JFZ I agree it is a different issue, I got involved in Nimrod because I had some mates flying the Jet who were very unhappy with the events surrounding the accident and also because I believed all along that the aircraft had suffered a fuel tank explosion.
The point about talking about fuel tank protection in airliners is that they never have to go to war and yet Mr Boeing has decided to fit inerting systems to its latest airliners anyway. As you point out Nimrods flying in theatre are at risk from being shot at but XV230 was brought down specifically because of AAR, another discipline not followed outside of the military. AT aircraft self-protection is now receiving more attention but MRA4 has slipped through the net.
My main concerns are that two large aircraft have crashed with the loss of 24 lives and many issues are shared. Tuc believed they read across to other recent accidents as well. We are really talking about aircraft being airworthy but also fit for purpose. Fit to go to war. MRA4 will not be which suggests the MoD is not learning any lessons here.
I do not agree with your conclusions about the Airbus mod. Specifically, "Qinetiq says [of Nimrod],it’s tolerably safe, but not yet ALARP. Doesn’t make sense. While QQ said the aircraft was “tolerably safe” the application should be the risk(s) were tolerable. This still ignores the fact that if the risk is in the tolerable region, and the severity of harm is catastrophic (loss of aircraft/death) then the risk MUST be reduced to ALARP. Nor does it address cumulative risks. I maintain QQ report must have been altered as it more or less ignores the serious airworthiness failures reported in March 2006."
With regard to Airbus can you please state your reference to the severity of harm concerning the AD? And what is the level of risk? And where is the reference to ALARP? Forgive me if it is in your link but I didn't see it.
Remember other measures have already been implemented.
Edited to add, Nimman, I am referring to the QQ report in places, will post up a passage for you to comment when I get time. I also received this- my beef is with the higher ups BTW.
"Attached to the PPRUNE thread is a link to DEF STAN 05-130. This standard is very similar to that of an EASA 145 MRO. Going through the PPRUNE thread alone, if only half of it is true than the organisation / operation would have been shut down months (or years) ago. This is not a slur on the ground or aircrews, but on higher up the food chain.
The DEF STAN 05-130 is the equivalent of a civil aircraft maintenance facilities JAR 145, the European standard for aircraft maintenance, picking up from what used to be the CAA. The DEF STAN 05-130 does cover training, human factors etc and my concern is that the RAF is now falling way short of these standards, in particular on the Nimrod fleet.
MPI are a recruitment company
http://www.mpi.ltd.uk/home.asp : my concern here is that the rate offered will not attract the capable and qualified staff that are so obviously needed. They are subbies, with none of the perks that a permanent employee would have. Moto "why do today what can be on overtime tomorrow."
MPI are trying to place more engineers' under contract to work both the line and hangars. If they get some qualified guys then that will help, but, at the rates offered I worry. Currently Subbies would look at the £14:50 per hour, inclusive of B and B. Latest jobs link, http://www.mpi.ltd.uk/viewVacancies.asp?jobCode=X9L6D2&mode=details"
Nimman don't wish to slur anyone, but can you comment on the ability to recruit at those rates? Assume many come in with a pension. Just wondered how the pay compares. PM me if you want a copy of QQ Report Regards,
Nige