zedder
Whilst I would prefer what I fly to be 100% safe, I know enough about Airworthiness and Risk Management to know that achieving that is not cost effective.
Agree entirely.
However, Haddon-Cave reported systemic (not isolated) failures. There was no reasoned case for ignoring safety. He stated it was ignored because of the perceived need to save money. Safety is an intangible to beancounters (it doesn't produce a due-in on the stock computer) so it was deliberately targetted.
MoD(PE)'s (first) objection to this RAF policy is dated 14th January 1988. As author, I retain my copy, because I run the risk of being called to account for my airworthiness decisions (including just such engineering judgments as you mention), unlike the BCs. Similar objections over the next decade would fill a filing cabinet. We need to question why nothing was done. Unfortunately, Mr Haddon-Cave did not make such a recommendation. As I asked before, who did this protect?