Often cases are won or lost on "points of law".
And points of fact. Bloke wasn't supposed to be flying pax for money, due to a pre-existing medical conditon. He'd been told that by the regulator and he did it anyway, unbenownst to the pax who thought he was getting a safe product. Bloke sold tickets despite being told not to by the regulator. This is where Blackhand has a point and this is where no points of law can point otherwise. He
ed up and killed someone. Anyone want to claim a dodgy winglet did the deed? Was it all a horrible mistake?
Point of fact, the pax died and no doubt his partner will blame herself every day of her life for buying him the ticket, despite his fatality being not her fault.
In Australia, an advertised, commercial product is expected to be reasonably safe and comply with regulations. If you buy salami, you can reasonably expect that your deli and their supplier kept it stored and refrigerated at the regulated temperature and away from maggots and contaminants. If they left it sitting on the dock in the sun for half a day and you bought it, ate it and got really sick, it doesn't matter a toss if the listed fat content was wrong. They didn't follow the regulations and it's their problem. They
ed up and you were harmed.
If you buy a joyflight ticket you should expect that the pilot complies with the regulations and is licensed to carry paying pax. This didn't happen. If there was anything wrong with the aircraft and a wing had fallen off mid flight, we would have heard about it by now. CASA and their Senior Counsels would have already found it and explained the whole problem away.
If there was anything wrong with the pilot? That's what the coroner will find out, and it's not looking good.
What caused the crash? No missing wing, no dodgy fuel, no alien bombers wreaking havoc on GA joyflights. A pilot with a known seizure problem and a prohibition re commerical pax (and no broken wrists) plunges into the sea, taking a trusting customer with him who paid for what he and the purchaser believed was a safe product. Any smoking guns we're not aware of? Now's the time.
Australians are entitled to have those standards enforced, consistently and effectively.
Absolutely. One of the advantages of living in a nanny state is that you expect a commercial product will be safe, conducted by a trained, approved person and won't kill you. Otherwise, we may as well revert to the law of the jungle.
I agree that this sucks for everyone.