Antrim Kate:
Good point Chugalug, but it doesn't take malevolence to create a conflict of interest - if you're ACAS one week and MAA DG the next (as Anderson was, and North will be) or you're MAA Tech. Director now (and responsible for overseeing the introduction of Airseeker) but were Head of Air ISTAR last year (and responsible for procuring Airseeker) then, with the best will in the world, there could be problems.
On the other hand an assurance organisation does need both independence and credibility, and MAA do acknowledge that there is a trade-off in this respect. Is there a way (and this is a genuine question) that both can be achieved, or a better balance obtained, in this instance?
If you read tuc's post carefully you will see plenty of malevolence from the then AMSO, ACAS and C.Eng who reneged on their duty and together subverted the UK Military Airworthiness Regulations. You will find yet more malevolence described in the link that tuc posted and I repeat here:
https://sites.google.com/site/militaryairworthiness/
I commend it and encourage everyone who cares, not only about airworthiness, but about the Royal Air Force itself to study it carefully. This is a warning from history, and the main lesson to be learnt is to never, ever, go down this road again.
You ask how that might be avoided? You have to remove the means by which the Regulations can again be suborned. The only way that can happen is for the MAA (and of course the MAAIB) to be independent of the Operators, which means the MOD and its Service subsidiaries. I often quote the civilian parallel of the CAA and the airlines. They work together to ensure Safety but they are separate and independent. Note that the issue is that the organisations are independent. The personnel can, and indeed should, pass from one to the other, much as an exchange posting takes you from one military organisation to another. So the MAA may be staffed in part by serving personnel, bringing pertinent operational experience and appreciation, but when they are with the MAA they serve it and not, for instance, the RAF. As tuc points out, the higher up the food chain you go, the more this independence matters, so that the DG should be a civvie, or ex Service, or possibly about to be ex Service. That's my take anyway, and just to confirm, the MAA and the MAAIB must be separate and independent of both the MOD and of each other, but of course work closely together to ensure Airworthiness and hence ensure Military Aviation Capability.
What is the first step on this 1000 mile march? Acknowledge the lessons of history, or be forever damned! Lies cost lives!