A lack of resources is one thing, but I guess what I'm getting at is that the article implies (or so it seems) a drop in standards, failures of training and authorisation processes, as well as pressure to launch in adverse conditions, given where the crews were at in terms of training and preparation for what they were being asked to do, to save a few bucks.
As I said, the Kiwi crews I worked with in the past came across as having high personal and professional standards, which doesn't gel with these comments about their system not being up to scratch in terms of maintaining such standards.
From the article:
The report cited training problems with instrument flying and night vision goggles.
It found there were no instructor manuals or guides because of "resourcing" issues.
This was "common with most RNZAF flying units".
The report said four of the six pilots in the three helicopters did not have adequate flying qualifications for the flight, and the lead pilot was not qualified to lead the formation.
Newspaper reports can get it pretty wrong, as we all know, so I'm not trying to pontificate about what should or shouldn't be done - just seems that things sound pretty crook if that's how it really is these days.