Rigga, we are talking the same groups of people, just different platforms.
As to the MAA in its entirety, it makes one wonder how they can take the regulatory set from the CAA to align the military with that system, a system (CAA's) that would appear to be robust and work within civilian aviation, convert it into a system that they did not appear to know how to integrate it within the military system, causes issues for civilian contractors who find it hard to work within both systems, especialy when the military one appears confusing, and in some parts makes no sense after translation into military speak.
Was was this done on purpose, I highly doubt it, was it lack of knowledge of those who wanted to make the change, thinking it might make things better within the military and just translated it incorrectly, was it the lack of understanding that got them where they currently are, is there the will and knowledge to fix it, do they actualy believe it is not working as advertised, do those at the top want it fixing, as it would appear that the obfuscation of safety/airworthiness systems could actually keep those at the top out of reach when issues arise, issues like the subject of this thread and many more.
I will state that these are my observations from my involvement on various platforms since inception, but hopefully things noted above and in other posts may have been, or in the progress of being fixed, only those still working today, both civilian and military can answer that, would presume it would also depend on where in the food chain those people sit as to whether it is ok, or not, though historically the higher up the person is, the less there are perceived problems.
As I posted before the BMAR should have picked up these issues with work carried out, inclding, MODs, SI's etc, or not as the case may be, and the annual MAR should maintain that survellience of work done, or what should of been done, before issuing the next years certificate to fly.