when this era of aircraft were designed and the manuals written the system was completely different. They were maintained by fully skilled people. The manuals didnt specify every task the way they do now. I was in KSA for the start of Hawk ops using the old USAF trade system. The manuals didnt comply so we were forever raising amendments to Bae , Tornado was similar.
This is spot on. Like much MoD documentation, an assumption of a certain level of competence and training exists. However, the training and experience has been diluted, and competence eroded. This was a quite deliberate policy in the early 90s and no blame is attached to maintainers.
Also, "raising amendments" (actually, requesting that ATP progress amendments via the PDS contract, with the parallel task of updating the safety case) does not actually guarantee anything will be done, as the funding was slashed in 91/92, and then removed for a long period altogether in 93. The work that the Chief Engineer ruled should not be funded was not retrospectively carried out, which means gaps exist. The relevant procedural Def Stan (another example of something that assumed a level of training) has long been cancelled, without replacement.
The SI report recommends - training courses.
Training courses are FAU if the personnel system permits "managers" to skip their first 5 grades, and not require them to catch up on all that training and experience they've missed.