Why did the Authority recommend landing on water?
Because on the face of things they are bereft of competent folk who do have a clue. I need go no further than cite their decree that GA aircraft are not permitted to fly in temps above 40 degrees C. When questioned on the matter, no reply was the firm non answer. I don't assume it was the tea lady who made the decision, as I'm sure she would be more forthcoming with her level of knowledge, or lack thereof. A report was given to CASA prior to the introduction of REPCON, in fact the particular report may well have been the one that brought about REPCON, and the person to whom it was sent hadn't replied after a month so a phone call was made. His reply was "send it to XXXX, but don't say you've previously sent it to me". The reporter was invited to discuss with the FOI, but his only interest was in talking about mutually known individuals in the industry. The report made involved matters such as flying with no alternates when they were required, IMC at 300' when technically it was a VFR operation, and a general lack of compliance with the ops manual. It was all the "Normalisation of Deviance" that Prof. Vaughan introduced into the lexicon. Trouble was, the company was a LARGE multinational and had the capacity to bring any government to heel. The outcome? No idea, the reporter had left prior to submitting the report, but not before trying to get management to address matters, but to no avail. Leaving their employ was seen as the only means by which matters may be addressed.
Sunfish is well aware of the company and the means by which it did business.