A limited rework of the regs would also be needed to restore the administrative and organisational tools and procedures required to build and maintain airworthiness. Again, here's a task that a good 'greybeard' panel could really help with.
In 2001 my boss was asked if I could be released for 2 days a month to oversee the up-issue of the key procedural airworthiness Def Stan. This is how the system works - D/Stan don't actually employ experts on each standard. It's a boring task, but 2 days a month makes it bearable. The reason it's boring is because most amendments are simply reflecting the perpetual organisational changes within MoD. The actual procedures have been well known and barely changed since Marconi was an apprentice. Anyway, my boss was the wrong person to ask as he simply cited policy of the day (safety cases are irrelevant and a waste of money) and the request was refused.
The D/Stan lady in question is now long retired. The standard in question has been cancelled without replacement, and MoD don't even have an old copy. All the ART reports from the 90s, various audit and Parliamentary reports, the Nimrod Review and the current glider issue can all be summarised - "implement that standard". Yes, it requires expertise, but no company can be appointed a Design Authority without demonstrating it, so even if MoD doesn't want to do the job properly, many can. What MoD must provide is leadership in the form of someone with the balls to stand up to those who don't see the need. When the MAA was formed I predicted they'd have a hard time in this respect. This glider issue would suggest they have rolled over. The Independence pillar of airworthiness was knocked down many years ago. It is now being pounded into dust.