Sandy Parts
Nothing you say is at odds with my last post. I agree with you, but the point is that MoD's perfectly good regulatory system is not implemented properly. This is a quite deliberate act. It is not an oversight. In fact, we have had legal reviews (Haddon-Cave, Lord Philip) and internal audits (Director of Flight Safety, Director Internal Audit) which have stated that it is not implemented properly. The MAA was formed as a result of the evidence to the Nimrod Review (despite what its Technical Director claims). As the MAA has made little or no progress in addressing the systemic failings - it has yet to even admit them - then it remains an accident enabling system. That being so, it is unfair to place sole blame on the pilot.
Your last point is also correct, but there are surprisingly few areas where you have to "double think" a scenario. The classic example was ESF in Hercules. The regulations list the threats - you don't have to think them up. The first on the list was "inert projectiles", and the laid down mitigation was ESF. Somebody MUST have made a conscious decision - Hercules will NEVER be at risk of being hit by projectiles. Instead, MoD denied all knowledge of ESF, and was caught committing perjury in court when its own ESF specifications were produced. In that case, what was the more serious breakdown? MoD's deliberate lies, poor oversight or the mistaken decision not to fit ESF? I suggest the lies, because that is a cultural failing and very difficult to correct.
I explained earlier the simple process of design reviews that avoids having to overthink this current failure. You don't have to spend extra time or money, because the reviews have to be held anyway. (Despite what MoD says). I've already opined (and I accept some might disagree) that the solution is not expensive re-design. You issue a directive - no cameras. Or, issue a definitive approved list of carry on equipment. This is routine work during development. Just because this aircraft is a variant of a commercial one doesn't mean the work can be waived. (I think there is more to come on this subject).
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that those who knowingly break the rules should be dealt with. Let's start with a certain Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and Chief Engineer. (Making false record, and lying). Then Director General Air Systems 2 and the Chief of Defence Procurement. (Condoning making false record and lying). What of those who INSTRUCT staff to make false record and lie? Each and every one of them has committed far more serious offences than the pilot was charged with, never mind found guilty of.