I think gents you have to remember that
Quote:
It is not paranioa, it is the harsh facts of EASA and whilst you say how can you be held liable for what was carried out 25 years ago? well as the signatory on the ARC I and others are stating that all the inspections on the Aircraft have been carried out, failing to ensure that leaves us all open to prosecution.
is not UK law. Any prosecution would be done in the UK and you would have the usual defences of due diligence, etc.
This HAS to be the case (i.e. there has to be a backstop, plus UK law applies anyway regardless of the wording of some EASA reg) otherwise the system would be unworkable.
Any residual liability is addressed with insurance and you pay the premium and forget about it. That's how lawyers dentists etc do it.
Forgive me, but it is the CAA we are talking about and not EASA.
The CAA chose to implement a semi-complete piece of legislation knowing full well it was (and still is) going to be changed to a lighter touch version.
And it will be the CAA that is the judge and jury.
Yes, we could choose to have our day in court but at costs even greater than those of the CAAs.
I would love one of our representative organisations to undertake a judicial review of the implementation of Part M, but..........
