The maintainers I have worked with are top notch and turn out a good product. 1000 times better than GA operators I have worked with. If anything they are too fusy with maintenance.
On the 'accident' issue, do you have access stats on injuries/fatalities per hour flown? I think we could admit a small group of aviators have had the majority of mishaps in recent times, that is a side issue and does not reflect on the Army's safety culture as a whole. When was the last time we stacked a Kiowa? Considering we zoom around at 10ft AHO day and night its about as safe as we can make it. Considering we have a miniscule (per airframe) budget compared to our RAAF cousins, our capability output is as good if not better. When was the last time the RAAF deployed to a free for all battlefield? (and please, stooging around the MEAO 100NM away from the nearest contact does not count)
Most Army maintainers are excellent, they really do have some talent.
There are issues with the culture of Army aircrews, however only a minority. The Army ethos can be at odds with a safe aviation culture and this is a major point of difference between AAvn and the RAAF.
The senoir ranks of the Army don't see aviation as a core capability.
To quote the late Lt Col Glen Duus
Aviation in the Australian Army still needs to be sold. The simple fact that it has taken 35 years for infantry-oriented senior Army officers to decide that they need army aviation support needs no further elaboration.
Regarding the Armys accident rate, we all know there are unreported (in the media) incidents regularly. It still stacks up quite well compared to some flying schools I know, especially when you consider the nature of AAvn operations.
And lets face it, AAvn has not deployed to a free for all battlefield (with quality air to air as well as surface to air threats) for a long time. The initial Chinnook dep to the MEAO was limited due to lack of EWSP as was the dep of C-130s. I have never been able to understand the annimosity between the RAAF/Army.