I, for one, found this report very helpful in explaining many of the comments on the thread. As it has been redacted and obtained under Freedom of Information, I think it is fair to say it is in the public domain. Would I also be correct in saying QinetiQ are the MoD’s appointed independent advisors and, as such, their opinions are actually informed opinions based on significant expertise and background knowledge? If I were MoD I’d hesitate before dismissing such a report.
As for scaremongering, there is an obvious counter in that this report would seem to be one of several key documents which informed the BoI’s opinion that the regulations had not been applied properly, leading to the Defence Secretary’s admission of liability. Against this background, the Coroner heard evidence that the aircraft had not been airworthy for many years and had little option but to give the verdict he did. Rather than rounding on nigegilb, whose credentials seem impeccable, perhaps we should step back and simply ask the question “Is the thrust of the report, and the conclusions drawn by the BoI and Defence Secretary, correct?” If so, then should any ire not be directed at those who brought about this situation, not those who seek to correct it?
It strikes me that many here, while wanting their tuppence worth on their own areas of expertise, are actually like-minded. Wouldn’t it be good if these combined energies could help solve the problems, instead of arguing over minor points of detail?