dervish, to be honest I don't know. I do know that dogmatic application of overly restrictive regulation encourages people to find ways around regulation (Health & Safety, Tippex sniffing and sharp edges on sheets of A4 paper spring to mind). If the airworthiness rules, as they stand, are felt to be overly restrictive I can understand (not condone) people finding ways around them.
Of course, the problem arises in identifying things that do affect airworthiness against those that don't. I have come across engineers who have refused to sign-off aircraft because of the most minor divergence from the procedure (ie, seats have been recovered in the same leather as before but the audit trail is wrong). Clearly the only airworthiness issue here is that a specified paperwork process has not followed - there is nothing inherently unsafe in what has been done. Conversely, a poorly fitted fuel line which does not have an EASA Form 1 (or equivalent) is most definitely a very major issue.
I don't have an answer other than suggesting a root-and-branch review of airworthiness processes in line with guiding principles of ALARP and/or 'proportionate and risk based'. Perhaps a clearer or more expanded definition of the very word 'airworthiness' is a good starting point? We certainly cannot continue writing regulation and then flagrantly ignore it when we see fit.
Maybe Tuc is right with the 'engineering judgement' bit but this judgement has to be at the right level. Otherwise if every man with a spanner was allowed to exercise his engineering judgement we would quickly see divergence of standards and safety.
Last edited by Cows getting bigger; 29th Apr 2014 at 13:37.