EdSet100 said:
But, the contents of the BOI report, with unqualified support from CinC Air Command has clearly identified a gigantic cock-up, without attribution at this stage, in the relationship between the RAF and BAe that led to the loss of an aircraft owned by the MOD. Therefore, as owners and operators of the Nimrod, the MOD has no choice but to pay out compensation. The QC's investigation might find cause for BAe and the civilian company to compensate the MOD for failing to provide an accurate safety case, that in turn led the MOD and its crews into believing that the Nimrod was safe.
Sorry Ed, it is simply wrong to blame the BAE Systems safety case, which included the following very clear caveat:
In view of this, together with the fact that all realistically enacted or genuine conflict and classified operational role conditions tend to differ substantially in nature and conditions, that the nature of new ones is difficult to predict, and that the extent of any reduction in safety levels during conflicts/realistic training exercises may remain classified (ie not made available to the ADA), the safety case, as prepared by the ADA, can only reasonably consider safety levels under routine peacetime conditions of operation. That is, routine patrol, search and rescue and routine training missions. Accepting this, it must remain the sole responsibility of the MoD to determine any level of tolerability of any reduction in safety levels deemed necessary when operating under realistically enacted or genuine emergency/conflict or classified role conditions.
Anyone who tries to sue BAE Systems for something that happened over Afghanistan will therefore be wasting their money.