You regard an ABC report as factual? Then you build your opinion around it and expected be taken seriously? What planet are you on?

You have fallen for CASAs sleight of hand where they now claim the power to categorise types ​​​​​​ of private flights according to the passengers and circumstances of the flight. That is effectively an end to private flight in its entirety!

To put that another way, it ain’t private if CASA can dictate who you can carry and where you can go. Have you got that through your head?

Continue on guys, I expect a few personal attacks. It's an Australian pilots thingy, most hate it when an another opinion is viewed!

I’m with machtuk.

Mandating calendar-based engine overhauls will cure ‘get-home-itis’ and continuing VFR into IMC. That, and shortening the period in which the minimum number of landings and take offs in type have to be completed, should just about get to zero accidents and incidents. The next step should surely be minimum CPL and AOC coverage, to guarantee zero fatalities.

Now yer talkin!

And mandating control cable replacement will stop VFR pilots continuing into IMC.

Finally: It all makes sense to me.

“gethereitis is not just a medical flight issue.

lets be clear. The first accident near Horsham was not VFR to IMC. It occurred before last light but the ATSB assumes that due to low cloud and other factors that the pilot becaume disoriented in night VMC. The ATSB said “VFR flight into dark night conditions”. Which in itself is an emotive headline befitting of a Mills & Boon paperback.

There are 2 glaring weaknesses in the ATSB Horsham report. 1. The report does not disclose who the pilot rang when he landed at Bendigo. He made 3 phone calls, one of which was to met briefing. A phone all that would have been recorded. But the ATSB failed to disclose what weather advice the pilot recieved before deciding to reload his passengers into the aeroplane and continue. The second is that one of the passengers - known to be highly agitated - was found not wearing a seat belt and out of her seat. This raises the spectre of an agitated passenger interfering with the control. But this was not considered at all by the ATSB.

The second Mt Gambier incident does not yet have a final report - about 18 months after the accident. Prima facie it looks like the pilot flew into a fog layer and became disoriented. But, the pilot landed in similar (presumably worse) fog 2 hours prior. So - legal or not - he had familiarity with what he was getting into and how high it was likely to extend, which appears to be only a couple of hundred feet thick. There is a strong chance he was able to see blue sky vertically above him and ground directly below him. The aircraft probably only needed to maintain a climb for about 30 seconds to climb through the fog layer, but it did not. We don’t yet know if the aircraft had an autopilot. But a simple wing leveler and an aeroplane producing full power and any semblance of airspeed control would have seen the aircraft climb through the fog. I’m not condoning the pilot taking off into fog and I have personally cancelled and Angel Flight about 3 hours before ETD because of fog. But blaming this accident on VFR to IMC without a report from the ATSB (no matter how poor it will be) is facile.

I have it: CASA should charge a fee to approve each community service flight!

Not sure where you get the idea that it will “lapse”, Leaddie.

If it’s a legislative instrument it has to be laid before (‘tabled’ in) each House within 6 days of the instrument being made. Each House then has 15 sitting days in which to move a motion to disallow. According to Odger’s: “Where a session of the Parliament ends because the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires, or the Parliament is prorogued, and a notice of motion to disallow has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of, the instrument in question is deemed to have been laid before the relevant House on the first sitting day of the new session. The opportunity to move disallowance is then renewed.”

Note that the instrument is in force for the entire period, which can be months. And note that if a motion to disallow is not moved in either House, the instrument continues in force even if there’s a change in government.

Making subordinate law - e.g. a legislative instrument - in the lead up to an election can therefore be a very ‘clever’ (translation: ‘sneaky arsehole’) bureaucratic tactic to make a controversial law while the pollies are focussed on re-election and the 15 sitting days can span months. By the time the post-election dust settles, the law has done months of damage and the new government is usually focussed on the ‘big picture’ (consolidating itself by, if necessary, making deals with cross-benchers) rather than trivia like subordinate legislation that’s been in force for months and done damage that won’t make any political difference, given that the next election is a couple of years away.

This is, after all, the lucky country.