But the key difference, DB, is that CASA was on notice of this person’s attitude and activities. For a very long time.
I suppose I’d ask a different question: If CASA does not have a sufficient combination of resources, expertise and strategic resource-allocation management flexibility to stop a person like this, before an innocent person is killed, when CASA has a mountain of evidence (much of it generated by CASA) to support constraint of this person’s activities, shouldn’t someone be alerting the public of that fact?
In other words, if it’s true that the lives of members of the public might continue to be placed in the hands of persons known by the safety regulator to have a history of safety rule breaking and safety-related medical conditions, isn’t the public entitled to know that?
The advice I give to friends and members of my family is: don’t fly in any aircraft with fewer than 40 seats in Australia. I find it sad that I have to give that advice. But on what basis should I be confident that aircraft with fewer than those seats are the subject of any proper regulatory surveillance and compliance activity in Australia?