Jim,
Thank you for a good laugh.
The CAA is not responsible for Safety?
Do explain what you mean by that statement please. Just what function does the CAA actually serve then if they have no role in Aviation Safety? If the CAA has a role....then it has "responsibility" to the extent it is adequately meeting its remit. After all....the CAA is damned expensive Bureaucracy funded by the Aviation Industry in the UK. Surely, the CAA must have some valid role to play in ensuring Aviation Safety in the UK and thus must be held accountable for their performance in that role.
Adequate Rules are in place to control the use of Casual Pilots? Perhaps so in certain contexts. But....are "Casual Pilots" protected and well served by those "Control" measures? Are "Casual Pilots" subject to commercial pressures that full time Employees are less vulnerable to as UK Employment Law affords them avenues of redress that "Casual Pilots" are not?
I agree the CAA cannot provide Oversight for every flight. The CAA can however have a Monitoring and Inspection Process that ensures the Operators have effective and appropriate Operational Control and the CAA's Inspection and Audit system for Operators is effective in detecting failures by the Operator to comply. Merely ensuring the mechanism is in place sounds good but unless the CAA confirms the mechanisms are in place, are being used, and are effective...then I would see that as a failure of the CAA's system.
May I assume from your comment:
If, as you say, a more stringent oversight programme is required, it will be at a substantial cost to industry (and would result in a reintroduction of the audit of pre and post flight documentation).
That there used to be a formal CAA Audit Process that is no longer active?
Does the CAA do the equivalent of NASIP Inspections as done by the FAA?
Why would an Inspection System "cost" the Operator. If they are performing their duties imposed by the ANO and their AOC....all they have to do is grant access to the CAA Inspectors to their Facilities, Records, and Aircraft. Or....would the CAA insist upon being paid by the Operator for the conduct of the Inspection/Audit?
For the Not Knowing....an FAA NASIP Inspection can be summarized as being "A Day or few Days in the Life of a Helicopter Operator", where every single document, work order, fuel ticket, credit card charge, log book entry, payroll record, pilot logbook entry, Time and Duty Log.....everything to do with the Operation of the Operator is audited and compared to ensure the Operation is being run in accordance with established law, rules, orders, regulations, and business practices. It is a no notice Inspection....where a Team of FAA Inspectors show up and announce the Inspection.
The general premise is not so much as looking for violations with the intent of punitive action but to ensure adequate internal controls exist to confirm the Operator is doing business properly. If serious violations are found....then action may be taken against the Operator.
The FAA has undergone a lot of rebuke, criticism, and earned a reputation for having inadequate performance in their oversight practices over the years. Things like Valu-Jet and other Fixed Wind operations, the Helicopter EMS industry, the Helicopter Sight Seeing Industry, have all had embarrassing revelations made public. It took the NTSB and Media Attention to get the FAA to address the EMS problems.
So....Jim.....is the CAA adequately monitoring all of the Operators in the UK? Is the CAA without fault in this and other accidents or is it a perfect operation you folks have in the UK?