"In the meantime all airworthiness advisory projects have been given an additional reporting line"
Not sure what that will do in reality - is it spin to make it look like they are adding an additional level of oversight? And what does it entail - lawyers?
Or is it because something is wrong with the current process?
Things may have changed recently, QQ having done the "lean" thing, but at the time in question:
Stage 1 - author(s) would review the available evidence, whether from industry, 3rd parties or QQ testing and write their report on this basis, making their RTS argument based on this evidence, cross-referenced as required for traceability. (JSP 553 requirement to be able to trace back from the RTS to the supporting evidence)
Stage 2 - Technical Assurance - those with such responsibility - Technical Leader / OC Test Sqn review the reports, giving due consideration to the recommendations being made, the rationale for such recommendations and the evidence supporting them.
Stage 3 - Release - the Technical Assurance Manager, having reviewed the report (as signed off as SATIS by Stage 2, attended review meetings, giving due consideration to the recommendations being made, the rationale for such recommendations and the evidence supporting them, signs off the report.
So, if done effectively (ie not as described by H-C), this is a robust system IMHO. Or are they now going to have the Technical Director sign off all reports.
sw