I am in full concurrence with Jaba, the ATSB should be ashamed to put the title "Investigation" on that piece of rubbish.
A brief commentary on the flight, some obscure reference to oil and manifold pressure, all summed up in total with this gem of a conclusion..
From the photographs provided by the operator (Figure 2), the ATSB assessed that a connecting rod appeared to have broken and separated from the crankshaft, resulting in a hole in the crankcase. This precipitated a catastrophic engine failure. The smoke entering the cockpit was likely to have been from burning oil.
Seems to me they've had a phone interview with the LAME, the pilot or passenger, and the CP, got 2 photos emailed to them, pulled the ATC tapes and called it a day.
Solid work gentlemen
edit: Apologies, the actual conclusion is this..
...
The object of a safety investigation is to identify and reduce safety-related risk. ATSB investigations determine and communicate the safety factors related to the transport safety matter being investigated.
...
About this report
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, a limited-scope, fact-gathering investigation was conducted in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.
Thank you, ATSB. You've just 'communicated' to us all and made us 'aware' that (if in fact it
was the conrod that caused the initial failure in this case) by your 'determination' conrods can break, and this is a 'potential safety issue'..