CHINOOK
OK Fellas, we could go on like this forever, but it will do no good. Of course there are two aspects to this tragedy and its aftermath; the cause of the crash, and the legal arguments about the degree of responsibility of the crew. It was, you remember, the legal aspects that the HofL Select Commitee was asked to examine. They made very clear in the very first paras of their report that they were not trying to establish the cause of the accident , but merely the legal justification for the verdict of 'gross negligence'. I am not a lawyer (thank heavens!) but a professional Service airman with a certain amount of experience. One of the complications in all the discussions on this topic has been the overlap between those two aspects.
If we focus on the airmanship aspects, I maintain that THE CREW WERE NOT WHERE THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE. They were a quarter of a mile to the right of their intended track, and were thus facing a terrain that was (about) 500 feet higher than they expected. What could be clearer than that?
As to the comment by TheAeroCo, many thanks, but what makes you think that they turned right? They were already off to the right of track for two reasons; the waypoint had been misplotted, and the nav system/s had slipped even further to the right. Thinking they were on track (and there was no indication otherwise in those very poor weather conditions) they ressed straight on. For heaven's sake fellas, consider the facts, and give speculation a rest. With all good wishes to all those interested in this sad tale, John Purdey.