Fourteen of our servicemen have lost their lives in an aircraft that apparently has not been safe for nearly forty years! The Oxford Coroner recommends to the MOD that the fleet be grounded, and now Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth has said the aircraft is safe to fly! They use the term 'tolerably safe' but what on earth does that mean other than it's not safe! To me that is a absolute contradiction. The servicemen who have to fly these aircraft apparently never know whether a Nimrod is safe or not, because they are not told! However, being the professionals they are they carry out their orders to the letter.

One has to wonder why the MOD never takes any notice of the Oxford Coroner. Further, have they no consideration for life, be it in the air or on the ground? What must the residents near the airbase go through every time they see an aircraft approaching, where are the kids, where can we run to, will it be us?

I say it's time the money was spent to rectify the faults on these, and similar aircraft for our servicemen and women instead of bailing out banks, and giving millions away to so-called third world countries who will without doubt turn on us as soon as they are able! So come on Gordon Brown here is an opportunity to do the right thing (for once), insist that the fleet be grounded, the appropriate checks and repairs carried out FORTHWITH! The repair bill for this 'grounding' I suggest is an acceptable expense that the Brits would not grumble about, so get on with it!  

Ron, as you may or may not be aware, the Nimrod is derived from the De Havilland Comet, as was the Sud Aviation Caravelle aircraft built in France. Although this accident was tragic in the extreme, it was also unusual and uncommon....very much like the Air France Concorde accident some years ago. Having been an aircraft engineer myself, working for the armed services, I can say with absolute honesty that safety is paramount with all aircraft flown by the services. This particular aircraft, XV230, was an early model, I believe based at Kinloss, and had flown a fair number of hours, both airframe and engine, but was in no way at the end of its' serviceable life. Aircraft designed for specific tasks take years and years to design, test, build and serve.......the Nimrod being no exception. Although this aircraft was built in the sixties, it is no different to a lot of civil aircraft we fly on when we go on holiday....the Boeing 747 for instance is still flying in its' older form around the world, as are DC-10 and Tristar aircraft.

The unfortunate thing about the Nimrod is that it has been used almost exclusively for search and rescue, submarine surveillance, fisheries protection duties etc.... all of which entail low flying over the sea in salty air which as we all know causes corrosion. It is not possible to completely strip an aircraft every time it has maintenance and although crack detection is very advanced, fissures deep inside the fuselage aren't always spotted. I would think this is what led to the tragic loss of this aircraft.......as awful as it was I can't see how it could have been avoided.

The Nimrod is still having problems with modifications that go back donkeys' years, equipment designed to upgrade its' radar and electronic equipment just won't fit in the airframe......hence our use of the Boeing AWACS aircraft now. If we ground all our Nimrods, we'll have nothing to take their place and play the vital role they undertake. I still say they have a remarkable safety record, but the powers that be will decide on the outcome. Grounding them all and repairing them isn't an option Ron...it would take years!! Andy.

Andy, I very much appreciate your input but can't get over the fact that the Oxford Coroner, after three weeks of deliberation and specialist witnesses has decided that the aircraft is not safe! It seems the problem is with a particular 'joint' or 'coupling' that even when renewed only lasts effectively for some five hours!

It does seem that it would take years to resolve the problem, but that being the case lets get on with it now, before more lives are lost in defence of he who thinks he is right!

Andy, by way of your last sentence you are suggesting that you, or they know it is not safe but , well, we will carry on regardless. Not good enough, we want the best for our servicemen and women! 

It's the usual Ron. In my very humble opinion, the Nimrod programme should have been terminated 15 years ago, the problem was then, and still is, there is no viable alternative that fits the budget. The predecessor to the Nimrod, the Avro Shackleton served many, many years, right into the 70s in fact if I'm not mistaken. Probably longer than it should have. As did the hunter, lightning and now the tornado....it will always happen.

As far as my last sentence goes, I'm saying it's Hobsons choice really.....aircraft on the whole have numerous back up systems for things like hydraulics, electrics, electronics and so on, but there is no back up for a crack or faulty part. The old saying goes, ' Any structure is only as strong as its' weakest point'. It's true. It's also undetectable in situations like XV230, and your'e right, there could be others with the same problem Ron. So we have to weigh up the defence of the country and its' population versus an aircrew. I'm glad I can sleep at night, because I don't have to make that kind of decision.

Having been based on the same airfield when the nimrod was being devoped in the early 70's from designs on the comet I have a 'soft spot' for the Nimrod. Its a beautiful looking military aircraft and I remember it being a political 'pawn' at its time of development (as was the TSR2). The government of the day couldnt decide wether to develope the nimrod or buy the American AWAX. at that time the aged Shackleton was doing the maritime air radar 'early warning', shadowing Russian Bears off our coastlines. (the cold war). The nimrod still is one of the best for purpose aircraft in the world although now aged. To replace Nimrod would mean buying 'foriegn replacements' when we are already probly the best aircraft designers in the world (Sorry , to our American cousins).

 As for flying with the RAF, you cant have a more proffesional 'airline'. Strict servicing and testing is paramount and they dont cut corners. Watch a RAF aircraft take off, then watch any other 'airline' take off, you will note that at the start of the runway an RAF 'craft' will halt, do his flight checks, then take off when he's ready. Other airlines procede to the start of the runway, if they have clearance they procede to take off 'immieditly', doing checks as they go.

I know of only one nimrod flight that, sadly, has lost lives but this fine old bird has saved hundreds of sea 'lives', beleive you me, if you are out in the atlantic and in trouble and you see one of these 'birds' overhead, you know your safe.