At the risk of sounding rather cynical, could I suggest that the actions of the CAA hitherto post Shoreham all come straight from the Ladybird book of how to cope with a high profile disaster, 2015/16 edition?
The death of so many members of the public, coupled with the graphic footage of the crash would have put the organisation at "Defcon 1".
It was inconceivable that it could do nothing, even if it genuinely thought that everything was perfect. Grounding the Hunter fleet and announcing a review of airshow safety was a no brainer, and bought them some time. Regardless of how recently a review of airshow safety had been completed, and regardless of its conclusions, another had to happen. Regardless of how thorough the previous review was, does anyone expect the latest review to conclude that everything is OK? Does anyone expect organising an airshow and display flying to be easier after the review?
As for the new fee regime, we should be clear that the one thing it isnt about is the CAA's finances. Airshow and display flying fees will represent a pimple on a pimple in the context of the CAA's overall budget, and the proverbial blind man running for his life can see that recovering a smaller number of larger fees will have little effect on the overall income. The revised fee structure is about sorting out the wheat from the chaff and ensuring that we have a smaller number of larger airshows, where the CAA will have a reasonable chance of discharging its responsibilities in accordance with the increased expectations of the organisation.
In similar cynical vein, why would they be in any rush to lift the ban on the Hunter fleet? When Daily Mail readers have yet to have the benefit of the AAIB report into the accident, why on earth would the CAA draw more attention to itself by effectively saying "we dont yet know what caused the accident, but we are saying it wasnt the aircraft".
All very cynical, but the realpolitik of public life in 2016?