Decoding Incident: Erroneous Flight Navigation Data

I need a cogently written summary over a range of objectives regarding an official report about an incident. A detailed analysis should include: circumstances surrounding a disaster event caused by possible lack of security related to input of data into a computerized flight navigation system. It was only subsequent to the event that data input was discovered to have been erroneous. It then remained unclear as to the preceding circumstances contributing to the incorrect imputing of data. Possible scenarios would consider security measures and last minute checking procedures, identification of all personnel involved, what security permitted personnel entry to the operational area, hence what opportunity was there for illegal entry. Identification of those possessing designated authority to monitor and input data appears to be a crucial aspect for follow up investigation. An additional concern regarding unauthorized persons would be that of motivation. What would be the likelihood of an insider job or would it be more likely ungoverned entry that allowed the inaccurate data to be implemented. A final question relates to the disaster zone itself and the unusual nature of the operation. The operation concerns a commercial tourist flight venture into a geographical region usually assigned to military and scientific personnel. This scenario formulated for commercial and recreational purposes in fact contravenes normal official access to an inhospitable geographical zone dominated by official business belonging to scientific and military operations. Who then are the other vested parties belonging to this scenario? The report following the formal investigation apparently failed to conclude satisfactorily who was directly responsible. The owner airline's primary goal is customer satisfaction and efficiency. So why would a navigational oversight be permitted? The inability of available witnesses to offer a satisfactory response is provocative of even more deep-seated origins to the event. Are there sufficient grounds to suppose that those responsible for the data input and change of flight plan were from an 'outside' source having mandated authority to override local judicial and commercial parties. The lynch pin would appear to be how when, why, and by whom the erroneous data entry was facilitated. A concluding discussion relates to decisions made by in-flight personnel. At what stage would flight personnel have been aware of the flight error. Results indicate that they were unaware until the last moment.