atg, your views on Air Safety and mine are at variance, I hope you would agree. The only comment I would venture is that MFTS can hardly be called a success. The endless holding awaiting courses, the loss of continuity in doing so, further problems at the OCUs, all add up to a worrying end result for the front line squadrons. Does that also mean a disparity in military airmanship between MFTS and non MFTS trainees? BI instanced a particular difference but other than that how would you measure any such disparity? Like most Air Safety problems such data only reveals itself in retrospect. Meteor asymmetric exercises come to mind, or more recently Hawk EFATO practice perhaps. Evolution rather than revolution works best in aviation. Paint the goal posts by all means, keep tearing them down and setting them up elsewhere tends to lead to unforeseen consequences, or events dear boy, events.
Civil and Military Aviation are different. Much of course is common ground but one is about routine daily safe economic operation, the other about being prepared for anything but routine when at war, with realistic training scenarios for that in peacetime. That to my mind requires even more emphasis on Air Safety, to safeguard personnel and equipment for their ultimate purpose, war. What you learn from your instructors, what you learn for yourself, arms you for that. It is called airmanship, though now no doubt it is high on a wish list for urgent renaming. Being taught civilian procedures for a military career is at variance with that. Of course, it may well be that civilian instructors may well be ex-military and pass on their bon mots as if they still served. I would hope so.
I don't think that is 'not invented here'. Here is a different place to there, that's all.
Yes, you have indeed pointed out the existing limitations of the CAA and AAIB set-up. As I have pointed out, the CAA did not set out to subvert its own regulations
AFAIK. The military air regulator (then the MOD) did. Whatever civilian practice is; operator, regulator, and investigator should be independent and separate from each other. 1987 shows us what happens when they are not.
Xeno, you may well be right. The problem is systemic and not down to any individual. With respect, I think that was BI's point, a civilian was imposing civilian practice on a military training system. BI felt strongly that it was inappropriate. I suspect he is right.