------- and therefore would not have had liability insurance cover
which every current member of RA Aus enjoys.
In such circumstances carrying a passenger would surely be defined as
'reckless'.
Add the obvious inability to glide to land in the event of an engine failure and one can see where CASA will be coming from with this case.
Folks,
The insurance issue is no business of CASA, there is no law requiring insurance in this case. Mandatory insurance only comes in for passengers in public transport flights.
Again, I ask, which circumstances are reckless at law? Below is one simplistic definition.
Recklessness
Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly
injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.
Recklessness transcends ordinary
Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others, although no harm is intended.
There is no requirement to remain within gliding distance of land in this case, just requirements if you are out of gliding distance, and this chap seemed well equipped, well beyond the minimum the law allows.
CASA can't just invent "reckless" to make an example of somebody --- or can they, do CASA think they could get away with it in court??? ---- the pilot is well represented, as I understand from newspaper reports.
What happened to "just culture", from what has been published so far, I can't see any action that would justify the charge of recklessness --- and the possible jail time.
Tootle pip!!