If the existance of 25 year old seals makes the jet unsafe, I suggest that none of us flies on any old aircraft supplied by EATON Aerospace. There are hundreds out there. They too are not ALARP, apparently.
I'm not interested in the seals at all. the reference in my post to seals was simply a reaction to Oilcan's post.
I'm interested in the 30 ALARP recommendations that QQ made. They are the issues. A week or so ago, the sky was going to fall in on your world if Hickman was right and the aircraft wasnt ALARP. Now it seems not to matter that much.
Your reasoning, seems to be that Hickman misled everyone. Easy target. But how did he mislead everyone, by saying it had to be tolerable and ALARP and it isnt ALARP. There are a wealth of MoD documents out there that make it clear that if the risk is only tolerable and if it is not ALARP the aircraft is not safe. The QQ fuel report says it is tolerable but not ALARP. The SoS has told Angus Robertson - after several weeks waiting to get to the truth - that 21 of the recommendations are currently being implemented, three are still being considered and six dont have to be done because there is no longer any AAR. So the aircraft is not ALARP and therefore currently not safe under the MoD's own regulations because the recommendations that would make it safe are still being implemented. Still being implemented? Following recommendations from a report that was brought out in October last year?
Hence what is actually an uncontroversial statement from me that this needs to be done as soon as, not by the end of the year, and the SoS will have to sign off the risk honestly as a risk until then instead of claiming, as he did in December, that the aircraft is safe.