I think the judge painstakingly proved the "real" SOP was "give the passengers a good sightseeing time".
I do not agree with that at all.
The judge by painstakingly trying to establish the only purpose of the flight was to "give the passengers a good sightseeing time". It was obvious the judge had absolutely no knowledge on how an aircraft cockpit routine should be managed.
All the details have been thrashed out in this thread many times, but the most important object of the exercise was to sightsee if weather conditions allowed, they did not at the nominated position, there was an alternative, Dry Valley area that was clear, this option was not chosen. In the end I am quite certain the passengers would willingly have given up the "sightseeing" if they knew what the consequences of the actions of the crew to give them that sightseeing opportunity meant breaking all the safety requirements that had been built into these flights to ensure what happened would never happen.
The judge would appear to have placed little credence on that fact.