Roland
There is nothing wrong with that, as long as you realise there are people supporting you in the background whose job it is to provide an airworthy aircraft, and others whose job it is to ensure it is fit for purpose. (And where there is overlap, they must know when it is occurring). Only when that is permitted, does "JSP318, Flying Orders and a good brief from the Authorising Officer ... all overseen by a good/experienced Boss" become remotely acceptable. You were happy with JSP318, I was happy with JSP553, 00-970, and 125/2. Each to his own, and together they delivered.
That it is not permitted is why Haddon-Cave was asked to conduct his Review.
Speaking of Haddon-Cave, I learnt from DE&S (!) this week that the official MoD/MAA position is that the systemic failings he reported are entirely unrelated to the systemic failings reported to him, despite them being precisely the same failings.
Now, that's a new one, but entirely consistent with an organisation in denial. To be fair, DE&S did name a senior MAA officer in the reply, so one assumes he is content with this. But it does rather call into question - WTF is going on? Does the MAA pass these gems of wisdom over to Front Line? Or Air Clues staff? Or is it just selective incompetence?