overstress:-
As you know, accidents usually involve a chain of events, holes in the cheeses. The handle was one link in the chain, the bolt torque another.
To which I would add the lack of a Safety Case Report. That alone meant that the Hawk was unairworthy as it lacked a legal RTS. Why didn't the MI pursue that, having creditably unearthed the lack of the Report? "It was outside its remit", do I hear? That in a nutshell is why UK Military Air Regulation and Accident Investigation should be independent of the Operator and of each other.
BV, I'm afraid that I disagree therefore with your claim that
The SI has clearly brought out all the lessons and everyone is now well aware of them for the future.
as for
I do have something against retired guys sneering at the RAF of today and pretending everything was better when they were in
I can only say that I do have something against serving guys who portray those of us who are retired but care deeply for those like you who still serve in such a negative way.
The chain of events that led to Sean Cunningham's avoidable and tragic death started back in the late 80s/early 90s in my view.
Enough has been posted here in the Chinook, Hercules, Nimrod, Sea King, Tornado, and now Hawk airworthiness related fatal accident threads to point up that common root cause. Yet still RAF Investigations, and the MAA (nee MOD) Regulator fail to recognise it. That is unprofessional to say the least, and won't draw the lessons that prevent recurrence. If that is sneering, then I am guilty as charged.
Like overstress, if my PPRuNe ID is anathema to you I am quite prepared to reveal my true one to you via PM.