RAF crew quit over ‘unsafe’ Nimrods

[SO19]

RAF crew quit over ‘unsafe’ Nimrods
Michael Smith

SEVERAL RAF aircrew have resigned amid serious concerns over the safety of the force’s ageing Nimrod spy plane following a crash in Afghanistan in which 14 servicemen died.

A preliminary board of inquiry report into the September crash said the Nimrod was ripped apart by a series of explosions after a fuel pipe fractured during or after mid-air refuelling.

Another crash was narrowly averted this month when a second Nimrod suffered a similar fuel pipe fracture — “on operations in the Middle East” — as the aircraft was refuelled in mid-air, defence sources said.

It is understood RAF crews were worried about the decision to allow the Nimrods to resume flying three days after the Afghan crash. A number of servicemen resigned after the crash and before the latest incident.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed last week that as a result of the second incident all mid-air refuelling has been suspended, severely curtailing operations by Nimrods, which overfly Iraq and Afghanistan from an RAF base in Oman.

The RAF’s 17 Nimrod MR2 aircraft, which are on average 35 years old, are among its busiest planes. They are flown by 120 Squadron and 201 Squadron, based at RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, northeast Scotland.

The Nimrod that crashed in the Afghan province of Kandahar was providing electronic surveillance for British special forces taking part in a Nato operation against the Taliban.

The crash was the biggest single loss of life for the services since the Falklands war in 1982. Relatives and aviation experts raised concerns about the safety of the Nimrods after the crash.

Des Browne, the defence secretary, pledged the “age and management” of the Nimrods would be examined. Senior RAF officers, however, said the planes had an excellent safety record and it was decided the fleet should continue operating.

“The original decision to resume flying days after the crash did not go down well at Kinloss,” a defence source said.

“The lack of duty of care is startling. Checks that were carried out immediately following the crash revealed further evidence of fatigue issues within the pipework.”

Air-to-air refuelling also resumed until the second leak occurred 11 days ago. “Refuelling has been temporarily suspended following the discovery of a fuel leak on a Nimrod MR2 on 8 November,” a defence ministry spokesman said. “An investigation into the cause of the fuel leak is under way.

“This should not be construed as pre-judging the findings of the board of inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the loss of (the Nimrod in Afghanistan).”

The spokesman said there had been “no marked increase in the number of aircrew applying to leave the RAF in the wake of the Nimrod crash”.

Aircrews at Kinloss have been concerned that nobody has yet been able to explain how the fuel ignited in the September crash. They are also concerned that the Nimrod has an inadequate protection system for the fuel tanks in its wings.

The lack of protective material in the wing tanks of RAF Hercules C130 aircraft is believed to have been a factor in the explosion that destroyed a Hercules when it was hit by a rocket in Iraq in January last year. Ten servicemen died in that crash.

The Ministry of Defence has since begun fitting anti-explosive protection to the Hercules aircraft but there are no such plans to fit such equipment to the Nimrods.

The Nimrod MR2 is based on the De Havilland DH106 Comet, the world’s first commercial airliner, which first flew in 1949. The aircraft involved in the two fuel leaks were 35 years old and were due to remain in service for at least another four years.

A complete revamp of the Nimrod MR2, which was due to begin 10 years ago, has been repeatedly put back with a contract finally signed earlier this year.

The revamp — which will see all of the aircraft’s systems and 80% of the airframe replaced to produce the Nimrod MRA4 — was originally expected to cost £2.2 billion for 21 aircraft. It will now cost £3.8 billion and the RAF will get just 12 new aircraft.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 65,00.html

[Falkens]

The spokesman said there had been “no marked increase in the number of aircrew applying to leave the RAF in the wake of the Nimrod crash”.

Exactly! The fuel pipes fracturing! What an unfounded comment just like the other rubbish printed out. I would have had more faith in the Times using this source of information. The Nimrod may be old but it still has records cometing with other major aircraft of similiar scale and those which are newer.

This speculation that people are leaving is also unfounded and out of proportion. Do you think passengers think air transport is unsafe when aircraft crash? I think not!