Well I don't apologise for expressing my opinions, that is surely what discussion is all about. That we are divided by our respective opinions is what arguing our case is all about. Of course repetition doesn't justify, it merely emphasises that faced with your counter argument I am still standing by my case.
That case is that no matter how tirelessly and responsibly those in UK Military Airworthiness Provision and Air Accident Investigation strive, their efforts are undermined by the very organisations for which they work, which are demonstrably at the whim of VSOs and SCSs. As a result, illegal RTS's, grossly unairworthy fleets and dysfunctional accident investigations have resulted. That diminishes our national security and causes unnecessary grief and suffering to the families of those who die as a result.
The very people that you claim that I slight could be more effective in avoiding avoidable accidents and needless deaths if they were no longer subject to possible improper pressures from VSOs. You seem happy that all such pressure that has been applied is known of, is in the past, and will not be repeated. I do not share that view in any way. You seem happy that every BoI and SI has been effective in determining the cause of its accident and preventing a recurrence,
(other than in a small number of high profile contentious "arbitrary and bizarre" cases)
Given the known cases of interference and subversion in that process, how can you be so sure?
This isn't a time to fight change for the sake of it, anymore than it is to change for the sake of change. The Royal Air Force, for one, has to face up to what has been done in its name, to face up to what continues to be done in its name, and then to do the right thing. Its very raison d'etre is at stake here; to carry the Air War to its enemies. If it does not have airworthy aircraft to do that, its prospects are not good.