ATG,
"Close enough" is far too close to "Not close enough"
The losses of front line troops, on the ground and in the air, to needless risk is one reason to not sign up to unlimited fallibility.
In any fire-fight, re-enforcements are not the ones to eagerly run into the line of enemy fire with guns that dont work. Why do you expect any aircraft to do the same?
The point of this debate is to ensure that the asset of serviceable aircraft and death delivery systems is preserved as long as possible to ensure their prolonged use as a guaranteed support or assault weapon. To cheat on their maintenance is the same as not cleaning a gun - made worse because an aircraft can carry other crew or/and passengers.
...And WHO makes you aware of the risks you are about to take, when the airworthiness issues are not published for your delectation and assessment?