Well it all sounds rather formulaic, if you don't mind me saying so, AC. To misquote Clouseau, I trust everyone yet I trust no-one. If there were one philosophy that kept me alive to date it would be, "In the final analysis, trust no one". That may sound extreme, but a healthy distrust of assurances and promises is IMHO the secret of living long if not necessarily prospering. Being particularly alert for evidence that is not easily apparent is especially to be commended. I remember when manually produced loadsheets which bore witness to all the mistakes and corrections made in their compilation gave way to computer generated ones. All neat tabulated authoritative columns of figures, but every line a possible gross misrepresentation. Thus I always suspected those the more. I realise that there is an agenda running here, which I have every sympathy with, but if we quote Flight Safety, the only agenda running should be that alone. If the airworthiness of certain fleets is suspect, that is the direct responsibility of senior commanders. If and when they are brought to book you may be sure that they will not say that they were carrying out orders, for that defence bit the dust in 1945. Rather they will blame subordinates, who should have challenged/ advised/ alerted etc. So my advice would be to use every means of reporting deficiencies possible via CoC, MORs etc. Those who post here, well done. it cannot be easy, but it is a means of alerting all in the system that all is not well that would not have been possible just a few years ago. Lack of equipment/ money/ manpower are not absolutes but problems that have to be resolved. If you want airpower, it costs. Endex.