Rigga:
I also believe the UK military don't currently make the differences clear between "Airworthiness" and "Continued Airworthiness"?
I'm intrigued by your preoccupation with various European Regulations and their terminology, Rigga. I might simply reply "Words, dear boy, words!", but that would be both glib and rude, so I won't. What I would say is that the most important thing about Regulations, be they European, Italian or Serbo-Croat, is that they be properly enforced! Tuc makes the point far better than I, but I repeat that the challenge that the MAA faces is to enforce the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations, be they existing, amended, or brand spankingly glitteringly new. That requires experienced expertise that it glaringly lacks and complete independence of those that it will enforce them on which it patently hasn't. Failing that I cannot think of a more appropriate simile than the classic rearranging of the Titanic's Promenade Deck's Deck-Chairs to describe the present oh so British and oh so pointless exercise in futility. The MAA's job is not to produce reams and reams of bumf, it is to save lives. If it fails then more lives will be needlessly lost in avoidable accidents that are not avoided. Now these are grave and damning charges. Is there anyone who feels confident enough with the proposed MAA who is prepared to refute them? At least on the Mull thread we have our own in house group of MOD apologists/supporters who argue con, hopelessly in my book, but then I would say that wouldn't I? Here there is just silence; eerie, worrying, troubling, silence.....