bastOn:
It may not have been "airworthy" in the technical sense, but the crew accepted it as serviceable which to my mind is much more important.
Could you please explain that bizarre statement, bastOn? I'm not trying to be clever, I really don't understand what you mean. You have regalled us with the professional way that you would have planned and flown this fatal leg using DR and airmanship that you find lacking in the crew that did fly it....and then you come out with this incomprehensible gobbledygook. Presumably the Nimrod crew are also to be similarly castigated posthumously? They accepted their aircraft as serviceable, which of course is of much greater importance than that it was unairworthy and recognised as such by the RAF! What on earth is going on in that mind of yours? Can you share it with us, for I am at a loss to know what on earth it can be.