In the report it states that the pilot underwent testing by an FOI and was found to need remedial training.
In the interim, the same pilot has crashed departing Essendon and the investigation into that is ongoing?
Framer, the pilot completed all reviews and remedial training required of him by CASA. I agree that the time taken for the ATSB to produce this report brings into question either the competence or independence of the ATSB into question. But the inference that the pilot was either substandard or allowed to continue flying improperly while the investigation was underway is scurrilous.
The report into the MtHotham incident has the looks to me like it has been sanitised to make things simpler when the Essendon report is released. The Essendon report has either just been released to the DIP's or is on the eve of being released, so, effectively this report has been staged with the Essendon report.
This report, does, however, tie itself in knots trying to avoid blaming AsA or the airspace structure. Initially, (as I recall) AsA said there was no radar coverage in the area, now its saying there was, except for a critical 6 minute period. But, the really interesting thing that I would have liked examined is why AsA can't track aircraft at Hotham, but the free web based Flighaware and Flightradar can.
Another factor that has been overlooked is the lack of met data available at MtHotham. The BOM (largely based on AsA input) dropped the TAF service at Mt Hotham. Proper weather briefing at Mt Hotham may have completely changed the decisions made by the subject aircraft.
The pilot, after the incident, reported that the GPS was not functioning correctly and the report effectively confirms this, however, this report has made no investigation of the GPS equipment, nor the autopilot, nor the GPS /autopilot coupling. There is nothing in the report that challenges or disproves the hypothesis that improper operation of the GPS and / or autopilot contributed. Nor does the report give a robust investigation of RAIM. It makes the assertion that RAIM was available largely because other aircraft did not report difficulty. But given the critical role RAIM plays, and the brevity of typical RAIM outages, this report is deficient in its analysis of RAIM.
Finally, the lack of radar surveillance, meteorological information and air traffic control for such a busy airport with large charter aircraft (at least in winter) is scandalous. A bloke at Hotham on a laptop watching flightaware on the web and holding an $400 ICOM transceiver would have given these aircraft better service than our outrageously expensive Air Services Australia systems. Should we just trade "onesky" for a bunch of subscriptions to "Flightaware"?