"Using your car analogy again................"
Can we please avoid even hinting that maintaining and operating a car is analogous with that of an aircraft?
MoD beancounters, personnel and various other breeds of sycophant are taught to use this when considering requests for additional funds to maintain aircraft or when selecting engineering staff for advancement or new posts. I was once criticised on a promotion board for stating I would take disciplinary action against any engineer whom I found falsifying maintenance records. I was told I was wrong - their feelings were more important than aircraft serviceability and safety. When I asked what the official policy was in such a situation, I was told - Do Nothing. I should simply sign to say the aircraft or equipment was serviceable, even if I knew it was not. I should always wait until it failed and quietly arrange for it to be fixed, "just as I would with my car".
A one-off you may hope, but she was utterly gobsmacked when I told her she was barking. It seemed she'd been using this analogy for a long time and this was the only time anyone had argued. And you know what? It is MY personnel record which says I'm wrong. And the principle she supported that day, that making false statements on serviceability and airworthiness is acceptable, has been upheld by 2*, 4* and the last 4 Mins (AF). In writing. (Although I accept that Mins don't actually write or read what they sign).
And this is precisely why TD should continue to dig deep. I have the utmost respect for the engineering views expressed by maintainers here - in a previous life I was one of you - but until you experience first hand the sheer scale of the lies and deceit "HQ" is capable of in their efforts to hide the truth, then please accept that there are hidden depths beyond which even they have descended, and which even the greatest cynic cannot begin to imagine.