Crab.
I think the helicopter I/R is fit for its basic purpose, which is to fly from anyplace with an official IFR departure procedure to any other place with an official IFR arrival procedure. The problem is depending on your point of view;
1. The rules are not strict enough and therefore allow pilots to get into the situation that started this thread or
2. The rules are strict enough but human nature being what it is, these accidents will happen if pilots don't assess their own capabilities honestly and decline to carry out operations that they are not competent enough to carry out safely every time.
SASless.
The UK licensing system (actually, the European licensing system now), is certainly more onerous than the US system and certainly more expensive, but I don't think it is much more complex or convoluted. In effect there are still only three possible things to achieve, a CPL, an ATPL and an I/R. Should you fly from airfield to airfield then any of those should allow you to do it reasonably competently within the constraints of the licence held.
Geoffers.
In a sense, that role related training that you write about already exists. Maybe not to the standard you would like it to be but within PT or Aerial Work, all organisations are required to show that they are complying with the 'spirit' of the regulations by providing OPC's and Line Training before a pilot is released to work. ( I think that is true for aerial work but happy to be shot down in flames if it is not). What you are asking for seems to be moving away from the EASA methodology, which seems to be to get operators to regulate themselves in accordance with the EASA/national and company regulations and for the local representatives of EASA to verify that each companies method of self regulation is fit for purpose. However, the 'problem' in the case mentioned is that as a private flight, the operation was not subject to any regulation. Now on the one hand it seems a bit strange that an operation that has employed pilots on its books, who are paid to fly an aircraft in the service of a company, is not subject to the same regulation as others who do virtually the same thing. On the other hand, the corporate market in the UK is (I believe), larger than most other countries in Europe. Maybe this is a case where we actually have a lot of flexibility in the industry, rather than the overly bureaucratic system that quite a lot of our number criticise regularly. Even trying to get a buy in from the private operators via the BHA is unlikely to work as many don't join. There have been a few discussions in the past regarding whether piloting aircraft is a profession or not. One of the requirements of being a member of a profession is the obligation to commit to a programme of Continuing Professional Development. Perhaps this is one of those examples that shows that maybe it is not, in that although we have to maintain our skills via OPC LPC or LC, there is very little continuing professional development that we as individual pilots are required to do, to 'keep up to the latest standards.