Dervish
The NVG question I think shows a lack of experience by the report writers.
People not familiar with NVGs seem to think that they are some kind of panacea.
The Mk7 is single pilot.
Single pilot low level NVG over the sea is not a good place to be, especially as they did not have DNVG at that time.
The Mk7 now has limited NVG capabilities required for it's current role, and it was an enormous amount of work to get them NVG'd. I am not talking about the relatively simple act of painting the cockpit black, I am talking about the effort required to get everyone to some degree of NVG proficiency. The effort required to keep them NVG is going to be huge, and despite all this, I suspect and would reccomend that their SOP will be to not use NVG for low level over the sea at night.
NVGs are very useful, but come with their own set of dangers.
Yes NVGs might have helped the pilot spot the other aircraft, but how many aircraft would you lose if they tried to fly NVG low level over the sea single pilot as SOP?
We can all imagine things which might save lives in a particular situation, but that does not mean that the overall effect might be greater danger.
For example.
Theoretical situation.
2 helicopters fighting a land war in asia fly into each other at night. An enquiry might, quite correctly, state that permanent neon floodlights al la Las Vegas fitted to them would have reduced the risk and perhaps stopped the accident.
This would be true, but of course they would be shot at far more often and you would lose many more to ground fire.
I am amazed that nobody has ever mentioned the one obvious solution.
ie.
2 pilots?
I know the reason why they don't of course.
It's because the added weight reduces endurance to the point where it impinges greatly on operational effectiveness.
Good decision, I agree, but it is certainly less safe than if you did have twin pilot.
Correctly, the cost/benefit analysis says single pilot
As for the Mk7 being blind, I think you are confused about their radar issue.
ps, the Mk 5/6 has/had a radar that could look in every direction but forward, yet we generally coped. No doubt we would be grounded nowadays.
Yes the ship should/could have had deconfliction in my opinion.
I do not know the details of the Nimrod disaster, and the fact that complaints from aircrew level were made about the aircraft before the crash suggest real problems, but the attempt to group in other accidents like the Baggers to make it look like they are also caused by airworthiness issues are just wrong in my opinion.
As far as I can see people are just trying to make political capital from the deaths of some of my friends to further their belief that things need changing because all the accidents are linked.
One disaster such as Nimrod does not mean everything is wrong. We will always have accidents, terrible though it sounds, and we always should.
To use a valid if slightly strained analogy, war is like international professional sport.
There is a trade off between being close to the edge, and sometimes being over the edge.
The best Tennis players sometimes hit the net.
Why?
Surely they could easily miss it if they were willing to sacrifice the best serves?
Just look at their second serves, far more reliable?
Because they would lose.
It is worth a few nets and a few double faults to win the match.
It is very sad but totally unavoidable that a "net" is a damaged aircraft, and a "double fault" in our business means that people die.
We spend billions of pounds on defence.
Incredibly rarely is it actually needed.
The most crass thing imaginable would be to spend all that treasure to end up with a military which looks pretty in peactime, has very few accidental deaths because we go nowhere near the ragged edge where accidents and excellence happen, but then loses when we actually are called upon to fight.
It would be far more sensible to save the money and just surrender. Countries that surrender without a fight are nearly always far better off than ones which fight then lose.
I am considered by many to be a consumate loafer, but if I decide (or am cornered)to do something (rare, I'll admit), I make an enormous effort to try to do it well, not just adequately. Otherwise, why bother?
SPHLC
Ah, I see where you are going with this, however no, my annoyance lies with the worlds idiots who took out loans they could not afford, and then whinged and moaned that it was the banks fault rather than taking personal responsibility for their inability to do basic maths. Yes I would have prefered if there was some way we could have shielded this country from the losses from other countries, but realistically, we were the worlds biggest beneficiary of the world financial markets when all went well therefore we got hit very hard on the downside. I suspect if you do the maths this country has profited on the deal over a 20yr period and despite it all given our time again we would still dive into the trough with the others.
Not sure who is who in your analogy then?