Very interesting Mad Scientist. Now I must state upfront I don't know any details here but the interesting thing you could read into the white clip/blue clip AD is that they don't seem to be targetting any specific wires that may chaff and short circuit (e.g. allowing high [spark capable] voltages into low [not spark capable] voltage fuel tank wiring) - so the level of precision for specific failure modes doesn't appear to be behind the analysis. It reads to me like "it might make it safer, its cheap to do, so we should do it" - I think this logic is still sound by the way, but I can't reconcile it with specific numbers.
----
Nige, I've had a flick through the Fuel Report. I'm not sure which bits are particiularly contentious? It reads like a audit to look at some issues with leaks & possible maintenance procedure issues and highlights some aspects that need addressing and some shortfalls in some areas. It does however state:
Notwithstanding all of these difficulties, the repairs achieved by RAMS on XV250 were observed to be of a high standard. The work undertaken on that aircraft was far beyond the usual expectation and encompassed the comprehensive renewal of the fasteners and sealants at the port side rib 7 joint.
This reads quite postively to me - its not the "shut them down its 'Airworks + Tornado F3s' all over again" criticism that I was expecting on opening it.
Also the whole alu / steel bolt issue is not quite as I'd been led to believe by some posts on this thread. It reads as if the alu bolt is not used anymore and the steel bolt is a design approved replacement. QQ
speculate about the consequences of its different material properties and what
might happen if higher torques where used - but its all conjecture that maybe worth further investigation as I read it - not a criticism per se. I may have missed it but I can't see any statement from the DA that these bolts can't infact be mixed - this was implied by the "engine block" analogy earlier on in this thread.