following half-way situation--

"However, I propose to make no positive finding on this point. I
must pay regard to the circumstance strongly urged upon me by
counsel for the airline in their closing submissions, namely, that
if the alteration was intentional then it was not accompanied by
the normal realignment of the aircraft's heading so as to join up
with the new waypoint. As I say, I think this latter omission is
capable of explanation but it is a material fact in favour of the
Navigation Section which I cannot disregard, and it is the single
reason why I refrain from making a positive finding that the
alteration of the waypoint was intentional."

It may be that in speaking of a single reason in the last sentence of
the extract the Commissioner put aside his earlier unqualified
conclusion that the matter set out in paragraph 230 (e) was also "a
valid objection" to the suggestion that the waypoint had been moved
deliberately. In any event the eventual and significant finding
concerning the matter is contained in the following sub-paragraph 255
(b):

"I believe, however, that the error made by Mr Hewitt was
ascertained long before Captain Simpson reported the cross-track
distance of 27 miles between the TACAN and the McMurdo waypoint,
and I am satisfied that because of the operational utility and
logic of the altered waypoint it was thereafter maintained by the
Navigation Section as an approved position."

At this point it is necessary to explain the reference in that
sub-paragraph to Captain Simpson; and then, if it be assumed that "the