The ill-fated Nimrod, which crashed after mid-air refuelling
Posted on 12/05/2007 4:11:31 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
A flying death trap
GERRI PEEV (gpeev@scotsman.com)
THEY followed the safety drill to the letter, but all 14 servicemen aboard the Nimrod MR2 were dead within six minutes of a fire breaking out in their ageing plane.
The long-awaited Board of Inquiry (BOI) report into what happened when the aircraft exploded above southern Afghanistan on 2 September, 2006, concluded that no-one could have escaped alive.
Just 90 seconds after the plane had received 22,000lb of fuel, its crew saw smoke and began emergency drills, transmitting a mayday alert as the cabin depressurised. Three minutes later, after turning in vain to find the Kandahar airfield, the plane started into a controlled descent and then exploded in a ball of flames.
Twelve of those who died were based at RAF Kinloss in Moray.
Yesterday, as the BOI concluded ageing components and a lack of fire extinguishers were partly to blame for the tragedy, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, apologised to the grieving families of the servicemen.
He announced he had ordered a safety review into the entire fleet of Nimrod spy planes. The probe will be headed by a senior lawyer with the power to recommend a full public inquiry.
Published yesterday, the BOI report identified the probable cause of the fire as a fuel leak igniting against a hot pipe which can reach 400C close to the wing fuselage.
It also highlighted a number of factors that could have played a part, including the maintenance of the fleet's fuel and hot-air systems and a lack of fire detectors and extinguishers in the area where the fire started.
Mr Browne said the Ministry of Defence must take responsibility for the failings that led to the fire on the aircraft, which was due to be replaced four years ago. But he insisted the rest of the fleet was "fit to fly".
He 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."
The Chief of the Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, said the Nimrod's crew "behaved in an exemplary manner during the tragic events", carrying out the proper procedures.
He said the BOI stated the crew "were faced with a series of complex and demanding emergencies and acted throughout with calm professionalism, and did everything possible to save their aircraft".
He added: "Their families, friends and colleagues should be very proud of them all."
The acknowledgement of MoD responsibility came amid renewed pressure on the government over defence cuts.
Questions were also raised over why previous reports over fuel leaks had been ignored. There had been 52 fuel leaks in six months last year and 40 fire-related incidents over 20 years involving Nimrod planes.
But at RAF Kinloss yesterday, Wing Commander Martin Cannard, of 120 Squadron, said that he and his colleagues still had "every confidence" in the Nimrod.
He said: "Today, we have many of the answers we have been waiting for. It has been a long wait, but I believe one necessary, given the complexity of the task facing the Board of Inquiry team.
"Whilst I recognise there is still work to be done, I do hope these findings will go some way towards a sense of closure for all involved.
"I, along with my colleagues, continue to have every confidence in the Nimrod and the professionalism of those who fly and maintain her. That work continues today and will continue tomorrow, making a difference and saving lives."
Angus Robertson, the SNP's leader at Westminster, whose Moray constituency takes in RAF Kinloss, paid tribute to the crew who were "brave, professional aviators to the last".
But he said confirmation that the aircraft's age was a possible factor in the crash was "a serious cause for concern as it impacts on the rest of the entire fleet, which is nearly 40 years old".
Willie Rennie, the Liberal Democrats' defence spokesman, accused the government of changing the ethos of the armed forces from "can do" to "make do".
Fears over the Nimrod fleet's safety were raised even before last year's tragic crash - the military's worst single loss of life for a quarter of a century.
The defence company Qinetiq published a report on the repair of fuel leaks in the lower wing surfaces of Nimrod aircraft in March 2006 - six months before the disaster.
Its experts visited RAF Kinloss and highlighted concerns about equipment and methods used to identify and repair fuel leaks.
And as recently as last month, leaking fuel soaked the bomb-bay doors on another Nimrod in Afghanistan, sparking another investigation.
• Air Chief Marshal Torpy, the head of the RAF, last night appealed to ministers for more men, warning that staffing cuts had gone as far as they could.
He said the force had reduced in manpower from 48,000 to 41,000. "I believe the air force is now as lean as it can possibly be," he added.
Evidence of danger was there in 2000, says father IT TOOK Graham Knight just three days to believe that there was something "suspicious" about his son Ben's death.
The 55-year-old father of one of the 14 dead servicemen launched his own investigation over what brought down the Nimrod MR2.
During the course of more than a year, he spent eight hours a day poring over the evidence. He soon uncovered a series of concerns over leaking fuel and failing equipment on the 37-year-old plane.
His investigation into the safety and maintenance of the aircraft established that more than 78 fires and 355 "smoke and fumes" incidents had been recorded on the plane during the past 20 years.
Mr Knight called on the MoD to ground the planes immediately. "The appalling thing for me is that this evidence was all there in 2000.
"The Nimrod has an appalling safety record yet 14 families have been left grieving husbands, sons and fathers for no reason.
"They were not killed by insurgents, they were killed by incompetence."
Mr Knight also launched an angry attack on Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, the Chief of the Air Staff, calling on him to resign.
"Everyone knows this someone will have to fall on their sword and I think it will have to be Sir Glenn Torpy.
"He is the man who guaranteed Nimrods' safety."
"My son's most overused phrase was 'assumption is the mother of all f*** ups'. It seems quite poignant today.
"He - along with the families of all the other victims - will never be able to rest because he was let down by his own force.
"It is disgraceful that it has taken 14 deaths to provoke this inquiry, but the board has made 33 recommendations - I hope they make damn sure they comply," Mr Knight said.
Claire Mitchelmore, the widow of Flight Lieutenant Leigh Mitchelmore, said the Nimrod crew had died as a result of "a catalogue of errors and an ageing aircraft", which meant that they had been unable to do their job safely.
"It is unacceptable that nearly all military aircraft are ageing. I think this is totally inhumane," she said.
Helen Nicholas, the widow of Flight Lieutenant Gareth Nicholas, said the report confirmed the families' worst fears that it had been a "accident waiting to happen".
"When you enter into hostilities you don't expect to be sabotaged by your own side," she said.
Robert Dicketts, the father of Corporal Oliver Dicketts, said the government must ensure that troops sent into conflict were properly equipped.
"The armed forces at a time of conflict must have sufficient funds to carry out the task set for them by the government even at the expense of other policy objectives," he said.
KEY POINTS
• THE age of the aircraft and a lack of fire extinguishers were partly to blame for the Nimrod disaster. The report said the seals on some Nimrods may now have been in place for up to 38 years, even though no scientific study had been carried on how they were likely to behave beyond 40.
• The most probable cause of the accident was an escape of fuel following the air-to-air refuelling - either as a result of an overflow or a leak in the system. The fuel flowed into a dry bay area by the aircraft's No 7 fuel tank where it is thought to have ignited after coming into contact with an exposed hot air pipe.
• A lack of appropriate fire detectors and suppressants in the No 7 tank dry bay meant the crew could not locate the fire in time. They knew it was in adjoining area but the fire detection system did not allow immediate identification of the location, the report said.
The ill-fated Nimrod, which crashed after mid-air refuelling
I think those planes are older than our B52’s. The Nimrod is the military variant of the De Havilland Comet. It’s a late 1940’s design.
If you are going to have a fire, it is best not to have it inside the wing root. Putting the engines in the wing root is very attractive from an aerodynamic point of view, but it leads to all sorts of problems with fire safety and structural integrity.
Not quite. Last production B-52 left the Boeing plant in Wichita in October of 1962.
I thought of the 'Comet' when I saw those engine nacelles imbedded in the wing. Of course the Comet had its own problems with catastrophic airframe failure.
How ironic that, a few posts up, we learn that the British treasury thinks there are a few billion dollars available to trim from the defence budget. It takes money to run a modern military force, folks. If you don’t want to pay the bill, then what do you expect?
TC
I wonder what he would be saying if they threw him in a Nimrod and flew him around long enough to experience a few smoke-and-fume events. Probably something like: "Get me the hell off of this old death trap!".
Not quite, although the designs are from the same era. From the RAF’s homepage on the aircraft:
“The Nimrod MR1 entered service in 1969 and was upgraded to MR2 standard in the late 1970s.”
That’s assuming that the original Nimrods were purpose-built airframes using part of the old Comet 4’s design (mainly the wing), and not rebuilt Comet 4 or 4A airliners. If they are, then they ARE as old as the B-52s.
}:-)4
First, don’t name an aircraft “Nimrod”.
Second, don’t keep it flying longer than its airframe was ever designed for.
Third, give everybody a parachute in case you don’t follow #1 and #2................
“Nimrod”, contrary to the US bastardization, means “Hunter”.
Not a bad name.
Yes, it means “Hunter” in Hebrew, but after that, Nimrod is an evil person in both the Bible and the Koran.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_%28Bible%29
Maybe we could loan (lend lease ?) a few of our Buffs parked out in the desert. The UK folk seem to like old airplanes.
That's correct. Only the wings were Comet-derived. The fuselage was entirely new. The problems with the original Comet 1 were to do with metal fatigue failure in the pressurused cabin, so irrelevant to the Nimrod (which, BTW, has been a superb aircraft for its purpose, especially low-speed loitering etc).
A 727 or 737 would be better.............
I guess all the Vulcans are gone...
From the Bible Nimrod was both a hunter and foolish. However, his prowess as a hunter was not the point of the biblical story.
Not this one. It's still in Birmingham.........(AL)
That's a big if and assumption you are making. 1969-1962 = 7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.