Squidlord, as one of the many posters whose work you have quoted you say in reply to my call for an MAA:
The MoD is currently considering a separate MAA organisation but I doubt if they are seriously considering making it independent of the MoD. I don't know whether Chugalug2's claims hold water (no evidence is provided). Perhaps the idea of an independent MAA will be considered by Haddon-Cave's Nimrod Review:
I am sure you are quite correct in your assumption that the MOD are not considering an independent MAA. The words turkeys and Christmas spring to mind. However any other form of MAA would be unable to carry out its remit of ensuring Military Airworthiness and would thus be a waste of time and money.
You say I do not provide evidence for my claims. This isn't a Court of Law or even a Judicial Review. It’s a forum in which we express our points of view. If these are at variance with those of others they are rightly and swiftly challenged. You also say in post 1161:
I don't really understand "airworthiness". I know the definition in JSP 553 but it is vague and has no obvious connection with ALARP
This seems to be a common theme throughout this thread whereby generic terms such as Airworthiness appear alien (it is even confused with serviceability in some posts) and more specific ones preferred (such as ALARP). I realise that this is all part of the moving on since my day, but I still feel a slight unease. Airworthiness (I will not try to quote a definition, but it would be helpful if an up to date authoritative one could be posted) is the woods in which the trees such as ALARP exist. If we know each and every tree but are only vaguely aware of the woods, is that not a danger in itself? If there were anything to learn from this and similar threads it is that the Regulations are sound enough, it is their implementation that is at fault. Without an awareness of the culture that lies behind them, that implementation is prone to compromise. The name of that culture is Airworthiness. Time perhaps it was the subject of more scrutiny in itself before we go on to examine the likes of "acceptable" etc?