of the previous flight or that of the accident flight were advised
of the error by the flight despatcher prior to their departure.'

The chief inspector did not make it clear, however, that the
computer flight path of TE 901 had been altered before the flight,
and that the alteration had not been notified to the air crew. Had
that fact been disclosed in the chief inspector's report then the
publicity attending the report would undoubtedly have been
differently aligned ... the news blackout imposed by the chief
executive was very successful. It was not until the hearings of
this Commission that the real magnitude of the mistake by Flight
Operations was publicly revealed."

Concerning that last part of paragraph 48 it seems that the
Commissioner's remark immediately following the extract from paragraph
2.5 is inaccurate. It appears to suggest either that the chief inspector
was unaware of the fact that the alteration to the co-ordinates "had not
been notified to the air crew"; or that if he had been made aware of
that fact then he had failed to bring it to public attention in his
report as the next sentence suggests. But Mr. Chippindale was both aware
of all this and he said so. In paragraph 1.17.1 he explicitly stated:

"This error was not corrected in the computer until the day before
the flight. Although it was intended that it be drawn to the
attention of the previous crew, immediately prior to their
departure this was not done, _nor was it mentioned during the
pre-flight dispatch planning for the crew of the accident flight_".
(Emphasis added.)

The "pre-flight dispatch planning" mentioned in those last words was the