Thought long and hard about not posting.
This poor chap was reported, post tragedy, as being 'RAF trained' in press coverage fed (as I understand it) by input from his team. The implication being that being 'RAF trained' would add to his or the team's credentials, possibly by way of demonstrating in the immediate aftermath of an incredibly emotive event that the accident pilot and team were a professional set up.
It is easy to draw the conclusion here that the team, or the press, were making the point that he had received training, provided by a recogniseable and well thought of organisation. He could therefore, if you followed this train of thought, be assumed to be a better pilot than he would have been in the parallel universe where he wasn't 'RAF trained'.
I have an hour or two in fast jets. I only mention it because in that hour or two I've seen the complete spectrum of behaviour and ability from people of all aviating walks of life. Military, civil, incompetent, dangerous, fabulous, utmost professionalism, the lot.
Military training is simply one of a variety of means of providing training. It doesn't absolutely guarantee competence or professionalism - for those who've had a taster, or those that have done it for a lifetime. The point is simple; there are other ways of entering or continuing aviation that would be considered 'comparable means of compliance'.
Whether you consider this chap to have been RAF trained, or an RAF pilot, or why you think it was mentioned by team or press, or the manner in which it was reported is probably irrelevant.
As for those who feel their time is well spent speculating upon the cause, and factors contributing towards, the tragedy - your call entirely, as is paying an iota of attention for the rest of us.