prospector states:
As long as you and others keep on quoting the views of Mahon, that have been completely disagreed with by his peers and superiors in the law world, and have been printed in this forum many times, then one is left wondering as to the point of trying to establish fact. You may disagree with the Appeal Court of New Zealand, and disagree with the finding of the Privy Council, but you can go to no higher court to challenge them.
How about this then from the Minister of Transport in 1999.
On 18 August 1999 the Minister of Transport, Maurice Williamson, who worked at Air New Zealand as a corporate planner at the time of the crash, tabled the Mahon report in Parliament. Present for the occasion were Maria Collins and Anne Cassin, the widows of two of the pilots on the flight, and Margarita Mahon, Justice Peter Mahon's widow.
Williamson argued that the time for apportioning blame was over and that he was tabling the report because 'of the lessons it taught'. He commented that:
The International Civil Aviation Organisation says the report was 10 years ahead of its time; that subsequent high-technology systems catastrophes such as those at Chenobyl and Bhopal need not have happened if the international safety community had grasped the message from Erebus and adopted its prevention lessons.
Justice Peter Mahon, take a bow. From ICAO, the report you methodically put together through obtaining facts and impartial investigation was 10 years ahead of it's time.
prospector, do you really think that findings of the Privy Council and NZ Appeal Court are more relevant, in this case, than those by ICAO?