The preceding excellent posts cannot be called 'drift' when they identify some of why we are all here.
PNM 1981 -"The really hard part is working out who could be asked who is accountable and further is likely to answer fully and accurately. Maybe that's the real problem!"
HMHB# 1983 –"The issue comes down to risk. Those of us that see the safety risk where others appear more concerned with potential political risks.
4 Dogs # 1984-"The precise cut-over points in the authority timeline continue to be avoided – etc."
The above all identify legal, operational and systematic risk areas within a narrow band of the operational spectrum. Without getting into a semantic 'situational' analysis (puleese) it can be easily seen that where a matter goes from routine to incident, how the legal wheels come off. The above posts all highlight the flawed approach to 'industry' regulation where the regulations, regulator, operator, operations, flight and ground crew interface (as it does).
This is why I believe outcome based regulation wins hands down, when an unfortunate event occurs and it winds up in a court (or Senate). Properly done, operator, pilots and regulator may be excused from the worst of fierce scrums created by the 'blame game'.. For us 'in the weeds' if everyone followed the script and there is a mess; then, the script is wrong or the one who dropped ball may be clearly identified. In either event the fix can be identified and effected. Getting the script right in the first place is the trick, which means a solid start point i.e. based on the Act and Regulation, then operational know how etc. etc...It's a complex enough equation without hidden 'legal' nooses dangling at every turn.
There is far too much scope in the current Act and regulation for the shifting of blame and abrogation of responsibility by unscrupulous people (from both teams) and nowhere near enough acceptance that a regulator approved, company produced 'system' despatches a flight, not just an individual. Norfolk is a classic. Should an operation not be able to clearly, in a legally safe manner define through the regulations the operational control boundaries and responsibilities? The need for simple, clear, concise regulation becomes more apparent as operations become more complex.
To return briefly to 4 Dogs clever example; where company policy and procedures need to be concise with everyone involved full bottle on 'their bit' of a coordinated safety effort, then if the tanker butts the aircraft in the arse, we can identify what went wrong and why – then, address the system and make sure that whatever happened, won't happen again. But lets try to get rid of the hair splitting, weasel words; leave that to compensation lawyers slugging out the 'blame game'.
After all -
Lady Bracknell: To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Sorry, but as it's a lazy Sunday, I couldn't resist two more apropos favourites, from a very funny play:-
Lady Bracknell: Mr. Worthing. I must confess that I feel somewhat bewildered by what you have just told me. To be born, or at any rate bred in a handbag, whether it have handles or not, seems to me to display a contempt for the ordinary decencies of family life which reminds one of the worst excesses of the French revolution, and I presume you know what that unfortunate movement led to?
Lady Bracknell: I am pleased to hear it. I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a very delicate exotic fruit. Touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately, in England at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor's Square.
Happily stolen from – The importance of being Earnest. Oscar Wilde.....
