They are wrong. BAeS, IPT and QQ did not design the aircraft. BAeS and IPT made some big mistakes in risk analysis before Sept 06
Ed, I am begining to believe that in your eyes everyone is wrong apart from Ed Sett. Who do you believe and trust? If it is none of the main engineering agencies, then you should not be flying. Yes, they have made mistakes with risk analysis in the past The mistake has been to UNDER ESTIMATE the risk, and unfortunately IPT are still under estimating the risk associated with Hazard NM/H66. This is a Cat "A" risk - INTOLERABLE (Hazard log definition, not mine). The thought that it may/could be/in the fullness of time be downgraded is meaningless. It is about what the risk is, and not what it may be. What evidence, other than personal guts feeling do you have for making this comment? If there was any chance of the risk moving in that direction, do you think that we would be changing 37 ducts (HP, Anti Ice and Cross Feed) before mid 2009 on an aicraft that is due out of service in 2011. Come on Ed, I know that I was born on a Friday, but it wasn't last Friday.
The Nimrod problem is like a jig-saw. By pulling together all the pieces (evidence) we hope to get an idea of what the real picture is. The trouble is that there are people like yourself who seem afraid to view that picture. And there are those people who keep pieces of the jig saw hidden under the table, or worse still loose them.
Once again, get your head out of the sand and see the picture.
DV