Regardless of personal opinion, the irrefutable facts are;
1. MoD (specifically, Alcock, Graydon and Bagnall) were advised by the RAF's Inspector of Flight Safety that Nimrod (and other types) were not airworthy. The specific failings with regard to fuel systems were advised in 1996 by DRA. The systemic failings were first reported in detail in January 1988 by civilian staffs, and in general terms by RAF engineers in 1985. These notifications were supported in reports by Director Internal Audit, Equipment Accounting Centre, Man(S)Org and others; the DIA one submitted direct to PUS in June 1996.
2. All were ignored.
3. More detailed evidence, expanding upon all of the above, was submitted to both the XV230 Coroner and Haddon-Cave.
4. Both agreed with IFS and the later submissions (although neither was told about IFS's evidence in any great detail, as MoD withheld it. It was made available in detail to Lord Philip, who accepted it in full. Not that he had much choice!).
5. Government accepted the findings and established the Military Aviation Authority (not the Nimrod Aviation Authority, thereby accepting that the failings were systemic).
"What was deemed safe engineering practice in the 1960s or even the 1980s might not be deemed safe today"
Much is made in the press of Rivet Joint not meeting "new" regulations. It doesn't meet the old ones either, an inconvenient fact bodyswerved by the MAA. It has NEVER been deemed safe for an aircraft not to be under configuration control and have an invalid safety case or safety argument. The press can be forgiven for not understanding this, but MoD/MAA are being highly disingenuous.
Like most, I eagerly await Philip Hammond's decision. Does he refuse to issue a waiver and face castigation because his department has made the same mistake
yet again. Or does he sign, and drive a bus through Haddon-Cave and, effectively, negate the need for the MAA. Think about that last one. The MAA has, effectively, recommended to Hammond that they need not exist.
If he signs, he is sending out a powerful message. Mandated Airworthiness regulations are optional. That is, we're back to square one, as this is what his predecessors ruled so many times in the past, killing so many in the process.