RAF Nimrod was never airworthy

#3
I would like to see the definition he has chosen to use to set airworthiness.

Don't think Lynx managed to get a civvy airworthiness certificate either. Grateful if one of the fly boys could correct me if I'm wrong here.

Pretty damning verdict though. A review of all airframes might be in order - Tristar springs to mind as a first up.
 
#5
EX_STAB said:
"Never airworthy"? ! Ever?

Can such a remark be taken seriously?
In this instance, Yes. Channel 4 New just reported on this and their reporter said that the Corner, Mr.Andrew Walker was still giving his report whilst they were on the air.

IF this is in relation to the leaking fuel pipes that spray fuel over a an area containing hot surfaces then yes, technically, the Nimrod was not airworthy.
 
#6
Kitmarlowe said:
EX_STAB said:
"Never airworthy"? ! Ever?

Can such a remark be taken seriously?
In this instance, Yes. Channel 4 New just reported on this and their reporter said that the Corner, Mr.Andrew Walker was still giving his report whilst they were on the air.

IF this is in relation to the leaking fuel pipes that spray fuel over a an area containing hot surfaces then yes, technically, the Nimrod was not airworthy.
In this case, agreed but can it therefore be said that even when they weren't leaking, even on aircraft that didn't have this arrangement that the basic design of the aircraft meant it was never airworthy in thirty years of service?
 
#8
The coroner has called for the entire fleet to be grounded. Just on BBC news 24.
 
#9
Never? And it took from 1950-whatever to the 21st century to figure it out? Bllocks.

They'll be saying the Shackleton (Avro Lancaster - I shite you not - with some shiny bits) wasn't, next.
 
#11
Well reading hte report if the head of Airworthiness at BAe says that on hte evidence he has seen the aircraft never was airworthy then OK, I'm convinced:

bbc news said:
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.
So will BAe be footing the bill?
 
#12
It's rather like the king who isn't wearing any clothes.

Can anyone really have confidence in such an old aircraft? How many millions have been spent on upgrades over the years? How many MOD civil servants and senior RAF officers have supported this debacle without daring to speak out?

Someone should be made accountable now. It's obvious (to me anyway)that the Nimrod is not up to the task.

God forbid if a Tristar ever goes down with a full complement of passengers. :(
 
#13
slim_shandy said:
More a politician than a Coroner...
since he's not declared any membership of any political party, or any intent to stand for ANY office, other than the one he currently holds, not much of a polititician. Google has one hit on the first page for his name, and that's a news report....

Tell me, is everything rosey in your world?
 
#14
slim_shandy said:
More a politician than a Coroner...
No, he is a brave and courageous man who is prepared to stand up and tell the truth, no matter how unpalatable it is.

You won't get any scum-sucking, bottom-feeding, space-wasting politician ever coming close.

msr
 
#15
Well the Bloody thing is only a Superannuated D.H.Comet, and the first ones didnt have much luck. Nice to fly in though, if a bit slow
 
#16
So, if phrases such as "serious failures" and "serious failings" were so terrible that Des launched a failed High Court action to gag Corners, what does he and the MoD do now?

Wait for the Writs, perhaps.
 
#17
Blogg said:
So, if phrases such as "serious failures" and "serious failings" were so terrible that Des launched a failed High Court action to gag Corners, what does he and the MoD do now?

Wait for the Writs, perhaps.
Introduce a new "Coroner's Bill". It's hidden away in the supporting documentation for the recent 'Requests for Comments' from DHQ on another thread. Who is leading this process you might ask? None other than the 'Aviation Expert' who has today stated that Nimrod "is safe".
 
#18
slim_shandy said:
More a politician than a Coroner...
Are you sure?

Considering that just about everyone who sat through the whole process are saying the same thing, he does not sound like a politician to me. For a start it looks like he has made a judgement from evidence. Hardly politician like is it?

Now I will accept I am making an "argument from authority", but he is an "authority" and that is good enough, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Evidence trumps authority, if you have any (evidence) show me.
 
#19
raggedy said:
Well the Bloody thing is only a Superannuated D.H.Comet, and the first ones didnt have much luck. Nice to fly in though, if a bit slow
The first jet airliner, an aviation milestone (millstone?) blah blah etc,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet#Hawker_Siddeley_Nimrod

But a front-line air force flying a 50+ year old aircraft in this day and age?
FFS. The aviation equivalent of driving a Morris Minor. What possessed them.

And shut up about the B-52 as well.
 
#20
B52 is if Im correct only a 50 yr old design, a lot of the airframes are no where near 50 yrs old, maybe the ones kept in reserve, but the ones used day to day have had lots of modifications, and new wings

Duncan
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top