tourist
"You call it a success, and from the very narrow viewpoint of front line operators"
I appreciate that you only have our best interests at heart, but that quote pretty much sums up how badly you misunderstand what a military's purpose is.
I struggle to find a more valid viewpoint other than that of the front line operator.
I think I've posted often enough on the subject to have demonstrated the safety of aircrew has always been my primary concern. To make my position clear, I think the front line operators should be able to rely upon those behind them to do their jobs properly. Operators have enough to think about without worrying about things going on in DE&S, the MAA and London. They rightfully expect to be presented with an airworthy aircraft that meets its specification (or has acceptable limitations) and has an acceptable Aircraft Data Set. That is what I meant by narrow viewpoint. It is not a criticism. What I criticise is when operators are distracted by suspicions that all is not well; like Flt Lt Tapper was on Chinook. It was utterly extraordinaruy that he felt the need to visit Racal and even more so that he was allowed to. That single fact, and what lay beneath, should have been a bloody great red flag to his superiors. But they were too busy actively preventing those at the rear doing their jobs.
Having said that, I always wanted and encouraged aircrew involvement. Again, and I know you're sick of me saying this, it is actually mandated yet the necessary resources were chopped and it is seldom implemented now. How many routinely attend Design Reviews? Believe it or not, the regulations actually acknowledge aircrew are pretty busy, and make provision for Design Reviews to be taken to them, at (in your case) Typed Air Stations. Another regulation that is routinely ignored nowadays. The aim here is that what turns up on Day 1 comes as no surprise and the limitations are acceptable, understood and manageable. To cite Chinook again, none of this happened and what they were given came as a huge surprise and had no clearance whatsoever.
To cite Rivet Joint, the aircraft that turned up is lying unused with the airworthiness certification process slipping daily. By definition, the Aircraft Data Set is incomplete and grossly immature. Question: did this come as a surprise to Rivet Joint users? If so, why? If not, when did they know, what did they know, who did they report it to and what action was taken?