TSM
I’m sure Safeware can speak for himself, but what he says is undoubtedly true. Like most of us, he doesn’t make up the rules, but knows them inside out. And uses them positively, for your benefit.
It is the experience and dedication of people like Safeware, who are prepared to fight the beancounters and other sycophants, that provides you with aircraft that, invariably, exceed the required safety standards.
These standards are deemed satisfactory at the time. However, as technology progresses, new requirements emerge and legislation changes then it is quite a different thing to MAINTAIN safety and airworthiness through life. This needs significant investment but, as I have said before, is largely ignored by many in MoD who think it a waste of money. With respect, and I fully agree with most of what you say, your ire should be aimed at others.
Make no mistake, there are those in MoD, both Service and civilian, who don’t give a flying **** about you. They see ANY problem affecting Time or Cost, including safety and airworthiness, as a hindrance to their advancement. As for Performance, word has come down from on high that Customers (Sponsors and Users) must be prepared to trade out more performance (which MAY save on time and cost, but very often doesn’t). As performance includes safety and airworthiness, you would think this edict would carry a suitable caveat. It doesn’t. So, these people happily quote it and accept aircraft and equipment off-contract that don’t come within a country mile of the very minimum standard Safeware speaks of. Luckily, they are in the minority but, increasingly, hold senior posts. But luck shouldn’t come in to it. Successive generations have quickly learned how to get the ticks in boxes – and it’s most definitely NOT by sticking ones head above the parapet on issues like this.