The Scandal of the "Unsafe" RAF Aircraft Forced to Keep Flying

When an RAF Nimrod exploded over southern Afghanistan on September 2nd, everyone I know was struck by the sheer horror and tragedy of it all. It was that incident which led me to set up the In Memoriam post on this blog which lists all of those who have died in action since the British deployed to Helmand province. I railed against the MoD’s insistence that the 14-man crew of the Nimrod would not be categorised as having died in action but accepted that it was a mere technicality. Like everyone else I assumed that an inquiry would get underway and the problems that caused the explosion, and the tragic loss of life, would be sorted out. What a fool I was. 

A series of emails from a number of air crew at the Nimrod’s base at RAF Kinloss in north-east Scotland have been passed to this blog. They show the abysmal way in which they have been treated, forced to keep flying and to continue with the air-to-air refueling process that is believed to have caused the tragedy.

The Sunday Times revealed last year that a leaking fuel pipe led to the explosion that brought down the 37-year-old Nimrod XV230. But the emails reveal that there have been six fuel leaks on board the aircraft since the explosion. Such is the pressure to keep the aircraft in the air to collect intelligence over Afghanistan and Iraq that they have been grounded just once – last month. Crews have even been forced to continue the air-to-air refueling process thought to have led to the explosion and loss of life.

The Nimrod that crashed had just refueled in mid-air and while the difficulties of investigating an accident in Taliban-held territory have hampered the inquiry, it is believed the pressure from the fuel pumped into the aircraft caused the leak in the fuel line. Escaping vapour was ignited either by an electrical fault or hot air and the resultant fire caused the starboard wing fuel tank to catch fire and explode.

A Harrier ground attack aircraft filmed the incident, following the Nimrod down to 3,000 feet above the ground when the fuel tank in the wing exploded and the aircraft broke up. The emails describe how pressure to keep the aging aircraft flying amid uncertainty over the leaking fuel pipes has led morale to plummet. Angry crew are leaving the Kinloss base “in droves”, either by resigning or demanding transfers to other aircraft.

“It’s not a nice place to work just now,” one Nimrod crew member said. “Confidence in both the aircraft and the hierarchy are at an all time low. Ground crew are leaving in droves and a number of aircrew, pilots, engineers and back end [surveillance operators], are jumping ship. More worrying are the six major leaks we have had since the accident and the hurry to resume air-to-air refueling after each one.”

There was intense anger at RAF Kinloss when the crews were ordered to resume flying just four days after the original explosion. All the most experienced Nimrod pilots are leaving to work for civilian companies with some paying back bounties worth tens of thousands of pounds rather than stay in. The base is short of eight flight engineers, the air crew with the best technical understanding of the aircraft. Engineers from other bases are being forced to move to Kinloss but a number have resigned rather than do so.

In an email written shortly after the aircraft crashed, another RAF officer complained that the way in which crews were being kept in the dark was making matters worse. “We've not heard a dicky bird then suddenly the ACC [the then Air Component Commander] in the Gulf wants us airborne and tanker capable again. So, we had a jet air-to-air refueling over Kandahar four days after the accident!! Unbelievable. I can't see how that could ever possibly be considered to be good risk management.”

Adam Ingram, defence minister, insisted last week that the aircraft was safe and being flown in “adherence to the procedures detailed within military airworthiness regulations”. But one recently retired RAF pilot said: "I would describe the actions taken by higher level commanders following the crash of Nimrod XV230 as reckless. The task is clearly taking priority over safety, and airmen are being asked to take unnecessary risk. This aircraft is so old, I am not even sure it is possible to make it safe, however, the simple step of fitting fuel tank protection would go a long way to providing such safety."

The explosion in the wing tank is bound to lead to demands for suppressant foam to be fitted in the Nimrod wing tanks as well as those of the RAF’s Hercules transport aircraft. US Air Force Hercules and the US Navy P3 Orion, the American equivalent of the Nimrod, have had suppressant foam in their wings since the Vietnam War. As the fuel level in the tank goes down, foam fills the gap eliminating any air and therefore preventing combustion.

But typically cost-cutting left RAF aircraft unprotected until ten British servicemen were killed when a special forces Hercules was shot down over Iraq in January 2005. Insurgents managed to hit the aircraft wing fuel tank which exploded. An inquiry recommended that all operational Hercules have the foam fitted to their fuel tanks. More than 18 months later only seven of the RAF’s 48-strong fleet of Hercules have been converted. The Board of Inquiry into the Nimrod explosion is now expected to recommend that foam be fitted to the Nimrod wing tanks as well. I hope those who decided previously that it was not worth doing so can live with themselves.

The servicemen who died in Nimrod XV230

Flight Lieutenant Allan James Squires of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Lieutenant Steven Swarbrick of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Lieutenant Steven Johnson of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Lieutenant Leigh Anthony Mitchelmore of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Lieutenant Gareth Rodney Nicholas of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Sergeant Gary Wayne Andrews of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Sergeant Stephen Beattie of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Sergeant Gerard Martin Bell of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Flight Sergeant Adrian Davies of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Sergeant Benjamin James Knight of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Sergeant John Joseph Langton of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Sergeant Gary Paul Quilliam of 120 Squadron, RAF, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Lance Corporal Oliver Simon Dicketts of 1 Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, part of the Special Forces Support Group, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

Marine Joseph David Windall of the Royal Marines, attached to the Special Boat Service, died at Chil Khor on Saturday 2 September 2006.

The servicemen who died in Hercules XV179

Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall of Headquarters, RAF Strike Command, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Flight Lieutenant David Stead of 47 Squadron RAF, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith of 47 Squadron RAF, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel of 47 Squadron RAF, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Master Engineer Gary Nicholson of 47 Squadron RAF, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Chief Technician Richard Brown of RAF Lyneham, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson of 47 Squadron RAF, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Sergeant Robert O'Connor of RAF Lyneham, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Corporal David Williams of RAF Lyneham, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Lance-Corporal Steven Jones of 262 (SAS) Signal Squadron, Royal Signals, died north-west of Baghdad on 30 January 2005

Comments

[Andy]

My brother, Ben Knight, was lost on Nimrod XV230. I don't want someone else to go through what my family has gone through in the months since the accident.

Our armed forces are some of the best in the world but we cannot expect them to work without the best equipment. Every voter in this country can change the situation, this government is employed by us and they should be made to answer to us.

R.I.P Ben and may god be with those still flying Nimrods.

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

Dastardly, ignoble cowards those people are at MoD.

I don't understand! Why do they insist on using faulty aircraft to fly our troops?

If MoD's major reason is based on economics, hasn't it occured to the bosses at MoD that it is a lot more costly to lose troops than to fix 'em damn flying coffins?

Let's be callous. Why can't MoD folks just do the simple rithmetics so they see how stupid this whole neglect is costing Britain.

How much does it cost to train people to fight? Do those people at MoD realize the enormous cost to British coffers when after spending money, time, effort, political capital, etc on the men to turn them into fighting Brits, that flying them to their destination aboard flying coffins is bad, terribly bad business? How much time, effort, money does the loss of a pilot translate into?

Are they forgetting that this is precisely the reason why the US has come up with their super UAV - death of troops aboard flying coffins are just so horendous it's worth spending more money of UAVs.

Let's even be more callous and just think purely MoD: has it occurred to these fatsos at MoD the loss in "prestige" abroad in terms of British technological capability?

We sell maintenance contracts all over the world where we can, telling foreign govt folks that British maintenance technology is excellent.

We're even trying to beat Lockheed Martin based in Singapore at their own game for a piece of the Asian market so, how do MoD folks expect industry folks, i.e., Kinetic guys, smaller industry guns (never mind the biggies), not so big uns, to win prime contractorships if all Britain can show by way of technical prowess in the field of aircraft maintenance are the appalling loss of British military lives because of MoD neglect?

Geez, I've sold British tech prowess, defeating some American big industry guns but I believe my collegues are gonna have a hard time doing that today with this British record of killing our own people flying British-maintained aircraft.

Pathetic in the extreme. Tony Blair's govt has become absolutely useless.

[Neil Murphy]

Simple answer to all this. 1). Make ir a requirement that every time a herc or animrod flies in enemy territory then a government minister and a senior civil servant must be aboard.

Surprised there is no comment on the hostages yet? For that one the bitch Becket and Blair should offer themselves in echange for our boys and girl.

My heartfelt sympathies to those who have died needlessly becasue of Brown and Blair (and I emphasise Brown because he will soon be PM and it's his cost cutting causing these deaths).

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

Neil Murphy hit the nail on the head - Gordon Brown's cost cutting measures (that have affected not only our pension but also UK defence) are responsible for military equipment maintenance neglect. And I totally approve his recommendation to trade Blair for the release of the 15 Royal Navy personnel captured by the Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

We are all aware that UK military is stretched thin; military equipment are faulty, i.e., badly-maintained Nimrods have gotten dozens of precious troops killed even before they could fire a bullet at the enemy, HMS Tireless, a nuclear submarine got 2 sailors killed, troop morale is very low, 1,000 British troops suffering from war trauma are at this instant on the run, yes, are AWOL because they have not received proper medical attention after coming back from the war front in Iraq (there's been a report that 2,500 British troops have gone AWOL since Blair went to war with Bush in Iraq), and God knows what else...

And to counfound the problem, we let clueless Margaret Beckett deal with the Iranians with Blair making cameo appearances on TV to make a lame "protest" BUT 72 hours after the troops were captured.

Effectively, there is NO leader - that man in 10 Downing Street is not fit for the job. (One can't very well expect a poodle to lead the bravest of the brave to war.)

In other words, the UK does not have the capability to launch a military offensive AT ALL to save the captured troops in Iran. And because we aren't really prepared for a CONVENTIONAL WAR with Iran, the sensible thing to do is to send Tony Blair as Mr Murphy suggests but I shall go even further, I say we send him as a peace offering WITH his handler Pres George Bush to the Iranians - they started it, let them finish it.

Anyway, as we speak, there could already be a British version of IRAN-CONTRA kind of negotiation going on behind the scenes, but instead of American guns and bombs (the form of barter used for American hostages in Iran circa Pres Reagan administration), it would be all about spare parts supplied by the UK etc for the nuclear plant the Russians abandoned in Iran half-way through the construction over non-payment of arrears.

Having said that, I have a suspicion Bush who's promised in the past that he "would do something about Iran" before his term in office expired would seize this opportunity, i.e., Blair's incapacity to do the right and by extension Britain's incapability, to launch TIRANNT, "Theater Iran Near Term". There's an all-time disaster in the making!

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

Seems the Royal Navy are at the receiving end of much flak these days particularly from their US colleagues.

The whole incident, i.e., being captured, ambushed, by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, followed by the so-called confession by the troops may not be the Royal Navy's finest hour but to me the much-reduced UK Royal Navy - NO thanks to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - are still some of the world's finest few who can give their enemies a "run for their money."

In any case, I don't believe the letter/s were written by Leading Seaman Turney of her own accord - I can very well believe that she was 'under duress' when she wrote those letters.

We only have to refer to the first press release made by the Iranians when they announced that the 15 Royal Navy personnel had "confessed" to violating Iran laws when they tresspassed LESS THAN 24 hours after their capture.

The purported "confessions" by the British troops leave me no doubt that the British troops are either under severe pressure to do so by their captors or are parts and parcels of their order of battle.

Anyway, has it occurred to anyone that the whole incident could very well serve a good purpose? WE NOW HAVE TROOPS INSIDE IRAN.

[dave]

On the government's general lack of concern for both military and civilian lives, craig murray has interesting info on maritime borders here at his blog

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

On the current hysteria: Pretty sure Iran will eventually release the RN personnel physically unharmed but not after Tehran is satisfied that they have promptly 'humiliated' London and PM Tony Blair and by extension, George Bush and the Persia bashers of the Western world.

Let's not fiddle with the truth: the Persians know that short of a nuclear war, i.e., Britain makes potholes everywhere in Tehran and the rest of Iran, we cannot wage a conventional war on a third front. They are accutely aware that we are bungling Iraq and Afghanistan.

Here's a simple sailor's very simple thought on this Anglo-Persian hysteria: If Britain's wants to 'destroy' the current Iranian presidency, it can be done but Blair's government must 'accept' the humiliation today, retrieve our Navy personnel safely (if one of them dies in Persian hands, there will be an all-out war with Persia which I reckon will please Bush enormously if that happens), get our intel right, regroup our forces, and launch a "sureptitious/assymetric invasion" of Iran.

I would be surprised if "Bandy" (Admiral Sir Jonathon Band) were taking the Persian 'nonsense' lying down. Quite sure he's already directed at least two submarines to stand by "in" the Persian Gulf.

[The 3rd Column]

Mick,

I would like to offer my condolences to the families of the four British troops who have just been killed in Basra.

How ironic that we managed to save 15 of our troops from the 'claws' of the Iranians, the same people Americans and Brits call the most evil in the region while Bush's and Blair's now supposed "allies" and "friends", the Iraqis have just killed four of our boys.

[Neil Murphy]

I posted before but thought an article I saw recently confirmed Mick's point (again). It was the helicopter crash north of Baghdad. According to the journalist I saw, RAF aircrew have been complaining for ages about the Pumas. There are not enough of them to do the job, they are not especially well suited to desert warfare and they are ancient (30 years old) and falling to bits.

The helicopter fleet available to the Army / Air Force needs to be replaced with modern helicopters (or new versions of the same ones) and the helicopter fleet (Chinooks, Pumas, Black hawks or whatever) at least doubled.

Or we should stop pretending we can intervene anywhere for anything.

[Mick Godwin]

Sadly, the Brit armed services in Afghanistan and elsewhere are run by a bunch of (generally speaking) incompetent brass who couldn't run a whelk stall.
How do I know this? That's easy- Brit body count..