"I wonder again if the Coroner would take a view on this. Would his recommendation that the fleet be grounded have been expressed more strongly if he had been told the timescale was a year or more, not 6 months? As I said, he (coroner) would have assumed from the evidence that MoD had a clear way ahead agreed, knew the cost and had an agreed delivery / embodiment plan with industry. What would he have said, or what other evidence/witnesses would he have sought, had he been told "We've done cock all, and it could be December 08 or June 09, or....". he had in front of him a "senior" officer making (I think) a firm statement. If the IPTL had said "I'm not sure", surely the Coroner would have demanded someone who was sure."
EDSET, I don't agree with your post 1234 RE ALARP not required I have the technical argument why I believe you are wrong, will PM you later.
Also, the families are right to pursue the MOD over matters post crash. Just as in XV179 nobody wants this to happen again and it is now clear that IPT did hardly anything RE 30 recs until very recently. Just confirms what we have been saying about inability to implement airworthiness regulations. If he deliberately misled the Court, you do know what that is called don't you?
BTW ANY changes to the MR2 build standard by definition change the MRA4 contract. next thing they'll be announcing another delay to MRA4!
Last edited by nigegilb; 2nd Jul 2008 at 06:53.