Bismark:
The RN interest it to get at the facts and the truth so that all can learn and move on - they are not interested in a fudge.
Well I'm sure that the RAF (let us keep the AAC on their pedestal for the moment) would say the same thing but events dear boy have proved otherwise in their case I'm afraid. So the essential difference between the two systems are the people within them? Naval officers are moral high-minded Ladies and Gentlemen whereas Royal Air Force ones, particularly in the higher echelons, are not? There was a time when I would have confidently described the RAF Flight Safety system including AI in much the same way that you describe the RN's. You are clearly proud of it, I was similarly proud of the RAF's. Times have changed! At the very least surely it would be wise to take note of the morass that the RAF's Accident Investigation system has sunk into and ensure that the RN and AAC does not follow suit, as well as setting out to salvage the RAF's before it goes down with all hands (to borrow your terminology)? I've said before that we are all essentially in the same backyard and faced with Treasury parsimony. The RN and AAC seem to have made a better fist of protecting their AI process from that than the RAF, so muchos kudos, but where to from here? It is either up or down. I suggest that this is very much a case of divided we all fall, albeit at different rates, and united we stand. A tri-service Accident Investigation Service answerable directly to the SoS for Defence might avoid the career threatening interference of the Services CoC's, and possibly give access to a civilian career path in the same organisation or the AAIB for those wishing to dedicate their lives to such a worthy and fulfilling cause. Or are my ducks now wandering around in drunken stupor?