I made my last comment in as much jest, as the comment I was replying to. Sad fact is, Ged's jesting comment is probably close to the truth.
Kharon, I am an avid reader of your amblings. The knowledge you impart here is invaluable.
I'd hazard a guess, that Ged was fully versed in his responsibilities. The problem I see, is the 'poisoned chalice' remark. CAsA were after the owner, no matter who was the CP, or how well they were doing.
To my simple mind, CAsA would be working through the underlying issues with the new CP (i.e fixing the !!!!!) and also working with him/her as new ones came up. It strikes me that CAsA were simply awaiting an incident they could ground the company, and hopefully send it broke as a means of securing a safety outcome. It didn't matter how good the CP was, sometime, someone in the company was going to make a mistake, and that was always going to be the end of the chapter. So much for having a pro-active CP that they should be WORKING WITH.
As you say Kharon, CAsA are not interested in promoting safety, merely prosecuting lack of safety. In the words of the RVAC president, "it's inevitable" a mistake will be made. CAsA are not interested in fixing that sort of things with a company...shutting it down produces a faster result.
But does it really?
The loss of alligator, removes a service. A service that makes money. So you can guarantee that there will be one or more startup operators to replace alligator. So now CAsA has to start again with appointment of people, implentation of handbooks etc etc etc.
So they start again, beating down the same path.
stoopid mofo's.