Actually tec, I think you may be absolutely correct. It is pretty sad that the Pilot who is doing what he was tasked by his employer should find himself responsible in this situation. I have never addressed the cause of the load being lost, because it truly is not the issue here - so he could end up responsible for a "random" occurence.
There isn't much point in comparing it to the system I operate under, because, as you have just listed the approvals and permissions were in place, no part of the operation, apparently, is in conflict with any law or regulation.
The only reason I refer to Jar-Ops 4, is because it does represent an attempt at standardisation under the JAA/EASA for this specific arena. The whole JAA/EASA system appears a mess to me. And the conflict between local, national and system wide rules, seems a recipe for disaster to me. I think that the point of arm the floats is indeed pertinent, that there is a regulatory shortfall in a sector that does a lot of work, and if not managed adequately presents a very small, but very high risk circumstance, in the event that a load is lost over people or property.
I do think that regulatory action will be one of the outcomes of this accident - we will just have to watch and see. I guess the inertia and impetus for regulatory change, is, and should be, necessity from the knowledge learned by experience - exactly the same review and audit process that a good safety programme should have.
Out of interest, what do the local media have to say about this accident?