The ex-military aircraft scene is mature in the UK and the A8-20 approval together with the operational requirements in CAP 632 is widely recognised and respected as an acceptable minimum level of requirements to ensure safe operations of probably the largest number of ex military aircraft in Europe.
These requirements have been developed over many years by the CAA with close industry participation to ensure that we can continue to enjoy these wonderful aircraft in the dynamic sense rather than as static museum pieces. I do not no know what the issues are with the TFC at this time but I find it disappointing, however not unexpected, that once again without any evidence the CAA stands accused of being vindictive and the old cliché of Campaign Against Aviation is given yet another airing.
UK has reached an acceptable level of safety in the operation of ex-military aircraft by an appropriate level of compliance with requirements by organisations and operators balanced by an appropriate level of regulation.
When an organisation seeks approval or the renewal of their Permits they need to establish compliance with their side of regulatory requirements. If they cannot do that then it is not unreasonable for the CAA to require them to do so before they issue the requested certificate.
To imply that CAA "gets seriously upset" shows a lack of understanding on their function. The CAA is an accountable public body and their decisions can be appealed by any person directly affected by their decisions if they believe the the CAA is not exercising their powers correctly.
Emotive comments will not compensate for safe regulatory practice by industry and the regulator.