DV, I'm not defending the undefensible. I completely concur with the BOI's findings which, quite rightly, concentrate on a specific aspect of the Nimrod's design, maintenance and operation. It is a fact that, in that specific area (fuel and hot pipes in close proximity), the airworthiness of the aircraft was catestrophically lacking. That was undefensible and I do not defend that failure.
My earlier contribution tonight was critical of the headline statistic. When the stats are analysed, and we take out irrelevant data, we get the true picture, which probably doesn't sell newspapers.
Jacko,
I believe the contractors are fulfilling their contractual output from scheduled servicings. The front line, with the usual rate of daily repairs, is meeting its commitment to training and operations. We have a number of aircraft awaiting repair in the depth area due to a lack of resources. 10 years ago, these aircraft would have been fixed within days. Its a sign of the times, exacerbated by the fleet's most protracted and demanding tasking, ever.
Last edited by EdSet100; 26th Mar 2008 at 01:06.