NigelH - how the devil are you - long time no stalk?
I am deeply involved in aviation litigation currently for a very big client.
You have to understand this:
The regulator is suddenly waking up to the fact that they need to be more defensive as to who owns the risk when an incident happens. Hold that thought.
The owner/operator won't find it in their interest to 'hold the risk' - they will assume that if the regulator tells them they are following the rules, then all is well - and the regulator (because the rules and regs are being followed) holds the risk.
We therefore have s stand off between advce/guidance/rules given by the regulator and the way an operator carries out their operation (thinking they are fine because they have followed that advice etc).
So in this incident, the operator "appears" to have followed the rules regarding pax/photex trips. Harnesses, briefs, insurance etc etc.
But who actually holds the risk?
When an incident surfaces, this anomally is centre stage:
Has the FAA/CAA issued the correct guidelenes. Are they guidelines or are they mandatory? Has the regulator derisked the operation when they gave them their operators licence? Is the regulator responsible for actively policing operations?
Enter stage right - the lawyer and the insurance underwriter.
While debate is ongoing between regulator and operator, either in or out of court, the underwriter and the lawyer look at the risk and who actually owns it (they are looking from outside the industry) and they plot to mitigate the actual cause and plan to minimise future risks.
So the lawyer sues anything that moves and the underwriter ramps up premiums to reduce or buffer future claims.
I guess the point is - does the industry need the occasional spring clean in these two areas ( or to put it bluntly - does that part of the industry need a rocket under its ar*e) to make it realise that the risk really sits fairly and squarely with the person bringing the risk to the show - the OPERATOR.
Nigel - ignore this at your peril:
In this modern age, when you bring risk to "innocent third parties" (IE: people who are not familiar with risk, or simply want a good time, or don't expect to be hurt), you need to reduce this risk to ALARP.
One of the mitigators towards ALARP is: A very healthy insurance policy!
It protects your company and more importantly it protects you as the owner of that company once the lawyers come after you.
So in answer to your question about costs driving small fry out of business - Good! If they can't protect the customer or even themselves, guess what - good riddance.
Consider a comprehensive insurance policy as a safety net for you and your family - because without it Nigel, your entire estate is at risk.