A predominantly civilianised MAA was something I was going to mention. It's one type of organisation that would benefit greatly from a static staff, independence from the chain of command and, God forbid for a safety/regulatory authority, have the ability to learn.
That point is made here.......
https://sites.google.com/site/milita...-authority-maa
To paraphrase, the failures were spotted and reported by civvies who were hounded by RAF VSOs. (Which I think is accepted now.) Yet none of these civvies are in the MAA and nor has the MAA sought their input. (Can't comment but it is accepted the MAA isn't addressing the failures that resulted in its formation.) The MAA is dominated by RAF officers, whose past and present hierarchy was responsible for the failures and still sees no wrong in what it did. (I think also widely accepted given their outpourings in the press.) IMO, the main point the author makes is that on MoDs own admission no member of the MAA reported failings, which either means they are unsuited or lacking moral fibre. Pretty strong argument IMHO.