These paragraphs occur in the context of a discussion of the change in
the computer waypoint shortly before the flight and the failure to draw
it to the attention of the flight crew. The reference to the chief
executive having 'determined that no word of this incredible blunder was
to become publicly known' is, taken by itself, at least an
overstatement, because in paragraph 48 the Commissioner in effect
qualifies it. He says there that it was inevitable that the facts would
become known and 'perhaps' the chief executive had only decided to
prevent adverse publicity in the meantime. Clearly the airline disclosed
to the Chief Inspector that the change of more than two degrees of
longitude had been made in the computer early on the day of the flight
and not mentioned to the crew; these matters are referred to in
paragraphs 1.17.7 and 2.5 of the Chief Inspector's report. They were
matters which the Chief Inspector did not highlight; evidently he did
not regard them as of major importance. For his part the Commissioner
(in para. 48 of his report) states that the Chief Inspector did not make
it clear that the computer flight path had been altered before the
flight and the alteration not notified to the crew.

We are not concerned with whether or not the Commissioner's implied
criticism of the Chief Inspector's report is correct. The complaint made
by the applicants is that the criticisms of Mr Davis in the two
paragraphs that we have set out are based on mistake of fact, not on
evidence of probative value. It is also said that he was not given a
fair opportunity to put his case in relation to such findings, but what
the applicants most stress is the way in which the Commissioner dealt
with the evidence.

In particular they point out that the evidence of Mr Davis, not
contradicted by any other evidence and correctly summarised in paragraph