That was not what I intimated. Neither of you apparently have an understanding of the theory,
I do believe I understand what you intimated, but for this specific case fact overcomes theory.
It becomes an instituted practice within the company, until they collect that car coming through on the green.
In that case, would the company be at fault? perhaps morally, but they never actually broke the law, the driver did.
You have seen a copy of the riding orders the crew were given, and the date it was issued, . it does state specifically disregard any previous briefing, it would cover the companies obligation, it neither intimated nor required any illegal action.
The crew, captain, took it upon themselves to disregard all those provisions required for descent below MSA.
Whether they were VMC or not is really irrelevant, they disregarded all the rules that had been put in place specifically to avoid Mt Erebus. And it is now very obvious why those rules were as they were. Re radar, they were never identified on radar, which surely must be the first requirement before the radar can clear them for anything? they requested and were given VMC descent.
You, and many others use the argument they were inexperienced in Antarctic flying, well surely that would be a very good reason for sticking to the rules? They may have been inexperienced in that particular sort of flying, but they were both very experienced in total flying background, and would well have understood the briefing they received from the Met people on the ground at McMurdo. It was below minimums for the only approved let down procedure, and no good at all for sightseeing. If they were arriving back at Christchurch and the weather was below minimums for a published approach do you think it would be acceptable to request a VMC descent and descend to 1500ft at 260kts, with the local expert saying "I will let you know where we are when I know myself?