The ATSB also found that the aeroplane’s weight was higher than the design limits. However, the effect of this weight on aircraft performance was not considered to have contributed to the accident.
This struck me as odd - the aircraft stalled yet the relationship between GW and stall speed is not relevant?
Also this:
The review found that on 18 occasions, the aeroplane was below 500 ft at the beginning of the final approach and, on 11 of the 22 final approaches, below the target approach speed of 63 kt (see Aeroplane approach speed considerations) on joining the final leg of the circuit.
They pulled the data from a Garmin 296 which would have displayed ground speed only. The report isn't clear if the speed of 59kts they claim at the time of the accident has been revised for the 6kt 'northerly' in the metorogical section.
I suspect their conclusions are correct especially if the bank angle calculations are correct (and with a northerly he would have been banking harder to align with 04) but the implications that the pilot was regularly below target speed would seem a bit off unless they also reviewed met data for every one of those and corrected for wind.
UTR