The following in a West Australian Court bears a quiet read:
CALANDRA -v- CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY [2013] WASC 411 (18 November 2013)
And within the Judges report at 101, the following is noted about the casa "experts..."
101 Mr Alder was an expert aviation witness called on behalf of the prosecution. He was an in-house employee of the
Civil Aviation Safety 
Authority and called to express his expert views.
The learned magistrate was rather kind in his remarks towards Alder, observing at par 45 that Mr Alder had at times 'confused his role'. By that he presumably meant
Mr Alder had confused his role by not behaving independently as an expert witness and instead seeking to express partisan views to advance the case of the prosecution.
102 At par 45, the learned magistrate effectively negated the impact of Mr Alder's evidence by concluding 'there is significant commonality with Mr Pfeiffer's evidence'. Mr Pfeiffer was the expert aircraft (helicopter) engineer witness called at trial on behalf of the appellant.
103 The reasons therefore show Mr Alder's partisan expert evidence was only used in circumstances where it was in harmony with the evidence of the defendant's expert. That accords with my independent review of how Mr Alder's evidence ought to be used.
104 In those circumstances, I assess it as safe to conclude Mr Alder's participation in the trial, in the end, delivered no prejudice to Mr Calandra.
In the future, however, it should be said in firm terms that any practice of calling demonstrably partisan in-house experts as prosecution witnesses is both unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
In fact [this is about a R44] and a search for Roger Alder on the casa site shows:
Why do I like working at CASA?
Roger Alder Senior Systems / Propulsion Engineer
Airworthiness and engineering
I feel I can contribute to air safety.