Tuc,
An absolutely outstanding post. BZ.
This thread has highlighted a few important areas. First, just culture.
The FAA had (and still does have) a very solid Flight Safety culture and organisation, at the heart of which is a 'no blame' ethos. This was originally modelled on the USN's organisation in the 1950s, which goes to show that good ideas don't have to be new ones. I had close contact with the RAF's flight safety system after formation of JFH, and it was a real shock to be jumped back 20 years or so to a culture of blame, concealment and reaction. Honestly, it was that bad. As ever, i'd point out that most of the people involved were honest, conscientious and professional. But the system that they had developed was basically flawed.
Second, ownership of the accident investigators. I've been told that we now have an absolutely unique system in that our Air Accident Investigators are 'owned' by an Airworthiness Authority. In my mind, this is a hopelessly flawed arrangement. Their activities and reports can now be controlled by the very people who are accountable for the regulation and delivery of airworthy aircraft. Conflict of interest, anyone?
Finally, practical airworthiness. Tuc has hit the nail clean on the head here. Doing airworthiness properly is not 'easy', but neither is it impossible. It can be organised and delivered to support front line operations in a safe and flexible way, giving the operators what they need (Note - not always what they want) and what is acceptable safe. Some bits of it are harder to understand than others, but given halfway decent training and a bit of experience, plus adequate regulation and guidance, it's perfectly 'doable'. In my own experience, the MAA is not yet helping people get there.
Best Regards
Engines