Some answers to your questions and comments:
DV:
if the report is that good why is it impossible for the families of the lost crew to get a copy of it?
Why would they want a copy of it? Has any member of the families (TD?) requested a copy? Its post-accident business, anyway. The measures taken fall in line with the recommendations of the BOI, they are recognised by QQ to provide the required safety standard and thus, tacitly, support the statement that there
were shortcomings in the airworthiness of the aircraft.
DV:
What many would like to know now is how safe is it at present.
Who are these, "many" ? The only "many" who need to know about Nimrod safety, today, are the current crews, their families and the groundcrew. Do not believe that you are asking this on our behalf. If we had concerns, we have the means to find the answers, without resorting to pprune. Retired folk, politicians, journos, etc, who believe they have a genuine need to know about the Nimrod should address their queries anywhere but here. The SoS said sorry. Do you all really believe that he wants to risk saying it again in the future? He said that the QQ report says it is safe, so the "many" should be content with that.
TSM
There is little doubt that the system was NOT safe before the loss of 230, hence the accident. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why AAR has been stopped (probably for good) by all Nimrods.
AAR was stopped due to an incident which made national news.
DV:
SM. The strange thing about AAR, is that it was not stopped until after the XV235 incident on 5th Nov. Yet according to Des Browne and the Stn Cmdr the QinetiQ report of Sept 2007 claims the fuel system is safe (with AAR), which can not be correct. This is why many of us have doubts as to what is stated in this protected report.
The SoS and the Stn Cdr are both 100% correct. A flight safety report, analysing the events surrounding the incident involving XV235, will soon be distributed within the MOD I guess that under the FOI you can ask for a copy. I expect it to be very enlightening for some ppruners. Once published, the grown ups will read it, digest it and then make a decision to continue, or not, with AAR. Thats why we do these investigations; to ensure safety while being effective.
DV:
Let's try this for size. The combustion report does not, as reported by Stn Cmdr, "provide compelling evidence that leaves little doubt that the cross feed or the SCP pipe assembly was the probable source of ignition". It simply states that, based on the little inforamtion available, the source identified by the BOI could be a source. And, the famous Des Browne QinetiQ report, does not state that the Nimrod fuel system, in total, is safe, it simply focusses on those sections identified in the BOI report, with conditions. It does not clear the items metioned in the 2006 report, nor does it clear the AAR system.
I think your statement needs some analysis. The combustion report focussed on what makes fuel ignite. It did not say what started the fire on XV230. It reported that fuel will ignite at a certain (very high) temp after a specific time. It ruled out electricity at high altitudes. The report provided data for the BOI to chew over. When taken into account with all possible causes of a fuel fire on a Nimrod in the 7 tank dry bay, the report provided the basis for compelling evidence that the fire was
PROBABLY caused by a hot pipe. There is only one set of hot pipes in that area. The Stn Cdr's statement was spot on. You mentioned the QQ report as though you have read it and, if so, your interpretation is erroneous. I have read it. It covered the complete fuel system, including AAR (which is part of the refuelling system and does not get a separate heading). It took into account the measures implemented after the crash and, taking those those measures into account, QQ gave the Nimrod fuel system a clean bill of health in late 2007. There is not an overall judgmental statement in the report which states, "The Nimrod fuel system is safe". It is a series of questions and answers about each and every pipe and component in the fuel system and those other system components in the vicinity. Every answer is graded from very safe to unsafe and the liklihood of failures/leaks ocurring. Standard hazard analysis. Not one answer led to an unacceptable risk. Therefore, without an overall summary, it can be easily determined that the aircraft is now as safe as it needs to be. We knew it was safe from 4 Sep onwards, anyway, but the IPT had to prove it through a third party. It is safer now than it has ever been before.
DV:
MoD would just love that. MM you should realise that much of the information, currently held by the Coroner and the QC, came to light because of the digging carried out by folks on pprune.
I'm sorry, DV, but that is absolutely wrong. The 3 officers on the BOI dug much deeper than anyone here, or in their bereaved family home, would ever have thought possible. Its those officers, and they alone, who researched the safety aspects, asked the questions, sponsored the trials and tests, produced the evidence and wrapped it up in such a damming and comprehensive manner that the SoS never had any alternative but to say sorry. FOI requests from the families and press about irrelevant, nebulous and trivial matters were nothing but friction in the search for the real answers.
Nigegilb:
I also believe this thread has been a tower of influence in the whole procedure.
After the publication of their report I asked each member of the BOI if pprune has been influencial in their deliberations. They were too polite to laugh. Yes, they have read this discussion and I'm certain they will continue to read it occasionally, but not to find inspiration or steers, rather to find out what might have been leaked out of their office. They are pleased that nothing went in or out of their domain. Yes, believe it or not, they got the probable answers without the help of pprune, in the slightest.
Chug:
Having followed the Hercules 'Parliamentary' thread as well as this one I have been impressed by the stark contrast between the two. Whereas the former consisted of a resolute campaign (that succeeded) to compel the MOD to put right an identified deficiency in the airworthiness of that type, the latter has been anything but that.
The 2 issues are very different: one was to push for a safety system commonly used in an aircraft type that obviously needs it. I have no detailed knowledge of that particular issue, but I do know it is not the same. Yes, you can quote "airworthiness" as the common thread, but you guys are pushing for the aircraft to be grounded or radically modified, heads to roll, new government authorities, etc. In fact I don't think anyone who has read the tirade from you all, has a clear idea of what you want.
DV:
The task would be much easier if more people came forward.
What task? This is nothing more than a personal crusade based on rumour and flawed thinking. The QC and the Coroner are the only people with a task to achieve. People will not come forward to give you, DV and other ppruners, "the smoking gun" evidence you desire, because there is no such gun.
We leave the QC and the Coroner to review our sad and disasterous recent history, but we must now move forward. Despite sniping from pprune, we have a safe aircraft.
Regards
Ed Sett