Guys,
Perhaps I can help defuse the temperature a bit. Lion's den and all that, but I think it's worth a go.
Aircraft crash for all sorts of reasons. Fact. In almost all cases, there's what used to be called a 'chain of events' (these days it's the 'holes in the cheese lining up') that leas to the eventual accident/incident. In a lot of accidents, there's an airworthiness 'link' or 'hole' somewhere. It may, or may not, have been the 'primary' cause of the accident, or it may have been a 'contributory'. It might not have even been in the chain.
It's clearly over-egging the case to state that EVERY accident where an airworthiness angle was present was therefore an 'airworthiness related' event.
However, it's the job of us engineers to ensure that when a military aircraft enters the operational world (at the 700 desk) , it's as free as practicable (choosing my words carefully here) from potential airworthiness 'links'. Where the skill (and training, and experience) comes in is recognising potential airworthiness issues and using the proven systems to remove them.
But remember that engineers are military personnel as well, and should be committed to fighting the war as hard as they damn well can. That means making aircraft available to the aircrew to go and do the stuff. With my background, where the engineers and aircrew (and everyone else) was floating around on a large war canoe in harm's way, the engineers were accorded the same level of respect and regard that they accorded the aircrew. Lots, usually. I could never have done their job. They could never have done mine. Together, as a team, we kicked serious ass in the name of HM Queen. And all of our squadron came back, thank the Good Lord.
So, my job was, and remained for some time, to get aircrew into the air as often as possible, as safely as possible. That meant judgement calls all the time. Later on, the job remains the same but in the environs of the MoD. Your job as a project engineer is to focus like a killing laser on delivering military capability as safely as possible. Identify the big issues and hound them mercilessly until they fall at your feet screaming for mercy. Then kill them. Then find the next one and kill that. Sounds aggressive? Meant to be. Our aircrew deserve nothing less.
'Nit Picking' is usually the last refuge of the truly incompetent engineer who has too much experience (in one area) and not enough learning. They are best countered by strong and technically aware managers.
I suppose what I'm saying is that taking any argument to extremes usually leads in stalemate or worse, name calling. Even worse, it can obscure the issues. What guys like Tuc and Chug are flagging up is that the system in the UK MoD is failing to deliver the correct level of airworthiness (safety) to the aircrew. it's doing that by not observing its own systems and processes. (Example - Read the recent Hawk SI and see how the BoI had to admit that they couldn't find records of meetings at which airworthiness decisions were made). Why? Tons of reasons, main ones (I think) are lack of technical training and experience and application of 'schedule fear' forcing people into short cuts.
I hope this little rant helps - we are all trying to fight the same battle, I think.
Best Regards as ever to absolutely everyone
Engines