Prospector – Your comments and reliance on what you propose are the facts are disingenuous at best, but 10/10 for unrelenting opposition to what is a phenomenal amount of evidence and reasonable argument that has consistently contradicted just about everything you are relying on, short of the date : a remarkable stance considering how comprehensively your case has been undermined; your myopic approach to aviation safety analysis is a credit to the 1920’s where you obviously prefer to reside.
The let downdown procedure, VMC ,visibility, ANZs’ SOP’s ect is a Strawman argument that you propose like clockwork as the standard facet of your justification, negating the fact that a trained crew flew a functioning DC-10 in clear weather into the side of a mountain. The FL160 limit and descent procedure you rely on is inconsequential - ipso if the DC-10 had not descended below FL160 it would not have crashed is the same argument as if the DC-10 had not taken off it would not have crashed, ipso facto.
That is a fact as well: the selective representation of the passengers’ photographic evidence, which to put it politely, was more conspicuous by what it omitted, is also by coincidence how you have drummed on while selectively representing the facts in your case and very selectively omitting to include numerous other facts which I’m sure your uncomfortable with, but have been bought to your attention by numerous posters’.
For your supposition to hold water you have to complicity agree that the crew of TE901 deliberately flew at the mountain, not ‘into the mountain’ but by a deliberate wilful act they flew ‘at the mountain’. Prove that point and I’ll never comment again. Short of the crew being suicidal, that’s where your argument falls down, along with Aircraft Accident Report No.79-139, regardless of that fact that the NZ Govt maintains that this is the official record; well they would wouldn’t they, considering how much effort the put into the content.
Anyone with any background in accident investigation knows that the Mahon/Vette analysis was a world class piece of research and analysis, which along with the Mahon report presented the facts – not opinions as you suggest – and the conclusions, along with multiple examples of duplicity between the airline being investigated, the CAA and the Govt.
Furthermore, the Mahon and Vette investigations, subsequently went on to improve investigation techniques and more importantly aviation safety - Quite an achievement. The Chippendale report did what was politically expedient, short and simple. Anyone tarnished with that brush very probably spends a lot of their time attempting to justify themselves through posting on various web pages…ring any bells?
Also, very convenient that the FDR has gone missing as well. Prospector old chap, if you’re not smelling a rat by now, perhaps a visit to an otorhinolaryngologist is required.
Justice Mahon and Gordon Vettes’ subsequent investigations, analysis and systematic approach solved the riddle of this tragedy, in the process opening the management of ANZ, the collusion of the NZ Govt and the CAA at the time to the oft repeated accusation of complicity and illegality, obstrufication, deliberate destruction of evidence, perjury ect, ect…in the process Mahon and Vette , in a monument to pettiness and NZ governmental vindictiveness, were well and truly shafted for demonstrating the truth when it was deemed inconvenient. A shameful result for NZ and anyone with an ounce of professional scruples or sense of justice, which by extension excludes yourself based on your postings; in addition, you constant harping on does a disservice to the aviation safety advances that resulted in Justice Mahon and Gordon Vettes’ research.
So, here is a proposal. I will approach TVNZ, or one of the production companies they use, and propose a top to tail thorough review of the evidence and analysis in a modern aviation safety investigation environment: you can use the Aircraft Accident Report No.79-139 as a basis for investigation - subject to peer review – which I’ll call team A in this context, while simultaneously an independent review by current, modern investigators, which I’ll call team B in this context, schooled in modern analysis and techniques will work on the available evidence and produce a report based on known empirical data, Human Factors, Cognitive and Behavioural Science, Cockpit Resource Management , Threat and Error Management ect, ect, and we’ll see what the result is…my two bob’s on team B.
Let me know if you’re keen, I think it’s an interesting idea and has some value, at the very least, it will put the dampers on your constant whining.
I await with the fatalism of the convicted for your very predictable, knee jerk response
Last edited by flatfootsam; 5th Mar 2010 at 13:53.