We can always count on the Campaign to react 1. After an event. 2. Before they know the facts and 3. In a manner that may have no bearing on the facts. It appears (I don't have the full facts either) the Hunter stoofed due to technique, not a failing in the aircraft itself. Whilst paperwork and "quality" have their place in aviation, it is what the components did on the day that matters. Here they performed as intended; as old and knackered as they were. Therefore, in a cloud of brown smoke and
PR, the CAA have fixed a problem that doesn't need fixing and failed to fix the one that does. If nothing else, the CAA are reliably unreliable.
PM