Bushy, Tailwheel,
Not "discontinued", but "lost", as happens all too often in our Oz. aviation world.
Don't discount self-delusion illusions withing the industry, not just "salespersons". I well recall a former President of the old Regional Airlines Association (at the meeting I mentioned) telling me, in no uncertain terms, that his C-310/PA 31 etc. operated to "airline standards".
Does anybody remember the CASA brochure clearly laying out the differences in the various types of passenger carrying operations, effectively the unavoidably different "safety standards". From memory it showed a single, a C402 or similar, a Metro, and a Jumbo. After a scream from operators, who didn't want the "(self- de) illusion shattered" --- treating passengers as dumb --- the brochure was withdrawn, despite the protests of the Airline Passenger Safety Association.
Quite how anybody could believe that it is possible for a FAR23 (let alone a CAR 3) certified aircraft to operate to "airline standards" (even if it was a turbo-prop certified to the "commuter amendment") beats me.
There is a world of difference between CAR 3/FA23 (regardless of amendment) and FAR 25.
The "airline standard" illusion is a great employment/cash flow generator for CASA folks, with a far higher CASA employee/aircraft ratio than FAA (ex-ATC) or NZ, without any measurable safety benefit, indeed in the case of US, the opposite. As a matter of interest, FAA recognized that the move of "commuter" airlines up to FAR 121 standard, at huge expense, did not produce any measurable safety benefit.
We are really bad at doing cost/benefit studies, and making sensible trade-offs --- with rather silly claims about "absolute safety" being the "target", continuing to pop up.
And the bottom line, the bush gets shafted for affordable air services.
Tootle pip!!