Originally Posted by
bluesideoops
The guy was wilfully reckless and negligent, failed to comply with regulations, lied to authorities and endangered several lives in the process including his own.
No he was not, because the points of proof aren't all there...
Recklessness. ... Recklessness means the person knew (or should have known) that his or her action were likely to cause harm. Negligence means that the person acted in violation of a duty to someone else, with the breach of that duty causing harm to someone else.
Did he intend to put his passenger at risk? No.
It's not reckless as he could not have reasonably expected that the engine would fail. Would he have known that the rescue chopper might break it's winch cable and lose a crewman? No. Would he have known that the engines on the rescue chopper would have failed because of dodgey fuel? No.
Why did the charges not stack up? Probably because he was not guilty and or they couldn't be proven.