was and that 'not one word' was ever addressed by either of the flight
engineers to the pilots indicating any doubt. This is not a question on
which the present proceedings call for any opinion from this Court, nor
are we in any position to give one.

A major point in the Commissioner's reasoning, and one that helps to
explain the difference between the two reports, is that on the basis of
evidence from the wife and two daughters of Captain Collins he accepted
that, at home the night before the flight, the Captain had plotted on an
atlas and two maps a route of the flight; and he drew the inference that
Captain Collins must then have had with him a computer print-out. Any
such print-out would have been made before the alteration and
consequently would have shown the longitude of the southernmost waypoint
as 164° 48' E. The Commissioner accordingly concluded that Captain Collins
had plotted a route down the Sound. No doubt this tended to reinforce
his view that the Captain, flying on nav track, had never doubted that
he was in fact over the Sound.


The Challenged Paragraphs

The background already given is needed for an understanding of the case.
But we repeat that the case is not an appeal from the Commissioner's
findings on causation or other matters. The applicants acknowledge that
they have no rights of appeal. What they attack are certain paragraphs
in the Commission report which deal very largely, not with the causes
and circumstances of the crash, but with what the Commissioner calls
'the stance' of the airline at the inquiry before him. The applicants
say that in these paragraphs the Commissioner exceeded his powers or
acted in breach of natural justice; and further that some of his