EdSett,
I agree that in many ways this is too little too late. You are correct in that many of the day-to-day decisons about the aircraft we fly are taken in remote offices, often by people whose knowledge of the way a particular aircraft type is operated is limited or misplaced.
That is why there has been a desire to increase the IPTs exposure to Front Line input, whether directly by first hand experience or indirectly by increasing the number of 'Blue' suits in IPT posts. The problem of the second approach is that many FL operators do not want to go to work for an IPT (the reasons for which vary). More problematical is that after 3 years, the individual is usually replaced so continuity is lost, the new guy spends 8-12 months getting up to speed, does about 18 months of effective and productive work and then concentrates on his escape plan.
You make an interesting point about JSP 550 series. They are most definitely not meant for higher authority consumption, they are meant to provide FL operators with a guidance framework within which they can grow their professional skills and abilities, whilst being given the boundaries of operational constraints and safety considerations. They were supposedly designed to provide much more detail and background than the preceding JSP 318 series (which I think they generally do) but, like the 318s, are deemed mandatory reading for aircrew (OK, I accept no-one is going to read something they feel doesn't have any relevance to them, that is a problem for higher authority).
Perhaps something that could be covered at the next Sqn training day?
My reason for droning on about this is that if we, as an organization, want to learn from dreadful days like 2nd Sep, we need to start educating our people at the grass roots. How much better prepared for my current job I would have been if I had had exposure to all the aspects of Airworthiness Regulation before I started (instead of learning on the job!).