Safeware
Your comments concern me slightly.
You say that the risks should be 'mitigated to an acceptable level (As Low As Reasonably Practical)' Might I ask you what exactly constitutes an acceptable level? My own view is that if there exists a risk with an aircraft, then that aircraft should not be flown and should certainly not enter service. The Secretary of State for Defence has a 'duty of care' responsibility to all military personel, as does the RAF hierarchy to RAF personel. If there is any doubt as to the safety of the aircraft, then there should be no doubt about it not being flown IMHO.
You see, from reading this thread and the others, there has clearly been a serious fuel leak problem with the Nimrod aircraft over the past few years and a problem in general with the fuel system for a lot longer. I am slightly confused by what has been said by Nigel, Betty and the Short One. It certainly appears that they are at odds with each other about the fuel system and if, as you say, they are all on the project, why are there such discrepancies?
I am also concerned that as Nimrod 4 is being hailed 'a new-build' aircraft, that things such as foam, inert gases in the bomb bay etc are not being incorporated now into what is alledgedly a new aircraft? Why has that been overlooked? Did no one learn any lessons from the loss of the Hercules? Surely they did?
Mr Austin, whilst TSM might be generalising a little, I think it would be fair to say that we have heard 3 stories, from 3 different 'MR4' people, about the very same fuel system, and all three are somewhat different. Could you explain to me why that is please? I am not being rude, but I genuingly don't understand why there are differences.
Thank you.
The Winco