I used to know a guy named Nimrod. I always assumed he was teased a lot as a child because the word carries a negative connotation in American english. No one wanted to be called a nimrod. It was a bit like being called a dimwit. I quick search uncovered that Nimrod could also be a biblical reference for some, but right next to the term “hunter” is the informal definition of “person regarded as silly…” attributed to Bugs Bunny teasing Elmer Fudd. That explains it.

Anyway, the RAF has a plane unfortunately with the same moniker as Elmer Fudd that is under investigation for safety flaws.

Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy said a routine air-to-air refuelling had taken place just before a mayday call was received.

Indications are a technical problem was linked to a blaze, he told Channel 4.

“We have definitely got an early report that the pilot reported a technical problem connected with fire,” he said.

One could probably assume that intelligence officers in a plane have a good idea of how to report a problem accurately.

However, aside from the name, the thing that caught my attention was the weak logic used in a statement by the Ministry of Defense (MoD) to play down safety concerns:

The MoD said in response: “RAF Nimrod aircraft are designed and certified to strict airworthiness and safety standards.

“If we didn’t have confidence in the aircraft, we would not continue to fly them.

“Nimrod has a good safety record and remains a potent and respected aircraft.

Note the second sentence. Confidence = safety. See anything wrong? Things should not be said to be safe because we are confident that they are safe, we should be confident because they are safe by an independent measure that we can explain. The question remains, is there a risk of fire and if so is it an acceptable one?

The prior sentence is probably meant to address this somewhat by pointing out that planes are “certified to strict…safety standards”. Fair enough, but do those standards require fire suppression? Things are not safe because of confidence in prior certifications, but because they are actually safe by the latest certification standards.

The question is really whether a fuel leak is cause for concern on the Nimrod. Satements by the MoD that they are confident in the current aircraft does not directly answered whether a fuel leak is cause for concern for others.

The father of one of the service men killed in a Nimrod accident has tried to uncover the gap:

“BAE Systems also did a safety report in 2004 saying there were areas of concern.

“If there was a fire there would be no way to extinguish it, the report said.”

Strange. Why would a fire suppression be opposed by the RAF and how could it have been omitted from certification? Is there a weight concern? Complexity? Cost? Or maybe there is just no practical way to stop a fire once it has ignited. This reminds me of the TWA flight 800 disaster and how it must have impacted military review of aircraft:

Of the 11 TWA 800-related recommendations issued by the Board, four of them are in an open, “un-acceptable response” category. These four center on the issue of explosive ullage and potential ignition sources in the tanks. “We have not been satisfied with the responses received on the (recommendations) concerning the center fuel tank,” [Safety Board Chairman Jim] Hall said flatly.

“The bottom line in this whole area of fuel tank flammability is that the problem has been solved in the military,” Hall observed. “I mean, we fly our jets over Kosovo, we fly them over Iraq, and the military has addressed this problem,” he said.

On a complete tangent, Nimrod turns out to be a company that makes accessories for firefighters.