Keepittidy,
sorry, are you able to repost that in English? You might like to check whether you meant unserviceable or non-airworthy?
If you'd like to check my posts I have not at any point said the aircraft is unserviceable - what I HAVE said is that I find it difficult to reconcile the coroner's verdict, the series of contradictory statements from those charged with Nimrod safety, and what appears to be the RAF's own regulations on what constitutes airworthiness being ignored by the RAF. I have asked on here for clarification of some of these points. My official position on all this is best described as 'confused, and dubious'.
I continue, still, to be more than a little cynical about the political leadership and the Air staff. That 230 clearly WASN'T airworthy has been admitted extensively by everyone from Torpy down to the recruiting Sgt in Blckpool CIO, so I think there's a bit of an onus there to show the aircraft has now been made safe. Much of what I've seen recently simply looks like spin.
It took 25 years for the 'right' combination of circumstances to arise for the weaknesses in the AAR system to be catastrophically demonstrated, my post's final point was simply to remind folk that this accident resulted from an interaction between mutliple systems...so the strip is quite likely to show components that are wearing badly perhaps, or might show that something deep in the bowels is leaking a bit, but it won't show that (for example) when the pressure spikes to X PSI there's a fuel overflow that tracks down thisaway and makes contact with a hot air pipe at Y hundred degrees..... it's not just that the components have to be okay, but they have to work together okay too. THAT is my concern - I am not saying that the Nimrod isn't okay, what I'm saying is that there needs to be more by way of proof than a politician standing up and saying so.
Dave