EdSet100
I have come to the conclusion that you are NOT who you say you are on this forum, and I'll tell you why.
You say that whenever a technical point is brought to the table, you answer it. So let me put this to you;
In post 1233 You were asked by TSM what method of leak detection was used at Kinloss on the Nimrod.
In post 1238 you were asked the same by myself.
In post 1258 I asked you again.
In post 1292 Terry K Rumble asked you exactly the same.
Any idea why you have NOT replied to any of those requests?
Could it be that you don't know and to get on the phone to someone at Kinloss is a bit difficult? Maybe it is too embarrassing to disclose what (if any) methods are currently used or were being used when 230 was lost. So what is to be Ed?
The other thing is that you have displayed an unbelievable degree of knowledge on this forum regarding the Nimrod. Indeeed, I and many others, have applauded you for it, and I would go as far as to say that I do regard you as an expert on the aircraft, but too much of an expert to be on a flying sqn at Kinloss. The thing is, you seem to know just a little bit too much frankly. The average B cat on the squadron is a pretty clued up chap. An A cat is considerably better and knows considerably more, but you exceed all of them, and thats why I don't believe you are just a 'normal sqn shag!' You know too much Ed!
You constantly refer to reports by civilian agencies when it suits your cause, and yet you dismiss the same company when they produce a report that doesn't assist you in your cause. QQ is a classic case. Most people know that AVTUR on its own won't ignite - indeed, unless you have the right conditions it's a bu**er to ignite, we don't need telling that. However, spray it under pressure out into a mist, mix it something pretty hot and whilst it might not be the ideal conditions, there is a strong possibility that it will go bang! But, because you cannot 'technically' prove that on 230, you dismiss it. Wrong.
Your comment about the crew of 235 sickens me frankly, and I regard it as an insult to the captain and his crew. I have not spoken to anyone who disagrees with his/their actions during this incident. They did exactly the right thing, declared an emergency and landed the jet quickly, perfect, and I take my hat off to them all. I would have done the exact same thing. Whoever feels it necessary to criticise them clearly knows little, if anything, about flying aircraft.
So, you are on a Nimrod squadron and you don't know how many QFIs you have left the fleet? It has been common knowledge for some time that the Nimrod fleet does not any QFIs left, and if you don't know that, then you cannot be who you say. Everyone knows! It's even been in the press! The same goes for the rest of the aircrew. You don't know how many have quit or expressed concern over the aircrafts safety? I wonder where do spend all your days at Kinloss?
The one point I agree with you is when you say 'safety is not established by popular opinion' You are of course totally correct. However, safety is not established or improved by shoving your head up your arse and hoping it goes away either!
So, who are you? Well, I think you are probably someone working for the MOD or perhaps a staff officer working for someone close to the top of the food chain, desperately trying to push out the 'official views' onto the rest of us. Sorry Ed, it hasn't worked with me, and I think most people on here will soon reach the same conclusion as I have about your true identity.
The Winco