tmmorris
You are correct. I'd be interested in what background, training and qualifications either has to warrant being "personally legally responsible and accountable for the airworthiness, maintenance and safe use" of the aircraft.
If either ended up in court during an attempt to enforce this, I imagine it would take 30 seconds flat to establish they were not afforded the correct training or resources, so could not, reasonably, be held liable. In my mind, that renders the entire concept a nonsense.
If I am wrong, why are we still in this position? The regulations require both the ODH and DDH to have the experience and skill to (a) prevent this in the first place, and (b) fix it if inherited. Responsible for airworthiness? I suspect neither has a clue where to start and the MAA RAs they must work to don't offer any help. This is the great elephant in the room. Would anything the MAA is doing have prevented the airworthiness related accidents such as Nimrod, Chinook, C130, Hawk, etc? No.
When does a "pause" become "grounding"?