Engines, excellent post, Sir. Thank you! I don't think that it is any longer appropriate to apologise for revealing or commenting upon glaring airworthiness shortcomings, RAF or otherwise. The emperor's apparel is notable by its absence, and the sooner we all accept that the more pressure can be applied to make himself decent again.
Just to avoid confusion, I take it by your references to the AAIB you mean the MAAIB, or as they seem to prefer, the MilAAIB? As far as I know, the civilian AAIB was not involved in this SI, though I may be wrong. If not, is this another worrying departure from past BoI practice. AAIB Inspectors were often ignored or over ruled, but at least they were witness to evidence available to the BoI's and could make their concerns apparent at a later date. Oh, wait, have I just answered my own query?
Mortmeister, thanks for the update re box changes. As Distant Voice asks, what was the procedure required to do that in situ? Presumably much the same as with the NDT check for beam cracks, ie undo and remove the shackle bolt from the scissor jaws and replace when done? So was the tightening of the bolt not described in anyway other than the generic default of leaving 1.5 threads showing?
Were the box changes arranged to coincide with the crack checks or done completely independently? It seems these bolts were having to be regularly removed and replaced on a frequent basis, or were the old ones ever re-used? I'm sorry to ask so many questions, but it is because the SI didn't.