I would have thought that this could be considered libelous
While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published
There's no cause of action possible for defamatory publications about a dead person. So while it may be socially reprehensible to speak ill of the dead, it is not a tortious act.
A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.
I can't see any cause for concern there.
The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.
Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results
Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.