Squidlord,
Its pleasing to see a balanced view for a change.
Nigegilb,
As usual, you are scaremongering by putting that report on the web. QQ were invited to Kinloss to provide an objective and independant study of the growing fuel leak problems that were giving rise to adverse operational capability. The QQ report did not mention that every one of the unacceptable leaks kept the aircraft on the ground until that leak was cured. This fact was not mentioned simply because it is a fundamental reason for the study: "Some important (role capable) jets are leaking, they cannot fly, they are limiting our capability. QQ do a study that we can act on, so we can get them flying again" Its nothing more than that: a very sensible project sponsored by the IPT.
Nobody was surprised that the wing leaked when a pod was fitted. Clearly the DA approved the concept of bolting a pod onto the wing of an old aircraft and would have done the calcs for stresses, etc. The only foreseen problem was the slight seepage from the wings, which is unacceptable near a pod.
You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Its not as though this is relevant to safety. As we have mentioned time and time again: if it leaks beyond acceptable limits (which are very tight) it doesn't fly. Therefore we met the airworthiness requirements to fly safely or not at all. We chose (through sound engineering policy) not to fly with those leaks and we still adhere to that policy. That report was required to provide guidance in engineering practices to alleviate availability problems; not highlight unsafe fuel leaks. We already knew the leaks were unacceptable for flight, we needed help in dealing with them.
Did you seek the permission of QQ to publish their work on the web?
Regards
Ed