the tragedy delivered a damning condemnation of maintenance and safety procedures. The inquest might easily follow suit, with the coroner having a number of possible recommendations at his disposal.

If we sidestep the legal niceties for the moment, the average member of the public will be left wondering how on earth the system running one of the most revered military organisations in the world was allowed to send this crew on what amounted to a suicide mission. One wonders whether or not they knew when they took off that they were in more danger from their own equipment than the enemy.

Whatever the coroner’s recommendations might be, the public must be reassured that current and future aircrew are never placed in the same position.

All I can say is my father would have been deeply distressed to hear what is happening to his beloved RAF.

Appalling admission about doomed plane - Press & Journal

Nimrod replacement under threat

How can we in this time of conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to misrun and underfund projects in such a way that the lives of members of the armed forces are jeopardised every time they go out on Operations.

I have blogged about the problems with the Nimrods on a number of previous occasions. We cannot afford for this aircraft to be in active service for much longer without the likelihood of further casualties

The SNP MP for Moray, Angus Robertson said

"There are many legitimate questions about the increasing cost and growing delays in the Nimrod replacement programme.

"We cannot, however, lose sight of the safety dimension and the need to replace the ageing current Nimrod fleet. The tragic loss of the Nimrod in Afghanistan underlines the need for a replacement system as a priority.

"If the MRA4 is no longer the appropriate platform then which should it be, how long will it take to introduce and at what cost?"

Whatever decision is made it must try and ensure the safety of our Service Personnel on active duty.


BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Nimrod replacement under threat

Nimrods are Still Safe to fly

Des Browne says Nimrods are safe to fly Beau Bo D'or disagrees and so do I.

Pigs fly over the Ministry of Defence - New animation for Channel 4 News.

Report and link to video report here.




Board of Inquiry- Nimrod MR2 XV230

Today in Parliament Des Browne acknowledged what anybody following the story of the crash of XV230 and the loss of 14 British lives could have told you.

According to the Times

Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, in an extraordinarily contrite statement to the Commons, said: “On behalf of the MoD and the Royal Air Force, I would like to apologise to the House of Commons, and most of all to those who lost their lives, and to their families. I am sorry.”

Gordon Brown sat next to him as he revealed the shortcomings that were at the heart of the worst fatal incident to be suffered by the Armed Forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The families of the victims are now due to receive substantial compensation.

Coming after attacks on the Government by five former defence chiefs who complained that the MoD’s budget was inadequate, the Nimrod affair was seized on as another illustration of the Forces having to depend on ageing and unreliable equipment.

The following condemnation from the same article reveals some of the problems.

The most damning condemnation of what had gone wrong in the general maintenance of the Nimrod fleet came from Air Chief Marshal Sir Clive Loader, Commander-in-Chief Air Command. Sir Clive said: “I conclude that the loss of XV230 and, far more importantly, of the 14 Service personnel who were aboard, resulted from shortcomings in the application of the processes for assuring airworthiness and safe operation of the Nimrod.”

The attached link takes you to the full report of the Board of Inquiry into the loss of Nimrod MR2 XV230 and the loss of 14 British Lives.

A quick scan of the report brings out that the likely cause of the crash was a fuel leak after air-to-air refueling and the subsequent ignition of this fuel by a pipe at above 400 degrees centigrade. What is staggering is that despite a seven fold increase in the number of fuel leaks and general knowledge of this problem no action had been taken to properly sort out the problem.

The graph shown here shows the number of leaks per 1000 flying hours and show that the rate increased from about 0.5/1000 hrs in 1984 up to 3.5 in 2006. This was apparently missed as being a problem and was not fully investigated.

A brief report is available here with the 33 recommendations it makes.

Michael Smith writing in his Blog in the Times has the following

The scandal of the deaths of 14 servicemen on board Nimrod XV230 continues. I am bound to say that I believed long ago that there couldn't be any more bad information coming out. But the release under the Freedom of Information Act of a report by QinetiQ, the defence company, on the extent of the leaks on board the Nimrod fleet and in particular the six aircraft flying over Afghanistan and Iraq simply beggars belief. The leaks represented a "critical" structural problem. Civilian contractors at RAF Kinloss were not only not required to pass on the substantial information they had on the leaks and how to deal with them to the Integrated Project Team which oversees how the Nimrod fleets is run, they were not required to tell the RAF technicians working on the aircraft at Kinloss that the Air Publications they were working to were out-of-date and of "little, if any, value". The problems with the leaks dated back ten years but were exacerbated by the "intense" schedule flown by the six Nimrods equipped with special video surveillance equipment fed back directly to commanders on the ground. Since these leaks were largely being caused by pressure from the aircraft's air-to-air refuelling system, never part of its original equipment and fitted as an emergency measure during the Falklands Conflict, they could not be replicated on the ground. "QinetiQ were unable to establish a clear impression of how these non-detected leaks are addressed," the report said. Or put another way, they couldn't be found so they couldn't be fixed. But so essential was the real-time video surveillance equipment to troops on the ground that the RAF had to keep the aircraft in the air quite literally, and tragically, at all costs.

The Times reports here on the release today of the report.

All I can do is express my sympathies to the relatives of the dead and hope that lessons are learned, in particular by this Government and the MOD, that penny-pinching results in the death of our Armed Forces. Let us hope that Des Browne did not lie when questioned in the house about the 15bn defence cuts that have been rumoured.

Ministry of Defence | About Defence | BOI Nimrod MR2 XV230

Worker reveals 'Nimrod problems'

This my 500th post on this blog and it's probably on the subject closest to my heart, the armed forces and in particular the RAF.

Tomorrow will see the publication of a report into a Nimrod crash in Afghanistan which killed 14 Military Personnel last year. It is likely to be bad reading for those in the RAF, MOD and this callous government. It will also confirm the fears of the relatives that their loved ones died because of known and fixable problems.

I have blogged before on the problems and still cannot believe that they have not been sorted out or workarounds put in place. The replacement for the Nimrod is still probably 5 years away and guess what it will be yet another Nimrod still using the current airframes.

This report reveals

An insider at Kinloss said that fuel leaks among the fleet were "perpetual".

The Ministry of Defence declined to comment ahead of the Board of Inquiry findings on Tuesday.

The BBC has learned that the aircraft which crashed in Afghanistan was being worked hard and flying sometimes twice a day.

It also had seven fuel leaks on board which were not due to be fixed for several months.

Also having watched Newsnight tonight we were informed by an expert that basically the Nimrod is not airworthy and that the only reason it is flying is for operational reasons to support the troops in Afghanistan. Whilst I can understand that reasoning, the lack of money being spent to sort out the problem is nothing less than criminal.

Just listened to John Nicol on Radio 4 confirming that basically these planes would be grounded if there were not urgent operational reasons for keeping them flying. This is another example of where we are breaking the Military Covenant. Nowhere else would we put up with sort of situation and ask people to put their lives on the line.

BBC NEWS | Scotland | North East/N Isles | Worker reveals 'Nimrod problems'

Nimrod crash puts No 10 on spot

This will be another problem that Gordon will have to face up to (Of course he might do a Macavity) this week. As usual with any story these days involving the Clunker it's not good news and will bring the Armed Forces sharply back into focus for this disastorous Labour Government.

As the Sunday Times says

GOVERNMENT culpability in risking servicemen’s lives will be thrust to centre stage this week by the inquiry into the causes of the RAF Nimrod explosion over Afghanistan that killed all 14 on board.

There is intense government concern over Tuesday’s RAF board of inquiry report, which is likely to raise new doubts over Gordon Brown’s support for the armed services. The aircraft, which dates from the 1960s, was flying only because its replacement was delayed until 2010 to save money and a number of warnings about the risks were ignored.

The aircraft had a history of fuel leaks in the bomb bay, caused by pressure spikes in the air-to-air refuelling system.

The inquiry believes that the catastrophic explosion, west of Kandahar, was brought about by fuel leaking into the bomb bay, where it was ignited by hot air from a fractured pipe. That led the No 7 fuel tank at the base of the starboard wing to explode.

“The lack of safety equipment is a direct result of a culture of poor risk management that is endemic among senior officers and MoD officials and is largely driven by lack of funding.”

The MoD and senior RAF officers ignored repeated warnings of fuel leaks and fires on board the aircraft.

Jimmy Jones, a former RAF engineering officer who worked on the Nimrod trials, said: “If the MoD had acted on BAE Systems’ recommendations, those 14 crew members would still be alive today.”

In November 2004 a hot air pipe in the bomb bay of a Nimrod fractured as the craft came in to land at RAF Kinloss, Morayshire, blasting hot air onto the No 7 tank. An inquiry into that incident found the hot air would have been at least 50C above the spontaneous ignition point of the Nimrod’s Avtur fuel, which had begun to boil in the tank.

Disaster was averted only because the aircraft was on its way back to base. In his report on the incident, the station commander at Kinloss warned of more “unexpected failures” due to the aircraft’s age.

XV230 was one of a small number of Nimrods used to feed crucial live video of the battlefield direct to commanders in Afghanistan.

Nimrod’s air-to-air refuelling system was fitted as a quick fix in the 1982 Falklands conflict.

In March 2006 a report by QinetiQ, the defence consultants, blamed the Nimrod’s age and the “intense” way in which the aircraft were flown for what it described as a “critical” structural problem. The warning was ignored – with fatal results.

I have blogged on this and other problems with the over 40 year old Nimrod on a number of other occasions, most recently last month, when a similar Nimrod almost had the same fate and yet still had not had safety updates fitted.

Clunker Brown keeps trying to tell us he is "Honouring the Covenant" but he never actually shows us how. Honour to him means dropping colleagues into the doo-doo and then turning his back on them in the vain hope the problem disappears.

Nimrod crash puts No 10 on spot - Times Online

RAF Nimrod puts out Mayday call after 'major fuel leak' - Times Online

The Nimrod was never designed to conduct air-to-air refuelling

Very worrying indeed that this should occur.

Update 9th Nov at 18:02: I see that nearly 48 hours after this story was broken it has now become the top news article on the BBC online news. The Times meanwhile has the following article and also reports the Nimrod could not send out a Mayday message as they could not get air traffic controllers to hear his mayday call.

Text of RAF Incident Report

A. AIR INCIDENT SER KAF/089/07(902/31/07 AND KINLOSS 102/07)

B. NIMROD MR2, XV235

J. DURING AR A FUEL SPRAY WAS OBSERVED IN THE BOMB BAY. THE AIRCRAFT WAS DUE TO IN-FLIGHT REFUEL FROM A TRISTAR. THE JOIN AND INITIAL CONTACT WERE UNEVENTFUL. THE JOIN WAS MADE AT 260KTS AND BOTH AIRCRAFT ACCELERATED TO 270KTS BEFORE THE NIMROD WAS CLEARED ASTERN.

THE AIRCRAFT FUEL LOAD ON CONTACT WAS 32800 LBS. PRIOR TO CONTACT THE 4 TANK REFUEL COCKS WERE OPEN. WHEN CONTACT WAS MADE PRESSURE WAS OBSERVED ON THE ENGINEERS REFUEL PANEL AND BOTH 2 AND 3 TANK REFUEL COCKS WERE OPENED. A SINGLE CONTACT WAS MADE AND THE FUEL REMAINED FLOWING THROUGHOUT. SHORTLY AFTER CONTACT WAS MADE THE ENGINEERS INTERCOM FAILED AND HE HAD TO CHANGE HEADSET LEADS. THE FIRST 5000 LBS OF FUEL WAS OBSERVED ON THE ENGINEERS GAUGES AND CONFIRMED WITH THE TRISTAR CREW. THE CREW THEN REQUESTED THAT THE TRISTAR CREW TURN ON THEIR CARTER PUMP. THERE WAS A SMALL PRESSURE RISE AND THE PRESSURE NEVER EXCEEDED 35 PSI. APPROXIMATELY 20 SECONDS AFTER REQUESTING THE CARTER PUMP ON, THE CREW MEMBER WHO WAS MONITORING THE BOMB BAY THROUGH THE PERISCOPE REPORTED FUEL SPRAYING INTO THE BOMB BAY AND FLUID LYING ON THE BOMB DOORS. THE BOMB BAY PERISCOPE WAS MANNED AS THIS WAS THE FIRST AR FLIGHT THE AIRCRAFT HAD UNDERTAKEN SINCE AN FRS COUPLING CHANGE IN OCT 07. THE CREW MEMBER AND CAPTAIN HAD DISCUSSED THIS PRE FLIGHT AND HAD IDENTIFIED THE AREA OF THE NEW FRS COUPLING.

AN IMMEDIATE BREAKAWAY WAS CARRIED OUT AND THE AIRCRAFT TURNED TOWARDS KANDAHAR AIRFIELD. THE REFUEL COCKS REMAINED OPEN UNTIL PRESSURE HAD DISSIPATED ON THE ENGINEERS PANEL. A MAYDAY WAS DECLARED ON THE ATC FREQUENCY IN USE, THESE CALLS WERE NOT ANSWERED AND THE TRISTAR CREWS RELAYED. A FURTHER CALL WAS MADE DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LAND AT KANDAHAR AIRFIELD. THE AIRCRAFT WAS CLEARED FOR AN UNINTERRUPTED VFR APPROACH AT KANDAHAR THE AIRCRAFT MADE AN UNEVENTFUL LANDING. WHILE EXITING THE RUNWAY A REPORT OF A FUEL SMELL WAS MADE BY THE TAC CREW AND THE AIRCRAFT EVACUATION DRILL WAS CARRIED OUT. ON ENTERING THE BOMB BAY 20 MINUTES AFTER LANDING THE BOMB BAY DOORS WERE OBSERVED TO BE WET WITH FUEL AND THE BOMB BAY HEATING MIXING CHAMBER CLADDING WAS SOAKED WITH FUEL. FUEL WAS ALSO OBSERVED ON THE PIPEWORK ON THE ROOF OF THE BOMB BAY IN THE AREA OF THE MIXING CHAMBER.

K. (1) UNABLE TO REPLICATE REPORTED AIRBORNE OCCURRENCE UTILISING FULL SUITE OF CURRENT GROUND TESTING PROCEDURES.

(2) CONTRIBUTING FACTORS ASSESSED AS MOST LIKELY TO BE ENVIRONMENTAL

CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PREVAILING AMBIENT AIRBORNE ENVIRONMENT

(3) REFUEL CARRIED OUT THROUGH AAR PROBE ENDEAVOURING TO REPLICATE

REPORTED FLIGHT CONDITIONS. MAX FUEL PRESSURE OF 50 PSI ACHIEVED AND

MAINTAINED FOR ?5 MINUTES ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS. ONE MINOR WEEP

IDENTIFIED FROM COUPLING PREVIOUSLY REPORTED UNDER GROUND OCCURRENCE

REPORT 902/23/07 ON THIS AIRFRAME. WEEP ELIMINATED BY RE-TIGHTENING OF COUPLING. LEAK RATE OF ?1 DRIP PER MINUTE DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR

REPORTED AIRBORNE OCCURRENCE.

L. TF

M. CAT 1.

N. ON COMPLETION OF A FINAL APPLICATION OF GROUND PRESSUR TESTING

DURING DAYLIGHT THERE WERE NO FAULTS/LEAKS APPARENT. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY NITROGEN PURGING OF REFUEL GALLERY. GIVEN THAT COMMON AAR AND GROUND REFUEL GALLERY IS ISOLATED AND SEPARATE FROM MAIN FUEL FEED SYSTEM AND REMAINS UN-PRESSURISED DURING FLIGHT CONDITIONS AIRCRAFT HAS NOW BEEN RELEASED FOR RETURN FERRY FLIGHT UNDER NON-AAR OPERATIONS TO DOB. FUEL SEALS AND PIPES REMAIN UNDISTURBED TO ALLOW POTENTIAL FAULT DIAGNOSIS (BEYOND CURRENT RTI PROCEDURES) TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER DIRECTION OF IPT. RECOMMENDATION THAT DETAILED INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS BE UNDERTAKEN TO POSITIVELY DETERMINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE PREVALENT UNDER AAR FLIGHT CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A MORE REPRESENTATIVE GROUND TESTING PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONS THAT SEEM TO APPEAR ONLY WHILST AIRBORNE.

RAF Nimrod puts out Mayday call after 'major fuel leak' - Times Online