Safeware,
I must admit that I too am a little bemused at your reply now. First you say that ALL aircraft are dangerous to one degree or another, only to retract that statement by saying that they you don't think they are. So what's it to be?
Before you go and give me another patronising and very lengthy explanation about duty of care, aircraft certification, tolerable, intolerable and acceptable levels of risk, and goodness knows what else, let me just put my cards on the table and explain that with almost 15,000 hours of flying in my log book (Lots in the military and quite a few on Nimrod) I do know just a little bit about aircraft and how they operate, and would rarther you didn't reply as if I were someone who graduated from Cranwell yesterday. Neither am I being condescending!
The fact is that if Mr Boeing finds something that is 'dangerous' on my current aircraft, and it can be replaced or retro-fitted to overcome that danger, then its done. That is because there is a danger to the aircraft and therefore the pax (and me!) Remember the door on a 747/200 that detached in flight? the chances of it happening again were minute, infintisimally small, but the whole fleet were checked and the mechanism replaced. Any ideas how many 747/200 there were at the time? Well I don't know either, but there was a hell of a lot more than a hand full of Nimrods I can assure you. As a follow on, all future 747s (and probably many others types) were fitted with the new mechanism, without question.
Niimrod has been an outstanding aircraft and has served this country wonderfully, but it is sadly out of date and we need to move on with up-to-date aircraft. If we are going to stick with the MR4 then it needs to be brought up to date, not only with avionics and weapons sytems, but with the basic airframe needs, and that means a reliable and competant fire suppression sytem that covers the whole aircraft. It is farcical to think that the bomb bay on this aircraft does not have even a single fire extinguisher! It is ridiculous to put all your weapons in one basket, but not be able put out a fire in that location. I wonder which baffoon dreamt that one up?
You begin to sound like a politician Safeware! Your comment of 'Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus, I believe that they make aircraft that are tolerably safe' I think is inaccurate and false. I would say that they both make aircraft that are as safe as they can possibly be for the year 2007. In 5 years time, they may well be regarded as 'intolerably safe' as standards increase and safety improves, but at the moment they are as safe as they can be made. NIMROD IS NOT! And thereby lies the problem.
The RAF, (as it has had to do for many years now), will have to make do with what they get and like it! I know that MR2s are unsafe, the aircrew at Kinloss know it and so do some of the groundcrew it would appear. It is wrong of you to seemingly defend this level of danger as being within your 'tolerable' limits. Try telling that to the families of those we have lost.
The Winco