Kaptin M,
Let us just deal with the known facts, there was one approved let down procedure and it was as follows taken direct from Company paper.
Delete all reference in briefing dated 23/10/709. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160(16000ft) to 6000ft as follows:
1. Vis 20 km plus.
2. No snow shower in area.
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 degree Grid to 270 degree Grid from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH 29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.
You will note that this is the ONLY let down procedure approved by the Company and the CAA. The crew was aware of this requirement as a copy of the memorandum was recovered from the cockpit wreckage.
No doubt your study of the accident will have appraised you of the fact that at no time was a DME lockon achieved, and it is possible, but only possible, that the radar may have got one or two returns.
As the descent was commenced long before any of the compulsory requirements were established, the fact that the waypoint was changed was sloppy operating granted, but was not the cause of the accident.
The weather at McMurdo was well below the minima required for the company approved letdown procedure, this being established then the alternative flight plan should surely have been adopted rather then improvising there own letdown procedure. The choice was not theirs to make, there was only one Company and CAA approved letdown.
One would think that you placed more importance on Company publicity blurbs on their brochures than on standing orders. If the weather was not suitable for the letdown at McMurdo, and it was not, the passengers were well briefed that an alternative would be required.
With your obviously limited knowledge of this incident you are taking a lot upon yourself to call people derogatory names. Check on the facts and see how many times that last waypoint had been changed, and for what reasons.
Prospector