Nige
Your last (edit to add, last but one) post quoting the actual transcript is very illuminating. It comes across a quite a witch hunt. Until your post I had started to form the impression that the Gp Capt had made a mistake or got his facts a bit muddled, but infact his lines can be interpreted consistently with the most recent statements on the ALARP status of the aircraft.
GP CAPT HICKMAN: What I am trying to explain is that you are in managing a risk you are allowed time to ALARP it, it does not have to be instantaneous, you are allowed to introduce measures to ALARP a risk.
He actually acknowledges / tries to point out here that there is an intrinsic ALARP argument to be made when you are working towards taking all practical measures (though I can see how it could be confusing for those not familiar with such principles).
GP CAPT HICKMAN: If I could just read, it says:
“Where the risk from the system is assessed not to be broadly acceptable and ALARP or tolerable and ALARP [which is the one I am referring to], the Contractor shall carry out Risk Reduction by identifying and implementing a combination of mitigation strategies until the Tolerability Criteria are met.”
MR RAWLINSON: What on earth has this got to do with the contractors?
The questionner here completely misses the point he makes but then attacks him. It appears as if they weren't even listening or trying to understand the perspective he was putting forward.
On seeing the actual working and interruptions/overspeaking - the way in which he was being badgered and questioned is frankly incredible - I'm quite shocked at the way he was being treated/dismissed. The coroner spouts a load of nonsense like "ALARP Airworthy" and clearly sneers/snorts at the Gp Capt as if he's an idiot when he tries to point out thats not really a correct term. It seems clear from the above that the coroner only wanted to hear things that supported the conclusion he'd already decided he wanted to reach, rather than try and understand the actual facts and issues.