It's a funny thing the way this accident plays in the public mind and resurfaces from time to time, such as here at PPrune re the Paul Holmes publication. I recall the day the news of the aircraft was overdue became public knowledge and immediately knew what that meant and I don't think there was an Australian or New Zealander who was not both shocked but saddened by the accident. That it was the Antartic gave it a different mystique.
Sadly a perfectly serviceable DC-10 and 257 lives were destroyed that day on what was supposed to be a routine sightseeing charter flight. All the inquiries and investigations have shown that each and every level there were failures in systems and processes, some with human causes, some with not, but the layers of protection for Captain Collins and FO Cassin and the FE were steadily removed. The Chippendale report is as a black letter report, correct, possible cause and avoidance actions are as they were described by Mr Chippendale. CRM failed and before danger was recognised, the accident occurred. Mr Holmes would do well to understand the description of Ron Chippendale as an individual provided by Mr Justice Mahon to appreciate the man was 'old school' and by the book that is all.
Mr Justice Mahon's Commission of Inquiry pulled back the covers on the various layers of the fabric that constituted air safety and found them wanting. His findings are unimpeachable on matters of fact or law.
Critically, the relatioship between the hard chart documents and what was in the FMS of the DC-10 were different at a critical point in the aircraft's route. The reasons for this are established. The behaviour and cultures of various organisations both the Department and Air New Zealand were less than impressive for either honesty or integrity and a certain sloppiness had crept into a non scheduled route flight briefing and managment for flights involving this large aircraft and the area in which it was to be operated that was to prove fatal. The furtive activities of some were immature responses to a very real tragedy in New Zealand, like minds behave like but are not necessarily conspiring.
The original question posed was the issue of exoneration for the crew. The question is unnecessary, the crew was always to be exonerated for while they made a mistake, they were not at fault as they were deceived by the information they had and a severe lack of personal knowledge of the physical geography they were overflying. The safety systems of Air NZ failed the crew not the crew Air NZ. So there is no matter of guilt. The men and their passengers already paid for their mistake with their lives and that in my judgment is enough of a penalty.
We should let all involved rest and let time heal the wounds.