@prospector - Learned people agreeing with you is not the same as being correct.
@ampan - "Scud Run" is a misnomer in this case - to use the term implies that the crew, unable to determine their location, descended through an overcast to attempt visual navigation at a lower altitude, which is not what happened here. The descent was performed in *broken cloud through which they could see* on the basis that *they believed they already knew where they were*, and that they would be able to see where they were going and avoid the danger presented by the overcast south of their position.
@Dream Land - Collins was, by all accounts, a very conscientious pilot and very conservative in his approach to risk - if that wasn't the case his colleagues would not have defended him as they did. The issue here is the whole basis of the pilot error argument is predicated on an assertion that the crew were unsure of their location - an assertion for which there is no concrete evidence. ANZ management had to falsify the CVR transcript in order to bolster their argument.
My argument has never been that the crew made no mistake - clearly they did. However, my contention is that the mistake was understandable and entirely primed by the slipshod management of the company from the top down, and as such the crew should not be tarnished with allegations of negligence or carelessness.