It is triggered by the Shoreham accident, but not dealing with any specific causal factors pertaining to it.
Well in so far that they don't have an official accepted cause but given the elements being investigated by this review when the AAIB investigation is complete it is unlikely that this review has not dealt with ANY of the specific causes.
I haven't read the latest TOR for the review, but the early concept was that it should, among other things, conduct an exhaustive review to make sure that the regulations include sufficient measures to mitigate risk in order to reassure the public, but not pre-emptying or impinging on any findings that may or may not later arise from the AAIB investigation.
and
The supervision, mentoring and clearance methods are very tight and well respected.
There is a huge contradiction with these two paragraphs without this sentence :-
There are areas that some have questioned in recent years, but not necessarily the ones mentioned by certain posters here.
So why not focus upon those items - whatever they maybe? Thus coming to the point more quickly and more effectively without dancing around the houses and having the wobbles over parts of the current process that until know everyone had the utmost faith in.
Of course the bigger question is if there had been questions over such fundamental areas what, who and why were the barriers to change.
The CAA needs to maintain its credibility and its current issue with "high energy" aerobatics is a worry.... When you pull into the vertical with "high energy" since when was that seen as a bad thing.... until now!