"Even though the AAIB have queried that the aircraft had out of date cartridges fitted and therefore doesn't meet the ANO which in turn raised the question that should the PtF been applied for and granted.
If it is discovered the aircraft was flying and shouldn't have been. Does this mean it is the fault of the CAA who issued the PtF for not undertaking through checks or the person/organisation applying for the PtF and declaring the aircraft had complied with the ANO etc. "
While I understand that the legalistic approach inevitably starts down that road at some point, what on earth would having out of date ejection seat cartridges have to do with the cause of an accident such as this?
I struggle to see how anyone can view this accident as in any serious way the direct responsibility of the CAA. Surely they set the rules for the aircraft operators - us - to follow. It is our job to show that we are complying as reasonably well as we can, or to justify any deviations. They have a duty to check on us to see we are doing as required, but surely the responsibility stops with us?
If the notion that the CAA is responsible was to gain ground, I see a future nightmare for private aviation at least in the UK.