AOTW, I think the point is that perhaps CASA, after failing in its "beer run" allegation, went looking for something else…and found it.
This begs the question if the low flying beer drinking allegation would ever have surfaced absent the original allegation.
That, to me, is what appears to be disturbing about CASA investigations; the original allegation triggers a wide ranging unfettered investigation of any and all alleged infractions, no matter how large or small without regard to context.
So the main CASA allegation fails, but there is still a raft of minor stuff with witch to besmirch the pilot - log book errors, missing tire caps, MR entries incorrect and life jackets time expired to build a case that is unrelated to the main allegation.
To put that another way, it is as if the police prosecutor says to the judge; "well, your honour, we agree we can't prove Bloggs murdered Snowy,,, but Bloggs does have Five outstanding parking fines and an unpaid speeding ticket, so you should find him guilty" - and the AAT, true to form, does just that.
This offends my sense of fairness. A single allegation triggers a witch hunt and then CASA rolls it all together into one prosecution. This is not allowed in common law.
Surely CASA would be more effective as a regulator if it didn't do this?