Gee, it's a good question and one that I imagine will generate a fair bit of debate.
Unfortunately, I would imagine the standard reply will be that it's command prerogative whether to take the aircraft or not with the forecast conditions and equipment levels.
As far as CASA is concerned the exerting of undue pressure with regard to job security, future promotional prospects etc. is of little interest provided the flight is undertaken "legally".
This exercise of command judgement under adverse pressure only seems to be taken into consideration when the ATSB publishes its findings into some accident or other. The recent tragedy into Hotham for example is one that springs to mind where commercial pressures were considered a factor. This appears not to have been considered previously in spite of CASAs extensive monitoring of the pilot in question prior to the accident.
To CASA's credit though in instances where gross negligence has been proved (Monarch is one that comes to mind) they acted - albeit after the fact.
I guess fortunately most times pilots get themselves out of these hairy situations with little more than a need for a change of underwear. Unfortunately, you also get sitautions as with the chieftain near Coonabarabran last year where four (?) people ended up spread over a paddock because of such an instance.
I guess it's like most things these days. Everybody is under pressure to get the job done at the cheapest possible price. Until the travelling public and the regulator accept that the price of higher safety is more expensive travel - rather than cost cutting other areas - nothing will change. I guess we have to consider as professionals what accident rate is "acceptable" and whether we as pilots are willing to accept that or lobby CASA and the Government to change the rules to improve our level of workplace safety.
Conversely, there should be a knowledge that at present, Charter aircraft are not required to be equipped to the same standard as RPT aircraft.
Provided the operator is providing the minimum legal required level of equipment either under the CAOs or some MEL/ PUS system, they are bulletproof in terms of their OH+S obligations.
Legal? Yes? Moral? That's a question far too philosphically advanced for me to even consider!
