"The psychiatrist found that Boyd was “well below the minimum standard of mental health for a pilot” recommending his license be revoked immediately."
The article then goes on to say this immediately after:
"This recommendation was sent to the referring Virgin Australia doctor.But three months on, Boyd was again mailed his medical certificate from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)."
If that is true then how on earth is that not medical negligence, did the virgin australia doctor have appropriate psychiatric qualifications in order to make an assessment that went against what the psychiatrist and the pilot was saying?
I would always be careful about accepting something reported in a news article at face value, but it is probable the psychiatrist was just that - a psychiatrist and not a AME or DAME. It is very common for surgeons, cardiologists, neurologists etc of the highest calibre to give a report saying a pilot is fit to fly but for the pilot not to be given a medical simply because a consultant not involved in aviation is not trained as to the requirements. The DAME or AME is not in many cases a consultant or specialist in that field but is trained to interpret the Authority's requirements, so the psychiatrist may simply be wrong. Indeed it is possible the DAME sent the report to CASA whose own psychiatrist reviewed it and the Authority then issued the medical.