Seems to me that rather than wanting safety to be managed properly, some are advocating that it’s okay to somehow retrospectively waive parts of the process after an accident. Surely the general principle of not compromising on safety applies, and also taking equally seriously safety failures that the investigation identifies, even if not directly related to the immediate cause?The pilot was given a non-airworthy aircraft. If he hadn’t been, the accident wouldn’t have happened.
Sorry, unfamiliar with today’s terms. “Airworthiness certification” can’t be issued until the regulator is satisfied the aircraft can be put to safe use, which requires aircrew and groundcrew training. So training is a consideration in certification. If Mr Hill wasn’t properly trained, then the certification and safety cases were no longer sound. Looks like the CAA issue a lot of regulations, but don’t make sure they’re implemented. That rings a bell!!