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 practicable", they haven't admitted liability. Is there some element of "double standards" here?
Precisely. And add Tornado/Patriot and Sea King, where the BoIs stated the same thing, but using different terminology than ACM Loader. That is, procedures and regs were not implemented properly. One assumes this will be raised in due course on 179 - what the other two lack is a concerted campaign from a knowledgeable viewpoint. I know one set of families have been denied access to key documents, preventing them from doing what TD has achieved.