JTO, I disagree, as I still think we agree! The failings you (and crab) list are sufficient to warrant disbanding the MAA. It is unfit for purpose. I would be very much kinder if just one of its senior staff would speak out and admit why it exists. Instead, they lie.
So why do I support the MAA - well with the one distinct exception it does have a structure and capability capable of ensuring airworthiness in a military environment.
A viable structure and capability has always existed. In most of the accidents we discuss, the system worked perfectly well until a few identifiable individuals broke the law. The system identified these breaches, but other identifiable individuals dismissed complaints with malice, and knowingly placed aircrew in danger. They did not intend to harm aircrew, but that was the predicted outcome. Some notifications were in general terms (e.g. Chinook - it isn't airworthy, you're prohibited from flying it); others very specific and deadly accurate (C130 XV179, Tornado ZG710, Nimrod XV230). Therefore, the knowledge that harm would be caused must have played a part in their decision making. In each case, it was cheaper, quicker and better to simply meet legal obligations.
None of that is in doubt. So why does the MAA continue to denigrate and deny?