Now in the UK, ANYONE who clacks a blade, not once but twice - and then attempts a field repair as an UNqualified helicopter engineer - and then continues in flight; is most definitely guilty of gross negligence as a pilot
Thomas etc,
Some of you chaps seem to have quite severe difficulties reading the English language.
Richard Green was qualified, both legally and practically, for the maintenance work he did. By virtue of factory courses completed, and CASA issued MAs (Maintenance Approvals) Richard was probably the best qualified person in AU to work on an EC-135.
The field repair after the rotor strike to the EC-135 was done to manufacturer's specifications, using manufacturer approved materials, the aeroplane carried a repair kit in the flight spares for just such an eventuality.
As to the very selective CASA record, and his 6 month suspension, only somebody with experience of how CASA approaches the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) would understand how entirely subjective judgements on often highly reports on "airmanship" results in a license suspension.
As one example, removed from this case, available in the ATSB files, SW of Sydney a CFI of a local flying school reported an "airmiss" with another aircraft, and "reported" the other pilot. The result of the investigation was that the separation, in Class G airspace (based on radar data) was 3nm+ and 500' vertically on a CAVOK day. Near miss????
Have a look at the CASA "accusations" at the AAT, except for the wire strike, all were subjective, none were offenses against the regulations.
It is no secret that quite a few people did not like Richard, (especially several CASA employees) but since when is "liked" a prerequisite for holding a pilots license. If "being liked" was mandatory, I can think of a not so short short list of FOIs whose licenses should be suspended immediately.
Thomas, believe me, dealing with CASA is nothing like dealing with UK CAA or FAA , and I deal with all of them on a regular basis. Find a copy of the Forsyth Report into CASA ( one of the investigative team was ex-UK CAA Board), the results are absolutely damning, mistrust of the regulator was a virtually universal theme, from airlines down to individual respondents, like Richard Green.