prospector, I've come to the conclusion that (A) you worked, or those close to you, worked in the airlines upper echelons, or perhaps the nav dept (B) communicating with you is a complete waste of time as you have absolutely no comprehension of what is written.
Sorry, that would be about as accurate as the rest of the conclusions you have stated.
What can you not understand about
Delete all reference to briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let down procedure available is VMC below FL160(16,000ft) to 6,000ft as follows:
Quote:
1. Vis 20 km plus
2. No snow shower in area
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 grid through 360 grid to 270grid from McMurdo field, within 20nm of TACAN CH29
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in area.
That was the requirement for any descent below MSA, Why?? because the airline was well aware of the lack of experience of any of their crew in Antarctic operations.
Why did they not stick to one or two crews that had the experience required by other operators? could it be because NZALPA wanted their senior pilots to have a turn at this perk flight?.
The controllers were expecting the aircraft to come down the sound, in which case the aircraft would have been picked up. No one had told the controllers that the plan they held which covered the previous 14 months had changed. I wish you'd read the report in its entirety rather than banging continuously on about the airlines supposedly "safe" VMC letdown, which it wasn't, safe that is.
Surely you can remember what you posted a few posts back
The controllers were expecting the aircraft to come down the sound, in which case the aircraft would have been picked up. No one had told the controllers that the plan they held which covered the previous 14 months had changed. I wish you'd read the report in its entirety rather than banging continuously on about the airlines supposedly "safe" VMC letdown, which it wasn't, safe that is.
.
.
Once again proof positive of the lackadaisical approach to the entire operation by both the airline itself, and the CAA
If you added and by this crew, then I would have to agree. I say again, it is only Mahon's opinion that the crew were blameless that is in dispute
And do you believe that this crew "committed no error"?