One last contribution, as stated earlier no one will change their views at this stage, but some obviously have not perused all that was published regarding this accident.
From Captain Derek Ellis who has been Concorde Capt, 747 Capt and as BALPA representative involved in many airline incidents and accidents. He covers many points but the following is very relevant.
"The effect of reading Gordon Vette's book, which is dedicated to supporting the views of the Commissioner, has in fact been to convince me that the findings of the New Zealand Office of Air Accidents Investigation are infinitely more realistic."
There would be few people more qualified and experienced than Capt Ellis in this field to offer an opinion.
Then we go to the findings of the Privy Council;
In their judgememnt, delivered on 20 Oct 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy Council dismissed the commissioners appeal and uphel the decision of the Court of Appeal decision,which set aside the 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 purposes 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.
And that is what has been found by probably one of the most experienced Pilot's in the world, and by the top British legal court.
Can anyone with views to the contrary match these qualifications and experience?? or have been supplied with more information on which to base their views?
Prospector