The quote which T D refers to which reads ‘was XV230 safe to fly’ was unfortunately inaccurately recorded in the minutes, which we have just recently received, from the BOI meeting in London on 4th December. What I actually asked was '' with the evidence you have seen; was XV 230 airworthy that day''. To which Sir Glenn Torpy replied ''in hindsight and under those circumstances I would have to say no''. Others in the room repeated this question with ''was XV 230 airworthy'' adding on ''yes or no'' to which Sir Glenn answered ''NO''.
I had just made several statements of fact, as I saw them, and had asked the following questions; which had prompted Sir Glenn to make the statement about ‘circumstances’. What I said and asked was as follows: -
1. That there was a major design flaw in the MK2 adaptation i.e. when the SCP was added.
2. That BAe designed the Nimrod and added on th SCP and did the safety case and didn’t realise that the SCP got hot!
Why wasn’t there a Nimrod specialist to accompany BAe to tell them what the SCP did i.e. that it got hot?
3. Who looks at and collates information which has been recorded; to help with identifying patterns e.g. with an increase in leaks?
Why was this not done before?
4. Why was the limiting of Tank 1 contents from 16,000 to 15,000 lbs accepted as a viable solution to a problem? Especially when it is difficult to judge levels (of fuel) accurately; due to pressures at that height.
This led straight on to my question ‘’ with the evidence you have seen; was XV 230 airworthy that day’’.
NB. most of the answers to the above questions were ‘’we will be looking in to that with the next inquiry’’ i.e. with the Hadden-Cave inquiry.
I have copied the above word for word from my notes and apologise for the grammar. I was pretty upset that day!
The inquest next month will probably reveal yet more unacceptable ‘circumstances’.
helgar33