Erebus 25 years on

[prospector]

Desert Dingo,

This from New Zealand Aviation Tragedies by John King.

"And then came to Court battles, spread over several years and resulting in judgements that went against the OPINION of the Royal Commissioner. The last of these came towards the end of 1987 when representatives of the families of the dead crew members sued the United States Government for alleged failure of the U.S. Navy air traffic controllers at McMurdo to warn flight TE901 that it was in danger. Relatives of the 237 passengers had received substantial compensation, but because the 20 crew members were working for a New Zealand company they were eligible for only the standard accident compensation, and proving negligence against an outside agency was their one opportunity to receive a higher payout.

Following the U.S. District Court hearing in Washington DC, Judge Harold H. Greene wrote in his ruling,

"It is clearly established that, when the pilot told Mac Centre he wished to descend VMC, he effectively informed the controllers that he could see where he was going. In so doing he took SOLE RESPONSIBILITY for separating THE AIRPLANE FROM OTHER AIRCRAFT and the TERRAIN and he was on his own,
There also was much credible testimony to the effect that, and the Court finds that, air traffic controllers are not in a position to challenge, or second guess, the representation of a pilot that he can see where he is going and. indeed, that controllers are trained not to question such a representation".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To get away from all the legal jargon, the pilot asked for descent, he said he could see where he was going, even on the track that they thought they were on, at no time did they see a 12,000ft mountain, in an area that has brilliant visibility, over 100 miles at times, they would have been no more than 20 miles from Erebus, even on the so called wrong track, they did not see it at any time, even from 16,000ft, before they commenced the descent, and this in an area that they must have known can play some funny tricks weather/visibility wise. and this was their first time down there. one would think extreme caution would be the order of the day.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit more from Judge Greene,

" Judge Greene said the operational crew of Flight TE901 acted unreasonably in several respects, including not plotting their ACTUAL POSITION from the AINS and descending below "below 16,000ft, contrary to both prudent airmanship and Air New Zealand policy, without ascertaining what was there or following the other requirements for such descent. The crew also missed the obvious landmark of Beaufort Island being on the wrong side of the flightpath and pressed on in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people milling around the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period."

Nowhere is Mahon's findings, or Chippendales accident report mentioned, it is not known to me if these in any way influenced Judge Greene, but I would guess not.

Just to get the facts straight on a previous statement you made,

Captain Hawkins (and others) may have been telling fibs.
In the Auckland Star of 22 October 1977 an article appears with “At the controls Captain Hawkins brings the DC10 down to 200m over Scott and McMurdo Bases – well below the towering volcano Erebus belching smoke only 40 km. away.”

The police tried to make a case of this, and as is reported in the same book by John King,

"My lawyer approached the police to ask why nothing had happened, why there was no talking to me, and they asked him what I had to hide. They didn't believe the evidence the other members of my crew, saying it was a bit like a wife giving evidence for her husband.

In the end the one piece of evidence "The DC10 was going to a lower altitude" which proved absolutely nothing when no mention of its previous height was made, and the case was quietly dropped.

… are you suggesting that Chippindale’s report is the definitive report on the accident?

Yes I am, because it is.

It may not have been “officially challenged”, but you cannot deny that Mahon’s investigation showed Chippindale came to a lot of incorrect conclusions.

Garbage, it did no such thing, Mahons report was an enquiry, and only his opinion came out at the end.

As you obviously believe that the Commissioners report is Gospel, I see nothing to be gained going over the same ground again and again, you obviously have chosen to only read any statement that support Mahons theories and nothing is to be gained from any further discussion.

Thank you,