25 years...
not really.
In my youth we prodded VC10's, Victors of course, and Hercs...I think the problem is that the Tristar came later to the party, and everyone figured 'well. all the others were okay, why should Tristar be any different?'.
(This is) personal opinion based on limited understanding now, but I'm surprised that nobody seems, prior to the crash, to have known (or considered the implications of, at least) the difference in pressure during AAR as tanker type is changed. Mind you, I'm even more flabbergasted to discover that the extra conditioning that was plumbed in when converting to the Mk2 was never intended to be used in flight - did I read that right? 20 odd years back I was simply told 'oh we need that'....it was as remarkable then as having a port wing....
Please remember to blame the people making decisions 20+ years ago, not those currently in post who inherited what they had every reason to believe was a well tried, reliable system. It is NOT reasonable to expect people like Martin Cannard to take up a post and promptly nip down the line, spanner in hand, to double check 25 years of received wisdom - whoever decided not to prove the system properly post Falklands did so 5-10 years before Martin was a 2nd Nav on 206. (A bloody good one, by the way).
Dave
(edited for small typos and, as ever, spellinge)