Engines:
The reason I'm more relaxed is that at the end of the day, MAA are regulators.
Then, sadly, we are doomed to disagree as well I fear. Regulators must be independent to do their job properly (one only has to think of the Press Complaints Commission to see how useless they are if they are not). If for instance the CAA divested all of its airline airworthiness regulatory functions into British Airways Engineering, with all sorts of Chinese walls erected to ensure its "independence", would that make it a Regulator? Not in my book it wouldn't, and I would soon be signing up to other airlines frequent flyers clubs who were still subject to an external independent regulator. Of course at the moment everyone involved is straining to make the MAA work, and I daresay will achieve much of what they set out to do. How long would it be though before the real world impinges on its independence? Events, dear boy, are forever popping up to prick our pretty balloons. If you cannot stand your ground and insist on compliance then you are not a regulator. I remember the howls of anguish when floor track lighting had to be installed in the entire British Civil Airliner Fleet at the costs involved. No wavering by the CAA though, "fit it or you are grounded", was the response. In contrast the RAF Flight Safety mantra that it was completely independent of the CoC, with direct access to the CAS, is shown as a hollow sham by the complete contempt with which its "ARTs" were treated. Inbuilt procedures, supposedly designed to ensure that no aircraft can be Released To Service unless it is fully airworthy as confirmed by the award of a Controller Aircraft Release were suborned with ease in the case of the Chinook HC2. You may relaxed at the sight of the Military Regulator, but just take a good look at his clothes. I don't see any. Am I alone?