AA and others,
I see your points on airworthiness. If you want to use the word to describe the suitability (and implicitly the safety) of an aircraft to be released to service, then I can see why the word fits - however, when it comes to actually demonstrating that 'airworthiness' the disciplines used are essentially those of the safety engineers. In BAES, there was an interesting battle going on a few years ago between the 'airworthiness' department and the emerging 'safety' discipline.
That's why I see 'airworthiness' and 'safety' as shades of grey in the overall picture. That said, not one to fall out over, I hope.
One point I'd like to make is that it doesn't help our aircrew to take a purely 'black and white' view over who 'owns what piece of safety. To reiterate my point, my experience is that safety (and airworthiness) are best served when aircrew and engineers work together through a whole life cycle of an aircraft to achieve the correct balance between safety and operability of the weapon system. Here's an example.
On a recent project, we had to introduce a new set of external safety pins for an armament system. Many aircrew hated the idea, and opposed it all the way. Objections were raised such as:
1. What was wrong with the old system of one pin inside the cabin - it's easier and we know how to work it.
2. Four external pins are a bad idea, because someone will forget to take them out....
We held out, and went for the additional external pins. Why? Because they are safer. Why? because they allow a shorter run of cable between the pin and the dispensers. That reduces EMC vulnerability. (Useful for when we go to sea) They also provide an excellent external indication of the armament state of the aircraft. Finally, it brings the system into compliance with important DefStans that are sensible and achievable.
Here's my point. It's not the aircrew's job to know that detail. It's the engineers'. Working as a team, we addressed the issue and decided how we were going to do the job to achieve maximum safety without compromising operational capability. We engineers could not have done that without the aircrew and they couldn't have done it without us.
I also agree with Tourist that it is very nearly impossible to design a military aircraft that meets every single aspect of all the Def Stans and other requirements, and it's probably counterproductive even to try. The team has to work out where (use use a naval term) to 'veer and haul'. That's where the professionals come in handy.
best Regards as ever
Engines