And I notice that you base your assumption of Quadrio's 'guilt' on CAsA's determination and ruling, and if you believe or accept that you will always come to an incorrect personal conclusion.
I think JQ acted reasonably and safety. I think he was persecuted by CASA. Unfortunately has been formally found guilty by a court. I am not assuming he is guilty. I am stating an (unfortunate) fact.
I have read transcripts of ALL (and I mean all) the testimony and we are going to have to disagree, because I think the arguments accepted by the AAT by the CASA expert witnesses (based on only viewing of video footage) to demonstrate JQ's low flying and dangerous hover can be directly re-applied here. Note: I'm referring to the arguments used, not the facts of the case.
Specifically, I mean the methodology the court accepted for the determination of height and lateral clearance to objects to sustain the charge of low flying. And the arguments that were presented by the CASA witnesses supported by data in the Robinson POH to prove the CASA charge (that was accepted by the AAT) that the hover endangered the lives of the passengers.
This new case will have a bunch of other interesting aspects including passenger briefing, use of supplied seats, use of seatbelts, skid load sanctioned by the Robinson POH. Weight & balance issues will get a run as well. All doors were removed. I assume there are specific requirements set out by the Robinson POH for this, it will be an issue also. There are also probably issues about the guys running into a hovering chopper.
Also the venue is a farm, which is probably deemed to be a workplace. If one of the skid ornaments is the son of the owner, then he's probably on the books as an employee. At which point there is a whole new raft of potential workplace safety charges.
But, frankly I'm less offended by the act of this video than I am a sense of injustice if CASA handle this differently than John Quadrio's case. And I think that based only on charges only of low flying and reckless flying, if the same CASA expert witnesses as the JQ case gave opinions based on the same assumptions as used in the JQ case, then this is an ex-pilot in the video.
I have never met John Quadrio, but from what I have read he seems like a good, competent. diligent pilot who has been pursued by CASA and has lost his licence (and livelihood) for doing nothing different that scores of other pilots do every day. He was charged solely on CASA's interpretation of an edited video created by someone the AAT described as an unreliable witness.
I see this as a test of integrity for CASA.