Going back to that definition of ALARP I can quite easily see - given the wriggle room - how the RAF or the MoD could have said as far as we are concerned the aircraft is ALARP.
OK,
But what happened here is not that. What happened here is that Des Browne said an independent report by QinetiQ had declared the fuel system safe, and if the risk has to be ALARP for the system to be safe, which is what the defence standards document says, then QinetiQ most definitely didn't do that.
I don't think you can have it both ways in this context. The fuel system and its safety is a fundamental building block of being able to declare an aircraft 'safe'. It is impossible to say an aircraft is acceptably safe in one breath and then try and imply the fuel system in the same aircraft is not safe in another. It doesn't work like that. It maybe that the fuel system is unsafe in certain conditions (that hence must be avoided), but by definition the aircraft will also be unsafe in those conditions (hence must also be avoided). I can only guess that the QinetiQ report discusses some of these conditions and this is where the story arises, but this would not detract from the overall assessment of aircraft safety, hence I must conclude that the story is without any meaningful foundation.
I think your comments Mick confirm you have realised this. If I understand this correctly then you have just confirmed that a story that was published on Page 2 of my paper this morning was probably fundamentally flawed and hence you could conclude a rather unfair slur on Des B. People often talk about stuff in the papers being incorrect or spun, but I can't remember the the last time the journolist concerned admitted this was the case on the same day his article appeared across the country!!