Safeware
Thank you for your explanation, and whilst I don't accept the bit about absolutely safe aircraft not flying, I do understand where you are coming from. But I still have concerns over this fuel system 'problem' that we seem to all keep coming back to.
Whatever the statistics are, there does seem to be common ground in the understanding that Nimrod 2 has a fuel system problem. Now that may well be down to age of components etc. however, it appears that the MR4 is NOT being manufactured to a better degree of safety (Fuel system wise) than the MR2 currently is. The IFR system on the MR2 was fitted in weeks - literally. I know, because I was at kinloss when the likes of John R, Martin C (and others) trialed it prior to going South. It was an 'emergency fix' to get us to the south Atlantic, and as such we all accepted it as so. But from what I can glean from others still on the fleet, nothing much has changed, other than the pipes no longer trail through the cabin prior to going into the tanks.
Now the system at the time was a success, no question about it, but was it the safest it could have been? I doubt it frankly. We often had fumes in the cabin post AAR, but we accepted it because it was an emergency 'short-term' fix and the success of the task out-weighed the possible dangers.
We are now some 25 years on, and it is proposed that we use exactly the same system in MR4, and in some cases the same components! Are you seriously suggesting that after 25 years, this 'ad-hoc, quick-fix' modification cannot be improved upon? I am sure it can, and I'm sure it can be made safer, but it all boils down to £££££££££££
The loss of the Hercules should have been a wake up call to CAS, ACAS, AOCs etc about the need for foam and inert gasses for fire suppression, especially on aircraft that have no escape systems. The loss of the Nimrod only highlights the fact that nothing was done as a result of the Hercules loss, and the powers on high should be ashamed of that.
The time has surely come when we must stop accepting a 'half safe' aircraft when, for the sake af some extra funding, we can make them (in your words) aircraft with a tolerable risk. I would suggest to you that at the moment, the risks are intolerable, NOT because we have only lost one Nimrod (one Nimrod too many of course) but because that risk can be greatly reduced, if not elliminated, by simply spending some money on retrofitting of inert gas, foam etc etc. Heavens above, Nimrod 2 dosn't even have a bomb bay fire extinguisher! Does the MR4 I wonder??
The Winco