Let us remind ourselves of a couple of statements made by Haddon-Cave in his Nimrod Review report
(1) Like a case in law, the Safety Case is a body of evidence presented as a reasoned argument. Unlike most areas of the law, the activities are not presumed innocent until proven guilty: the Safety Case must prove that a system is safe.
(2) The concept of an“implicit Safety Case” does not comply with Lord Cullen’s concept of a “thorough assessment” of the risks posed by a platform. This is because, in effect, the notion assumes that a legacy aircraft is safe merely because it was built to design and has been operating without mishap for a number of years.
"It seems to have function safely for the last x years", is not acceptable
DV