Amongst the determination to get stuck into BJCC and turn legal, technical terms like criminal into emotive ones, I think the crux of this issue has been lost - namely - the guy was warned that questions had been raised about his fitness for duty and yet he decided off his own bat to continue.
Regardless of the training, competence or rank of the person raising the question - if there is any doubt as to fitness then not taking positive action to resolve it is reckless. Prosecution is then inevitable. Before the howls commence about upstart PPL wannabees (the security guard (and me for that matter)) unqualified to make such calls - the safety of the flight is paramount. If a malicious report was made that delays a flight then that can be dealt with too - through the laws of defamation if needs be. There's even a fairly strong argument to say that upstart wannabees (not that he was) or people with a chip on their shoulders have a role to play in the whole system as they are far less likely to turn a blind eye or be cowed by the status of a senior captain.
119.5 discussed the M62 motorway crash. Well yes - if an ATCO or pilot feels that they are not up to the job due to tiredness then they are UNFIT FOR DUTY and have a legal duty to stand down - to not do otherwise rightly invites prosecution (hopefully before people get killed). Likewise - that ATCOs watch supervisor or that pilot's dispatcher who saw them behaving erratically or falling asleep prior to/during duty also has a duty of care to take positive action to ensure the ATCO/pilot is relieved. The reason that rest periods are mandated for pilots is because you can't just pull over and have a nap - the training, the rules and the intelligence required for the job involve you taking responsibility for your physical and mental fitness at the start of duty and at any point during duty when that changes.
Why different rules for different professions? I don't know the answer to that. Why is aviation being picked on? Well, it's not really - in fact the laws have taken a long time to catch up. I (currently) work in the railway industry. As far back as the turn of the century, signalmen were being rostered for 24 hour shifts and then prosecuted when they fell asleep and trains crashed. Admittedly they normally got off but we're back to my original point - they had no choice, no mechanism for going sick, no way of identifying or proving their fitness for duty or of taking any other action that wouldn't result in them being fired. On this occasion, the RBA captain had all of those opportunities and took none of them - as Kevin Bacon said in "A Few Good Men" - "these are the facts of this case and they are undisputed".
So is he a criminal? Yes. Is that fair? Yes. Should those who are upset that he has been branded a criminal step back from getting sucked in by tabloid headlines (branded a criminal - is it tattooed on his backside?) and take criminal for the legal technical term it is? Yes. It's an overrated emotive term. Ask yourself the question - have I ever done anything criminal? I'm not saying you have but if the answer is yes then just because you weren't caught doesn't mean you're not a criminal.
So 'Rules are for the guidance of the wise and obedience of idiots'. Which one is the Brunei pilot? How do you get the idiots to obey? Who defines wise? - self-awarding of status is an oxymoron - so who are the rules meant to be obeyed by? Everyone.
Regards,
UTR.