Edset, Kinloss has been taking hits on this report for months, I thought you of all people would see the sense in making it available for everybody at Kinloss to read. It was obtained under FOI and is, indeed in the public domain, or are you against the FOI Act as well?
As for seeking permission, I didn't publish it on the internet so I can't answer that one. I am disappointed by your reaction, some very experienced engineers working at Kinloss at the time were not even aware the report was being carried out and had not read it.
JFZ has taken a different view and it has certainly prompted comment from knowledgeable people. Perhaps JFZ should declare an interest? Anyone on this thread have any connections with Nimrod IPT? As for scaremongering, it is a factual report, you might like to re-visit your comments.
As you are back on thread would you also like to re-visit your comments regarding AAR?
"Despite the criticism of leadership, the technical aspect, ie "it is as safe as it needs to be" still stands. I re-iterate that its in the present tense. I believe the report is at its final stage. I haven't read it, but the rumour is that CAS's words remain correct: the Nimrod is safe enough for AAR. But, there is a growing feeling that due to intrusive media and public pressure, the technical factor in the decision may be overruled for political reasons. However, growing media and public attention to the troops taking fire on the ground may encourage the politicians to provide those lads with the best surveillance support the RAF has to offer. Its being held back at the moment for no good technical reason."
Six outstanding recommendations from QQ have not been dealt with but you state that AAR is safe, are you sticking to that statement and in doing so ignoring these six recs?
On another thread P-8A is being discussed this is the Multi Mission Aircraft (MMA), B737 conversion for US Navy. Thought I would post this;
Feldman says: "It is not built for survivability as a commercial aircraft, so we have done significant live-fire testing and are incorporating the results into the design." A lot of the work involves the fuel system: protecting or relocating components double-wall tank liners sense and drain systems and dry-bay fire protection. "These areas have been dealt with and there are no outstanding vulnerability concerns," he says. Using a building-block approach, Boeing has conducted life-fire tests on critical areas of the airframe using surrogate structures. This has resulted in selection of an inerting system to protect the dry-bay areas around the cargo-bay fuel tanks.
Err, you won't be getting this in MRA4. Fit for purpose? I think not, neither do I think the MoD/IPT is learning lessons.
Last edited by nigegilb; 26th Jun 2008 at 12:39.