MoD used to have robust regulations implemented by lots of backroom staffs (primarily trained engineers) which resulted in many of the issues debated here being nipped in the bud and never seen or even heard of by operators.
As Chug said, this system was rundown as a result of the "savings at the expense of safety" culture reiterated by Mr Haddon-Cave - although he put the wrong start date on it. The correct date is not made up - it is recorded in an internal MoD audit report.
While I have no direct knowledge of the aircraft, Leon's description is depressingly similar to failures in other cases; such as Chinook, Nimrod, Tornado, C130, Sea King, etc.
incorrect elevator hinges being fitted, incomplete aircraft document sets and failures in the independent inspections
An incomplete ADS is sufficient to ground aircraft. Evidence that the Chinook ADS was fabricated by the Air Staffs led to the setting aside of the ZD576 findings. In the face of such a high profile revelation and ruling, may I suggest any sensible officers in the Gp Capt's position would have done the same as he. It is highly unlikely he knows what comprises a valid ADS (not a criticism) but has asked the question, not received a satisfactory answer, and taken the only step open to him. Corrective action lies in the hands of others, who have not served him well. We must accept they may be hamstrung by higher priorities, and will themselves be having a good old moan about predecessors not implementing regs properly. If they want to pinpoint the historical timeline, the Philip Report is a good starting point; especially the publicly available evidence to the Review.
I must say this seems to be dragging on. Expertise must be thin on the ground. Or else lack of progress has been directed. It is a real
PR blunder.