Nimrod crash in Afghanistan Tech/Info/Discussion (NOT condolences)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mileandahalf
I agree entirely with you Sir, you are fully entitled to your opinion. But I don't think I ever said you weren't, but if that's what I implied, then I apologise.
The fact that you don't agree with me is neither here nor there frankly. The fact is that you don't agree with the experts at BAe and QQ, and that is what makes you wrong IMHO.
I have yet to see any attacks against any Nimrod crews or groundcrew either, so I'm not sure what the point of your earlier comments were, but I for one still have immense respect for the aircrew and groundcrew who are faced with a dreadful situation. It must be very difficult for them.
I suspect that the inclusion of the Nimrod in the flypast was a gesture by CAS and the rest (including SoS) to show the country that they don't give a damn about what the coroner thinks - they are right, and thats the end of it as far as they are concerned.........until the next time, God forbid.
I agree entirely with you Sir, you are fully entitled to your opinion. But I don't think I ever said you weren't, but if that's what I implied, then I apologise.
The fact that you don't agree with me is neither here nor there frankly. The fact is that you don't agree with the experts at BAe and QQ, and that is what makes you wrong IMHO.
I have yet to see any attacks against any Nimrod crews or groundcrew either, so I'm not sure what the point of your earlier comments were, but I for one still have immense respect for the aircrew and groundcrew who are faced with a dreadful situation. It must be very difficult for them.
I suspect that the inclusion of the Nimrod in the flypast was a gesture by CAS and the rest (including SoS) to show the country that they don't give a damn about what the coroner thinks - they are right, and thats the end of it as far as they are concerned.........until the next time, God forbid.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nigeglib, I see you have finally signed off this thread......again."
Mileandahalf, that all depends on pond life like you behaving.
Mileandahalf, that all depends on pond life like you behaving.
Last edited by nigegilb; 17th Jun 2008 at 20:13.
There seem to be rather a number of people who cannot comprehend the difference between 'airworthiness' and 'serviceability'. Just because an aircraft is, according to the maintenance technicians and EngOs, 'fully serviceable', snag-free, no reds or greens (
), it doesn't follow that, ipso facto it is by definition 'airworthy'.
I'm sure that the R101 was fully serviceable before it set off on its fatal fight to India. But it wasn't airworthy.
I do wish some of the ISK folk wouldn't take the coroner's statement as a personal insult. Instead, let an independent competent authority decide whether the Nimrod actually is airworthy.
), it doesn't follow that, ipso facto it is by definition 'airworthy'.I'm sure that the R101 was fully serviceable before it set off on its fatal fight to India. But it wasn't airworthy.
I do wish some of the ISK folk wouldn't take the coroner's statement as a personal insult. Instead, let an independent competent authority decide whether the Nimrod actually is airworthy.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Back North
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure of your suspicions of the MoD's motive for the inclusion of the MR2 on Saturday. You're probably right, after all, couldn't the MRA4 have done it? Apology not needed but appreciated all the same.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, the safe and genuine time a serviceable ac can be deemed un-airworthy is when it has reached the end of it's predicted life span
So how come we had a 60+ year old Lancaster, 3 Spitfires and a Hurricane in the fly-past?
They must have been airworthy and serviceable
By definition the Nimrod, a much younger ac, (in hours and years), must have been serviceable and airworthy - which was proven to the millions around the world who watched that fly-past
TD and Shona - if they ground the fleet tommorrow, will you both be happy that we will be denying valuable support to the lads out in the sandpit who rely on them during operations, so they can get back safely, to see their families?
So how come we had a 60+ year old Lancaster, 3 Spitfires and a Hurricane in the fly-past?
They must have been airworthy and serviceable
By definition the Nimrod, a much younger ac, (in hours and years), must have been serviceable and airworthy - which was proven to the millions around the world who watched that fly-past
TD and Shona - if they ground the fleet tommorrow, will you both be happy that we will be denying valuable support to the lads out in the sandpit who rely on them during operations, so they can get back safely, to see their families?
Last edited by buoy15; 18th Jun 2008 at 02:15.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b15
Let me assure you first of all that the Lancaster and ALL of the Spits and Hurricanes have flown nowhere near as many hours as any Nimrod has - fact. So your comment about them therefore being unairworthy on that basis is incorrect.
Secondly, you are correct of course about their age, however, compared to the Nimrod (if you can even remotely compare any of them) they are extremely 'simple' aircraft with very little to go wrong frankly.
And finally, they are serviced and maintained to a standard almost beyond belief. That is not a slur on the groundcrew at ISK (or anywhere else for that matter) after all, BBMF groundcrew are all RAF technicians also, but what I want to emphasise is that because they do not have the same operational commitments that nimrod does, they are able to be on the ground longer, in order for them to be fixed correctly and properly as and when they need it.
Please don't think that I am suggesting that ISK technicians are not as good as BBMF because I am not. I am trying to emphasise that because of the need to keep the MR2 in the air, the groundcrew are (perhaps) not always able to 'fix' them as well as they perhaps would wish.
(I hope that sounds better)
Let me assure you first of all that the Lancaster and ALL of the Spits and Hurricanes have flown nowhere near as many hours as any Nimrod has - fact. So your comment about them therefore being unairworthy on that basis is incorrect.
Secondly, you are correct of course about their age, however, compared to the Nimrod (if you can even remotely compare any of them) they are extremely 'simple' aircraft with very little to go wrong frankly.
And finally, they are serviced and maintained to a standard almost beyond belief. That is not a slur on the groundcrew at ISK (or anywhere else for that matter) after all, BBMF groundcrew are all RAF technicians also, but what I want to emphasise is that because they do not have the same operational commitments that nimrod does, they are able to be on the ground longer, in order for them to be fixed correctly and properly as and when they need it.
Please don't think that I am suggesting that ISK technicians are not as good as BBMF because I am not. I am trying to emphasise that because of the need to keep the MR2 in the air, the groundcrew are (perhaps) not always able to 'fix' them as well as they perhaps would wish.
(I hope that sounds better)
Please don't think that I am suggesting that ISK technicians are not as good as BBMF because I am not. I am trying to emphasise that because of the need to keep the MR2 in the air, the groundcrew are (perhaps) not always able to 'fix' them as well as they perhaps would wish.
(I hope that sounds better)
(I hope that sounds better)
I understand where you're coming from, and appreciate your efforts in making it sound like you aren't having a go at us, but I still take issue with the above sentance, if just in it's wording.
It is true that we do 'carry' problems from day to day, in the form of Aircrew Accepts, ADF's and Lims, however the decision to use these facilities given to us by the engineering authority does not come lightly. Obviously you'll appreciate that only certain people can sign these to enable the jet to fly, and even then that decision will be based upon either the Aircraft publications and/or the advice of the engineers. These are the checked by the aircrew before every flight, and if they have issue with them then it it is discussed and worked as required.
It is also true, as you've said, that because of the number of systems on the aircraft there is a lot more that CAN go wrong, making the use of reds/greens very useful in enabling the aircraft to fly, even if they aren't all working (ie, accoustics problems do not stop a Pilot training sortie).
please do not think I am having a go at you in any way for your last post, I simply feel the wording wasn't the best it could have been for the situation, and wanted to emphasise that the decision to 'carry' problems from flight to flight is not taken lightly by the groundcrew.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Techie 101,
I did go to lengths to explain that I wasn't having a go at the groundcrew at all, and I think you should read what I said, and be a little less sensitive about it.
I know that you guys are having to ADD and Lim no-end of stuff. It was just the same when I was on the fleet. The jet would land with a host of faults, but because there was a need to fly a Pilot trainer immediately afterwards, the snags got left. And so on and on it went, until it used to get to the stage where Eng Ops (or whoever) would say to the Sqns '"look, you can't have the aircraft, we NEED to fix it" endex!
The pressure brought on you guys is immense I know, and that was the comparison I was making between you and the BBMF guys, who are under a great deal less pressure I would suggest. Thats all.
Try not to take issue with everything that is written here, and read things for what they are. I was actually defending you and your colleagues especially with the work load that you more-often-than-not are faced with.
In the meantime, I will try to word things a llittle better!
I did go to lengths to explain that I wasn't having a go at the groundcrew at all, and I think you should read what I said, and be a little less sensitive about it.
I know that you guys are having to ADD and Lim no-end of stuff. It was just the same when I was on the fleet. The jet would land with a host of faults, but because there was a need to fly a Pilot trainer immediately afterwards, the snags got left. And so on and on it went, until it used to get to the stage where Eng Ops (or whoever) would say to the Sqns '"look, you can't have the aircraft, we NEED to fix it" endex!
The pressure brought on you guys is immense I know, and that was the comparison I was making between you and the BBMF guys, who are under a great deal less pressure I would suggest. Thats all.
Try not to take issue with everything that is written here, and read things for what they are. I was actually defending you and your colleagues especially with the work load that you more-often-than-not are faced with.
In the meantime, I will try to word things a llittle better!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lake District
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So will it be the case that whatever the Nimrod does from now on will be classed as 'Crass and insensitive' or just events where the public catch a glimpse of it?
Also I was under the impression that the CXX reunion was for people who have served on the squadron past and/or present or at least that was I thought when I got the email but sadly had to decline. The people who organise these events must have to draw a line somewhere otherwise they'd be swamped...
Also I was under the impression that the CXX reunion was for people who have served on the squadron past and/or present or at least that was I thought when I got the email but sadly had to decline. The people who organise these events must have to draw a line somewhere otherwise they'd be swamped...
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My last post on this thread was a long way back when the carrying of F700 on the aircraft "on mission" was being discussed so I'm not a prolific poster and not being "current" try to avoid the more technical aspects of the debate. However I believe the question posed by Buoy15 merits an answer. Not necessarily from the specific persons he names but by those, in general, in favour of grounding the fleet on the coroner's say so.
"if they ground the fleet tommorrow, will you both be happy that we will be denying valuable support to the lads out in the sandpit who rely on them during operations, so they can get back safely, to see their families?"
Or is there doubt that this support is sorely needed?
Meanwhile the tragic losses continue, nine deaths in as many days.
RIP all of them and thoughts with the families.
S37
"if they ground the fleet tommorrow, will you both be happy that we will be denying valuable support to the lads out in the sandpit who rely on them during operations, so they can get back safely, to see their families?"
Or is there doubt that this support is sorely needed?
Meanwhile the tragic losses continue, nine deaths in as many days.
RIP all of them and thoughts with the families.
S37
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shak and b15
If the CAS had said that the aircraft was unairworthy, would you have agreed with him? If ACAS had said the same, would he have been right? What is the lowest rank you would accept? Gp Capt? (as in the Stn Cdr at ISK) How low or high in the rank chain does someonbe have to be?
Maybe you could furnish us with a list of people who you would say have the 'expert knowledge' to class the aircraft as unairworthy, obviously BAe (the makers as I recall!) and QQ, the coroner and even SoS are not of sufficient expertise in your opinions?
So just who is able to make that call........maybe the 4th Dry eh? or the Sqn Adj?
If the CAS had said that the aircraft was unairworthy, would you have agreed with him? If ACAS had said the same, would he have been right? What is the lowest rank you would accept? Gp Capt? (as in the Stn Cdr at ISK) How low or high in the rank chain does someonbe have to be?
Maybe you could furnish us with a list of people who you would say have the 'expert knowledge' to class the aircraft as unairworthy, obviously BAe (the makers as I recall!) and QQ, the coroner and even SoS are not of sufficient expertise in your opinions?
So just who is able to make that call........maybe the 4th Dry eh? or the Sqn Adj?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winco, with all due respect, that is not answering the question regarding the support provided by the Nimrod and it's crews to the troops on the ground. Current Nimrod aircrew have posted here expressing their willingness to get on with their task. It seems agreed that Nimrod servicing crews are skilled and dedicated, if in some circles, not appreciated.
They all have my utmost respect and admiration for their determination to get on with the job, why don't we let them do that?
S37
They all have my utmost respect and admiration for their determination to get on with the job, why don't we let them do that?
S37
Once again it seems that some folks (with or without private agenda's ??? ) are deliberately confusing the terms "airworthy" and "safe".
An aircraft can be legally "unairworthy" simply because a piece of paper is missing or incomplete, or a faulty component is identified, this does NOT make it unsafe to fly, especially if that component will not be used.
I'm no Nimrod man (4 props and a truck are my line) but my gut feeling, from what has been posted and talking to those who fly it, is that the Nimrod is probably the safest now that is has ever been, simply because it has been under the microscope so much. The circumstances that lead to the appalling loss have benn "mitigated" against .. by stopping the use of the systems involved.
To say that the flypast was "dangerous" is IMHO stupid ... it might have been if the aircraft had been involved in a "wet" AAR as it transited the Mall, but it wasn't.
The aircraft is safe to fly, with limitations as to how it is used, or has common sense completely left the building ??
An aircraft can be legally "unairworthy" simply because a piece of paper is missing or incomplete, or a faulty component is identified, this does NOT make it unsafe to fly, especially if that component will not be used.
I'm no Nimrod man (4 props and a truck are my line) but my gut feeling, from what has been posted and talking to those who fly it, is that the Nimrod is probably the safest now that is has ever been, simply because it has been under the microscope so much. The circumstances that lead to the appalling loss have benn "mitigated" against .. by stopping the use of the systems involved.
To say that the flypast was "dangerous" is IMHO stupid ... it might have been if the aircraft had been involved in a "wet" AAR as it transited the Mall, but it wasn't.
The aircraft is safe to fly, with limitations as to how it is used, or has common sense completely left the building ??
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shack
I left the Nimrod fleet in 1996. During my time on them I had only a handfull of incidents which had a potentially serious flight safety issue - usually rib2 overheats, a couple of engines that went bang, a fire down the back in an ac crate and probably a couple of others that escape me.
I never ever had the very serious problems that the fleet have experienced of late. So why do you think that was? Well I believe that it was primarily because the aircraft was relatively new back in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and the components weren't worn out and degraded.
I am not for a second questioning the value of the support that the aircraft is giving to our troops on the ground, and I am in no way denegrading or questioning the quality of the techies at ISK (or anywhere else for that matter) but we cannot run the fleet by simply saying "if the crews are happy to fly it, then let them get on with it" that is crass, surely you would agree?
The fact is that this aircraft and crew were lost, NOT because of enemy action, and NOT because of something that came out of the blue. These problems were known about, were discussed at length and were reported on and were, frankly, ultimately ignored by thos eat the top. The result was an avoidable tragedy.
But it's not down to you or me to decide whether the aircraft is serviceable or airworthy or not, it is down to others - the 'experts' and IMHO the likes of BAe and QQ are 'the experts'
Now if you disagree with that, then thats ok, you are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, but unless you can come up with some 'expert' reason why BAe and QQ are wrong, then I'm prepared to listen to them and what they have to say.
As BEagle clearly states, the fact that an aircraft is signed up as Serviceable, does NOT mean it is airworthy. And as the coroner and others have said, XV230 was NOT an airworthy aircraft (but thats only according to 'the experts')
I left the Nimrod fleet in 1996. During my time on them I had only a handfull of incidents which had a potentially serious flight safety issue - usually rib2 overheats, a couple of engines that went bang, a fire down the back in an ac crate and probably a couple of others that escape me.
I never ever had the very serious problems that the fleet have experienced of late. So why do you think that was? Well I believe that it was primarily because the aircraft was relatively new back in the 70's, 80's and 90's, and the components weren't worn out and degraded.
I am not for a second questioning the value of the support that the aircraft is giving to our troops on the ground, and I am in no way denegrading or questioning the quality of the techies at ISK (or anywhere else for that matter) but we cannot run the fleet by simply saying "if the crews are happy to fly it, then let them get on with it" that is crass, surely you would agree?
The fact is that this aircraft and crew were lost, NOT because of enemy action, and NOT because of something that came out of the blue. These problems were known about, were discussed at length and were reported on and were, frankly, ultimately ignored by thos eat the top. The result was an avoidable tragedy.
But it's not down to you or me to decide whether the aircraft is serviceable or airworthy or not, it is down to others - the 'experts' and IMHO the likes of BAe and QQ are 'the experts'
Now if you disagree with that, then thats ok, you are entitled to your opinion, like everyone else, but unless you can come up with some 'expert' reason why BAe and QQ are wrong, then I'm prepared to listen to them and what they have to say.
As BEagle clearly states, the fact that an aircraft is signed up as Serviceable, does NOT mean it is airworthy. And as the coroner and others have said, XV230 was NOT an airworthy aircraft (but thats only according to 'the experts')
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm far from an expert on the regs, but it would seem to me that if various experts from Qinetic and BAe considered the aircraft to be non-airworthy, then I'd consider it at least possible that they were correct. If you have two sets of experts at loggerheads then the normal procedure is to sit down and sift the evidence presented to try to extract the truth...not simply say 'we're right, everyone else is wrong' - that just isn't sensible decision making.
I certainly bow to people like Tuc regarding their knowledge of the paper trail involved in being able - under the RAF's own regs - to declare the aircraft airworthy, and from the sound of it (due to penny pinching over the years) that isn't so.
On the other hand - I too think it's probably safe currently, provided the restrictions to AAR etc are maintained, giving us an aircraft that is (probably) safe, certainly declared serviceable, but (I think) probably not airworthy by the RAF's own definition of the terms.
Commonsense dictates (my own opinion) that given an urgent operational task, provided people agree with the 'safe and serviceable' description, then if no other platform is available then flying Nimrod in theatre looks like what you have to do.
I would also expect everyone concerned to pull out all the stops to get MR2 and MR4 provably into the 'airworthy' category sooner rather than later - which despite earlier argument I cannot see extra cash hindering... if only as a quid pro quo for the crews who man the aircraft and who (some of whom) might well be less certain about safety.
One place it all really went very badly, and shows typical hamfistedness by the (upper reaches of the) RAF, who seem to have the most ineffective PR advice on the planet (Robert Mugabe gets his story across with more effect and a stronger ring of truth than most RAF attempts at managing the story)...it was a REALLY bad idea to let the Scotland football manager (or whatever he is this week on alternate days) declare everything in the garden rosy before the coroner had finished speaking - for heaven's sake, he could at least made some pretense of giving a toss what the inquest came up with, if the 'wrong' verdict came out then maybe a better performance from the RAF witnesses might have helped?
For those criticising Tapper's Dad, I think his work keeping this high vis has contributed to ensuring no more old mates are lost...if only because the top brass will go an extra yard to try to keep him quiet. Even if I currently violently disagreed with TD I'd still refrain from having a pop at him, out of respect for what he has done. If I had one of those spiffy hats with all the braid on the peak I'd have tried rather harder to get him onside than appears to have been the case...if TD is annoying people due to incorrect statements based on incomplete info, then I'd have thought there was a fairly simple answer to that.
Dave
I certainly bow to people like Tuc regarding their knowledge of the paper trail involved in being able - under the RAF's own regs - to declare the aircraft airworthy, and from the sound of it (due to penny pinching over the years) that isn't so.
On the other hand - I too think it's probably safe currently, provided the restrictions to AAR etc are maintained, giving us an aircraft that is (probably) safe, certainly declared serviceable, but (I think) probably not airworthy by the RAF's own definition of the terms.
Commonsense dictates (my own opinion) that given an urgent operational task, provided people agree with the 'safe and serviceable' description, then if no other platform is available then flying Nimrod in theatre looks like what you have to do.
I would also expect everyone concerned to pull out all the stops to get MR2 and MR4 provably into the 'airworthy' category sooner rather than later - which despite earlier argument I cannot see extra cash hindering... if only as a quid pro quo for the crews who man the aircraft and who (some of whom) might well be less certain about safety.
One place it all really went very badly, and shows typical hamfistedness by the (upper reaches of the) RAF, who seem to have the most ineffective PR advice on the planet (Robert Mugabe gets his story across with more effect and a stronger ring of truth than most RAF attempts at managing the story)...it was a REALLY bad idea to let the Scotland football manager (or whatever he is this week on alternate days) declare everything in the garden rosy before the coroner had finished speaking - for heaven's sake, he could at least made some pretense of giving a toss what the inquest came up with, if the 'wrong' verdict came out then maybe a better performance from the RAF witnesses might have helped?
For those criticising Tapper's Dad, I think his work keeping this high vis has contributed to ensuring no more old mates are lost...if only because the top brass will go an extra yard to try to keep him quiet. Even if I currently violently disagreed with TD I'd still refrain from having a pop at him, out of respect for what he has done. If I had one of those spiffy hats with all the braid on the peak I'd have tried rather harder to get him onside than appears to have been the case...if TD is annoying people due to incorrect statements based on incomplete info, then I'd have thought there was a fairly simple answer to that.
Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well as a serving member my employers have gone to great lengths to tell us the aircraft is fit to fly, BAE have not said the A/C is unsafe that im aware off , QintiQ who are doing major rework of the Nimrod have not said it cant be flown.
So as an engineer on type we have to take the word of our employers, after all many will and find it hard to take advice from somebody who does not or never has worked on an aircraft.
On that said , its very confusing from both sides. This thread will continue and continue with a constant argument between 2 sides of people , for us engineers who have 2 more years to get the MR2 through till the end we have no choice to get on with it and we will do our best we have with tools and resources just like the crews and all the support staff around us .
The decision for Nimrod lies with people way high up , till they decide we have to continue to the best we can.
So as an engineer on type we have to take the word of our employers, after all many will and find it hard to take advice from somebody who does not or never has worked on an aircraft.
On that said , its very confusing from both sides. This thread will continue and continue with a constant argument between 2 sides of people , for us engineers who have 2 more years to get the MR2 through till the end we have no choice to get on with it and we will do our best we have with tools and resources just like the crews and all the support staff around us .
The decision for Nimrod lies with people way high up , till they decide we have to continue to the best we can.
Omega - good to see a reasoned post in amongst the drivel. You ask..
...it appears so...
Why are so many people (including the coroner) seemingly having so much difficulty with the concept that it "was unairworthy, but is now airworthy"?
has common sense completely left the building ??
I too think it's probably safe currently, provided the restrictions to AAR etc are maintained, giving us an aircraft that is (probably) safe, certainly declared serviceable, but (I think) probably not airworthy by the RAF's own definition of the terms.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are so many people (including the coroner) seemingly having so much difficulty with the concept that it "was unairworthy, but is now airworthy"?
The coroner deals with the evidence before him. He cannot second guess the situation. It is not his job to look at the wider picture, he doesnt have any evidence on which to do so. It is just his job to judge the evidence as put before him and the evidence put before him was that the aircraft was tolerable but not alarp. The experts said it had to be tolerable and alarp to be safe, ergo it was not safe. He therefore had no choice but to call for it to be grounded.
SoS, who does have to look at the total picture, is obliged morally at least to accept best advice from the defence chiefs on the requirement for the aircraft, and on what the risk associated with the aircraft currently is, and balance the risk to troops on the ground against the risk to the aircraft and rule whether or not the aircraft should fly. He has done that and it seems to me probably made the right decision.
But if you accept that there was a process of balancing the risks to the aircraft against the need for the aircraft in terms of saving lives on the ground, which many people seem to do, you must also ask yourself whether it was then justified to use the aircraft in the flypast, where it was certainly not saving anyone's life. You might then ask what the reason for doing so was. I have no doubt that the air chiefs were making a statement, whether it was the right statement to make is another matter.
JFZ you accuse everyone else of not getting it
the evidence put before him was that the aircraft was tolerable but not alarp.
If it was still really genuinely unsafe would it be flying over London? I'd certainly hope not.
He therefore had no choice but to call for it to be grounded.