The evidence for this finding in his report is (tellingly) supplemented by the account in his book “Verdict on Erebus” where he lays out exactly why and how he slowly turned from one point of view to another. Working from memory, a key reason for that change was the behaviour and evidence of certain witnesses.
This from the publication "New Zealand Tragedies Aviation" by John King, first published 1995, with a very good section on the Erebus disaster, and with the benefit of hindsight. The information contained is taken from many sources, which as a reference I find more illuminating then either "Verdict on Erebus" or "Impact Erebus", both these publications penned by people who had vested interests in getting their opinions across.
Re the courts findings.
The Court of appeal addressed several aspects that were brought to the commissioners notice during the enquiry but ignored by him. The five judges unanimously quashed the $150,000 costs order imposed as punishment for the alleged conspiracy
Bitter controversy and renewed public debate followed the judgements. Citing his own action when alleged to be in the wrong, Morrie Davis called on Mahon to resign as a High Court judge, which he did.
In their judgement, delivered on 20th Oct 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy Council dismissed the commissioners appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal, which set aside the costs against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including Exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be intended to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company's chief executive had ever existed.
jack red, you say
However, what you seem to miss is that Mr. Justice Mahon was fully entitled to conclude that some witnesses had been less than truthful and that this finding was not overturned
It would appear the Appeal Court and the Privy Council certainly did not agree with Mahon's conduct of the enquiry. As to what caused the disaster, the Privy council were not asked to give any ruling, their task was to review the handling of the enquiry.
For a High Court Judge to be admonished by his superiors for "Clear breaches of natural justice" was surely not a good thing.
My belief is that the Nav section was sloppy with their handling of the Flight Plan, but nothing in that plan was for any part of the flight below MSA. That was the decision of the Captain after considering the weather conditions prevailing at the time. The weather at the time has been posted many times, it was well below that required for the approved descent, it was well below that required for any sightseeing around Scott Base.
Nothing to strident I hope?