Winco, I fully understand the issues of duty of care - I'm not trying to defend or justify the safety argument being used on Nimrod, merely to explain 'the facts of life' in relation to risk management.
Absolutely safe aircraft are ones that don't fly. In HSE terms, a Broadly Acceptable level of risk for an activity is one where the per annum risk of death to an individual is 1 in a million. An Intolerable level of risk is generally accepted as 1 in 1000. In between is the Tolerable region, where the benefit gained must be balanced against the level of risk.
In coarse terms, one of the riskiest things people do is drive a car. However, society accepts the level of risk because of the benefits having a car brings. Flying has its risks, and a duty holder has to balance the level of riisk with the benefit gained. While not getting into an argument of the rights and wrongs and levels of risk, this is what the duty holder for Nimrod will have had to consider when authorising AAR post the XV230 incident - is the level of risk in conducting AAR worth it for the beneifit it brings?
Trust me, I'm not known for buying into cr@p safety arguments.
sw