05.04.2013 Views

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Section Three: Previous Incidents<br />

Chapter 8 – Previous Incidents and Missed Opportunities<br />

CHAPTER 8 – PREVIOUS INCIDENTS AND MISSED OPPORTUNITIES<br />

Contents<br />

Chapter 8 answers the following questions:<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

Were there any previous incidents which highlighted the fire risks of fuel coupling leaks and hot air ducts?<br />

What was the response to those previous incidents?<br />

Were opportunities missed?<br />

Were lessons learned?<br />

Summary<br />

1. <strong>The</strong>re were a number of significant incidents in the years before the loss of XV230 which contained<br />

warning signs of some of the problems and issues which were potentially relevant to XV230:<br />

(1) <strong>The</strong> risk of an airborne fire from misaligned FRS couplings: Harrier XW921 (1988);<br />

(2) <strong>The</strong> potential for leaks from fuel couplings to migrate: <strong>Nimrod</strong> XV249 (1999);<br />

(3) <strong>The</strong> risks from split fuel seals: <strong>Nimrod</strong> XV245 (2000);<br />

(4) <strong>The</strong> fire risks from fuel coupling leaking onto a hot duct: <strong>Nimrod</strong> XV229 (2000);<br />

(5) <strong>The</strong> risks of a fuel coupling leak being ignited by a hot duct despite insulation: Tornado ZA599<br />

(2002);<br />

(6) <strong>The</strong> risks of the rupture of bleed-air ducting destroying adjacent fuel seals: <strong>Nimrod</strong> XV227<br />

(2004); and<br />

(7) <strong>The</strong> potential increase in risk following a second bleed-air duct failure: <strong>Nimrod</strong> XV229 (2005).<br />

2. <strong>The</strong>se incidents represented missed opportunities to spot risks, patterns and potential problems,<br />

and for these lessons to be read across to other aircraft.<br />

3. Most tended to be treated in isolation as ‘one-off’ incidents with little further thought being given<br />

to potential systemic issues, risks or implications once the particular problem on that aircraft was<br />

dealt with. Rarely did anyone attempt to grasp the wider implications of a particular incident for the<br />

future, or spot trends or patterns or read across issues to other aircraft. <strong>The</strong>re was a corresponding<br />

lack of corporate memory as to related incidents which had occurred in the past.<br />

4. <strong>The</strong>re is a danger in dealing with an incident as a ‘one-off’ without considering its potential wider<br />

ramifications.<br />

5. No-one was taking a sufficient overall view. This re-enforces the need for a New Military Airworthiness<br />

Authority as recommended in Chapter 21.<br />

149

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!