I have seen the effects of the BoI process and I have a couple of criticisms.
In the case of XV179, the BoI completely failed to explain why it was that 30 years after the US started fitting fuel tank protection, the RAF did not have a similar protection on its Hercules aircraft. Neither does the Nimrod.
The BoI recommended that the RAF urgently look at fitting foam to the Hercules fleet. This urgency stalled weeks later, the BoI findings do not have enough clout when dealing with the purse string holders or military commanders willing to send crews to war without protection.
The BoI process is fundamentally flawed, staffed by contemporaries and immediate seniors of those involved in the incident. IMO the BoI process is nowhere near independent enough and does not have sufficient power to ensure its recommendations are followed.
At several recent inquests, the Coroner has criticised the BoI findings.
Finally, the likes of Ingram will refer to the BoI report as the only version of events that the Govt will work with. Witness Chinook and XV179. For months the Govt refused to accept that the crew of XV179 would probably have survived if they had had foam on board.
The spate of articles and the press interest in the Nimrod tragedy will ensure a microscopic examination of the BoI. The families will also know the right questions to ask on the day. In the case of XV179 the relatives had no legal advice and were given no preparation when faced with terms like ESF etc.
I was amazed to hear that decision about not to proceed with fuel tank protection but to continue with the single wall IFR have already happened, ahead of the BoI. It is for this reason that I put forward my own criticisms.