You now claim I am blaming the aircrew. It is difficult to see how that could be the case given the fact that the article says that aircrew are resigning as a result of their concerns.
Where do I blame them for anything? And, actually, the article doesn't say that they are resigning as a result of their concerns - it just implies it....
The article doesn’t imply anything it simply states a number of very worrying facts
SEVERAL RAF aircrew have resigned amid serious concerns over the safety of the force’s ageing Nimrod spy plane
Implication it was the cause of their resignation, not stated as a fact.
It is understood RAF crews were worried about the decision to allow the Nimrods to resume flying three days after the Afghan crash. A number of servicemen resigned after the crash and before the latest incident.
Same implication.
“The lack of duty of care is startling. Checks that were carried out immediately following the crash revealed further evidence of fatigue issues within the pipework.”
Implication that the fatigue found required action to be taken and the failure to do so was a lack of duty of care to a culpable degree.
Similar implication reference a fuel tank suppression system.
Just as the title of the article, ‘unsafe’ Nimrods, with the unsafe in brackets....