Why?

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 02 Sep 2006, 23:56

Very True Neil

it doesnt matter what is was doing

Leif

righthandseat · Post by **righthandseat** » 03 Sep 2006, 08:11

To all: Please accept my apology for what appeared to be, but was not intended, the unsympathetic post above. In looking for information to comment (politically) in a forum elswhere the post was not in the right place and I'm sorry I upset the community.

Nigel Edwards · Post by **Nigel Edwards** » 03 Sep 2006, 13:05

My sincerest condolencies to the families and friends of the 120 Sqn Nimrod crew lost in Afghanistan yesterday.

They will be sorely missed and Kinloss is already feeling the loss.

Nige Edwards

Chris558 · Post by **Chris558** » 04 Sep 2006, 18:41

My condolences.

The spooky thing is, that the Nimrod that crashed in the sea in Canada in 1995, also occured on 2nd September.

mayagrafix · Post by **mayagrafix** » 07 Sep 2006, 17:14

Terrible tragedy. My condolences to family and mates.

The Nimrod that went down recently (same as the Sea of Canada 1995 accident) are DH.106 Comet conversions. Considering the ill fated history of the original Comet (metal fatigue) is it possible that the updated bird is suffering from other design flaws?

Both recent crashes are categorized as "accidents" (no missiles, air attack or pilot error). Even with all the upgrades and modern ju-ju the aircraft is still prone to loss of flight syndrome.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 07 Sep 2006, 17:19

The Nimrod is not a conversion of a Comet

All were built new

It is based on the Comet 4 which has virtually nothing in comon with the early Comets that failed.

There is no point in speculating and none whatsoever in trying to tie in events of over fifty years ago.

Soon we will find out from the RAF what happened

Until then..........

Garry

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 07 Sep 2006, 19:27

Just to add to Gary's point, the failure on the Comet 1 was purely the result of stress concentrations at the corners of the square windows, which up to that time were fitted to virtually all aircraft. It had nothing to do with the structure in itself. Further, as has been said, the later Comets eliminated this problem entirely. Whatever caused this tragedy, the one thing we can be sure of is that it had absolutely nothing to do with fatigue problems arising over 50 years ago

Hot_Charlie · Post by **Hot_Charlie** » 08 Sep 2006, 07:52

Heard the news on the way abroad.

Very nasty indeed, but hopefully they'll be able to get to the bottom of it.

RIP chaps.

Nigel H-J · Post by **Nigel H-J** » 08 Sep 2006, 09:05

Absolutely tragic, one cannot imagine how families and close colleagues must feel after this sad loss.

One reason being given for this awful tragedy below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... rash04.xml

cstorey · Post by **cstorey** » 08 Sep 2006, 18:30

Tonks - I endorse everything you say - the only emergency I had in 2100 command hours was an electrical fire which filled the cockpit with smoke, caused a go around ( or overshoot as we called it then) and full emergency landing with the boys in silver suits in attendance. Fortunately we all came away without a scratch but I never had any confidence in that particular aeroplane after that, because the cause was never properly explained, and the same thing happened to a colleague of mine a few weeks later this time in Category III conditions leaving Heathrow