TC, Those who know me (and you don't) might well think very different to what you're implying, trying to tar me with a certain brush.
I have been very careful to make no reference to alleged previous examples of rule breaking by this pilot. My reaction is based purely on the incident in question, i.e. the one for which he was prosecuted. He made his decision to fly on the facts as presented to him at the time, not in the comfort of an armchair after the event. Westpac had failed to reach the casualty. He did better. He undoubtedly knew he was going to be held to task but still did the job, as he saw it, to try to save a life.
He did not have an accident and reference to other pilots being sued by dependants because they did is a red herring. He broke the law to save a life, that is the only relevant fact.
I have to say that I'm 100% certain I wouldn't have flown that particular mission in the circumstances. In fact, in my fairly distant past, as a fully qualified SAR pilot, I've been obliged to turn down (thankfully a very small number of) very urgent missions on safety grounds. I was taken to task on all of them to explain why. Although I was legally justified, one small part of me will always wish I'd gone.
It could be argued that this pilot just has bigger balls than all of us. My donation to the fund set up for him by the person rescued was for that reason, not that I condone rule breaking. As part of the donation process, one is invited to make a comment on the website. I asked Dave not to do it again without a medical.
My final comment on the matter.