OK, while I'm in the mood.
I made the point earlier, in another thread, that everyone is starting to attach far too much importance to flight safety. Flight safety is both expensive and a complete embuggerance in that it stops aviators from being allowed to do all sorts of things. I admit there's an up-side to it as it seems likely (or possible) that it results in fewer accidents - although, how would you proove that? No one ever said to me, "Courtney, you made it back safely today because of your excellent use of flight safety." (There's an opening for some banter)
So, it's like this. There are risks associated with aviation and those apply whether you participate in the activity or happen to live where others do. So the rafat guys sometimes take a few liberties with a waiver. Just enjoy the free flypast over your town. If the worst is going to happen, it'll happen. With an operation of this size there are bound to be a few losses.
As for the Hawks being 100% serviceable, don't beleive them, Mike. I can't remember when I last flew a jet that was 100% OK. Mostly good enough to do the job on the day - sometimes not even that good. Especially with an aircraft as old as the Hawk.
This type of risk aversion causes acne, constipation and premature hair loss.