Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:29 pm
The report does detail some of the changes the CAA have already made to their team / personnel and processes so I suspect that some of this wouldn't happen again.
To me, the fault lies by far with the operator, who broke the law directly and their own safety case on multiple occasions. If the CAA states stipulations, and they aren't followed, its the operator's fault.
Some of it is balance decisions though - we shouldn't expect (and wouldn't want) the CAA to gold plate everything. This was a prototype, using prototype build quality, by a small company, for a single demo. To me its right that the CAA should be able to trust what is sent to them, then the fault becomes that of the operator if they don't follow their own procedures. There is a question of checking that those procedures and systems are complied with, but I wouldn't expect that to happen for every operator on every occasion.
The fact is, the mitigations to the risk of those on the ground worked. NATS were informed about the runaway drone, likely before it entered the Class-A, so if there had been holding aircraft they could have been moved elsewhere. Lets not bash the CAA too much. We bash them when they aren't flexible and we bash them when they are.