Chug, I think we are both barking up the same tree albeit from opposite sides. It is my view that there has to be some 'wriggle room' within the airworthiness system. Taking my previous example of not being allowed to stick a red cross on the side of an SH asset, it is clear that the tail was wagging the dog. There was not safety or capability related issue in that scenario but the Hels staff in the UK were clearly process driven and would not issue an authorisation until the defined process was followed; we were task driven and took the 'risk' in ignoring the UK directive.
OK, that relatively small issue does not even compare to Nimrods in Afghanistan or Chinooks which should have been locked-up in hangars rather than playing in the mist with a load of important people on board. However, it does make one wonder whether the processes are fit for purpose.
Lordflash, how far do we take that argument? Should I not pop down to the shops at risk of being knocked down? My point about the Mk2 and the Mull is that it may have been a Mk1 instead - we just don't know. The only truly safe answer was to never task any asset in the first place.