Having read the report I wonder if the BMAA can survive if it does not make very major changes to it’s procedures and even bigger changes to it’s culture to ensure that they are followed.
IMHO everyone has a right to expect, when taking a flight in or buying an aircraft, that the aircraft conforms to the standards which the governing body says it does. I take Mike’s point about acceptance of risk but in this case the risk was being misrepresented –
- The aircraft had not in the past been maintained to the schedules - a 200 Hr service at > 300 Hrs! (OK perhaps not directly relevant to this accident but an accident waiting to happen)
- The mod was signed off by an inspector but was incorrectly done and not understood or checked properly.
- There was essentially no paperwork and the wing had (probably) not been inspected per the schedule.
- The inspector had signed that the paper work had been checked and was correct!
- The BMAA’s inspection system shown to be in some disarray – putting it kindly!
The BMAA system, in the widest sense of the word, did not pick any of this up and revalidated the aircraft’s permit. Thereby failing it’s customers, in its duty of care and the duty it assumed by asking for and accepting a regulatory role on behalf if the CAA.
And before the flaming starts I have no particular interest in PFA vs BMAA wars as I am not associated with either, although there is a strong probability I will be moving from a certified a/c to a permit one in the near future.