I'm not at all familiar with the airspace around Archerfield, but for other reasons would like to be.

What I don't get is: Having found what looks to be the Lake Clarendon VFR route towards Archerfield around the top end of the control zone and starting to follow it in, why he suddenly left it, did a 180 and subsequently lost all SA. After skirting around a thunderhead or two maybe? Or is that only an outbound route from Archerfield??
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9f9d045717.jpg

I’m impressed that they managed to take on 263 litres of fuel and be airborne 11 minutes after landing.

That speaks of someone in a huge rush. Would barely allow for a restroom stop.

Most airside GA bowsers are capped at 40 litres/min (although there are some quicker ones around). That means loading 263 litres would take around 6.5 minutes, not including hose out and back plus reciept printing/reading the instructions/untangling oneself from the bonding reel leaving less than 2 minutes to get on and off the runway.

So, yep, even with a high-flow (80l/min) pump that's one heck of a rush! And certainly no time at all for runups!!

The aircraft appears to be a 1978 R182. The flight manual for this model states long range tanks hold 285 litres of useable fuel. Adding 263 litres means they sure were light on fuel earlier. Unless of course they had modified fuel capacity.

"Or is that only an outbound route from Archerfield??"
No, it is two way, but there is high terrain at the eastern end near Fernvale to Lake Manchester and as you turn to the southwest for Archerfield. Flying that route requires a healthy respect for terrain clearance. If the weather was as poor as reported it would have been a difficult route to negotiate.

Getting a clearance is only an issue when the military have hardware airborne. Generally, they are quite accommodating.

Um… Why would you take on 263 litres for a flight from Dalby to Archerfield with a slight diversion ?

Perhaps a miss-print.

Three on board with luggage = …?

182 with an IO540, I don't think weight was an issue.

Depends, on what they've got going on. They're generally a helpful mob.

For a VFR pilot, their airspace can be complex and intimidating. The terrain in that area is pretty intimidating as well if you're trying to get from the west to the eastern side of the range. There is lots of gotcha terrain as well, places where you think you can get through. It's just not the type of terrain you want to be messing around with in low vis and cloud.

It's pretty simple getting over the range, if you're IFR.

Still seems a lot of fuel to be lugging around. I’m thinking miss-print.

I honestly doubt it, the fuel records would be very clear from the bowser. It’s one of the most important facts in a report like this, especially if the total quantity is as above.

A misprint in the report or a misprint in the fuel records that the ATSB would have obtained for the investigation?

I don’t see anything unusual in the aircraft having been filled with fuel, if that’s what happened. So what if it was a short hop to YBAF? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I haven’t filled tanks to full. It was a 182, not a 152 or 737.

I agree. One of my favourite aircraft - full fuel, four people and some luggage. Simple flight-planning.

No mention if the aircraft had a working AP.

Is a serviceable A/P required for a VFR charter flight?

In any event, I agree with the earlier point made by Lookleft about the usefulness of gadgets once the pilot appeared to engage the aircraft in ‘scud running’.

No but a working AP might well have helped. Plug in the AP, call for assistance from ATC and get above the hill tops going east bound. Worry about the paperwork after one arrives alive on the ground. Then confess and take up that long standing ATC offer 'We are here to help!'.

I agree. Why an IFR qualified-but-not-current pilot did not just call Centre and say: “I’m in the gloop and I need help to get to non-gloop” is beyond me. But I have the same level of beyonded-ness about why a commercial pilot employed by a commercial operator in a commercial operation wasn’t IFR current and filing IFR flight plans in these kinds of circumstances. It’s not like they were doing sightseeing flights of Lake Eyre.

If you haven't got 'a plan in the system' then you are like the bloke that walks into a lift with fresh dog turd in the treads of your adidas.

Perhaps because single engine piston charter aircraft are restricted to VFR ops. If the customer doesn’t want to pay for an IFR twin it’s up to the VFR pilot to make the tough call and park it.

According to the report, the aircraft was equipped for flight under the IFR. My point is I don’t understand why the pilot didn’t just get on the dials, climb and make a pan call. He may not have been current, but that doesn’t mean he was completely incapable of a wings-level climb on the dials.