TSM,
I couldn't decide if you were condescending or hard of thinking. Clearly I don't fly Nimrod for a living, and those that do have my utmost respect. And the families who lost loved ones have my deepest sympathy.
I don't think that all aircraft are inherently unsafe, but all aircraft carry an element of risk. And I didn't say that it isn't necessary to put fire extinguishant or suppressant in the bomb bay. In my last post I explicitly said
all I'm trying to do is illustrate objectively what should be happening. I'm not trying to defend what is going on.
To re-cap for you what I did say:
There are 3 levels of risk - Intolerable, Tolerable and Broadly Acceptable. Where risks are tolerable, it is for the duty holder to weigh up the benefits of introducing a safety system against the implications of doing so, ie a judgement of "reasonable practicality". I'm not in a position to judge, based on objective examination of the evidence, whether the argument being made is sound.
As for Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus, I believe that they make aircraft that are tolerably safe. Why only tolerably safe? Because even the certification specifications against which civil aircraft are made do not demand absolute safety:
The aeroplane systems and associated components, considered separately and in relation to other systems, must be designed so that –
(1) Any catastrophic failure condition
(i) is extremely improbable; and
(ii) does not result from a single failure;
So, where a civil aircraft is certified (and btw, don't try and ask them for a "safety case") against a technical hull loss probability of 1 in 10 million per flying hour and your pilot is exposed (rounded for simplicity) to 1000 hrs flying hours pa then the level of risk for an individual pilot is in the tolerable zone. Society tolerates this level of risk because of the benefits of air travel.
sw