Originally Posted by 777Contrail
He's a chancer and tried to take some more shortcuts, the grounding was as result of NON COMPLIANCE with a previous audit, after which a serious technical incident followed. The CAA did what it was suposed to do.
That's the point actually, they didn't, at least not competently. As I understand it, the airline did not feel that any kind of licence would be revoked due to what seemed to be less serious (specifics needed, I
still want to know
precisely what happened during that audit) non-compliances resulting from that initial audit. Indeed, no threat of grounding or removal of any kind of licence was mentioned, up until the actual removal of the AMO licence. The grounding itself was also handled in a malicious fashion, coming out of the blue on a Friday afternoon, at the beginning of a school holiday if memory serves, making any follow up action very difficult, and was also communicated to ACSA before Nationwide.
Logically, any airline that knows it faces something so serious should have a) ample warning that such stern action is to be taken (due process), and b) would almost certainly bend over backwards to prevent it happening by rectifying any faults. Your (and almost everyone else's, mine included) personal animosity to
VB shouldn't let you lose sight of the fact that this whole event was handled badly by the CAA, IMHO. Imagine - you're flying for your particular airline (SAA, Comair, etc). You hear that the AMO is being audited by the CAA. Two weeks later, chatting to an engineer, you ask how it went. 'Ah, ok, a couple of typo's in some logbooks, some guys don't have the correct paperwork for their qualifications, that sort of stuff, but fine'. A week later, you come to work, and lo and behold, your airline is shut down. It's unpleasant. 'Due process' is the term I'm looking for, ie a documented chain of events should precede something like this, as opposed to just sudden harsh actions 'because we (the CAA) say so'.
And by saying that 'a serious technical incident followed' (it was an accident actually) you imply that the grounding due to non-compliance was related. It wasn't. No grounding (unless all B732's were never allowed to fly again), or further paperwork exercises (since that was what the CAA was concerned with) would have stopped that engine from separating.