The thrust of the case? Help me figure this out....
I've always found this stuff difficult. As an earlier post says, I want a just culture, but I do not expect immunity. Well said.
May I try a hypothetical? - One that can't happen, so no-one becomes defensive. If, say, the Aussie CAA came and inspected Rolls Royce in the UK. Say they find some very lax processes, with, perhaps, things being signed off by folk who did not have the authority, and, perhaps, non-approved contractors doing work that only named, certified skilled folk should be doing.
The thrust of what the Aus CAA should do would be to make bloody sure that the processes were brought back to where they should be, and that RR management knew what had happenned, and were tasked to put it, and keep it right.
Fine. However, shouldn't those that allowed things to get out of control - at whatever level, and including the beancounters if it was their fault that unapproved contractors were in place - be prosecuted and drummed out of Aviation? Where should the line be drawn?
thanks
Ancient.