IF the pilot was flying in a manner close to the edge of the envelope unnecessarily and was outside the required and needed brief then questions need to be asked as to why.
IF this pilot was in the habit of behaving close to the edge for no reason then questions need to be asked of his training, supervision and authing.
If as a result of thse things the enquiry highlights POSSIBLE problems with the way aircrew are turned from mere mortals into steely eyed sky gods OR the standards that enforce them then yes, at this point do we look POSSIBLY at it being an airworthiness issue. But if, on the other hand, it was the well documented flaw in the Puma's flight envelope and the lack of "anticipators, I believe" that caused it then maybe a fresh question needs to be asked as to whether the Puma - if it was introduced NOW - would be allowed in with such a known about and hazardous potential flaw.
Just because you have always done it and it has always been like it is not an acceptable answer if this is the case.
the truth is - I suspect somewhere between all of these but the end result is the same.
I can see Chug's point on this, I do not think there is a DIRECT airworthines issue - there is a link and a correlation. Moreover, the purpose I would assume of this thread is to debate like grown-ups. I agree there is an airworthiness issue in the MOD, QUITE A BIG ONE.
I do not think that this thread is the place to shout down any who voice the question" is the airworthiness problem of military aircraft a factor in this accident?" or meet the perron asking with such purile and derogatory comments.
Flight safety is everbodys concern - it should be one of the things in the front of your mind - all the time. IF airworthiness is affecting this then you people in the know have a duty to man up and speak up. It is my bloody tax dollars (pounds really) you are spending and I want to know you are all doing your utmost not to waste it -
Stay Safe and remember - if it feels wrong it probably is.