O.K. Let me try a different approach, as an impartial observer. Let's try the Geoffrey Robertson Hypothetical approach.
Let's say Capt Collins, by some miracle, was the sole survivor of the crash. It has been decided by the authorities that there is adequate cause for him to be put on trial. He is now charged with 256 counts of manslaughter.
Geoffrey Robertson is the prosecutor. He has Capt Collins in the dock and is interrogating him.
Robertson: "So, tell me Capt Collins, why you thought it was safe to descend to a very low altitude, when there was a very large mountain in the vicinity, with terrain height much greater than the altitude you were planning to descend to? - and you had no idea where that mountain was, exactly?"
Collins: "Because I was in VMC and I could see some terrain features fairly clearly - and the passengers were desirous of good, close-up, low-level views of Mt Erebus. It was company policy to give passengers a good spectacular view of Erebus and McMurdo Sound, that's what they paid to see."
Robertson: "I see. But you descended without knowing
precisely where Erebus was, in relation to your aircraft, didn't you? Wouldn't you consider this action more than a little foolhardy?"
Collins: "No. I was given a flight path and I was following it. That flight path was supposed to take us past Erebus into McMurdo Sound at low level for the benefit of the passengers. How was I to know there were serious navigational errors in the flight path information given to me?"
Robertson: "But you had the opportunity, both before and during the flight, to check the accuracy of the flight plan information, and to cross-check your position with the information in the flight plan supplied, did you not?"
Collins: Yes, of course, I did some cursory checks - but checking the aircrafts position in flight, was the job of other crew members in the cockpit. I was busy flying the aircraft. I believed we were on the correct course into McMurdo Sound - Mulgrew even indentified Ross Island. I descended in VMC to gain some clarity, visually, as regards my aircrafts precise position in relation to the terrain.
Robertson: "But you descended below the minimum safe altitude, despite poor levels of visibility in that declared VMC - and you are heard saying on the CVR - 'Actually, those conditions don't look very good at all'. And Mulgrew agreed with you - 'No, they don't.' Is that correct?"
Collins: Yes .. but you'll note, I said, a little later in the cockpit conversation, 'We're 26 miles North, we'll have to climb out of this'. I was aware of the potential danger".
Robertson: Yes .. but you didn't climb in time, did you? You crashed, directly into high terrain that you knew, was close by - but which high terrain, you had no inkling of its precise whereabouts, in relation to your aircraft? In essence, you failed totally, in your duty of care towards your 256 passengers. Is that correct?"
Collins: If you prefer to put it that way ......... Yes.
The silence in the courtroom is so intense, one could literally hear a pin drop.
The Outcome: Capt Collins is cleared of all 256 counts of manslaughter, but is convicted of the lesser charge of "reckless flying". Sentencing is deferred to enable the Judge to consider mitigating factors, and correspondingly, the length of the sentence.
As a typical example of what the above scenario could have been, here's one recent one ...
Pilot found not guilty of manslaughter of young passenger