Chugalug
I am not criticising your passion and I don’t doubt your intentions.
You may wish to consider your method of presentation though.
I’m afraid that, whether you realise it or not, you do come across a little zealot-like in your approach.
Maybe Foghorn has a problem understanding your point and maybe you need to present it better?
We fly the aircraft daily and our concern is ‘are they serviceable and safe to fly?’.
FL (and myself if I’m brutally honest) do not fully understand how a bunch of paperwork makes the aircraft safer.
If we look at GR4 with its lack of CAS or the Hercules without ESF or the Nimrod with its faulty fuel system we understand how and why it is unacceptable for the aircraft we operate to be given to us in an unacceptable state and that we may not be aware of that.
The problem is that ranting on about safety cases ad nauseam doesn’t necessarily present the issue in bite sized chunks to the masses.
How exactly are we supposed to operate highly complex machinery in an operational environment without all the time and money in the world to make sure all the paperwork has all the i’s and t’s dotted and crossed?
Of course the correct answer is to wait until it’s done. The reality is that we have a job to do.
Also how do we, the pilots at the shop floor, do anything about it? Go on strike?
As for how mother nations handle it I can vouch for the fact that many of them do not wrap themselves around the axle about paperwork in quite such a spectacular fashion.
This has obvious benefits and obvious drawbacks. I’ll leave it to you to work out what they may be.
BV