Classic British Flight Sim

Hi,
I found the following article written in the RAil magazine written by its editor Nigel Harris. i dont really know what to think?
By the sounds of it he is having a rant at the governments, incompetence, which i agree with but an the other had it cant be double standards as the Aircraft was military and in a war zone. so highly different sircumstances i think to say a civilian aircraft in a none war zone exploding in the same circumstances.

As for this happening on the rail network???? totally different circumstances i would have thought and not a very good comparison. What has got my back up is the apparent airtavel is unsafe message comming out of the article.

So here is the article for you all to read.

If there’s one thing that really sticks in my craw, it’s Government hypocrisy and double-standards. And here’s another example where the sadness and tragedy involved are enough to fan the reasonable man’s anger to white heat.
In September 2006, an RAF Nimrod reconnaissance aircraft on patrol in Afghanistan, was destroyed in a fireball twice the diameter of this wingspan after a fuel leak over a very hot air pipe ignited then exploded as the pilot dived to make an emergency landing at Kandahar. All 14 crew were killed. The ministry of defence insists that this aircraft – the military development of the ill fated comet airliner – is safe. I say ‘ill-fated’ because the comet itself was originally inherently unsafe. It was the world’s first jet airliner, built by De Havilland and it first flew in 1949. After an initially successful introduction into passenger service there was a string of fatal crashes caused by catastrophic metal fatigue (which I seem to recall originated in the corners of its large square windows) – and it was withdrawn and redesigned. The comet 4 series enjoyed a 30 year career although its reputation never recovered –and its commercial success suffered as a result. The nimrod was a derivative and it’s half centaury old airframes have been rebuilt with new wings and engines as the Nimrod MRA4, expected to be in service until the 2020’s, by which time the original comet design will be 70 years old. Consider the following facts:
• In a letter to an MP in May, defence secretary Des Browne admitted that 30 faults on the Nimrods fuel systems which must be fixed to make it safe, are not rectified.
• Browne’s deputy, Bob Ainsworth, admitted in a recent letter to the conservative defence spokesman Liam Fox, that there had been 111 fuel leaks since Nimrod XV230 exploded, killing those 14 crew.
• Attempts to clarify the number of fuel system faults were hampered by corruption of the database at RAF Kinross.
• In his investigation into the nimrod crew’s deaths, coroner Andrew Walker concluded that the 15 strong nimrod fleet was ‘not fit to fly’ and should be grounded.
It emerged at the inquest that even now RAF Nimrods are flying with known potentially fatal faults because the modification work is being ‘driven by available sources.’ The coroners’ reaction to this was: ‘this cavalier attitude towards safety must come to an end.’ A newspaper at the time of the mid air explosion said: ‘time and again, the Government was warned about fuel leaks aboard its aging fleet of Nimrod spy planes. Yet nothing was done until the long predicted tragedy struck…’
And what’s the relevance to rail, you may ask? Well, imagine if a train had crashed in the circumstances outlined. Imagine if the coroner had said those things about Network Rail or an operator. The railway would have been pilloried by public and media. Those who remember the Governments post Ladbrook Grove pious lectures, frequently delivered by the sanctimonious health and safety executive, and the resulting quite pointless and costly strictures placed on the railway regarding safety, will maybe share my distaste at the hypocrisy involved here.
Double standards indeed.
And you think that some folk still want the railways nationalised?
No, thank you.

If you feel the need to comment on this to Nigel harris here is the contacts link.

http://www.greatmagazines.co.uk/store/c ... @891317407

Unit

Hi Unit. As somebody who has/is worked/working on the operational side of both aviation and railways - I can see no grounds whatever for comparison. It looks to me like the writer had a deadline to meet and bashed out a couple of hundred words of nonsense on the way to work without thinking about it. Obviously, I couldn't comment on the maintenance regime of RAF aircraft but I agree with you that his comparison with train maintenance is just ludicrous.

The diesel DMUs that I work are not rigorously maintained like aircraft. The maintenance is re-active rather than pro-active, i.e. wait until something breaks and then replace it. As the trains only live in two dimensions, gravity doesn't have a say in it. The train judders to a halt, causing delays and inconvenience, gets pushed to the depot by the next one along and has a new bit bolted on. It doesn't plummet to the ground like aircraft tend to do, so there is no incentive to replace parts after x hours to prevent failure.

As for fuel leaks - they're common enough. A few days ago I had a carriage filling with smoke accompanied by a burning smell. The front engine was spewing diesel onto the heater unit of the second coach. If it was kerosene it would have ignited, of course, but diesel is far less likely to do so. Isolate the engine, open the windows, switch off the heater and carry on till it can get to a depot. Ten minute delay - a bit different outcome to a similar scenario at 35,000 feet. Even in the very rare event of something catching fire on a train (an oily rag, or electrics for instance) there are still options such as moving to another carriage, stopping somewhere convenient for the fire brigade and evacuating the train if absolutely essential. No comparison at all to aviation.

The man's totally off his tree if he thinks engineering safety standards are higher on the railways. :roll: I can't be bothered to write to him. He must know how silly his argument is.

Ian

i know being involved with rail operations myself and having a technical interest in motive power. i cant see where he is comming from. its a touch of the david cameron syndrome. jump on the first band wagon that comes along.

I must admit when I read the item in the magazine last week and before this discussion i thought that he wasn't using a very good example. To be a little fair to Nigel Harris, I think the point he's trying to make is a valid one - the press seem to have skimmed over the Coroners and other comments about the Nimrod incident but the press will give acres of badly researched and skewed coverage with ill-informed speculation into rail incidents even when the railway isn't to blame (like they always describe cars on level crossings being hit by trains as "train crashes" whereas the car was to blame), and the way they engage in ambulance-chasing lawyer led witchunts when things happen. Unfortunately, Nigel used the wrong comparison and has badly lost the point he was trying to make. My first reaction on reading the piece last week was "they are not the same thing at all", and I don't have a particular axe to grind in either direction. In fact I very nearly sent an e-mail to the magazine saying as much, but decided against it as I thought others better placed to make the point would probably be already bombarding the office with complaints. His comments about the "HSE" are also misguided as the problems which beset the rail industry when the formerly independant HMRI was bought into the HSE have largely been sorted and in any case, I'm not so certain that the Military in a war zone can legitimately follow normal HSE procedures, so again the argument is to an extent irrelevant from two different angles and just clouds the issue.

It's unfortunate that in his effort to highlight the fact the railways do get a raw and prejudiced deal from the British press, and until fairly recently did get some ill-thought out attention from the HSE (I used to work with a railway engineer who went over to HMRI just before it was merged, and with whom I keep in touch, so I do feel justified in labelling some of their edicts as ill thought out) he has undermined his own argument by picking the wrong - a very wrong - comparison, and it smacks of knee-jerk reaction. I did stop taking Rail (more popularly known by some enthusiasts as LiaR) some time ago and it was co-incidence I purchased this copy on spec. Perhaps those of you who work in the industry today, and/or have a better understanding of military issues should e-mail a reply as I suspect the next issue will contain quite a few letters criticising his choice of example. In the past he's been big enough to admit when he's been wrong, so it might be worth the effort to send an e-mail.