Prospector does not seem to be able to accept that the crew were possibly deceived by the conditions.
There is no "possibly" about it. They were deceived by the conditions.
I agree some blame rests with the crew,
Then you agree with me, the whole point of this thread is Holmes scribing a book trying to convince the general public that no blame be attached to the crew, and that the New Zealand Government apologise to the Captains family for even hinting at the fact the crew could have in any way been responsible for this crash.
(Is it coincidence that this book appears after 30years, and after Chippindale's death??)
The object of Accident Investigation is to find the cause, if possible, of the accident. This whole controversy has been over the interpretation of two separate findings, one by a highly experienced, trained, Aviation Accident inspector, who stated a "Probable Cause", and a High Court Judge, whose methodology was hightly criticised by both the NZ Appeal Court, and the Privy Council.
You can take your pick of which interpretation of facts you wish to believe, I have stated that I believe the findings of Chippindale to be far more plausible as to the cause of the crash. There is no doubt Mahon made some contribution by extending the enquiry outside the hitherto boundaries of Accident Investigation, but as to whether his version of events is more realistic then the findings of Chippindale is up to the individual, after hopefully looking fully at all aspects of the findings of both parties, and using their own experience in Aviation to fine tune their views.