I cannot let this thread pass without comment. It is inconceivable to me that our aircrew with so little experience should be so limited in allocation of training flying hours that they are expected to perform at low level in heavy operational fits safely. What have we allowed our politicians to persuade us to do?
As professionals we all should know what our maximums and minimums are. This pilot, and his experienced back seater, were hung out to dry by senior officers who should have fought harder to preserve the level of expenditure required to keep crews safe.
Ten hours per month is just enough to be dangerous in a fast jet and almost guarantees an accident if the jet is taken anywhere near its' limits in the role.
Apart from that I find it appalling that the complexity of regulations quoted in the report are so confusing. Why should the regulations be so complex? How do they expect the supervisors to cope with all the twaddle? The only part of supervision that really, really matters is to make sure that the crew authorised can safely complete the task. No regulation can substitute for that judgement but the level of complexity can sure make it difficult to sort out the wood from the trees.