LR
Thank you and yes, I agree. What was published was technically sound. Like others, I wonder what wasn't published!
My view comes from regarding airworthiness as an engineering discipline and thus expecting a section in every such report that makes a positive statement that they have assessed the currency and validity of, at least, the Aircraft Document Set. Few SIs, or BOIs before them do this. This one went further than most, stating that the Safety Case report doesn't exist. Then, nothing, despite the next logical step being the Whole Aircraft Safety Case. I simply cannot believe any engineer would fail to dig deeper. Especially, post-Haddon-Cave.
I wonder at the restrictive boundaries they have to work to. It is crystal clear to me that the MAA audits of 2010/11-ish have highlighted the long standing policy and practice of regarding Safety as a complete waste of money. How can the SI/MAA/MoD meet its obligation to try to prevent recurrence if it doesn't address such an obvious root cause?
That is why I suspect the MAA have omitted much, allowing attention to be diverted to the other allegations mentioned by Genstabler. Whoever has failed in this Duty diminishes themselves by their refusal to acknowledge the truth. We desperately need a BoI/SI President or Coroner with the balls to recommend a reconvening on the grounds they have been lied to, or misled by omission or commission.