Shades of the CVD "recent research" smoke and mirrors:
However, CASA has identified issues with the basis used to approve this supplement, and intends to withdraw this approval at some time in the future.
What, precisely, are those "issues"?
I find it dumbfounding that Mr McCormick considered it appropriate simply to make the bald assertion, without backing it up with any cited data or other information. The laws of physics are important in aviation. Lots of work goes into performance calculations and consequent limitations based on precise reality, not amorphous reference to "issues".
There are advantages to this approach, though. For example, it would make aircraft master caution panels simpler. One annunciator that says: "AIRCRAFT HAS ISSUES".
Imagine everyone in CASA being told their employment was going to be terminated. When asked the reasonable question: "WTF?", the answer is: "Somebody has identified issues with the basis used to approve your employment. We're not going to tell you what the "issues" are. We're just sacking you."
If there's hard data and information to support the assertion that the approval of the supplement was based on flawed data or information,
just produce it and everyone will then understand the objective reasons for the change.