Erebus 25 years on
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BoP
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Not one of the mandatory requirements for descent as laid down in the memorandum from the Company to Antarctic crew was complied with.
[You forgot to add "by any crew" (as far as can be elicited).]
How about the crew that diverted to the South Magnetic Pole?
Not one of the mandatory requirements for descent as laid down in the memorandum from the Company to Antarctic crew was complied with.
[You forgot to add "by any crew" (as far as can be elicited).]
How about the crew that diverted to the South Magnetic Pole?
Last edited by grummanavenger; 31st Aug 2016 at 08:46. Reason: spelling error
DARK KNIGHT #1266
If I get your drift you could be implying that the tone of many posts on this thread is at times rude and abusive. Hence barely tolerable. But on the other hand you may be familiar
with the works of Pablo Neruda who often refers in his poetry to stones
worn smooth by the passage of water down millennia. That is a more pleasing image than -
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me
Prov. You do not hurt me by calling me names. (A reply to someone who has called you names. Primarily used by children; sounds childish when used by adults.) Brother: You're stupid and mean, and everybody hates you! Sister: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
If you are libelled or slandered and have recourse to the law then that
is an overt acknowledgement of the harm that words can do.
There can be no doubt, that on the evidence, the late Justice Peter Mahon and the late Captain Gordon Vette have been libelled here. I will not name the chief offenders, as they are beyond the pale and because what is the point in responding to piss and wind, repeated to the point of imbecility.
And if I call you an imbecile that is defamation… (Unless you have a certificate from a medical person that certifies you as insane.)
I had a father-in-law once who had been certified . When after years of treatment that dreadful stigma was lifted by the revoking of the certification, for which he had a document to prove that. He delighted in telling people he was in the rare position of having written proof of his sanity.
If I get your drift you could be implying that the tone of many posts on this thread is at times rude and abusive. Hence barely tolerable. But on the other hand you may be familiar
with the works of Pablo Neruda who often refers in his poetry to stones
worn smooth by the passage of water down millennia. That is a more pleasing image than -
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me
Prov. You do not hurt me by calling me names. (A reply to someone who has called you names. Primarily used by children; sounds childish when used by adults.) Brother: You're stupid and mean, and everybody hates you! Sister: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.
If you are libelled or slandered and have recourse to the law then that
is an overt acknowledgement of the harm that words can do.
There can be no doubt, that on the evidence, the late Justice Peter Mahon and the late Captain Gordon Vette have been libelled here. I will not name the chief offenders, as they are beyond the pale and because what is the point in responding to piss and wind, repeated to the point of imbecility.
And if I call you an imbecile that is defamation… (Unless you have a certificate from a medical person that certifies you as insane.)
I had a father-in-law once who had been certified . When after years of treatment that dreadful stigma was lifted by the revoking of the certification, for which he had a document to prove that. He delighted in telling people he was in the rare position of having written proof of his sanity.
Last edited by Fantome; 31st Aug 2016 at 09:37.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That sentiment is definitely not shared by the New Zealand Government, Air New Zealand and the majority here on this thread.
Firstly, the "New Zealand Government" is not a static entity, and it does not have a view, regardless of whether the Mahon report was "tabled in parliament". Secondly, do you have a metric for the determining the "majority view here on this thread"? If so, please share it.
Alas, I knew your recent promise of "only one reply" was fantasy....
Whispering "T" Jet
PapaHotel6, read Fantome's 31st August (#1282) post particularly paragraph four (4). If the cap fits, wear it!
Apology if this is too cryptic for you.
Apology if this is too cryptic for you.
see . . . . my very point . . .. courtesy is not catching round these
halls of hate and blame .
(Where is a Rumpole to add dry wit, turning a legal phrase to a nicety ? .. . . weary though he was of
the Temple Courts. RIP Leo McKern)
halls of hate and blame .
(Where is a Rumpole to add dry wit, turning a legal phrase to a nicety ? .. . . weary though he was of
the Temple Courts. RIP Leo McKern)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just don't get it prospector, et al.
The cause of this accident was "directly attributable to the incompetent administrative airline procedures" sanctioned by Air NZ. That is FACT.
It includes blatant defiance of the rules set in place, untrained aircrew, CVR tampering, shredding of documents, late route changes and a plethora of other unprofessional admissions. Given what came out of that Inquiry, I am perplexed Air NZ ever qualified to hold a AOC. Then again, CAANZ is an arm of the New Zealand government. No wonder they tabled the report in Parliament and conceded theirs and Air NZ's behaviour throughout the Inquiry was less than acceptable.
The cause of this accident was "directly attributable to the incompetent administrative airline procedures" sanctioned by Air NZ. That is FACT.
It includes blatant defiance of the rules set in place, untrained aircrew, CVR tampering, shredding of documents, late route changes and a plethora of other unprofessional admissions. Given what came out of that Inquiry, I am perplexed Air NZ ever qualified to hold a AOC. Then again, CAANZ is an arm of the New Zealand government. No wonder they tabled the report in Parliament and conceded theirs and Air NZ's behaviour throughout the Inquiry was less than acceptable.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You just don't get it prospector, et al.
The cause of this accident was "directly attributable to the incompetent administrative airline procedures" sanctioned by Air NZ. That is FACT
The cause of this accident was "directly attributable to the incompetent administrative airline procedures" sanctioned by Air NZ. That is FACT
Air New Zealand's failings have been well documented. But what YOU don't get - Whiskery et al. - is that one party's failings does not clear another from sharing the blame. And regardless of Air New Zealand's failings, many of us here believe Collins performed poorly - in a way that cannot be explained away by precedents, commercial pressure, optical illusions, or to use megan's catch phrase - "normalisation of deviance".
Guest
Posts: n/a
It includes blatant defiance of the rules set in place, untrained aircrew, CVR tampering, shredding of documents,
Defiance of rules: The company provided the crew with an IFR plan to McMurdo, The IFR plan makes no mention of any descent, that is up to the discretion of the crew, taking into account all relevant details,ie weather conditions, traffic etc. The Company gave the crew a list of mandatory requirements to be met prior to descent below route MSA, FL160. It is established fact that the crew were well aware of these requirements, a copy of such was found amongst cockpit debris. Not one of those mandatory requirements were complied with prior to descent below route MSA.
So what party is guilty of blatant defiance of the rules????
Untrained aircrew: It would no doubt have suited the Company to have just one, or perhaps two crews assigned to carry out all these flights. It is most likely that this did not occur because NZALPA insisted that these "perk"flights be shared amongst their senior members. If this was not so then the aircrew operating these flights would have been exposed to the Antarctic experience that all other operators demanded before going down there as PIC. Perhaps the company could be at fault for not insisting on the experience requirements required by all other operators to the ice, and the NZCAA could also be faulted for the same reason. It could perhaps also be said in CAA's defence that they had nobody on staff with experience on heavy jets and relied on information supplied by NZALPA and Air NZ
CVR tampering: Ron Chippindale, and all the others had a very difficult task trying to get anything of value from the recordings prior to the descent, it was reported that there could have been up to eight people in the cockpit, all being recorded by one open microphone. To me that begs the question, what were all these people doing in the cockpit when critical decisions regarding unapproved descent procedures were being carried out? or is it, as is most likely, the decision was made by one man, the captain, without any discussion with the other crew members?
Shredding of documents: Whilst not very wise happened well after the accident occurred, so how could such action be in any way be part the cause of the accident? And if you read the official accident report compiled by the very well qualified Aircraft Accident Inspector assigned the task of determining the cause of the "accident" you will note that his report stated"The most probable cause". Which with no survivors is going to be the most positive report that it is possible to return.
Whispering "T" Jet
Thanks FAR C U, I'm off for another Erebus holiday. It appears nothing has changed around here and won't until new evidence surfaces. That would appear highly unlikely, as it was probably buried 37 years ago!
And then the mandatory requirements are spelled out, as has been stated many times in this thread, not one of which was complied with. If even one had been complied with the disaster would have been avoided.
1.17.28 On 10 August 1977 Air New Zealand letter HO:B:22 requested authority to conduct five flights overflying Antarctica in the McMurdo area undertaking to operate these flights to the specification earlier submitted with the following exceptions:
“a. A proposal to permit descent to 6000 feet QNH in VMC or by the approved NDB procedure in IMC provided that:
1. Cloud base to be 7000 feet or better.
2. Visibility reported to be 20 kms or better.
3. ASR is available and used to monitor flight below flight level 160.
4. No snow showers in the area.
Flight in the McMurdo area below flight level 160 will be restricted to an arc corresponding to a bearing of 120° Grid through 360° G to 270G from the NDB within 20 nm in order to keep well clear of the Mr Erebus region.
“a. A proposal to permit descent to 6000 feet QNH in VMC or by the approved NDB procedure in IMC provided that:
1. Cloud base to be 7000 feet or better.
2. Visibility reported to be 20 kms or better.
3. ASR is available and used to monitor flight below flight level 160.
4. No snow showers in the area.
Flight in the McMurdo area below flight level 160 will be restricted to an arc corresponding to a bearing of 120° Grid through 360° G to 270G from the NDB within 20 nm in order to keep well clear of the Mr Erebus region.
many of us here believe Collins performed poorly - in a way that cannot be explained away by precedents, commercial pressure, optical illusions, or to use megan's catch phrase - "normalisation of deviance"
