From the ATSB report:
The decision to continue to Norfolk Island
Under conditions of increased stress or workload, working memory can be constrained and may limit the development of alternative choices and the evaluation of options. Depending on whether the available options are framed in a positive (lives saved) or negative way (injuries and damage), a decision maker can be influenced by how they perceive the risks associated with each option when making a decision.
When decision-makers are confronted with options that are considered as a choice between two different benefits, decision makers tend to be more risk averse. They tend to prefer a guaranteed small benefit, compared with just the chance of a larger benefit. On the other hand, when decision makers are faced with a choice between two options that are considered as two separate losses, they tend to be more likely to accept risk.
In this instance, the flight crew described the choice when they first comprehended the deteriorating weather conditions at Norfolk Island as being between diverting to Noumea and continuing to the island in terms of assessing competing risks. Given the weather and other information held by the crew at that time, including their not having information on any possible alternates, their perception that the higher risk lay in a diversion was consistent with the greater number of unknown variables had they diverted.
Come on ATSB, where are the numbers to show the real data or is this just a "soft out" for the failure of casa to surveil another operator?? to the point where more people have been put at serious risk??
Is this another "SeaView" ??? in failed procedures and surveillance??