Chug,
Saw your post after I'd posted my last one - sorry.
We're loudly agreeing on one point. The accident investigators should never have been put in the MAA in my view. Haddon-Cave made a passing reference to how the RAF did accident investigation, made a number of incomplete and inaccurate statements about the other services and then produced a wholly unrelated recommendation. That then got hijacked into the MAA 'land grab'.
I will gently differ from you on ownership and independence. The MoD has a duty to endure the safe operation of its systems, and that is properly discharged via what was called the Defence Safety Board, which is where the nuclear and explosive safety boards (e.g. the old CINO) used to report into. MAA should have plugged straight into that.
My concern has always been that making the MAA a three star reporting directly to S of S was an overreaction to Haddon Cave, that was not required and gave the MAA a level of 'heft' it didn't actually need.
True and complete independence is always going to be a problem - 'who watches the watchmen'? The MAA's own Safety Advisory Committee is supposed to 'challenge' the MAA, but looking at it's composition (Chair is a retired Air Marshal), it's doesn't look as independent as it might - just too much hefty blight blue stuff around for my comfort - but I'm probably biased.
Best regards as ever to all those who damn well care,
Engines