Yes, it would seem that more problems were created by the Systems rather than the fault itself. In that respect I do not understand why RR are getting
all the flack here, after all, it is not the first time an unforeseen mechanical event caused tragedy, only in this case no-one was harmed.
Extract from Wikipedia:
Quote
However, a few short years after introduction into commercial service, the Comet suffered from catastrophic metal fatigue, which in combination with the pressurisation, caused two well-publicised accidents where the aircraft tore apart in mid-flight. The Comet had to be withdrawn and extensively tested to discover the cause; the first incident had being incorrectly identified as having been caused by an onboard fire. Several contributory factors, such as window installation methodology, were also identified as exacerbating the problem. The Comet was extensively redesigned to eliminate this design flaw. Rival manufacturers meanwhile developed their own aircraft and heeded the lessons learnt from the Comet.
Although sales never fully recovered, the redesigned Comet 4 series subsequently enjoyed a long and productive career of over 30 years. The Comet was adapted for a variety of military roles, such as surveillance, VIP, medical and passenger transport; the most extensive modification resulted in a specialised maritime patrol aircraft variant, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod. Nimrods are still in service with the RAF and are expected to be retired in March 2011, over 60 years after the Comet's first flight.
Unquote.
I am particularly drawn to the sentence underlined in bold above, where 2 tragic failures led directly to the greatly enhanced safety record of jet air travel period. Accordingly, I would have thought that RR would only be responsible if there had been a failure of the human intervention variety at manufacturing stage. The fact there was an alleged 'defect' in a simple component is surely not enough on it's own, or is this the new era of 'blame culture' kicking in?