Chug,
I really don't think we are very far apart, and I fully support the brave and proper stance you and Tuc have led. However, we have to bring the aircrew with us on this.
The point I was making was that it is possible for the less competent engineer to make airworthiness a 'fetish', a sort of 'holy grail', instead of applying their professional judgement and expertise to solve the problem and get the aircraft into service. I've had first hand experience of that (thankfully uncommon) side of the argument. Out of date Def Stans don't help when they are used as a sort of 'holy writ'. To be brutally honest, Boscombe lost a deal of cred because of attitudes like that. I don't think it was fair, but it happened, and the RAF managed to build a whole slew of OEUs to replace the AAEE function off the back of that perception.
I absolutely support using all best means to get the point over - but one thing I was always told in HQ staff was that you have to carry all the stakeholders with you. If 'airworthiness' is sen as an obstacle to effective combat operations, then I fully agree with you that it's an indictment of the attitude of generations of VSOs and those customers (aircrew). However, we also have to realise that there's a perception problem out there.
I suppose my focus is on the people at the sharp end doing the job properly. The regs aren't great, but they are sufficient for the job. The system isn't fab, but if the project engineers do their job right, the system won't stop them. The biggest challenge I see is getting the people on the desks back up to a level of technical expertise and experience that allows them to properly manage and deliver the kit. Of course, they need the support and encouragement of their superiors, and that's where your excellent points come in, in my view.
A more independent MAA? I've offered my thoughts on that. A more independent MAAIB, to produce really independent reports, yes. A rework of the currently flawed SI system? Definitely. But whatever you end up calling it, there will have to be some sort of MoD 'air safety administration house', to keep specs and regs up to date, and to carry out the 'QA' function (sorry, old speak there) to keep the desks honest as best they can.
Very much hoping that we stay on the same(ish) page here,
Yours ever
Engines