I flew an aircraft for many years that apparently wasn't "airworthy". Did I worry about it? No, as far as we were concerned it wasn't unairworthy; it may have been unserviceable quite a lot of the time but we were all quire happy to fly it.
The fact you are discussing an aircraft after it has been released to service proves his point. Also, in the same sentence you discuss airworthiness and serviceability when they are two different things. The former facilitates the latter. An aircraft can be unserviceable but still airworthy. In fact, many would say that is the norm!
With respect, you and Tourist need to accept that one first attains, then maintains, airworthiness. And Fitness for Purpose, for all practical purposes, becomes a consideration only after the former. That is, much of what goes on is, and should be, invisible to you (front line). The whole thread is about what has happened before the release. It is being discussed here because the failures have been made public. Had the regulations been followed, this thread wouldn't exist. This "attaining airworthiness" is the phase Rivet Joint is in, and it has failed miserably because it has been known for years the problems exist, but (seemingly) something has only been done after the MAA (rightly) dug their heels in and refused to countenance the RJ project team's refusal to correct their mistakes and heed the audit. I'm being polite here because, as Chug says, the new MAA DG has been handed a poisoned chalice. He should be banging tables asking why the audit was ignored. The huge problems MoD are admitting is in many ways a smokescreen, hiding even bigger ones. That is, the consistent, flat refsual of many staffs to meet legal obligations, while being protected by VSOs and Ministers.
You were right to assume your aircraft was airworthy, because it had been released and you had to assume higher ups had done their jobs properly. The MAA exists because it is now ACKNOWLEDGED these higher ups didn't do their jobs. It was KNOWN they did not do their jobs over 20 years ago.
What I'd like to know is why no action was taken at the time (3 years ago in the case of RJ), especially given the history (e.g. Nimrod MRA4) of certain key staffs. When people have let you down to the tune of £4Bn+, why on earth keep them in the same job and allow them to retain delegation? I sincerely hope that is what is keeping MAA DG busy, not the simple task of getting an RTS.
I think THS makes a valid point. Much of this is about proper setting of Requirements and management of Configuration Milestones. Both are widely regarded as a waste of money by those he mentions with the laissez faire attitude. For example, again, by the same individuals responsible for Nimrod.