SP:-
You'd be surprised how often that local investigations/reviews uncover the very opposite.
Well not really Sandy, for it is a constant effort of promoting best practice and publicising the results of bad practice. No doubt like you and many others, I have walked the apron gathering in the harvest (into a large refuse bag) and depositing it on the Wg Cdr Ops desk with a "I believe this lot belongs to you, Sir". It was a pleasure and a privilege too, I might add.
What surprised and shocked me was that years later it seems that all this was turned on its head by the RAF High Command who ordered that bad practice be the norm for Airworthiness provision. So an aircraft subject to best practice departs properly serviced from a FOD free airfield with a fully trained crew operating to the letters of the regulations, only to be destroyed because it has a dry bay containing fuel couplings and a source of ignition, or a FADEC with positively dangerous code, or an IFF that does not alert the crew of its failure in a tactical environment, or fuel tanks lacking ballistic protection in a tactical environment, etc. How stupid is that?
How stupid is it that it is the repeated position of the MOD, unchallenged by the MAA, that it remains a disciplinary offence to refuse to obey an order (given by an RAF Air Rank Officer) to make a false declaration of financial probity and airworthiness? I'm afraid that these two incompatible and contradictory positions, one inside and one outside the Station Gates, are the very antithesis of Flight Safety, and anyone professing to serve its cause has to stand up and declare that.
Little point in getting all the deck chairs aligned if, due to substandard rivets or steel sheet, insufficient safety equipment or whatever, the ship is not seaworthy and so sinks. The RAF ship is not seaworthy and there appears to be a lack of leadership to deal with it. If that leadership is to come from anywhere then it must come from those who are informed enough to point out the lamentable failings in airworthiness provision, ie from those serving in Flight Safety.
It has been tried before, the RAF Flight Safety Inspectorate commissioned the 'Arts, looking into airworthiness failings in the Nimrod, Hercules, Chinook, Tornado, etc. Instead of being published they were pulped (or at least ordered to be so). Time they were published, so how about it Wg Cdr Spry? Will you accept dervish's challenge? You may well be damned if you do, but aren't we all damned if you don't? Aviation does not allow of political correctness, rather it kills if not continuously stopped from doing so. Time it was stopped!
Self Regulation Doesn't Work and in Aviation it Kills!