Discussion in 'The Fleet Air Arm' started by soleil, Jul 14, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
I seem to have read somewhere that the Nimrod problem was caused by the joints in its internal fuel lines, which were designed for normal operation, being too weak to take the high pressure involved in in-flight refuelling which was not part of the original Nimrod concept and design.
Usual MoD waffle in response. Never any acceptance of responsibility. And what about the Chinook crash due to known software problems which the air marshals blamed on dead aircrew who couldn't answer back?
If you have the time and the patience, there is a lot of good insight within http://www.pprune.org/military-airc...tan-tech-info-discussion-not-condolences.html There is a lot of dross as well. In the best traditions of all good forums (sod the Romans), it is also splattered across http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/365303-nimrod-grounded.html and http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/367827-nimrod.html .
For the sake of some proper strobe lighting, ESP foam for the Hercules and using the Nimrod exclusively for its designed purpose this could be a non-issue. The only area I would be unsure about is the suppressant foam in the Hercules and I suppose the best folk to comment on this would be those who have a working knowledge of the stuff.
Can't comment on the fixed wing crashes,but the strobe lighting on the helicopters!!!
Don't see what the problem having them switched off. Since 82, darkened ops were always carried out with ALL external lighting off. Internal lighting at a minimum to enhance night vision.
For ten years I flew night flying in this mode when on operations or exersize with no problems. To blame not having strobe lights is weak and lame in my opinion.
Waits for the incoming!!! :wink:
The BOI for the Sea Kings is here http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/564AA9D0-8FFF-4858-82DC-E12E1D257583/0/boi_sea_king.pdf
As ever, the public consumption stuff is oversimplified.
Separate names with a comma.