I'm certain that he will return to Kinloss in the top job. In the meantime....
Beagle:
Other way round, surely? There's no way any aircraft should be permitted to conduct AAR unless its fuel system can safely accept the standard fuel flow rates provided by the specified tanker.
Yes, agreed, if there is only one flow rate available (not including the refueller's tanks' booster pumps) from the tanker. The V force (do you remember the Vulcan tanker?), VC10 and C130 tankers had only one centre line pump associated with each HDU. The Tristar has 3 Carter pumps, of which 2 may be used in parrallel simultaneously, depending on the receiver's capability. I believe that one single Carter pump does not meet the Def Stan; two together far exceeds it. Nimrod was trialled and tested to accept both pumps simultaneously. We now (or, until recently, did) only use 1 Carter pump.
Mick, I think we can agree to draw a line under the discussion about the intentions and impact of the latest article in your paper. It remains the top UK newspaper in my eyes and I'm sure nobody would wish you to stop asking questions and doing your research.
TD:
Question to the Secretary of State for Defence:Was XV230 safe to fly ?
Answer: In hindsight and in those particular circumstances No
What circumstances ?
Answer: AAR is the circumstance he refers to, IMHO.
it follows therefore that all Nimrods were not Airworthy...
to carry out AAR
otherwise, no argument from me.
Ed Sett