Response to Army Letter Sept 28, 2017.

I never said Army Aircraft where un-airworthy, which is in reality bought on the backs of the American taxpayers.

The IG referred my concerns to an agency (AED) that is aware of, oversees and permits the violations I'm reporting. 

I pointed out to Army management in writing that the Army was in violation of AR 70-62, Airworthiness of Aircraft Systems, which stated at that time the Army was to "Ensure that the maximum degree of safety is applied through the practical application of systems safety engineering."  The Army totally fails to meet this requirement, substantiated by the Army's own documentation, because the Army does not even meet the minimum degree of safety through the practical application of systems safety engineering, which is stipulated in detail by Federal regulation, much less the "maximum degree" specified by AR 70-62, therefore violating AR 70-62.  Never getting a response back, a few months later, this referenced offensive Army AR 70-62 requirement was deleted by the Army by the release of a new revision of AR 70-62.  O yeah AR 70-62 is a rock of a document to hang your hat on.  AR 70-62 does not give the Army jurisdiction to ignore bilaterally agreed technical compliance requirements specified by Foreign law, even if unethically they choose to ignore equivalent US law.  These laws are there for a purpose which is reflected by the commercial safety records, who must comply.  The Army knowingly does not comply with these same universally recognized technical best practices mandated by law even when appropriate and should but does punishes those who raise the issue.  I could and would be glad to debunk the blatant misdirection and prestidigitation of each of the Army's statements, some of which are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel funny... it doesn't say that in the operation manual!  Essentially their response is NO! we do not meet those requirements because....we're the Army, we don't have to, we meet AR 70-62, which of course says whatever we want it to!  

It's good to be King.

I stand by my accusations.  The Army knowingly does not comply with universally recognized technical best practices mandated by law even when appropriate and should: e.g. DO-256 and DO-178.