Once again ATSB investigators have shown their total misunderstanding of what Va is and what it isn't.
The claims in this report could be totally misleading to less experienced pilots.
Below is a cut and paste of AC 23-19A which is very clear in the lack of relationship between Va, stall and structural strength - except in one particular circumstance, that if the designer decides to us Va=Va min
"48. What is the design maneuvering speed VA?
a. The design maneuvering speed is a value chosen by the applicant. It may not
be less than Vs√ n and need not be greater than Vc, but it could be greater if the applicant chose the higher value. The loads resulting from full control surface deflections at VA are used to design the empennage and ailerons in part 23, §§ 23.423, 23.441, and 23.455.
b. VA should not be interpreted as a speed that would permit the pilot
unrestricted flight-control movement without exceeding airplane structural limits, nor
should it be interpreted as a gust penetration speed. Only if VA = Vs √n will the airplane
stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver at, or near, limit load factor. For airplanes where
VA>VS√n, the pilot would have to check the maneuver; otherwise the airplane would
exceed the limit load factor.
c. Amendment 23-45 added the operating maneuvering speed, VO, in § 23.1507.
VO is established not greater than VS√n, and it is a speed where the airplane will stall in a nose-up pitching maneuver before exceeding the airplane structural limits."
While Vo was not used when the C210 was certificated, the link below to the GA10 TCDS shows the large difference between Va and Vo which can occur purely depending on the Va speed choosen by the designer. In this case Va=133k CAS and Vo=98k CAS.
This essentially says if you pull to the stall at Va you will exceed the limit load factor and probably do structural damage.
Having said that, I have no idea how Cessna selected the speed they use for Va.
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/183956/...token=HuTWnu0t