Squidlord; I agree with you, the statement "tolerably safe" has no real meaning. It is like saying a person is "restrively free", there is a conflict of terms.
You say that "tolerably save" is used in some industries to mean tolerable and ALARP, which is a condition I can understand. However, QineiQ make it quite clear that the fuel system is not ALARP. The term "acceptable" is used at times in the report, but according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, "acceptable" means "tolerable". At no point in the report does QinetiQ state that the system is "broadly acceptable", because they know what that means.
Perhaps someone did misinform Des Browne, but I also believe that words were played with in order to give a false indication of the condition of the Nimrod fuel system, with current mitigations.
I understand the point you make about DEF STAN 00-56, but I would like to draw your attention to the first paragraph of that document.
"Under UK law, all employers have a duty of care to their employees, the general public and the wider environment. For the MOD, this includes an obligation to manage the safety risks associated with military systems and their operation. In addition safety is a vital characteristic of defence systems as it is often has a significant impact upon operational effectiveness. In accordance with the general guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive, MOD will discharge this duty by ensuring that, in as so far as risks are not judged to be unacceptable, they are reduced to a level which is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP)"
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 18th Apr 2008 at 16:17.