JP
1. I did not say the policy to cut funding designed to maintain airworthiness had no bearing on the crash. Quite the contrary, it clearly did, because the aircraft was manifestly not airworthy or Fit for Purpose - and I have cited CDP's key evidence and that of the Project Director in support of that conclusion. The difference between the two is that the latter clearly wanted the aircraft to be airworthy, whereas the former ruled consistently that airworthiness, in particular functional safety, could be ignored (which didn't actually make matters worse over the situation that prevailed in 1992/3/4!).
2. Yes.
Thank you for your kind words, but I am no expert. I just remember what I have been taught (by real experts) and choose to implement the regulations. There are many more in MoD who know much more than I, but unfortunately some choose to follow orders instead.