Also, an interesting (apparent) contradiction in the preliminary ATSB report in that in the second paragraph states that "..From a position abeam Ulladulla, the flight was cleared direct to the global positioning system (GPS) initial approach point BLEAD (ED)...", and in the last paragraph it states that :"...radar data indicated that the aircraft had tracked 250 degrees from Jervis Bay to a point where it disappeared from radar."
Flying from Bankstown to Jervis Bay - a position "abeam Ulladulla" is actually 9 Nautical Miles PAST Jervis Bay, so - are we to believe that the pilot made a turn towards BLEAD about 3 minutes PRIOR to receiving a clearance to make such a turn??
It is also puzzling why a controller would issue a clearance from Ulladulla (or Jervis Bay) to BLAED, as this routing would necessitate two BIG doglegs during the approach - first a left turn of some 45 degrees from 238 degrees (magnetic) to 193 degrees to get to the IF (BLAEI), followed by another 70 degree turn to the right to intercept the inbound track of 263 degrees magnetic, when in fact a routing from Jervis Bay to waypoint BLAEE (which also has the only holding pattern depicted for the approach) would only involve a very minor course correction of some 25 degrees to the right after the Initial Approach Fix (BLAEE) to get established on the inbound track of 263 degrees magnetic.
I have never seen ATSB (or any other similar agency for that matter) release explicit details of this nature at such an early point in the investigation and would be very interested in the motivation for them doing so on this occasion.