I'm out of this argument, Chugalug2, as you seem intent on redirecting everything into the context of the airworthiness mess that was Chinook 30 years ago, and are seemingly incapable of accepting that things moved on a great deal over the following decades.
Yes, ZD576 was a major tragedy, and highlighted gross failings in airworthiness and acceptance into service of one type of rotorcraft, but, despite your clear opinion that nothing changes, it did, and also the problems within the RAF were not necessarily applicable to other types, managed by very different teams. For example, there were no RAF members within my team, only Army, RN and civvies. What's more not all manufacturers behaved in the way that Boeing/Textron did, and neither did I as the airworthiness authority for a completely different in-service type. I find your constant criticism of me, when you clearly know diddly squat about what was happening in 2004, deeply offensive. It might surprise you to learn that we do learn from the mistakes of others. In fact, when I was doing the military aircraft airworthiness course at Cranwell there were several previous airworthiness failings studied in-depth, as a part of the "learning from experience" element of that course. I've no doubt that process is still going on today, with every newly discovered failing added to our body of knowledge.
Please do not bother quoting and replying to this post, I've had enough and will not be reading it or replying to it.