Does consipracy theory affect facts of crash?
I would like to say straight off that I am not a pilot and that I do have a vested interest and inside knowledge that leads me to be on the side of the crew.
Prospector said in an earlier thread/posting that he did wish to get into the whole "conspiracy" theory as it was not relevant. However if there was a conspiracy that destroyed evidence, and intimidated witnesses, is it not possible that if there had been no conspiracy there would have been more evidence on the side of the pilots - to show perhaps that flying at such a low level had been discussed verbally in their briefing for instance...I'm not saying that that is the case, by the way, but just pointing out that notes from a briefing were one of the main things that seemed to keep disappearing.
I'm sorry but you can't separate the two. And just because a conspiracy can't always be proved, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. That's kinda the whole idea of the people behind it...
If anyone does know of things that happened in this way, they are more than welcome to private message them to me. I am afraid that one day all that information will die away with the people who knew...perhaps one day the history books will read more accurately...
Oh and I'm not sure if I would agree that Ron Chippendale could be seen as "independent" as stated in one posting and so therefore indisputable. An air inspector should always remain afar from all culpable parties. My question would be, how far removed did he remain? I could refer you to articles over the years that have been less than flattering on this point. I think you'd agree it does undermine your confidence in that "independence".
Even though I am on the side of the crew, it would be nice to think there was something they could have done differently;defy their bosses of the only large commercial airline they had in NZ by not descending to an altitude that EXPERIENCED antartic pilots had descended to over the past two years, been suspicious of seeing white (light) where they expected white (ice) to be, been suspicious of their computer, listened to a man on a radio telling them he was in whiteout and go elsewhere when they could see sea, and ice, and cliffs clearly...but to do this, they would have had to have made assumptions...that the airline was acting dangerously in suggesting that height, that all the previous pilots were acting dangerously, that the computer was faulty, that the man on the ground knew the weather better in his little hut then they at 6000ft with a birds-eye view...and I guess we've acknowledge how dangerous assumptions can be...quite deadly in fact...
Its funny, as many people as there were, 257, when you're involved, it just comes down to one, the one you knew that died.
Last edited by SeekingAnswers; 6th Dec 2004 at 06:35.