EdSett100
I would agree with you that the majority of those critics of Nimrod safety are 'ex' Nimrod operators like myself, however, that is not a sufficiently sound reason to simply just ignore us all and dismiss what we say. Many of us have a lot of experience in aviation, including a considerable amount of time on Nimrod, and I think that our genuine concern for the safety of our fellow aviators is worthy of comment, irrespective of whether it agrees with you or not.
The one thing that you cannot argue against is the fact that one aircraft and crew was lost, and one aircraft came pretty close to following it. And yet all you can say (and keep on saying) is that the aircraft is safe and that the aircrew are happy to fly it. Hugh S certainly dosn't appear to share your views does he? Or is he a 'one off?'
I would suggest to you that many aircrew were certainly NOT happy to fly it, and some are still not happy to fly it!
Now, you can argue all day and all night long about how safe YOU believe the aircraft to be and you can try your best to convince us that the majority of your colleagues feel the same however, truthfully................
How many current aircrew have reservations about the aircrafts safety?
How many QFIs left, as a direct result of the loss of 230?
How many Navs, AEOs and AEOps left following the loss of 230?
And finally, how many aircrew have expressed serious concerns over the aircrafts safety and/or asked to be taken off Nimrod flying duties?
You claim that there is not a problem amongst the aircrew at Kinloss because nobody (from Kinloss anyway) has come onto this forum and disagreed with you, therefore you must be correct. Maybe your right, I don't know. However, by the very same argument, I don't see dozens of aircrew from Kinloss coming on this forum agreeing with you either!
The Winco