NutLoose
the CAA have for a long time been shifting the liability off themselves and onto Engineers, that way they can steer clear of any blame or liability, and as for GA, don't get me started.
I'm not in a position to comment about engineers specifically but I wholeheartedly support the CAA moving further towards a safety management system which gives operators/organisations power to make responsible decisions in order to ensure an acceptable level of safety. That approach includes removing regulations where possible, regulating only where necessary, regulating proportionately and delegating where appropriate. Heavy-handed regulation often amounts to using a sledge-hammer to crack a nut.
Transport Canada was one of the earliest regulators, perhaps the first (1999), to start moving towards a Safety Management System approach, asking individuals, companies and organisations to put systems in place to identify, assess and mitigate risks, and to analyse whether they are meeting their safety goals and continuously improving safety performance.
ie To be proactive.
As far as I'm aware, it has not been interpreted as shifting responsibility in a negative sense but widely welcomed and preferred to the previous 'traditional' approach to regulation.
It's possible that attitudes have changed since but my impression is based upon 10 days in Canada (Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal) in 2013 discussing flight safety issues and associated regulation with a wide variety of very different types of operators and sizes ranging from small GA to a regional airline and also an airshow organiser, as well as meetings at Transport Canada (with the Director General of Civil Aviation), the Transportation Safety Board (two members of the Board and several senior investigators) and ending with a meeting with the then Secretary General and two heads of relevant departments at ICAO.
The SMS method appears to work. Canada has one of the most successful and safest civil aviation systems in the world.