SH:
DV, you post #1417 was an excellent reply to EdSett's ill informed comments. As a safety engineer of over 10 years, I read EdSett's comments with deep suspicion, but unable, without the detailed knowledge of the systems and that area of the aircraft to disagree.
If you are unable to disagree with my comments, how can you say that they are ill-informed?
DV:
Ed, I am begining to believe that in your eyes everyone is wrong apart from Ed Sett.
Who is "everyone", DV? Let me guess: you and a few other critics on pprune. I've mentioned this before and I'll reiterate it: if anyone who works/flies on the Nimrod believes that it is unsafe, he/she does not need to write his/her concerns here to get the message heard. The lack of support for me, here, is simply because the vast majority of my colleagues have no interest in pprune so they do not come here. Furthermore, there is no ground swell of criticism or feelings of unease on the fleet, therefore I suggest that most of us, on the Nimrod, tacitly agree with the views I express here.
DV, you have raised a valid point in that I should not be in disagreement with the IPT over a safety issue. Therefore, I need to know exactly what you are referring to. You appear to have access to documents (Hazard Log) that are not available to me this weekend. So, lets set a baseline for this discussion about the OCCASIONAL/CATESTROPHIC risk set against Hazard NM/H66. Which ducts are detailed in that Hazard? I need to know which ducts you (and BAEs/QQ/IPT) are saying are a Cat "A" risk. We could be at cross purposes.
Regards
Ed Sett