EdSett
Its unfortunate that it provoked a headline moment for the press which then gave rise to family interest.
To be fair it didnt provoke any headlines, it was a brief line in a piece that was headlined Browne Misled MPs on Nimrod and concentrated on his apparently bogus claim that QQ had said the aircraft's fuel system was safe when the risk was in fact tolerable but not ALARP, which as we have rehearsed endlessly here does not amount to safe. The discussion over the two one-line points which I included and you responded to is interesting but I hope irrelevant to current safety because both relate to AAR.
There were 30 recommendations that had to be carried out for the risk to the aircraft to be ALARP and only five relate to AAR. The key question I asked the MoD and they were not able to answer was: "Have they been carried out and if so had they been carried out when Browne stood up and cited the QQ report as showing the fuel system was safe?" If people want I can post all 30 recommendations here and let you take the QinetiQ experts apart piece by piece but the MoD and the RAF can't on the one hand rest on the report for showing the system is safe and at the same time say the people writing the report didn't know what they were talking about.
As for Shona's post, I got the impression her concerns were about the report as a whole rather than one or two isolated lines from it.