234(1) requires a pilot to plan "sufficient fuel and oil to enable the proposed flight to be undertaken in safety.", and 234(3) gives instruction to the court, specifically, to consider those reasonable other items to be included in the "in safety" claus. That's pretty definitive for the pilot to also consider those elements.
In any case that quote was cut & paste from the new report.
At no point did I suggest Mr Davies was in error in his submissions - I don't know where you got that idea? I have simply not examined his submissions to that depth. Did he calculate for depressurisation & engine out scenarios?
The new report does include figures for those - and they came to (from memory) about 300 lbs above the main tank fuel that was loaded on the flight in question.
I have no idea why the pilot wasn't proscecuted under 234(1), by the way. Care to enlighten me? Are you privvy to CASA's deliberations on the matter?