An awful lot of trust is being given to the BoI. A BoI which has been frustrated by having little physical evidence of the XV230 crash site. The BoI report was written several months ago and then re-convened. This is highly unusual. I have been told this may have been due to conflicting advice from the boffins themselves. TD has concentrated on procedure running up to the crash. There is plenty enough evidence out there to suggest that this was a fleet operating flat out, running out of resources and operating aircraft that were simply too old. And immediately after the crash, the rush to get back to AAR ops a move questioned by highly experienced pilots at Kinloss. All this speculation is damaging for sure, but the failure to publish the BoI is the reason. Publish and be damned.
The Hercules Inquest will reconvene shortly. I am expecting the MoD line of defence to claim that they have learnt their lessons. Looking at the handling of fuel leaks on Nimrod and the failure to provide protection for MRA4 into the future I would reject the statement that the MoD is learning any lessons here.
How can safety be claimed to be the highest priority when MRA4 is now being rushed into service with less protection on board than its predecessor?
From GK's emails, an anguished statement from an engineer.
The potential knock-on to operations from these fuel leaks is a loss of 1 EO ac in theatre with the very real possibility of having nothing at all (EO or non-EO) to replace it with.
Article as it appears in ST.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2753527.ece