Unchallenged?
Hey DD.
If that finding is unchallenged, then plz explain why so many professional aviators have a problem with the findings? Their Lordships had no aviation training, and had to rely on third parties for perspective. In an aircraft under my command, the onus is on me to ensure the passengers I carry arrive at their destination. Or at least arrive. Somewhere.
As for causal factors, I have no doubt that there was a deal of contribution the the accident by AirNZ. It would be totally unreasonable to suggest otherwise, but as a professional, I must also accept my responsibility as P-i-C to ensure the safe conduct of my flight. There were laid down procedures for a letdown to McMurdo - these were not followed.
There were distractions on the flight deck, these were not ignored. And, of course, there were commercial pressures to ensure the "punters" got what they paid for. HOWEVER, these two factors should be not be a consideration when YOU are in charge of an aircraft. Company SOP's are there for a reason. You have to have a damn good reason to ignore them. I didn't see (or hear) of one good reason from any of the written submissions or the verbal transcript that suggested otherwise. What other pilots did on the run should have had absolutely no bearing on what happened on the day. Unfortunately, mindset determined what would happen, not professional dictum.
Any pilot who suggests he is beyond reproach, is one to avoid flying with. We are only human, and as such are prone to making errors. But when we do err, lets accept that it was our responsibilty to be the final stopgap. If you can't accept that as a condition of your employment, perhaps you should be looking elsewhere. It doesn't matter what a judge or jury determines, it is about accepting responsibility. I daresay if Jim had have lived, he would have accepted that. It was the sort of person he was.
400R