In this case, agreed but can it therefore be said that even when they weren't leaking, even on aircraft that didn't have this arrangement that the basic design of the aircraft meant it was never airworthy in thirty years of service?
Well reading hte report if the head of Airworthiness at BAe says that on hte evidence he has seen the aircraft never was airworthy then OK, I'm convinced:
bbc news said:
This week a senior engineer from defence and aerospace firm BAE Systems told the inquest that his predecessors, who made the Nimrod some 40 years ago, failed to fit a fire protection system on a key area of risk on the aircraft.
And the firm's head of airworthiness Tom McMichael said that if the evidence heard was correct, the Nimrod planes had, at the time of the tragedy, been flying in an unairworthy state for 37 years.
It's rather like the king who isn't wearing any clothes.
Can anyone really have confidence in such an old aircraft? How many millions have been spent on upgrades over the years? How many MOD civil servants and senior RAF officers have supported this debacle without daring to speak out?
Someone should be made accountable now. It's obvious (to me anyway)that the Nimrod is not up to the task.
God forbid if a Tristar ever goes down with a full complement of passengers.
since he's not declared any membership of any political party, or any intent to stand for ANY office, other than the one he currently holds, not much of a polititician. Google has one hit on the first page for his name, and that's a news report....
Introduce a new "Coroner's Bill". It's hidden away in the supporting documentation for the recent 'Requests for Comments' from DHQ on another thread. Who is leading this process you might ask? None other than the 'Aviation Expert' who has today stated that Nimrod "is safe".
Considering that just about everyone who sat through the whole process are saying the same thing, he does not sound like a politician to me. For a start it looks like he has made a judgement from evidence. Hardly politician like is it?
Now I will accept I am making an "argument from authority", but he is an "authority" and that is good enough, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Evidence trumps authority, if you have any (evidence) show me.
B52 is if Im correct only a 50 yr old design, a lot of the airframes are no where near 50 yrs old, maybe the ones kept in reserve, but the ones used day to day have had lots of modifications, and new wings