I think too many people have a lack of understanding of what a Board of any organisation is there to achieve. If you look at any organisation, there is always a mixture of experience and knowledge as their purpose is to hold an organisation to account.

If you look at British Airways:
An ex tobacco salesman - Chairman
An ex pilot
A chartered accountant
A petro-chemical expert and chairman of unilever
A solicitor
A financial expert
An investment banker and COO of Iberia
An ex Chief inspector of the AAIB
A life peer -ex politician

So pretty similar in all respects and I don't consider BA a failing organisation. They have more than enough technical experts in customer service, engineering and stick monkeying to give them advice.

the corporate governance code is what dictates the make up of a Board.

Corporate governance is the system by which companies are directed and controlled.
Boards of directors are responsible for the governance of their companies. The shareholders’ role in governance is to appoint the directors and the auditors and to satisfy themselves that an appropriate governance structure is in place. The responsibilities of the board include setting the company’s strategic aims, providing the leadership to put them into effect, supervising the management of the business and reporting to shareholders on their stewardship. The board’s actions are subject to laws, regulations and the shareholders in general meeting.

Corporate governance is therefore about what the board of a company does and how it sets the values of the company. It is to be distinguished from the day to day operational management of the company by full-time executives.

The board should be of sufficient size that the requirements of the business can be met and that changes to the board’s composition and that of its committees can be managed without undue disruption, and should not be so large as to be unwieldy.

The board should include an appropriate combination of executive and non-executive directors (and, in particular, independent non-executive directors) such that no individual or small group of individuals can dominate the board’s decision taking.

airpolice
That is a distortion of what the CAA said.
With a few changes to procedures/rules, Yes, I do.

I don't share the shock/outrage expressed by some.
That, in part, is because over a few decades I have read thousands of reports which make criticisms/proposals for improvement following a thorough examination and detailed analysis of every aspect of the system in place when an accident, fatal or otherwise, occurred - primarily in aviation but also elsewhere. Such documents can create a misleading impression.

Even if every recommendation made by the AAIB in this and its final report is implemented, the review following a serious accident some time in the future will inevitably produce criticisms/recommendations for improvement. That is inherent in the learning process

Equally inevitably, it will produce expressions of shock and outrage from some. That is inherent in human nature.


PhilipG
Whether or not individual members are or even should be concerned, the content of the SB issued by the AAIB today might go some way towards explaining the previously inexplicable comments made by the CEO on behalf of the CAA last week.


[Edit]

Background Noise

Thank you for your very helpful response to my question.

PG:-
I for one will sit more comfortably in a UK civilian airline seat though, given this clear illustration of how the regulator can be brought to book by the accident investigator. That is a phenomena notable by its absence in UK military aviation where regulator, operator, and investigator are one and the same for all intents and purposes, ie the MOD.

Who in the CAA will fall on their sword then:
Andrew Haines?
Swan?
T Rapson?

This will change the shape of future airshows with or without the CAA. The lawyers will see to this.

Always remember (hope FL isn't listening!), there are only two people who rule this world as we know it:
Lawyers and accountants.:ouch:

FL - I'd take the exasperation personally but for the fact that these events have been such a farce, amateur hour would be an uptick.

FL, with respect to your comment in an earlier post "I assume that an experienced Hunter pilot would be able to complete a loop by at least his entry height, probably higher.
Is my assumption wrong?"

In a Hunter (and similar types) the loop entry speed and technique during the first, upward half of a looping should guarantee that the aircraft will exit no lower than the entry height. Obviously, it can be misflown such that the exit height is below the entry height but then any manoeuvre can be misflown such that the aircraft crashes! Therefore, your assumption was totally correct.

is it normal to carry out these manouvers with drop tanks (full,partly full or empty) fitted??

Mtoro, yes, it just depends.

Mtoro,

I've never seen 372 without the tanks. So it's safe to say that it was its standard fit for display work-up, rehearsal and performance.

The report does make the regulation all seem a bit too cosy.

DA provided by someone in the same team - same as for the Gnat it seems. Page 22.

Anyone know any more about the incident when the FFD stopped the display - referred to on page 25.

I'm not sure the BADA bleat is entirely appropriate in the context of some aspects of this report. Perhaps not the best time to pop up from the parapet.

Bottom line is, they're about to throw the book at him.

Seems like there are plenty of lessons to be learned (or relearned) by many individuals and organisations. It would be unfortunate if he's the only one to be hit by said book - and that's assuming it's warranted given that the investigation isn't over yet.

The CAA letter in the Times certainly comes across like a pre-emptive shot based on early access to the report, BWTFDIK. On the other hand, the response by BADA came across as a little pompous in tone (I'm surprised that FL thought it was OK) and some of retorts (e.g. a system admired throughout Europe) are difficult to reconcile with the AAIB update.

Widger, a diverse board background makes sense for a publicly listed company like BA with the usual suspects of Chairman, CEO, COO, CFO, CIO, etc. I'd have thought that the CAA would have a board with more flight related experience, wouldn't you?

Just to clear up a point, it was not a letter in The Times but a small piece by Graeme Paton, Transport Correspondent, quoting Andrew Haines, CAA CEO. It was published on Thu, 3 March, the same day as the CAA Press Release, but quotes more than what is in the press release. It would be interesting to know who contacted who first.

There was an even smaller piece in The Daily Telegraph on Sat, 5 March, but that was just based on the CAA Press Release.

Regarding not knowing the diplasy plan, 30 years ago we had to tease out of the display team their time required and they were expected to comply with standard rules and local procedures.

It worked but in retrospect I am amazed that we didn't have notice of every display plan.

JFZ, covered in this thread, several times and recently IIRC.

I think a high profile campaign from the airshow fraternity that started with 'Airshows make an absolute fortune for the local economy so the CAA charging to recover the cost of the work they do to regulate them is clearly unfair' - clearly made no sense when you deconstructed it. Then they followed it up with 'And anyway, we regulate ourselves and we know best/have done an exemplary job, this incident notwithstanding...', which is now shown up by this report to be ignorant hubris of the worst kind, thus neatly proving the opposite point to the one they were trying to make.

If small airshows can't do a reasonable job of not permitting old military jets with questionable maintenance histories to pull unplanned low level high energy manoeuvres over the local village on their own, then the CAA is going to have to do it for them, and I really don't see why the taxpayer or anybody else should subsidise the cost of that oversight.

kwh. Yes, it seems you have captured the apparent foot shooting by the BADA in what you write.

PN, I have only been skimming this due to the prolonged debates. Been back a few pages but I don't recall reading the history of the 2014 FDD display stop. If you could point me in the direction I'd be grateful.

At military airshows it is a requirement to know exactly what a display sequence consists of. If this isn't the case for civilian airshows, then there is clearly at lack of oversight/logic! I believe there were fundamental failures in supervision and control.

Flying Lawyer wrote:

So, I'll re-word my entry, as follows:

just because a guy at the CAA thinks you are up to the job?

Quite apart from looking shoddy, such an arrangement is doing no favours for the FDD. Should the CAA man move on and be replaced mid season with a stranger, what chance is there of the FDD getting another authority?

Look at the course content for the ATPL exams that youngsters are required to pass, some with little relevance to what they will be doing, and now we find there is not a clearly defined yardstick for FDD.

JFZ - I think they are referring to AH's departure from his planned display in a JP at Southport (?) which resulted in a 'knock it off' from the FDD.