As all other airlines, BA have a swath of paperwork required by the ANO and EU legislation eventually filtering down via proceedures and work instructions to describing "what should be done" and "how it should be done". All this information is promugulated by the company to satisfy the CAA. But when it comes to trying to comply with these proceedures, it can be neigh on impossible to comply. In the end you knowingly flout the rules to enable the task to be completed in a timely fashion.
Folks,
Probably not very well phrased, particularly the "flout the rules", but the fact remains that there has been a vast expansion of very prescriptive regulatory paperwork in recent years, although the basic job to be done had changed little.
Very little of it advances aviation safety. Those of you who see it in "black and white" simplicity do not appreciate the problem.
Indeed, it is very clear (despite being criminal law) that much of the regulation is capable of interpretation to suit the whim of the inspector or investigator. This is not confined to aviation, ever more complicated environmental or taxation law are just two more areas where the problem proliferates.
Australian aviation law has become so complicated, and capable of almost infinite interpretation, that it is a standing joke that, if you become airborne, you must have committed a crime. But it is no joke, when laws are written so that they cannot reasonably be complied with, or you have to break one regulation to comply with another.
We live in an are where we are moving from the "rule of law" to "rule by law". It does nothing for air safety.