Reminiscent of the mass resignation of Senior Ops Inspectors about eight years ago, when four left within six months, three without jobs to go to. If that doesn’t sound like much, there were a total of eight full-time equivalent inspectors at the time, engaged in proper investigation work.
The appointment of a chief inspector whose CV wouldn’t have made the first sift of applicants for an entry-level inspector post certainly caused ructions. But I dare say the organisation’s structural problems were more significant. It’s interesting to see why he was appointed: the hasty departure of the previous chief, who was subsequently disgraced in post as the chief of the HSIB, and the failure of the then deputy chief (a position which had only ever required a coronation to see the occupant elevated to the top spot) to pass the boarding for chief not once, but twice, showed damaging absence of succession planning, and the exquisite way the deputy had been promoted, in full accordance with the Peter principle (qv).
The fundamental lack of independence has always been a weakness there. The chief inspector’s reporting line, and that of the top bod at the CAA, intersect indecently close to their pay grades, with the expected results.