Obviously one of the explanations would involve the actual costs of doing that, which you alluded to.
I suspect it's also a factor in two of the issues that became very clear during your inquiry: the lack of a 30-minute run dry capability in the helicopters being used offshore; and the concern, which you shared and issued a recommendation on early on, about night flights over very long distances and the increased danger of loss of life if a helicopter goes down then. We still have helicopters without 30-minute dry run capabilities operating in the offshore. We have a very significant push to go back to night flights, and I know Mr. Barnes's organization is heavily involved with that. Both of these are also cost factors. You can get other helicopters that do have the capability and you could avoid night flights by having more helicopters.
I'm wondering, in light of your recommendation 29, if it is possible that an independent regulator would have more leeway and not perhaps be as concerned about what the industry would have to say or about the operation side, and be more able to deal with that.
I'll give you a second example, because I'm not sure what's going to happen to my time.
A recent incident came to light only after the Transportation Safety Board reported. A helicopter lost engine power, was dropping very fast, managed to be saved because it was in daylight and they physically saw the ocean and were able stop and change direction. That was never reported as such to the C-NLOPB, which is now the regulator. The contractor reported it to the operator as a loss of power, but with no details, and then the operator reported it to the C-NLOPB in a similarly ambiguous way. It wasn't until the Transportation Safety Board...and the C-NLOPB said they didn't know anything about it, but that the Transportation Safety Board is investigating.
That set of circumstances bothers me. You now have the C-NLOPB taking information, not from the person running the helicopters but from the operator, and C-NLOPB is leaving it to somebody else. It seems to me this is a danger—the lack of a separate, independent safety regulator that has one and only one role.
Would you care to comment on both of these issues? One, the cost of doing a good job, and two, the circumstances I just mentioned.