ShyTorque
Your last comment is unworthy of you. Sid said nothing to justify it.
I have watched this thread with incredulity. First the medical facts (which I can comment on with some expertise):
The pilot was IMHO lucky to have been just given a 2 year grounding. To wake confused is not typical of a TIA (mini stroke) and many neurologists would consider it far more 'risky'. No sensible neurologist would have allowed him to fly and comments that he knew better are daft
He did not save anyone's life (the casualty stayed on scene overnight and survived). It is true the doctor on scene erroneously stated a life was at risk, and in my organisation pilots dont argue with doctors on medical matters. But equally pilots have the final say as to whether a flight occurs and never put the patient before crew and bystander safety. The doctor was wrong but that is irrelevant.
Now the aviation issues:
Regardless of why this chap was on scene with no license, his skill as reported in court was that he knew where to land the R44 to insert rescuers. It does not say he had exceptional piloting skills to land there, merely that he knew the location. I dont buy the argument that the other pilot was jettisoned to insert additional rescuers but it is unlikely given the difficulty of getting extraction kit in a 44 and the question remains as to why if adequate rescuers were inserted why did they stay overnight????? So the sensible course of action would have been for him to act as unofficial navigator.
The details are also known for one of the pilot's previous illegal flights where we are told he handled the aircraft so the other pilot could look out for the missing person. I cannot construct a situation where it would not have been feasible for the other pilot to fly the aircraft and this chap to look out.
At the end of the day this chap lacks any insight. Having been almost prosecuted and escaped on a technicality he continued to break the law. He put his business and employees on the line financially. He flew people, in ignorance of the risk that he could have lost consciousness and killed them, on the flimsiest of reasons, then had the audacity to argue that he should be let off because it was a rescue mission.
What confidence can society have that he has learned from his prosecution and will not continue to break the law in future where he disagrees with them?