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.

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Nimrod</strong> <strong>Review</strong><br />

26<br />

BOI Report<br />

Board of Inquiry convened<br />

3.1<br />

3.2<br />

3.3<br />

3.4<br />

Immediately following the news that XV230 was down, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) was convened by the Air Officer<br />

Commanding (AOC) No. 2 Group in accordance with the requirements of Joint Service Publication 551. <strong>The</strong><br />

BOI comprised Wing Commander Nick Sharpe (President), Squadron Leader John Nelson, and Squadron Leader<br />

Andrew Gransden. <strong>The</strong> BOI members assembled on 3 September 2006 at the Headquarters of No. 2 Group at<br />

RAF High Wycombe and were flown to Kandahar together with a Defence Aviation Safety Centre BOI Advisor,<br />

RAF Accident Recovery personnel and Royal Navy Flight Safety/Accident Investigation team personnel. <strong>The</strong> BOI<br />

was prevented, however, from visiting the crash site because of the high level of enemy threat. It set about<br />

gathering evidence and conducting interviews. On return to RAF Kinloss, on 18 September 2006, it began the<br />

task of analysing such evidence as had fortunately been gathered by allied troops first on the scene (of which<br />

the Data Acquisition and Recording Unit (DARU) and the Mission Tape proved invaluable), photographs taken at<br />

the crash site, and some recovered items of equipment, together with the Air Traffic Control (ATC) recordings,<br />

the witness evidence, and records of previous Boards of Inquiry and other investigations relating to accidents<br />

involving <strong>Nimrod</strong>s.<br />

After nearly seven months of painstaking work, the BOI delivered its Report to the Convening Authority on 20<br />

April 2007 and a further supplementary report on 25 July 2007. <strong>The</strong> President and members of the BOI received<br />

praise from all quarters for the thoroughness of their Report which demonstrated “tenacity and determination”<br />

in seeking to ascertain the true causes of the accident. 2 I entirely agree with, and endorse, this consensus.<br />

Within a relatively short period of time, and despite the formidable forensic difficulties faced due to the lack<br />

of physical evidence, the BOI produced a thorough and logical report which clearly identified the most likely<br />

causes of the fire and explosion, highlighted a number of significant failings, and made a series of valuable and<br />

practical recommendations.<br />

It was not within the BOI’s remit to consider, or attribute, responsibility for the accident.<br />

<strong>The</strong> BOI found that XV230 was lost because of an uncontrollable fire in the fuselage which led to a break up of<br />

the aircraft in mid-air. <strong>The</strong> entire BOI Report should be treated as incorporated into this Report. A copy of the<br />

redacted version is publicly available and can be found at: http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/aboutdefence/<br />

corporatepublications/boardsofinquiry/boinimrodmr2xv230.htm.<br />

BOI’s Conclusions as to the Location of the Fire<br />

3.5<br />

3.6<br />

<strong>The</strong> BOI’s first task was to identify the location of the fire, particularly given the apparently contradictory<br />

evidence of the Harrier GR7 pilot and that provided by ‘A’ Squadron Royal Canadian Dragoons (RCD). 3 <strong>The</strong> BOI’s<br />

conclusion was that the fire had originated on the starboard side of the aircraft. 4 Whilst it was impossible to<br />

discount completely the existence of a fire on the port side of XV230, if there was one, it was subsidiary to the<br />

main fire and caused by it. 5 Having reconstructed the possible view of the aircraft held by the RCD as it passed<br />

their position, and with the benefit of independent analysis by the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB), the<br />

BOI determined that both the aspect of the aircraft and its relative size could have led the RCD to conclude that<br />

the aircraft was banking to the left and that the large, luminous starboard fire was on the port side. 6<br />

From the evidence available, the BOI considered that the fire may have initiated in one of four locations, namely:<br />

(1) the bomb bay; (2) the No. 3 engine; (3) the starboard Rib 1 landing; and (4) the dry bay forward of the<br />

starboard No. 7 fuel tank, which has since come to be known as the starboard No. 7 Tank Dry Bay. 7 <strong>The</strong> BOI<br />

2 See Comments on BOI Report by the RAF Kinloss Station Commander, paragraph 1 [3-1]; and Comments by Air Member for Materiel, Air Marshal<br />

Sir Barry Thornton, Air Officer Commanding No. 2 Group, Air-Vice Marshal Andy Pulford, and Commander-in-Chief Air Command, Air Chief Marshal<br />

Sir Clive Loader.<br />

3 BOI Report, paragraph 22 [2-13].<br />

4 BOI Report, paragraph 22a [2-13].<br />

5 BOI Report, paragraph 22c [2-14].<br />

6 BOI Report, paragraph 22b [2-13].<br />

7 BOI Report, paragraph 23 [2-14].

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!