3 holer'
You never debate a point, all you have ever contributed to this thread is the findings of Justice Mahon, are absolutely watertight. The following is relative to your utterances that Mahon report was fireproof.
And 36 years ago this was the finding of the Privy Council.
In their judgement, delivered on 20 October 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy council dismissed the Commissioners appeal and upheld the Court of Appeals decision, which set aside costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be intended to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company's chief executive, had ever existed.
You will note, committed clear breaches of natural justice, a ruling by his own peers that he could not run a commission of enquiry in his own field, yet he could make a ruling in a field in which he had no expertise whatsoever.
Who were his "Technical adviser's' Did they have any conflict of interest?? for my money they certainly did.
No doubt you will come back and say they never altered Mahons finding on the cause of the accident, They did not do that because it was not what they were asked to do,tHEY WERE ASKED TO GIVE A RULING ON THE CONDUCT OF THE ENQUIRY and the Chippendale report remains the only ACCIDENT REPORT as such, Mahon's finding was only a legal opinion.
Last edited by prospector; 10th Dec 2019 at 01:27.