Originally Posted by
airpolice
But no real castigating of those who failed in their duty to protect the public?
I'm thinking of the pre-existing requirements that have not been observed. Why are we not reading of a "blame" for want of a better word, being laid at the door of those who thought it acceptable to not authenticate the adherence to rules?
For clarity here is the definition of the purpose of an AAIB investigation which is defined in law.
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 states
"Purpose of the investigation of accidents and incidents
4. The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident under these Regulations shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It shall not be the purpose of such an investigation to apportion blame or liability."
REGULATION (EU) No 996/2010 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 October 2010 also states
(4) The sole objective of safety investigations should be the prevention of future accidents and incidents without apportioning blame or liability.
If you want blame and liability you've got the wrong organisation.