Exactly what would you have been able to get away with xxx? The low flying or the crashing?
Given that the exact same aircraft was possibly nearly being flown 20 years ago, certainly not the crashing
The low flying part. (Not saying that it was any more legal 20 years ago, just saying that you were far more likely to get away with it).
How much longer will their regulators accept this behaviour.
They don't, and they never did Flywatcher.
At a guess, the pilots certificate will be immediately revoked, their membership with RA-Aus cancelled permanently (for bringing RA-Aus into disrepute) and the information will be forwarded to CASA for further regulatory action, which in this instance could equate to a string of low flying related charges of no less than 50 demerit points ($5,500inc GST in fines?) and possibly up to a 2 year jail term if anything else pops up. Not somewhere I'd like to be right now.
RA-Aus pilots need to all realise if they don't already, that whilst you operate under RA-Aus, you are still 100% operating under CASA and it's full regulatory powers. The RA-Aus involvement merely only give an excemption to some of the CASA requirements around aircraft type and licence, however you are still bound by the same CAO's & CAR's.
In actual fact, by being an RA-Aus certificate holder, you need to comply with all CASA CAO's and CAR's ... AND ... the RA-Aus operations manual. You also need to know which takes priority over the other. It's no-where near as simple as just thinking or saying "those RA-Aus guys can do whatever they can get away with it" .... far from it.
(PS: This is in no way RA-Aus bashing towards the organisation or it's members - I'm merely pointing out that both the regulatory systems apply simultaneously here)