Clapton.
In respect to Mr Toller "operatiing of an aircraft without an endorsement" I will agree the allegation is ludicrous. The flight in question was a private flight; Mr Toller occupied the co-pilot seat; the Chief Pilot, a Grade 1 Instructor with type endorsement and CAR217 approvals occupied the left pilot seat; and Mr Toller briefly flew the aircraft in cuise, under supervision. (I was seated behind Mr Toller and witnessed the event.)
Some years ago a DHC6 taxied in Cairns for the purpose of conducting a revenue flight, following completion of scheduled maintenance. The pilot was alerted to a yellow oil leak from one engine nacelle and returned to the terminal to have the defect rectified. He did not enter the defect on the MR as he had not attempted to become airborne but advised details verbally to a LAME; the LAME rectified the defect and entered the defect on the MR.
CASA took the view that to taxi an aircraft for the purposes of flight was considered to be commencement of the flight, the defect should have been entered on the MR and piloried the pilot.
Whilst I can't say I agree with CASA's decision and action in the above incident, if Mr Toller completed a flight with a known defect which should have been entered on the MR, why then was he exempted from similar CASA action?
I mention this incident for no other reason that to highlight the apparent inconsistencies in CASA's administrative decisions and actions over a number of years.