15 Mr Richardson gave evidence that early in his employment, he formed the view that an aircraft was unfit to fly after carrying out a daily pre-flight inspection. He could not recall, he said, what the issue was or the aircraft concerned, but he had refused to take that aircraft that he had been assigned to fly, because he considered it to be unserviceable, and instead flew another one. When he returned from the flight, he said he had been surprised to see that the aircraft which he refused to fly was missing, and apparently, according to his inquiries, had been flown by another pilot who had not identified the same defect.
Oh, wait a minute, paragraph 15 suggest that Mr Richardson failed to endorse the MR after he discovered a defect on an aircraft, as a result another pilot who wasn't aware of the defect then flew that aircraft. I would think/hope most pilots check an aircrafts MR to see if the aircraft is unserviceable prior to flight, the fact that the aircraft flew would reinforce the suggestion that MR Richardson failed to endorse the MR earlier in the day when he discovered the defect.
Will CASA thoroughly investigate what would appear to be a serious non compliance with the rules and regulations by MR Richardson?
Will CASA, if this is found to be the case, be issuing MR Richardson with an infringement notice?