Both sides meeting in the middle
G'day Folks, When I read the exchanges in this forum on the 901 disaster it brought back to me both the shock I felt on hearing of the crash and my feeling of empathy for my then Air New Zealand Colleagues. (At the time I worked for Ansett Airlines in Melbourne). These exchanges got me thinking again and I came to the realization that both sides of the debate are right. (And until now I had firmly believed Chippendale to be completely wrong). As a matter of strict fact Chippendale was correct when he wrote - "The probable cause of this accident was the decision of the captain to continue the flight at low level toward an area of poor surface and horizon definition" and he was also correct when he wrote - "and the subsequent inability to detect the rising terrain which intercepted the aircraft's flight path." (I disagree with Chippendale when he wrote the phrase that separates the above two quotes - "when the crew were not certain of their position" as all the evidence that I have read supports the interpretation that those parts of the CVR that Chippendale relied on for this quote are "unintelligible".) What Chippendale did not state and what Mahon aided by Vette et al went on to discover was that there was no way that the Collins, Cassin , Mulgrew or, indeed, anyone on the aircraft could have been aware that the aircraft was heading straight for Mt Erebus. As far as Collins and Cassin were concerned the aircraft was operating VMC at a safe altitude above ice and heading up McMurdo Sound and the visual cues they were getting confirmed/re-enforced the mindset they had obtained from their briefing and the information they were receiving from the DC10's instruments. They were unaware that the aircraft had been re-programmed to fly over Mt Erebus and neither were they aware of the insidious dangers of “sector whiteout”. (A phenomena then poorly understood but, thanks in part to Vette, we now know a great deal more about) I believe Vette was correct when he wrote concerning the GPWS warning “They must still have believed that they were getting a false warning signal”. That Mahon was found by the Court of Appeal to have exceeded his brief is, to me, a mere technicality as I am firmly of the view that he was quite correct when he referred to “a pre-determined plan of deception” and to “an orchestrated litany of lies”. (It's only necessary to watch the video of the documentary of the Royal Commission to be convinced of this) As to who exactly did the planning and orchestrating, well I have my own ideas on that but the laws of defamation preclude me from expressing these. I realize that my views will quite possibly be considered unfavourably by the more passionate supporters of both sides but I hope that the above may contribute something to this debate. In conclusion, both my Brother (who has identical views to myself on this) and I would really like to get a copy of the video of the Royal Commission. I did have a copy that I'd taped from a TV broadcast but whilst the tape was in storage some years ago it was severely damaged by damp. If anyone either has a copy or can advise me where to get one I'd really like to hear from you.