He had not been told in the months before the crash of a rise in fuel leaks on Nimrods, which he admitted was a “really serious failure”.
I find it amazing that someone with QR640 responsibilities is in the position to say this, assuming of course that he is admitting that it is the fact that he wasn't told that was the serious failure, and not the rise in fuel leaks, or the crash.
Something else intrigues me at the moment, unless I'm missing something. In the case of XV230, the MOD has admitted liability on the grounds of maintenance of an airworthy aircraft, yet in the case of XV179, where the MOD knew that the fitment of ESF was "reasonably practiable", they haven't admitted liability. Is there some element of "double standards" here?
sw