I have continued to read the QC's report - despite flashes of common sense it is remarkable in its ignorance and naivety. Shame - because I guess the MOD will use this as an excuse to bury it quietly and carry on much as before.
.
I agree. As I have already indicated on another thread, his attack on the Coroner is based on a misunderstanding of what was said. As an example, on page 105, Under "The coroner's Source of Fuel", the QC states that following:
The Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner, Mr Andrew Walker, found the most likely source for the fuel was a leak from the fuel feed system to engines Nos. 3 and 4. Such a leak, he said would have provided a "continuous source of fuel" which would "travel along the aircraft into dry bay 7" to the seat of the fire. In my view this is highly unlikely.
This is
not the the "Coroner's Source of the Fuel". The extracts come from his statement (page 25 of his summing up) where he is in fact challenging Mr Bell's engine based theory . The full statement is as follows:
The flow from a leak in the fuel feed systems to engine 3 or 4 would have had to increase up to 15 gallons a minute before the engine performance would be affected, and this leak would not be determined in terms of engine warnings to the crew. The flow rate of such a leak would supply a continuous source of fuel. Interestingly, the supply of fuel would travel along the aircraft into dry bay 7 where the seat of the fire was believed to have started.
There are several other serious mistakes in the report which distort the actual evidence.
DV