Originally Posted by tucumseh
One assumes this means you reject the need for a Safety Case?
You assume very incorrectly, and in an insulting manner!
My position is that there is more than enough documentation to make up a valid Safety Case as long as the UK is willing to admit that other nations are capable of designing and operating aircraft safely without following UK protocols, and to look outside its own borders for the information on which to base its decision.
The question is whether the Safety Case is to ignore all non-UK-generated design, operation, maintenance, and configuration documentation (in this case a massive amount of all the above is available from the USAF) in deciding whether the aircraft is, in fact, safe to fly as intended - or to accept such documentation where it presents a clear and comprehensive picture.
A second question is whether any documentation not produced in the RAF-approved manner, form, and style is to be ignored, or if "non-UK-standard" documentation can be accepted if the information contained therein can fill the mandatory information sections of the UK requirements.
The sentence you used to make your crap assumption relates to those who, both in the real world and in this thread (and related ones) insist that Rivet Joint (or insert other US aircraft designation as applicable) "has never been 'operationally tested'." (see Phoney Tony), or "has no documentation" (see many posters on Chinook, etc) - when there exist mountains of documentation and massive operational experience and testing from outside the UK.
How anyone can get from there to claiming I say no Safety Case is needed is incomprehensible.