Now back to the accident. In the article I referenced earlier, an Austrian investigator is quoted as attributing the accident to pilot disorientation. To quote - "trying to find the airport, he underestimated the Lindkogel (mountain where accident happened). That was the problem - he was on his way to the approach zone, but on this way there was an obstacle - the mountain"
I think this is standard language used by people who do not know aviation procedures (e.g. that instrument approaches exist, decision heights, etc). The press people think that private pilots just fly around aimlessly, like those in the WW1 movies, with leather caps and goggles, maps and compasses on their laps, wondering into clouds and fog, hitting mountains in they can't see them, etc. They haven't got a clue about real-world navigiation and procedures.
Also, formally, the accident would have occurred in
VMC, not because it was known to be in VMC but because the pilot (apparently) cancelled IFR and therefore must have been in VMC. I have seen this kind of thing elsewhere. And ATC have no job to question what the pilot can see (rightly so).
The article also mentions that he circled, although does not elaborate.
That could be a journo misinterpretation of "circling approach" which technically (in ICAO/Jeppesen speak, if not called thus on the EAD approach plate) that VOR approach is.
Rotorblast - if you want to make a point, make it on the basis of available facts, not by dragging out some assertions about paperwork which are at best irrelevant to this accident and at worst could be totally bogus, and which (as you obviously know) you will get away with only because the subject is dead and cannot sue for libel.