There is little, if any point in targeting the CAA for criticism in this case
?? You really believe that? Of course Shoreham has been the catalyst here but its been so dramatic on so many levels that one wonders who and where the accountability lies for the past. Its a thankless task to debate the accident but you can see that there is commentary over airworthiness of the accident aircraft - such that the CAA are now scrambling to employ an airworthiness engineer, but it rather begs the question what level of oversight was being provided before? What metrics were they using to decide if they were doing a good job?
The last question of course could also be asked about the more general point of display regulation. It isn't good enough to simply say "well we hadn't had an accident that killed members of the public since Farnborough" because as we know from all other areas of aviation risk management that this attitude is not acceptable. Yet we are now expected to allow the very people that crashed the car to now write the new rules, it beggars belief and worse not a word from the CAA in terms of explanation.
Its the same with the fees. This concept of self funding isn't a new one - so why all of a sudden this huge lurch?? Did they ever have a look at the finances in Gatwick because why wake up after Shoreham and bang the table and demand a 100% increase?? Its insanity and again these same people are at the helm/wheel/stick.. I'm running out of vehicles!!!
Airshows are being binned because 1) the funding is a shock and comes very late in the day and 2) the CAA are providing such weak guidance around risk that FDD's are becoming terrified as they shoulder the liability should anything go wrong in future, which with clear guidance and strong support and leadership with your regulator I'm sure they would be confident and willing to do so - but its late Feb and these things are not in place.
The CAA might want to reflect that with the continued erosion of GA they will eventually erode their own mandate and another reason for even existing goes with it.
The No1 desirable quality of a regulator is confidence and I don't see how it is fulfilling that. Perhaps Pilot magazine could ask the CAA for an interview?