surely_not, yea right! Just like if you're flying to see us here in pommy land and the flight crew become incapacitated and you as a professional pilot do nothing but carry on munching your peanuts and swilling your lager
I fully understand what we are saying here and of course the feeling that he shouldn't be prosecuted given the circumstances, but what really is the 'full story' here?
What do we know from the media, or in other words what information do any of us have on which to base our opinion?
1. Westpac 117 leaves the search area due to fuel or weather issues.
(Can't get fuel at Kaikoura base? Weather too bad for a fully equipped & crewed 117?)
2. Kaikoura R44 launches with an inexperienced pilot and the highly experienced yet suspended company director as pax.
(We don't know if they were asked to)
3. Casualty located in dense bush on a steep slope.
(Then what happens?)
Purely hypothetical and merely an opinion;
Given the dire circumstances, wouldn't you drop off the inexperienced pilot and have the extra capability to get the expert rescuers to the scene asp?
Could it be that the R44 found the casualty, the pilot had difficulty landing so the suspended pax took control and landed. Now what?
Was the inexperienced pilot left to care for the casualty while the experienced yet suspended pax flew in the rescue team, after all, if the suspended pax had stayed with the casualty it wouldn't be certain that the inexperienced pilot would be able to get them back in.
Spot the difference;
Helicopter pilot admits aviation breaches | Stuff.co.nz