Couldn't agree more. This was nothing to do with the airworthiness of the aircraft. This was all to do with C2, supervision and pure good sense.
JSP553 - Military Airworthiness Regulations
Quote:
Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence, Suitability etc of all concerned, including aircrew and their entire management hierarchy.
A duty not to intentionally or recklessly misuse ........
Whilst this is technically correct, IMHO, this should never have been put into 553 - again, IMHO, I believe this is the "airworthiness empire" trying to take over the world and treading on other people's toes uneccessarily.
Airworthiness should be about engineering issues, that is all. The certificate of airworthiness for my puddle jumper has nothing to do with "Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence" in any way whatsoever of the people who fly it - only the people engineering it.
Our civil brethren don't mix airworthiness with operations and training; so why the hell should we???
The B Word
B Word is entirely correct. The reason those words have been misplaced in JSP 553 is purely to save the SofS's bottom....so that he can blame someone.
Training, Supervision, Experience, Competence have got nothing what so ever to do with the airworthiness of an Aircraft. Airworthiness is for engineers only.