With the suspension of AAR and taking out of use the SCP it's likely that the MK2 is now ALARP and is therefore airworthy
...leading to...
I am afraid this is not the case. These restrictions were already in place when the coroner gave his verdict, and when Gp Capt Hickman confirmed that the aircraft was not ALARP.
The question is, is the risk tolerable, and hence is it reasonable to fly the aircraft until the full recs are practically embodied in due course. Assuming that it is (as it is flying), it would seem that the Gp Capt was either taken out of context or has got his message a bit confused.
If you can give an Airbus 2+ years to embody known ALARP risk measures with respect to Fuel Tank Explosions, why should such a timeline not reasonably apply to the Nimrod in this case? The risks maybe different, but the principle is surely the same?
Nige - whilst I can see much merit in your Fuel Tank Inerting campaign, I think its really a different issue* to the basic airworthiness debate - a whole load of civil aircraft won't have inerting for many many years, if ever.
* Whether any RAF aircraft without fuel tank inerting should be expected to operate at low level (inc take off / landing) in a threat environment in which inerting could help mitigate is a different issue - I concur there is a very valid argument that says they should not.