Scattercat,
Here we go into interpreting CAO's! As always, there'll be a host of possibilities, but the heading sentence for CAO 20.18.4.2 is "A helicopter shall not be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is equipped with:"
The sub para (d) is still referring to the main sentence, ie IFR flights, where it then devolves into auto pilot requirement, where an auto pilot is required "for other than NVFR flights except that in the case of such flight which will involve more than 30 minutes over water or land areas where aircraft altitude (sic) cannot be maintained by reference to ground lighting, an approved autostab or 2 pilot crew shall be carried".
The trap here is that it is only referring to IFR as the criteria for auto pilot carriage (or 2 pilots). Remember, you can have an IFR flight which is either NVFR or not. Many is the pilot who has assumed that his instrument rating covers him for NVFR, and suffered the wrath of CASA when his NVFR rating is not current, and a night IFR flight has been carried out illegally.
Apart from the reference to "altitude", which my FOI firmly believes should be "attitude", the import of the sub para is confused (as are we all...) probably because of the old days when NVFR was regarded as Instrument Flight. Remember when a night rating was actually a Class 4 Instrument Rating?
At a guess, I would say that we are both right, wherein the import of the text is meant to stop NVFR flights punching off overwater into a black hole, but the legal interpretation of the import is stymied by the Sub Section heading, which is clearly "Equipment for Flight under Instrument Flight Rules". NVFR requires visual reference, so the IFR bit doesn't apply.
Or does it
