What do we actually know? There are lots of rumours (which if true would make me think he was being knowingly reckless) but what is the actual story?
Only rumours or anything more substantial? If it is all just hearsay that makes debate here all pretty moot to me.
I have heard and read (but do not know if accurate) that:
1. He wasn't qualified to fly cross country
2. He wasn't flying the recommended route but instead one with longer over-water legs despite being advised against it.
3. The EPIRB was a last minute decision because a friend suggested it.
4. Prior to departure, the aircraft battery was not holding charge and the ASI was U/S - which if true would make me suspicious about the general standard of the aircraft particularly a slow one with a 2 stroke engine and poor glide ratio about to fly long stretches over water.
5. He took a passenger who thought he was qualified and appropriately experienced to do the flight when he was aware he wasn't.
6. He told local authorities he was qualified to do the flight when he knew he wasn't
7. He had been observed drinking within 8 hours of departure (and that charge was dropped as a plea deal when he agreed to plead guilty to the reckless flying charge).
Is there concrete evidence for the above? If mostly the above is not the case and just rumour then I would say it is hard to justify the effort taken to pursue him and I really could not censure him.
If most of the above is accurate however, then I would say, he deserved to be pursued and CASA turning a blind eye or getting him to write a 'I completely and unexpectedly learnt that being a reckless idiot in an aeroplane can result in problems' would not be appropriate (or much news to anyone).
If the above is mostly not the case however then that would be a different matter.
If he
1. was trained to the required standard in navigation (and just the paperwork got lost in the system),
2. if he had planned the trip according to recommended procedures,
3. had made sure the aircraft was prepared and airworthy,
4. if he had rested and avoided alcohol before the flight and
5. taken sensible precautions given the nature of the aircraft and flight
and then was unfortunate enough to have an engine failure and the only regulatory issue was a paperwork stuff up in his qualifications - he should not be censured IMO.
What do we actually know as opposed to what appears in a few newspaper articles?