Much speculation and few facts....
What the report does do is shine a light on the perennial question that is at the heart of every GA operation....How do you deal with tech issues when, if properly recorded in the tech log as required by law, the effect is to ground an aircraft?
The catastrophic effect on scheduling charter flights...often from obscure destinations without engineering support, puts massive pressure on operators and as a consequence pilots to not properly record defects for fear of leaving important ( and certainly very rich) clients stranded. There is the added fact that GA companies often have scarce resources and as a consequence no ability to bring in alternative equipment without crippling financial penalty.
It is clear from this report that this operator had devised a system to try to diseminate technical information about aircraft serviceability which was in obvious breach of regulations and had the consequence that aircraft which should have had technical issues dealt with, continued flying.
Unairworthy in accordance with MEL and the terms of their C of A in other words.
An AAIB investigation is not about attributing blame but about establishing facts.
There is no evidence that this unofficial system of "engineering e mail reporting" killed our much respected and sorely missed colleagues but equally there is no evidence that it did not at least act as a contributing factor.....surely one or more of the many holes in the Swiss cheese that all lined up on that fateful day.
I would be interested to know how the CAA intended to deal with this......
So far as I can recall these were the first deaths of two pilots operating for a UK charter company for as long as I can remember (?)
Heads surely have to roll to make clear that this behaviour will not be tolerated and give reassurance to the rich public, government and royalty who use these services that a G registration charter aircraft is properly maintained and safe.
Last edited by BuzzB; 15th Oct 2016 at 11:15.