The MR4 is aerodynamically obviously a bit different from the MR2 with all its changes & bulges hence its possible AAR trials will be conducted to ensure the MR4 changes have not introduced any untoward handling/behaviour when refueling. I assume this is what John was referring to.
tuc
No-one is suggesting adherence to standards guarantees safety, but I think aircrew reading this would prefer me to invoke said standards rather than treating them as an optional nuisance. I sincerely hope you are never placed in the position of being instructed to ignore these standards.
I know you know that, but someone reading your post above re the sea king may get the impression that it would have solved the problem. In fact, as I'm sure you'd agreed, the anti col beacon issue is actually quite complicated. I am however rather surprised that the issue was not flagged as not it-for-purpose in any case - I'd argue you shouldn't need a DEF STD to highlight this issue as being rather important during design, let alone trials & acceptance.