Tuc
I've had the (mis)fortune to have had all three, much like safeware, as well as unit experience.
On a unit, even when you lack type experience there was a robust chain of engineering and flying expertise to refer to.
In my time in DLO in an aircraft IPT, I had no-one with direct airworthiness experience between myself as a 2nd tourist and gp capt for about 2 years. This being the days of MDGs and suppliers were put in dual hatted posts and the civilianisation was making in-roads. No safety training of any sort was available. Retrospectively, I know we were making some bad decisions with the best intentions because we did not grasp the complexity. Looking across other IPTs since, I think that the effectiveness of the safety system is dependant upon where the aircraft started from. To retrospectively introduce modern standards to an airframe that was procured under loose regulation or enforcement is near impossible, they are left holding some very difficult babies. Do you ground the fleet, or get given pots of money that do not add to capability. I've yet to see anyone succeed in either path.
At BD, training again was patchy but the peer review system kept everyone honest and there were centres of expertise to call upon. You also had the advantage of making the call without having to suffer the financial or project impacts and that does make life easier.
DPA, I worked in 2 non-aircraft IPTs. In the first I was the only one who had ever held any delegated responsibility and still have forehead lumps to prove it. The other was better but had a core of people who had been around aircraft for a while. ADRP appeared ro be introspective perhaps because maintaing the system sucked up all their resource and they did not have the ability to police the system.
That said I have also seen some shabby safety case work come from DAs as well. There is a dearth of real safety engineers around, and those that do not have domain knowledge flounder outside their own field.
regards
retard