Prospector
Just because someone was a Concorde Captain with British Airways it doesn't mean that we have to grant them much authority on a New Zealand aircraft accident in Antarctica. I have no doubt that Chippendale was brilliant in the field or in the technical aspects of investigation, however history has shown us, that his final conclusion in this case, was somewhat pointed in one direction and failed to include or place importance on a lot of the subsequent findings of Mahon and Vette. Mahon was a legal person not predisposed by aviation culture and Vette was an Air New Zealand DC 10 Captain who knew the company and industry well. They both appear to have taken a more systemic approach when trying to establish the cause of this accident and not without personal and professional peril, offered conclusions, along with Mahons famous statement on what he found to be a cover up that rankled right through to the Prime Minister of the time. The arguement that Chippendale was a "Nuts and Bolts" man incapable of expanding into a bigger picture or that he had been influenced from above will probably rage for another 25 yrs. Would his report have had the same conclusion if the crew had survived? Prospector why can't you see that the crew contributed along with the company and also a whole host of other factors resulting in this accident? To assert that the pilot screwed up, end of story, no one else at fault, would indicate that you are most likely well over the hill or have some sort of other personal interest in the outcome.
