On balance, I agree with TSM. I have no faith in BOIs; or, to be more precise, I think they honestly seek out the truth, but when they discover its unpalatable politics kick in.
Look at the BOI reports into Mull, Tornado/Patriot, AEW collision, Sgt Roberts/Body Armour and others. You can see they found out the truth, or got very close, but backed off to the extent that KEY issues are just mentioned in passing, if at all. They don’t dig deeper, ask searching questions or follow up their recommendations. In at least three of the above examples, pertinent evidence was, I believe, withheld from the BOI. (Otherwise the narrative wouldn’t be so embarrassingly bereft of detail). An example, which I’ve used before as it’s so simple. The Tornado report recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Fine. But why not ask (a) Why was this not done in the first place, (b) Why was it not done when more instances were discovered in the mid-late 90s, and (c) Why was it not done when specific warnings were given the previous year. Here’s a cracker. Why did CDP rule it was ok not to integrate IFF warnings – 18 months before the incident? Go through all these cases and the common denominator is – they were warned.
One other aspect I don’t like. I have twice personally experienced being hunted down and the finger of blame pointed at me. On each occasion, due to meticulous record keeping (records others denied the existence of) I was able to re-direct the inquisition. No further action was taken, because, while it was ok to come after me, a mere pleb, they didn’t like it when the true culprits were more senior. Nor was I asked to give further evidence.