Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary [Archive]

Paragraph377

21st Nov 2019, 01:17

I’ve started threads on this subject several years ago. The then Government of the day and Air New Zealand should’ve been held to account. They got away with murder. Justice Mahon was a champion for his efforts to expose the rot and make people accountable. He didn’t really stand a chance as he was a small cog in a very large wheel. This accident will always remain controversial due to malfeasance and corruption. To those who covered things up, may you eternally rot in hell. To all of those who died - R.I.P. To the loved ones, families and friends of those who died and who remain in pain to this day - our thoughts remain with you.

A special remembrance to the following people;

COLLINS, Thomas James (Jim)
Position: Captain
Country: New Zealand

CASSIN, Gregory Mark
Position: First Officer
Country: New Zealand

LUCAS, Graham Neville
Position: First Officer
Country: New Zealand

BROOKS, Gordon Barrett
Position: Flight Engineer
Country: New Zealand

MOLONEY, Nicholas John (Nick)
Position: Flight Engineer
Country: New Zealand

BENNETT, David John
Position: Assistant Purser
Country: New Zealand

CARR-SMITH, Elizabeth Mary
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

CATER, Graham Ronald
Position: Senior Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

COLLINS, Martin John
Position: Purser
Country: New Zealand

FINLAY, Michael James
Position: Assistant Purser
Country: New Zealand

KEENAN, Dianne
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

LEWIS, James Charles
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

MARINOVIC, Suzanne Margaret
Position: Senior Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

MAXWELL, Bruce Rhodes
Position: Senior Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

McPHERSON, Roy William
Position: Chief Purser
Country: New Zealand

MORRISON, Katrina Mary June
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

MULGREW, Peter David
Position: In Flight Commentator
Country: New Zealand

SCOTT, Russell Morrison
Position: Purser
Country: New Zealand

SICKLEMORE, David Brian
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

SIMMONS, Stephen George
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

WOLFERT, Marie-Therese
Position: Cabin Crew
Country: New Zealand

This round is on me...........

Chris2303

21st Nov 2019, 02:32

When I read this I thought that Milton Wylie was just defending his boss, and I'm still not sure.

However when I read this
"He also reveals his concerns about the fact First Officer Graham (Brick) Lucas, who had been an Air Force navigator, on TE-901 was not on the flight deck in the final moments. Wylie believes he could have made a difference to the fatal outcome.) "I knew him personally - a very experienced guy, very forthright. I'm sure if he'd been on the flight deck, he would have had something to say at an earlier stage. Why wasn't he on the flight deck? Another eye, another ear, another brain - and somebody who was certainly not going to sit still and be quiet. He was a very forceful character." I agreed entirely.

I met Brick Lucas at the WLG Aero Club when I was learning to fly (PPL only, sorry) and I found he certainly called a spade a bloody shovel. I flew with him a number of times when he was flying the newspaper run for Murray Turley's Capital Air Services and Air Albatross and found him to be most professional and a good friend

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12286526

Dark Knight

21st Nov 2019, 03:12

Best close it now Mods, the subject only raises the ire of many
and it will go on, and on ad infinitude!

The name is Porter

21st Nov 2019, 03:19

OK, so leave it open, I'm listening to the podcast and the more info the better.

Paragraph377

21st Nov 2019, 04:01

and it will go on, and on ad infinitude!

Muct the same as people will go on and on about Alan Joyce, Virgin management, CASA’s incompetence and so the wheel keeps turning. And it’s true, in reality, some things never change.

But there are some ulgy realities, unproven accusations and dirty linen surrounding Erebus that quite simply haven’t been finalised, clarified and closed out.

And I don’t see why there needs to be a call to arms for a thread to be closed if it hasn’t degenerated into a slanging match or an all in rumble. If a person doesn’t like the topic or subject matter then move on to another thread more to your interest.

compressor stall

21st Nov 2019, 04:11

I've had my say on this topic over the years on here and am loathe to contribute more to this topic, but interestingly a quick look at the previous posts reveals that two of the most vociferous and contemptuous posters have not been active on pprune recently.

tdracer

21st Nov 2019, 04:12

Back around 1996 or '97, I was part of a small team that Boeing sent to ANZ due to an issue they were having with their CF6-80C2 powered 767s. I was aware of the Mt. Erebus disaster, but really hadn't thought too much about it - it wasn't due to an aircraft problem, wasn't a Boeing aircraft (this was pre-merger), and it was almost literally half a world away.
But dealing with the ANZ people the subject somehow came up, it quickly became apparent that - many years later - it remained an open wound. It had affected them - in much the same way the Lauda 767 crash had affected me (something that took me many years to get over)
Pretty sobering...

Chronic Snoozer

21st Nov 2019, 04:40

Best close it now Mods, the subject only raises the ire of many, bit like talking about '89.

You don't need to have an opinion on the cause to be able to appreciate the scale and gravity of this tragedy. The previous thread prompted me to spend some time understanding all sides of the argument and learn a great deal. Possibly a case study to surmount all case studies.

reubee

21st Nov 2019, 07:51

I can highly recommend the NZ Herald 'Litany of Lies' Erebus podcast, it has been excellent so far:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12284801

There was a Stuff/Radio NZ 6 part podcast "White Silence"the week before that had a few interesting tidbits.

Not sure we need two govt entities (RNZ and NZ On Air) both funding their own podcasts on the topic

With this Herald/NZ On Air effort there was an error or two in the first few episodes, and I didn't think much of the interview of the US Navy Navigator who claimed to talk to the crew, don't recall seeing that conversation in the CVR transcript.

machtuk

21st Nov 2019, 08:29

It's dissapointing to see the anger here amongst these pages about events that happened so long ago where no one can do anything about the outcome of that tragic day. It's really now just a time to remember the lost and embrace today hopefully a safer Aviation industry.

BluSdUp

21st Nov 2019, 17:05

This one was a bit before my time as a pilot , but I remember it.
I just read a few pages on it , and there is indeed a few basic things to learn from.
Also loosing one of my best friends down there in a Twin Otter crash in the 90s makes mull over old mistakes.

Live and learn folks.
Erik and the rest of You down there: We never forget You!
Rest in Peace.

Cpt B

Boeing 7E7

21st Nov 2019, 18:09

megan

21st Nov 2019, 20:57

interestingly a quick look at the previous posts reveals that two of the most vociferous and contemptuous posters have not been active on PPRuNe recently. Those two were behind my close the thread comment, having been on the receiving end of their bile. Folks might review previous threads on the subject to see the invective.

Lookleft

21st Nov 2019, 21:58

I found a copy of Justice Mahon's book at an op shop and I think that he was able to show where the true blame lied (pun intended). As for justice, I think all those who were involved have long since departed.

Dark Knight

22nd Nov 2019, 02:23

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1300x972/scattered_pebbles_d0531f5205046d79979f5d18858fad7ddd0dcc7f.j pg

zkdli

22nd Nov 2019, 05:25

This was the accident that started my journey in aviation safety. It was a tragedy for so many people, those that died on the mountain and those that were left behind.
After thirty years and having investigated numerous accidents incidents, I truly believe that this accident led to greater understanding of Human factors, Chaotic complex systems and a far more enlightened form of investigation that goes beyond the initial "cause" to find the why's behind the what happened.
having said that whatever your opinions we should and must remember that everyone on TE901 went on the flight expecting to have a great experience of seeing Antarctica. Tragically they did not return.
RIP

tail wheel

22nd Nov 2019, 18:12

If any post is contrary to the rules or the thread becomes unnecessarily vexatious it will be appropriately moderated or closed, like any other PPRuNe thread.

It is 40 years since the Erebus disaster, we all have 20/20 vision in retrospect, history can't be changed. Remember those who were lost or suffered but it is time to move on.

machtuk

22nd Nov 2019, 23:25

ampan

23rd Nov 2019, 16:38

Am I one of the two contemptuous posters that Megan refers to? If so, I take that as a compliment.

A question for the handwringers out there who babble on about air safety whenever this topic gets too difficult for them: Was Captain Collins blameless? Of course not, yet that is exactly what Mahon found. That does not advance the cause of air safety at all. It has the opposite effect. For example, how is air safety advanced by allowing a pilot to fly visually into an area that the pilot knows that he will not be able to see the terrain. (I could go on, and on, and on.)

Dark Knight

24th Nov 2019, 00:47

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/588x408/accients_83124bfb432352ac8b8c55032daaa287c544d463.jpg
(I could go on, and on, and on.)
No Need; just reread previous posts

Dark Knight

24th Nov 2019, 01:13

Visual Illusions: The Ground May Be Closer Than It Appears

Prevent controlled flight into terrain in flat light and whiteout conditions

The problem Flight operations in geographic areas that are susceptible to flat light and whiteout conditions can lead to accidents, as visual references are greatly reduced for pilots.

• Flat light occurs when the sky is overcast, especially over snow-covered terrain and large bodies of water. In flat light conditions, no shadows are cast and terrain features and other visual cues are masked, making it difficult for pilots operating under visual flight rules (VFR) to perceive depth, distance, or altitude. The photograph in this figure shows how these conditions combine to create an environment where it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the sky from the ground.

• Similarly, whiteout conditions can occur in areas with snow cover. Pilots can experience a loss of depth perception and become spatially disoriented, unable to maintain visual reference with the ground and unaware of their actual altitude. Related accidents The NTSB has investigated many general aviation (GA) accidents involving flat light or whiteout conditions. These accidents serve as important reminders about the critical need to ensure that pilots are aware of the challenges associated with these operating conditions and are adequately prepared for safe operations. The following accident summaries help to highlight the issues involved.

• An Airbus AS350B2 helicopter sustained substantial damage when it impacted terrain following a loss of control while landing. The commercial pilot, who was the sole occupant, reported that the weather was deteriorating and he encountered an area with flat light conditions over snow-covered ground. As the visibility decreased, he Figure. Photograph of an accident site showing the visual effects of flat light and snow-covered terrain SA-052 slowed the helicopter and stayed low to the ground; he reported that blowing snow from the main rotor downwash reduced the visibility to whiteout conditions with no ground reference.

• A Bell 206L-1 helicopter sustained substantial damage following the commercial pilot’s attempted precautionary landing due to poor visibility conditions. The pilot reported that while flying over an area of flat and featureless, snow-covered terrain, deteriorating weather conditions with low ceilings, light snow, and flat light conditions reduced his visibility. He said that, while attempting to land, blowing snow from the main rotor downwash reduced his ability to discern topographical features on the snow-covered terrain. During touchdown, the helicopter drifted to the left, the left skid struck the snow-covered terrain, and the helicopter rolled onto its left side.

• A Cessna 182B airplane, being operated on a cross-country flight that included flying through a narrow mountain pass, sustained substantial damage when it collided with mountainous, snow-covered terrain. The commercial pilot and two passengers were fatally injured. The typical route through the pass required making multiple turns, and the pass intersected with a box canyon. The airplane’s wreckage was located at the bottom of the box canyon a day after the airplane was reported overdue. A friend of the pilot, who attempted to cross the mountain pass the day of the accident, reported flat light conditions and difficulty discerning terrain features. Another pilot who flew through the mountain pass on the morning of the accident reported 4,400-foot ceilings, severe turbulence, and flat light conditions.

• An Aviat A1-A airplane, being operated on a cross-country flight under VFR, sustained substantial damage after colliding with snow-covered ice (a frozen drainage reservoir). The commercial pilot, the sole occupant of the airplane, was not injured. The pilot reported that he intended to overfly an airstrip without landing and that flat light conditions hampered his ability to judge his relative distance to the ground. He further stated that he did not realize he was descending over the snow-covered terrain until he impacted the snow.

What can pilots do?

• If possible, look for, use, and don’t lose sight of multiple visual reference points.

• Obtain an instrument rating and become proficient and comfortable with operating in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Trust the cockpit instruments and develop good cross-check practices.

• Understand that the ability to judge the height and determine the contour of terrain is difficult in conditions where the sky and ground (or water) are similar in colour. When landing on snow-covered terrain, conduct an overflight and consider using weighted flags or other markers that can be dropped from an aircraft and provide contrast. Shorelines may also provide needed contrast.

• If you regularly fly in snowy conditions, become proficient and comfortable with taxiing, taking off, landing, and conducting en route manoeuvres and go-arounds in areas with snow. If visibility drops, use your instruments and land at the nearest suitable airport.

machtuk

24th Nov 2019, 04:46

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/588x408/accients_83124bfb432352ac8b8c55032daaa287c544d463.jpg

No Need; just reread previous posts

interesting stats, oddly enough all the categories bar one (medical, well maybe not) can come under the one heading "poor judgement"!

rog747

24th Nov 2019, 07:17

In 1983 a British Airways S61 Helicopter on the regular scheduled flight from Penzance to St Marys (Isles of Scilly) crashed into the water on let down on a warm moist foggy/misty July Saturday morning.
23 were killed - 6 got out.
Haze limited their forward visibility so that they could not see the horizon, they were confident it was in excess of the VFR minimum of 200' ceiling.
Both pilots thought that the plane was still at 250 feet, though one of the passengers, a local, said that the cabin attendant had told her they were flying at around 100 feet shortly before the crash.

The name is Porter

24th Nov 2019, 09:27

Erebus Flight 901 is a good listen, seems to point the finger all the way to the top (Piggy).

White Silence delves a whole lot deeper, some of the same people interviewed but more in depth.

What an absolute tragedy for a small nation, an airline that punches significantly above it's weight. I'll travel any day of the week with this mob, above a wanka airline that trades on 'safety' but is a hairs breath away from 'there but the grace of god go I'

It's extremely sad listening to the Captain's widow and oldest daughter.

Don't any of you toss bags spoil this thread. Whilst all of us 'know' about this tragedy, none of us 'know'

ampan

24th Nov 2019, 22:32

Chris2303

24th Nov 2019, 22:53

Ttere's no mystery at all about this accident. It was another example of controlled flight into terrain. As with most of these accidents, the main cause was pilot error. That INS was also a cause, but only a secondary cause. A failure of one navigational aid should not cause a crash.

The real mystery is how an obvious case of pilot error, once put through the New Zealand legal system, was turned into a finding that the Captain was blameless. Is anyone game enough or stupid enough to agree with that?

Because Mahon found that the Air NZ Navigation section changed the flight plan but didn't specifically tell the operating crew.

Captain Collins spent sometime plotting the previous tracks, which led past Erebus instead of right into it, so that he had a mental picture of where he would be.

To my mind Brick Lucas should not have been removed to the cabin to make room for Peter Mulgrew whose presence on the flight deck must have been a distraction.

Remember that Mahon's "orchestrated litany of lies" was directed at Air NZ management, not at anyone else.

Paragraph377

25th Nov 2019, 01:11

My questions, said without emotion or provocation, quite simply are these;

Why did both Air New Zealand and the Air New Zealand Government lie? If the PIC is the sole root cause of this accident, then the evidence would overwhelmingly and categorically have supported that supposition. It didn’t. But why the lies from the Government and airline if the PIC was the root cause?

Why was Capt. Collins home broken into after the accident and crucial documents stolen? Who would sponsor such a devious and covert act of dishonesty? Again, if Capt. Collins was the sole root cause of the accident, why would a burglary and theft of evidence be orchestrated? For what purpose?

Why did the Erebus disaster trigger a chain of events from which the anomaly of ‘white out’ was robustly studied and new and improved systems, policies and training was the end result, which has improved safety, exposed the hazard of ‘white out’ and enabled airlines to mitigate the risk. Why bother to do that if the sole root cause was Capt. Collins flying skills, not the snow covered mountain.

I am not denying that there were multiple failures on that fateful day and James Reason’s Swiss cheese holes sadly and regretfully lined up. There is almost always multiple causal factors surrounding and connected to the main root cause of an accident. But it is the actions of Air New Zealand the Government that have left such a bitter and palpable taste in the mouths of the families and friends of several hundred people killed. In fact the legacy and pain of that day does continue down to this day and it personally affects many many hundreds of people, if not more. I find it abhorrent that some people continue to say ‘forget it’, ‘leave it be’, ‘don’t rehash it’. That’s a bit hard when a criminal act has never had the criminal brought to justice, and the loved ones of those whose lives were taken have not received full closure as a result of the coverup and malfeasance.

3 Holer

25th Nov 2019, 02:15

I see the Black Caps are well on top of the Poms in the 1st Test match.

Ollie Onion

25th Nov 2019, 02:49

To blame 100% on Air NZ is wrong, to blame Capt Collins 100% is wrong. No individual party is blameless here, on a sliding scale though with Air NZ at one end and the Crew at the other it will always be a matter of opinion where the blame falls. In my opinion the strongest evidence that the crew played a relatively small part in the accident is the fact that Air NZ and the Government went to such great lengths to obscure, hide or wipe from history the systemic failures that lead to the crew being set up to fail. It would have been an extraordinary act of airmanship to have been sitting there plotting your course when nothing would have given cause for concern for the first 4 hours. My biggest learning from this incident is that if ANY one on the flight deck starts making comments like ‘I can’t see this’, ‘I don’t like this’ ‘the rad alt is descending’ then I am going around immediately to sort it. Having said that I am almost certain that given the same variables it is highly likely I would have done exactly the same as this poor crew, we are lucky in that we have more information, experience and CRM training built off the back of many unfortunate accidents. Our best tribute to this crew would be to try and learn something from he whole situation.

Okihara

25th Nov 2019, 19:14

Thanks to this thread I've taken a renewed interest in this air disaster and started listening to the podcast. My wife joined me in my listen and raised the following concern: This crew flew all the way from NZ to Antarctica to find themselves at destination in clouds with a ceiling of 1500' and, onboard, 250+ fare paying passengers whose only purpose was the experience of seeing the ice. Throughout the crew training, passenger expectations beyond departing/arriving on time and a smooth landing are usually not the main concerns. This flight however was different as seeing Mt Erebus could admittedly be considered the crux of the whole flight, the reason passengers paid extra for their tickets, thus adding to the pressure of the crew. I want to tread carefully here as I've read that both pilots had extensive experience and were held in high regard by their peers. Without questioning their decision making skills, had the airline briefed them or given explicit instructions on the required course of actions to take should conditions at Ross Island be marginal? If not and therefore left at the captain's discretion, one could hypothesise that the PIC could have had a chain of thoughts along this: "The current conditions don't favour flying below LSALT, so my training and experience dictate that I should remain at 16,000' and head back home, as I would on any other flight. However I'm in a radar environment and the passengers' expectation is to see Mt Erebus, hence I'll make the call to descend below clouds. Otherwise I might face backlash from the airline if they all come home having paid this much for their tickets and seen nothing".

Therefore my question: Did Air New Zealand issue explicit directions to follow if conditions at destination precluded seeing the volcano?

ampan

25th Nov 2019, 21:04

There was an alternative route, to the South Magnetic Pole. The alternative route was available if the bad weather was known about before getting to Cape Hallett. After Cape Hallett, the captain had a free hand as to the track and could go to other areas. While heading towards McMurdo Station after passing Cape Hallett, Captain Collins was informed of the bad weather at McMurdo Station.. He was just about to go somewhere else when McMurdo Station offered him a radar- assisted descent. Collins gladly accepted the offer, announced the plan to the passengers, and waited for the radar operator to make contact. While waiting, Collins was told that the weather over the Dry Valleys was perfect. His response? "I prefer here first." So he kept on the track to McMurdo Station and he kept on trying to make contact with the radar operator. Then, he came to a large hole in the cloud layer, so without any discussion with his crew he started descending from 18000 feet in a figure-of-eight track. There had been no contact with the radar operator so there had been no confirmation of his position, but he got around this by pretending to be flying visually. The word "pretending" is accurate because Collins knew about white-out and knew that he would not have visual conditions below the cloud layer. What he was actually relying on was the aircraft's inertial navigation system - but the INS was not to be used to go below the height of a nearby mountain. Why? Because it might be wrong, and in this case, it was.

Dark Knight

25th Nov 2019, 21:45

I could go on, and on, and on
And on, and on, and on, and on; Again, and again, and again, and again...........ad infinitum......

Changing Nothing

ampan

25th Nov 2019, 22:24

That's a little bit better then a picture of rocks, but only a little bit. Why don't you try answering the question: Was the captain blameless?

Okihara

25th Nov 2019, 22:57

@ampman: Thanks for clarifying this. You seem to know heaps more about the subject than many a ppruner here. When you say:
The word "pretending" is accurate because Collins knew about white-out and knew that he would not have visual conditions below the cloud layer.
At that time of the year, what would you expect to see when looking straight down? Ice or water? Was there any chance that they could have distinguished the shoreline at Lewis Bay as they were approaching it or was it simply imperceptible?

ampan

25th Nov 2019, 23:11

Lewis Bay at that time of year was mostly sea-ice, but you would be able to see the black parts where there were gaps in the ice. They may have been able to see those black parts as they flew towards the mountain at 1500 feet, but they could not see the mountain itself. Vette postulated that what they saw was an open expanse, just like the middle of McMurdo Sound would look like. Vette, however, had a barrow to push. What the captain actually saw was nothing. No horizon. Like being inside a ping pong ball. He should have climbed back out immediately. Instead, he carried on for 120 seconds. Count off 120 seconds. It's a lifetime. That was the last of a series of bad errors.

Chris2303

26th Nov 2019, 03:49

And on, and on, and on, and on; Again, and again, and again, and again...........ad infinitum......

Changing Nothing

Ad nauseum?

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 04:15

Was the captain blameless?

Dark Knight

26th Nov 2019, 05:13

Was the captain blameless?

The Captain made his decisions based upon his experience and the information available to him at the time as each and every Captain does.

It has been shown after the event some of the information given to him was Incorrect

We were not there therefore, we cannot question whether or not his decision was correct or not.

Further questioning, review, speculation will not change what happened, the investigation report or subsequent investigations.

Nor will any of the continuing questioning, expression of opinion or conjecture here have further investigations or court reopen to look further into the subject.

Perhaps it is more than past time to let all Rest in Peace!

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 05:18

Was the captain blameless?

Dark Knight

26th Nov 2019, 05:21

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/244x210/sands_of_time_975912f56a14859839852d32f60e6ac090e01ed8.jpg

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 05:24

Was the captain blameless?

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 06:30

ampan, that's NOT what I'm after from this thread OR the podcasts. I was a whippersnapper when this accident happened, it's always intrigued me.Podcasts are a great way of getting the story, the investigative journalism is of a very good standard. Every perspective gets their position put forward, these podcasts have not targeted one individual.

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 06:33

So please don't be a flog and get the thread shut down. I'll listen to your side of it. There's a generation of us that haven't heard the in-depth side of this.

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 06:36

You seem to think that this thread is akin to some Santa Barbara prostitute. It is not. This is serious stuff. Now go back to your podnuts, then think very hard for three weeks, and then answer the question: Was the captain blameless?

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 06:44

Couldn't afford a Santa Barbara prostitute on my salary! Spent it on an iphone 11, so its gunna have to be pocket casts. ****, serious? I thought this was a movie?

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 06:47

I said three weeks, not three minutes.

But there was a movie that had a connection, which you will find by googling "Gordon Vette"

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 06:51

Sorry mate, 3 weeks it is then, chat then.

Paragraph377

26th Nov 2019, 06:58

Porter,
Great to see the younger generation taking an interest in this accident. The accident is one of those where the true root cause, the full truth, complete disclosure, has never been finalised officially. It is the coverups, corruption and malfeasance between a Government and it’s nationally owned airline that leaves a bitter taste in people’s mouths. In fact, had the truth been revealed about the real cause of the accident the NZ Government of the day would have been bankrupted, hence the reason for such a high level coverup. It was all about the dollars.

To see Capt. Collins lifeless body laying quietly and motionless on the cold, windy ice, forward of the fuselage with the smell of kerosene, hydraulic oil and death all around is something sobering for a younger pilot to consider.

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 07:00

Keep on researching, Porter. Apart from the continuous arguments, there was a huge amount of information put onto this website which might still be available.

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 08:54

Paragraph377 (being called young is generous, thankyou! Although I WAS a kid when this happened). I've been involved in a few incidents over the years, there can be some very simplistic 'findings' when it comes to investigations. The involvement of management and ops in particular are of interest to me. I'm not looking to be able to blame anybody for this tragedy but I do want to understand the full picture. This is a classic example of the Swiss Cheese.

rockarpee

26th Nov 2019, 09:02

On e.threads, Dead pilot easy to blame, corrupt management and govt. slightly more difficult, seriously this subject has run its course, pulease shut it down

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 09:09

OK, shut it down you cynical old farts. It's all about youse.

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 09:21

Was the dead captain blameless?

rockarpee

26th Nov 2019, 09:22

Gawd I didn’t think I was old or cynical, maybeee I are. The Ampans of this world should not be given the o2 of pprune. Anyway enough from me on this awful subject.

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 09:27

You are not old, nor cynical. Your just thick.

Capt Fathom

26th Nov 2019, 09:43

I could go on, and on, and on.

And you have.....:rolleyes:

ampan

26th Nov 2019, 09:45

And you have not …

answered the question: Was the captain blameless?

itsnotthatbloodyhard

26th Nov 2019, 10:12

You are not old, nor cynical. Your just thick.

“You’re just thick.”

You’re welcome.

layman

26th Nov 2019, 11:57

Ampan

I'll bite. From what I have gleaned from my various readings on the Mt Erebus disaster, as the aircraft captain it is unlikely that Captain Collins can be considered to be completely blameless.

However, as he was only one of many with substantive input into this disaster, are you willing to share your thoughts on who you consider to be the other individuals and organisations that might share the blame?

Perhaps you can also share your thoughts on the degree of culpability you would assign to each of these individuals and organisations?

Actually, apportioning 'blame' is probably the least useful area of discussion that can still be had about the Mt Erebus disaster.

After this length of time it is likely to be more productive to be periodically reminded about disasters such as this, identifying the lessons learned / re-learned, and incorporating 'solutions' into organisational and / or personal SOPs.

Perhaps you can add to this discussion by identifying how Mt Erebus changed your personal, or your organisations, approach to flying?

regards
layman

Okihara

26th Nov 2019, 11:58

Jayysus, ampan, why are you insisting so much on this?

Why should it even matter to me, or to others here, to determine or to establish whether the captain was indeed blameless or not? What answer do you expect? A simple yes or a no? It's such an ill-defined question in the first place that its answer, or spectrum of answers, are of no interest or practical value to understand what happened there and what it meant in the greater scheme of things for New Zealand. Let me give you two examples. 1. The German Wings FO who deliberately flew into terrain after locking his captain outside the cockpit, and 2. The Lion Air or Ethiopian crew of the ill-fated 737-MAX aircraft. In the former case, the FO is 100% to blame but in the latter ones? Ah, that's already trickier to answer. And even if we did have a definitive answer, what good would that possibly do?

I second others here who were either too young or, like me, just not born yet when this sad story took place. My primary interest is to understand the (chain of) events that led to the crash without trying to point fingers and to compare the instruments available to the flight crew then to what we'd have today. Training evolved some quantifiable bits over the last 40 years so some of today's nonevents thanks to the greater situational awareness that instruments give us could then easily snowball into unrecoverable situations. That's worth 5 min of consideration next time you get a RAIM alert on final.

Thanks for keeping this thread constructive or waiving your right to express yet another pointless opinion on PPRuNe.

Okihara

26th Nov 2019, 11:59

layman Thanks mate. That's it!

layman

26th Nov 2019, 12:24

Okihara

I think we're in furious agreement :)

Sunfish

26th Nov 2019, 12:49

Ampan:The word "pretending" is accurate because Collins knew about white-out and knew that he would not have visual conditions below the cloud layer. What he was actually relying on was the aircraft's inertial navigation system - but the INS was not to be used to go below the height of a nearby mountain. Why? Because it might be wrong, and in this case, it was.

Who was to blame for the INS being wrong?

73qanda

26th Nov 2019, 13:00

You guys/girls who are wanting to learn about this would do well to read, in full, the other threads on this subject. There is a massive amount of information to be digested before you’ll come anywhere near forming an accurate picture of why it happened.
It’s worth getting into it for a month or two, it changed my fundamental approach to flying the public around.

armchairpilot94116

26th Nov 2019, 14:02

Air New Zealand's navigation section.

Looks like setting the aircraft heading directly at the mountain on such a mission was a bad idea , adding to that fact, flight crew didn't know about that.

Asturias56

26th Nov 2019, 14:45

Ampan - you're in danger of pushing the discussion down the track it took a couple of years ago which ended in a lot of unpleasantness

Just let the question of blame lie for now

Asturias56

26th Nov 2019, 15:16

Its been done - many many times - go and look at the old thread

There is no point in stirring it all up again......

Okihara

26th Nov 2019, 15:25

ampan It might be of some help for rest of us to understand what level of involvement you have with that matter or if you personally suffered the loss of someone close in relation to this case, or else your relentlessness on the blame topic is hard to make sense of. With regard to you listing Collins' mistakes, thanks but I'd rather not. No offence, but I don't know who you are or why I should accept your opinion on this. It also feels odd that 40 years on someone should keep on crucifying the captain who, by all accounts, seemed to enjoy a very strong reputation amongst his peers, without the chance for him to give a first-hand recollection and defence of what happened. Don't forget that he too was amongst the victims and he too left wife and kids behind. Last I checked, he was human, not a machine. Humans, to the best of my knowledge, have been shown to make mistakes occasionally (at least on this side of the Ditch it is a largely undisputed fact). The additional complexity is that there were not just one but a crowd of said humans involved to various degrees in the unfortunate chain of events that led to the crash.

So please mate, simply accept that others are not interested in casting blame upon anyone. If, despite this, you feel that you have ulterior knowledge worth sharing to help the less initiated delve into this topic, by all means, do share but word it accordingly.

kaikohe76

26th Nov 2019, 17:29

A few comments that may or may not apply to this particular incident.
- Like so many aircraft accidents & losses, the only people who could really say exactly what happened, will always be sadly unable to do so.
- You should never descend below Minimum Safe Altitude unless you are totally sure of your position & it is entirely safe to do so.
- While accepting, that anybody has a right to their opinion of course, how many of those posting on this subject, have been involved with the aviation industry & been a crew member on heavy jet liners
-This is one of those sad aircraft accidents that will be forever shrouded in controversy.
- RIP all those who perished.

Okihara

26th Nov 2019, 19:15

And you know that how?

Ollie Onion

26th Nov 2019, 21:53

Unless you were present with Capt Collins in that briefing I don't see how you can make that statement when all the evidence seems to suggest they received several briefings both verbal and written that showed a track down the Sound to McMurdo.

The name is Porter

26th Nov 2019, 23:34

"intellectually lazy" twits can be bothered spending a bi of time on this.

Mate..............

There is no need to behave like The name is Porter when discussing this.

Ollie Onion

27th Nov 2019, 00:14

ampan, no need to use the name calling, I just don’t see what you are trying to get at. Yes there may have been an audio visual briefing with a track over Erebus to McMurdo but this was not the ‘common’ track taken by the previous flights. The Flight Plan given to Collins at his briefing was one that reflected a route down the Sound and not over Erebus, it was this one that he used to plot the track in his atlas. As I previously stated I do not hold the opinion that the crew is blameless but I think your interpretation of some of the facts are excellent in hindsight but don’t actually reflect what can happen the real world. I have been to many briefings in my time when 20 minutes later their will be two pilots debating what some of the procedures just briefed meant or how they should be flown. I mean the CAA authorisation didn’t allow for any flight below MSA yet it can be shown that most of the Air NZ sightseeing flights operated below MSA and were advertised as such. There are far more complicated Human Factors at play here than the ‘he was told so should have known’ bullsh#t, in my opinion of course.

Paragraph377

27th Nov 2019, 02:05

Now ampman has resorted to bagging out Capt. Collins work history at ANZ, including his salary. Embarrassing.

Gordon Vette, although a brilliant pilot, was also a ‘corporate boy’ through and through. He would gladly tow the line of Morrie Davis and Robert Muldoon any day of the week. The same airline politics continue down to this day around the world, nothing’s changed.

Is it ampan or is it Ron Chippendale?

TWT

27th Nov 2019, 02:13

:confused:

Ron Chippindale died 11 years ago. Walking along, minding his own business and was mown down by a car.

Ollie Onion

27th Nov 2019, 02:28

Right, well I will drop out there, pretty low when you resort to personal attacks on people.

Paragraph377

27th Nov 2019, 02:49

The name is Porter

27th Nov 2019, 03:59

And the 'over two hundred people killed' were killed as a result of a series of events, a very complicated series of events. Not just one person brought that DC10 down.

The name is Porter

27th Nov 2019, 04:03

I reckon the pigman was overpaid.

reubee

27th Nov 2019, 05:01

Please do a little bit more research and then come back with you summation of "all the evidence" and what it might seem to suggest. I have read all the evidence, many times. But the reason why I am so confident about this point is that the briefing had an audio-visual section, with an audio-taped part, where a man reads things out from a transcript. Now get this: I HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT! Anyone can get it. I have the exhibit number if any of you "intellectually lazy" twits can be bothered spending a bi of time on this.

I repeat: At the briefing, Collins was told that the track went to McMurdo Station. And I repeat, there was no issue about this.
You place a lot of emphasis on the text of the briefing. The tape may well have voiced "McMurdo STATION" but that would've only been heard ONCE by the briefing attendees at a time when they were unfamiliar with the area and coming to learn of it, and certainly not familiar with the nuances of McMurdo Sound, McMurdo Station (the base), the McMurdo Station TACAN, the McMurdo Station NDB, or the 3 airfields Pegasus Field, William Field (the McMurdo Station Skiway) , or the Ice Runway. Whatever knowledge they gained would have been more likely to have been acquired by any printed material which they would've had the opportunity to read multiple times rather than a spoken word at the beginning of a briefing to which they had no context or means to recall (short of playing the tape again). The 3 maps at the route briefing Annex F had a McMurdo Station Tacan noted but a route line drawn down the middle of McMurdo Sound, Annex G referred to McMurdo Sound and had a line drawn down McMurdo Sound, Annex H had a line drawn towards McMurdo Sound and circled around two dots labelled McMurdo Station & Scott Base, that line did not go direct to McMurdo Station (if indeed that is what one of the dots represented. None of the 3 lines on the maps at the briefing went directly over Mt Erebus to McMurdo station. Annex I given to them on the morning had two McMurdo Stations listed and again no line drawn over Erebus to either of these two McMurdo Stations. The two printed flights plan, one at the route briefing, the one the day of the flight both said "McMurdo"although limited to 8 characters they couldn'y say "McMurdo Station", "McMurdo" NDB etc. The only map that had a straight line from Cape Hallett to McMurdo Station was Annex J from the route briefing but that had NO reference to topographical features. Annex J also says "For detail within the McMurdo Area see blow up" but I have not seen the blow-up if there is one. AFAIK no map was even given that accurately showed the route overlaid with topographical features.

So back to my original point I don't think you can place that much weight to what was said in an aural briefing that they would've heard once with no background context, when the main point of knowledge building would've been the maps they had been given and could look at multiple times to build a picture in their mind.

ExSp33db1rd

27th Nov 2019, 05:06

Was the captain blameless?

No, of course he wasn't blameLESS, but neither was he blameFUL.

Pilot error ? The pilot makes the last error.

reubee

27th Nov 2019, 05:06

Here is something new: Does anyone remember the controversy about the missing pages of Collins' small black ring-binder diary? It was thought that the missing pages might contain a note that Jim made of the co-ordinates presented at the briefing,

According to a very-reliable source, the pages did, indeed, contain notes made by Jim. But the notes were not of co-ordinates. They were phone numbers of Jim's girlfriend's - hence Bruce Crosbie's decision to bin the notes.

On the podcast yesterday or the day before, Mrs Collins was aware of that, spoke of it, and dismissed it with an innocuous reason. The policeman who found the notepad on the ice was of the opinion that the numbers were of a lat/lon format and other formats which he did not recognise, I think if they were names of ports/woman/phone numbers I think a policeman would've recognised it as that.

3 Holer

27th Nov 2019, 06:07

Why the debate?

The Honorable Justice Mahon cleared Collins and his crew of any blame, Air NZ and the NZ government cleared Collins and his crew of any blame (by their puerile attempts to withhold or destroy crucial evidence with their infantile, orchestrated "litany of lies") and the NZ public finally accepted the findings in the Mahon Report to be the final and truthful account of the disaster.

May I borrow some pebbles please Dark Knight ?

Kaboobla

27th Nov 2019, 07:03

Having read all the available evidence I find myself agreeing with Justice Mahon and NZ APLA

I also am coming to believe that Anpan is an unhinged lunatic. Maybe time to give it a rest champ. No-one is listening.

Paragraph377

27th Nov 2019, 07:09

I think there are a few pages missing from ampan’s black notebook! Crumbs old timer, you have lost the plot completely lost your marbles. Turning your anger so viciously on Justice Mahon and Jim Collins is childish. You are very angry and very emotional mate.

And ampan, I doubt very much that you didn’t realise Pip Collins was still around these days, considering how much you allegedly know intimately about the accident and subsequent activities. You are playing the man, not the ball. What numbers do you keep in your ring binder - Labor party politicians by chance??

Bravo Delta

27th Nov 2019, 08:36

Happy birthday. Pilot error.

Pinky the pilot

27th Nov 2019, 09:46

Turning your anger so viciously on Justice Mahon and Jim Collins is childish. You are very angry and very emotional mate.

As someone who is completely disinterested (check the dictionary those who are unsure of the meaning of the word) of the incident I must say I tend to agree with the above quote.

Taily; You are showing quite the restraint!

Sunfish

27th Nov 2019, 11:43

I think Ampans comments can be dispensed with as axe grinding with no useful insights that would leave any the wiser.

The name is Porter

27th Nov 2019, 12:26

It's actually quite a good thread. ampan's multiple bias are crystal clear. The logical and curious discussion is painting quite the picture of him.

20 years old at the time of the accident, it's certainly got me curious as to his part?

If you delete all of the insults and very directed, personal attacks his viewpoint is interesting.

Tailwheel has no reason to lock this thread, so stop trying to lead it that way. If you are disinterested Pinky, you know what they say.

blorgwinder

27th Nov 2019, 13:35

A few points, as professionals spare a thought for Ampan who has a deep seated almost obsessional resentment/hate for TE, the crew, the Justice, and any one who is not in agreement with his views. To a minuscule degree he has a point but his post at 100 and his comment about Mrs Collins is the lowest demonstration of a lack of professionalism even seen in this site. Ampan. it best you either come clean about your anger,or get blocked or just disappear and try to overcome the demons you continue to deal with. And mate EVERYONE who was involved in this at any level in TE or any other organization, the families, have demons but seem to manage them better than you do. The post at 98 gives you what you want. Perhaps its now time to PFO and move on.

Secondly, there is a factual agreement that the coordinates were changed for this flight and those unannounced/uncommunicated changes were input by the crew into the FMS. Why, because they were trained to do that, it's done for all flights, believe in the system, trust it...? So why was this change not shared with the crew? Conversation would be Oh by the way Capt we changed a few things but we did not tell you, but thats ok, it will come out at the accident and it will be your fault. Enjoy the flight, tee crew bus is waiting and we don't the flight to be delayed.

Okihara

27th Nov 2019, 13:39

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyWvOI_MD-Q

Interesting documentary from 1990 with Vette's analysis. Many here would have seen it but it was a first for me and although a bit old fashioned by today's standards, the message is well presented. It makes my responsibility compass shift away from Capt. Collins. Obviously we're always wiser after the fact

armchairpilot94116

27th Nov 2019, 15:06

Please pardon the intrusion with my stray thoughts worth not much more than one penny if that. Seems to me :

Erebus is the god of darkness . In this case a suitably inauspicious name for this very tragic accident.
As the commander is ultimately responsible for the safe conduct of the flight we can say that Captain Collins did fail in this respect.

And he paid for it with his life.

it was not the first time a Captain failed and paid for it with his life. There have been many incidents.

He was however set up for failure with a trap he did not realize until it was too late.

I think it was not prudent to set the waypoint anywhere near flying over Erebus. And it was criminal to not inform the crew.

This was a very highly specialized flight in an extremely remote area with patchy radar coverage in possible extreme weather conditions where at some point very low level flying will commence with probable heavy cloud cover. All parties should have been in agreement the exact plan of action and alternate and a point where the mission should be aborted no questions asked.

This was not what transpired on this mission.

kaikohe76

27th Nov 2019, 18:16

This is one so very tragic aircraft loss that will forever be shrouded in controversy.
Let us all put aside our differing views on this incident & just for to day, remember all those who sadly perished 40 years ago. We should also remember the families & friends of those who were on the DC10 that day.
RIP & God Bless you all.

Chris2303

27th Nov 2019, 18:39

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12287092Air NZ's missing flight path evidence confirms 'orchestrated litany of lies' over Erebus - Judge Gary Harrison

Airbubba

27th Nov 2019, 19:54

With this Herald/NZ On Air effort there was an error or two in the first few episodes, and I didn't think much of the interview of the US Navy Navigator who claimed to talk to the crew, don't recall seeing that conversation in the CVR transcript.

The navigator quoted in the podcast excerpt below was from the U.S. Air Force, not the Navy. If Lieutenant Knock's narrative given in the podcast is correct the radio call probably came after the crash had ended the CVR recording.

The C-141 crew refueled at McMurdo and attempted unsuccessfully to find the crash site before returning to Christchurch. They also met with the Minister of Transportation and the media according to this passage from Operation Deep Freeze 50 Years of U.S. Air Force Airlift in Antarctica 1956-2006:

A 60 MAW C‑141 carried 14 distinguished visitors to McMurdo Sound and back to Christchurch on 28 November for a commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of Admiral Byrd’s first flight over the South Pole. The distinguished visitors, invited by the National Science Foundation, included political figures and senior scientists, but also included two members of Byrd’s expedition, Dr. Laurence M. Gould and Mr. Norman D. Vaughan, and Byrd’s grandson, Mr. Robert Breyer.

This high‑visibility mission soon became even more extraordinary. This flight flew approximately 45 minutes behind an Air New Zealand tourist DC‑10 (Flight 901). Flight 901 was scheduled to fly to Antarctica, circle around Mount Erebus (about 20 miles from McMurdo Sound), and return to New Zealand. Because of the proximity of this commercial aircraft and similar route, the aircraft commander, Major Bruce L. Gumble, maintained communication with the DC‑10 and monitored its position. As the DC‑10 began to descend for its low‑altitude circle around Mount Erebus, all radio contact was lost and presumed crashed.

After landing at McMurdo Sound, Naval personnel requested Major Gumble take on extra fuel and assist in a search and rescue operation. After taking off, the C‑141 conducted a low‑altitude (1,500 to 3,000 feet) visual search around Ross Island. The C‑141 began turning towards what was later confirmed as the crash site when poor weather closed in making further visual observations impossible. Upon arrival back at Christchurch, Major Gumble and the navigator, 1st Lieutenant Marlin A. Knock, met with the New Zealand Minister of Transportation and with local reporters concerning the crash.

A Navy LC‑130 aircrew identified the crash site on the side of Mount Erebus on 29 November. All 257 passengers and crew lost their lives.

Lieutenant Knock's account of the warning to the Air New Zealand crew from the Litany of Lies podcast:

For the first time ever, a US navigator has revealed his panicked alert to the crew of the doomed Air NZ flight to Erebus. First lieutenant Marlin Knock was flying 40 minutes behind Flight 901 on a C-141 Starlifter.

It was Wednesday November 28 1979. As they reached Antarctica, the pilots of both planes were in regular contact. But when Knock plotted the Air New Zealand DC10 course, he realised they were headed straight for Erebus in cloud conditions. "What I had realised [was] they were headed straight for the mountain going down," says Knock. Forty years later he says his heart still races when he recalls urging his crew on the flight deck to: "call them back now".

Knock recounts the scene on the Starlifter in the moments before the crash. "We called them [Flight 901], we got a hold of them and we were talking with them, saying 'how was it?' They said 'well we're here now and we're flying, but it's overcast over the area'. So our guys go: 'Where are you located?' They gave me a position which I plotted and they said they were descending to 5000 feet. Which made my heart stop, because I stopped and I went 'they're pretty close to Erebus.' I said 'call them back, call them back now'. What I realised, they were headed straight for the mountain, going down. I said 'they're headed towards the mountain and they're descending. There's no way they're going to make it'.

"That's when they got back on the horn to call them. One of my pilots called; we got no answer. [I was] in shock, pretty much. Because I knew that they were gone, but there was no proof of it. But I had this feeling, and I was like 'I can't believe this.'

"Basically we heard nothing else from them. When we landed [at McMurdo Base], we talked to the tower. We said: 'have you heard anything from them'? They said no. They said 'we're going to need some help. We think they've …' And I said 'I think I know'.

"I brought in an aeronautical chart that I have. It gives the whole terrain on the map and the area. I put a little mark on the chart, saying 'here's where they were, and the direction, whatever. Here's where I think you're going to find them'.

"Pilots aren't navigators. Pilots use radio aids to figure out approximately where they are. They do not have the charts. They don't have the terrain charts. They have what's called the aerial knowledge of where they are in the whole works … But as far as being able to plot it on a chart, I don't believe they had a chance."

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12284975

The C-141 is referenced in the original aircraft accident report but no mention is made of Knock's 'panicked alert' which he now recalls in the podcast. He comments that pilots are not navigators (the second part of the obvious antimetabole also holds true in most cases). However, as discussed above and in the accident report Captain Collins did have a lapsed navigator's license.

Airbubba

27th Nov 2019, 20:33

Here's Major Gumble's interview on returning to Christchurch after the DC-10 crash. He makes no mention of an attempt to warn the airliner of the terrain ahead.

At Christchurch airport on the night of the Erebus disaster, US Air Force Lockheed C-141A Starlifter pilot Major Bruce Gumble describes losing contact with Flight TE901.Transcript

Major Bruce Gumble: We were about 40 minutes behind the 901 Flight going into McMurdo and we'd been in touch with him by radio because we wanted to make sure that our flight paths didn't interfere with one other as he came back out of the area.

We followed essentially the same route. We descended below the clouds for our landing at McMurdo and we hadn't heard from him in some time and there was beginning to be some suspicion that something might have gone wrong. So we took a look around as we went in. We saw nothing and as we left McMurdo again we took on extra fuel to allow us to remain in the area at low altitude and search for some time. We saw nothing at all in any area that we thought might've been a likely place for the aircraft to be. There were also two C-130s and a couple of helicopters searching the area when we left. We would've liked to have stayed but our fuel wouldn't permit it. We had to come on back here.

The weather was partly cloudy. The bases were at approximately 5000 ft, tops at around 16,000. Rather warm for down there, only minus 4 degrees centigrade. Nearly a summer day and not much wind.

1st reporter: How easy would it be for a plane to land on the ice?

Major Bruce Gumble: Well we do it intentionally when we go down there. Of course it's a prepared runway; they grade the snow off it for us. But in many places the ice will support the weight of an airplane. It's not easy but it can be done.

The last radio contact that we had was just prior to that. His last transmission I believe was to McMurdo approach control.

2nd reporter: Was there any indication that anything was wrong at that stage?

Major Bruce Gumble: We heard no such indication, no.

https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/sound/major-gumble-announces-no-contact-erebus-flight

73qanda

27th Nov 2019, 22:20

I hope the new generation of Captains/First Officers coming through now, who are reading this and learning about Erebus for the first time, spend some time trying to understand this crash as it can ( and did for me fifteen years or so ago) bring in to focus the purpose, the theory, the importance, of Minimum Safe Altitudes and the Captains responsibility in relation to them.
Regardless of the degree to which Collins was ‘set up’, and without getting emotional about it, have a think about your own personal approach to this responsibility.. Have a think about the errors from management, software designers, flight planning departments, Engineers loading data into your computers, etc that you are expected to absorb and mitigate while under time pressure. Have a think about how you will react when the theory and purpose of these rules and procedures is opposed by ‘group think’ or company culture/expectations, or a forceful air traffic controller. Develop a strong and clear position now in the comfort of your lounge room chair so that you don’t have to search for that position while doing 300kts.
Your job isn’t to prevent Engineers and software developers and flight planning departments from making errors, it’s to expect and mitigate them.
None of the above is a slur on Collins, it was a different time with different training and knowledge and technology. Collins didn’t have the opportunity to study this crash, we do. Our best way as pilots to honour the memory of all onboard is to take the lessons and apply them in a practical way to our modern flying environment.
If you just spend an hour or two reading about this it’s easy to flop into one camp or another, you need to go a bit deeper than that (like many here have done before) and look at it from a few different angles.
I hope some of you do, it’s worth it.

compressor stall

27th Nov 2019, 23:30

Rest In Peace. I believe that there is a memorial service at Scott Base at the moment.https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x514/dsc_1899_e23987fd5dc3216a808a9f43ec69bd0e4a046091.jpg
The perhaps presciently named peaks of Terror (l) and Erebus (r) McMurdo Station and Sound is off the RHS of the image.

tail wheel

28th Nov 2019, 00:23

This thread has become far too much emotion. Nothing will change history and certainly not some of the libelous posts that were in this thread.

Cool it - or the thread gets closed! :=

megan

28th Nov 2019, 00:45

I did warn you Tailie. :ooh:

compressor stall

28th Nov 2019, 00:57

Despite the slurs he has lobbed at me over the last decade after relating my thoughts on various aspects of this accident, his truculent and opprobrious posts of yesterday and last night followed by the silence today does cause me to have some concern for his welfare today. To be so vociferous and dedicate so much time over the years posting on here, it would appear that he has some deep connection to this tragedy and is still dealing with it. I hope he can get the closure he needs.

Okihara

28th Nov 2019, 02:00

The only good that will come out of this, 40 years on, is to keep the memory of this tragedy alive. That's the only way these people wouldn't have died in vain. Think about it, this has only made victims. Respect to the families and loved ones who lost someone on TE 901.

Paragraph377

28th Nov 2019, 02:15

Post #100 by qanda - eloquent, mature, succinct and sane. Excellent comment. Best yet. Well done sir (or ma’am).

RHSandLovingIt

28th Nov 2019, 02:59

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern apologises for Erebus disaster, 'the time has come'https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117749253/live-kiwis-gather-to-remember-the-erebus-disaster-40-years-later

And a link to a transcript of the PMs speech: https://mch.govt.nz/prime-minster-delivers-erebus-apology
which also includes an apology from AirNZ Chair Dame Therese Walsh

ampan

28th Nov 2019, 03:10

I support the apology by Air New Zealand: Captain Collins, after all, was an employee of the company.

Does anyone know how to upload PDF files?

noooby

28th Nov 2019, 03:14

TWT, I am more than aware of Chippendales death. I was simply saying that ampan sounds very much like Mr Chippendale - rude, arrogant and obtuse. Out of decency I won’t say what I would like to say about Chippendale though. It’s a pity others aren’t as respectful to the departed Capt. Collins.

ampan, you sound very much like a former NZ labor politician from the 70’s who has an axe to grind with Capt. Collins over the pressure that the accident brought on the Muldoon Government. I hope I’m wrong.

I'll stand up and defend Ron. He was my tutor at University and one of the most honest men I have ever met in 30 years in Aviation. He had no axe to grind with anyone on any investigation. He reported what he found. You might not like what he said but his reports were factual and his Erebus report is still the ONLY factual legal document about the accident.

Did he tolerate idiots? No. He didn't think Aviation had any room for them. I tend to agree.

Try to argue with any of the facts in the report. They are all facts and none have ever been argued.

Killed by a kid who was late for work and was doing up his shoe laces while driving his car. Mounted the footpath and killed Ron instantly as Ron was walking home with the paper.

And people still send his widow hate mail on the Erebus anniversary. Grow up people. Ron told the facts as related directly to the accident. That was his job. The report is considered ground breaking in the world of Air Accident Investigation.

ampan

28th Nov 2019, 03:32

Chippindale's problem was communicating his findings. There are some very strange parts of his report, and then there was the sentence stating that there was "no evidence" that the change to the co-ordinates misled the crew. It was ridiculous statement then and it's just as ridiculous now. But there was a background to the sentence. Trouble was, he made no reference to the background.

noooby

28th Nov 2019, 03:47

And there is also the misleading thought that it was "his" report.

His name is on the front and he had a large part to play but reports like this are a team effort.

When I sign out an aircraft after maintenance, it is my name that releases it for flight but I didn't do all the work. I'd be there for months if it was just me! I sign that it is airworthy on behalf of all those behind me who worked on it.

Just like Ron stood for all those who worked on the report.

Bravo Delta

28th Nov 2019, 04:40

3 Holer

28th Nov 2019, 05:14

"In particular, the Privy Council said, and I quote, “the Royal Commission Report convincingly clears Captain Collins and First Officer Cassin of any suggestion that negligence on their part had in any way contributed to the disaster. That is unchallenged.”

Those findings stood then, and they stand now. The pilots were not responsible for this tragedy, and I stand here today to state that again."

Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern. 28th November 2019.

Bravo Delta

28th Nov 2019, 05:31

reubee

28th Nov 2019, 05:34

reubee

28th Nov 2019, 05:40

The navigator quoted in the podcast excerpt below was from the U.S. Air Force, not the Navy. If Lieutenant Knock's narrative given in the podcast is correct the radio call probably came after the crash had ended the CVR recording.
...
....

Fair points. It is a pity his narrative wasn't recorded immediately when it would've been more accurate, rather than nearly 40 years after the event.

Paragraph377

28th Nov 2019, 05:42

The Ardern Government has taken a small step in the right direction. The 1979 Government of the day and Air New Zealand’s CEO and Board were a disgrace. They alone tainted the country’s reputation for the past 40 years. An act of complete bastardry and dishonesty at the highest levels.

Today, 28 November 2019, I ponder in solitude about the lives of some dear friends and colleagues and how those lives may have turned out. Their deaths were unnecessary, but graciously fast. The Crew had an inkling for around 3 seconds, the rest of the souls onboard knew nothing. In the mountains of NZ I raise a glass of fine wine, light another cigar and painfully remember a day that I will never forget. From me, it’s goodnight and farewell until next year.

In God’s speed.

reubee

28th Nov 2019, 05:48

...

And ampan, I doubt very much that you didn’t realise Pip Collins was still around these days...
Pip was one of the daughters, Maria the wife. Mrs Mahon still around and also interviewed for the podcasts too.

Bravo Delta

28th Nov 2019, 05:59

megan

28th Nov 2019, 11:22

Dopey glorified schoolgirlAbout the level of observation we've come to expect. I said back at post #3 this thread was a bad idea. Of all the Erebus threads this has reached a new low, thanks to one poster with his bile, invectiveness and libellous statements (I read all the posts prior to deletion). I can't fathom how he has not been banned, this thread is beyond the pall, and the likes of it I've not seen on Pprune.More controversially, however, the Judge went on to find that witnesses from Air New Zealand had conspired to give false evidence to his inquiry. This led to his report being severely criticised by both Air New Zealand and the then Prime Minister. When the airline took judicial review proceedings, both the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council found the Judge’s findings of conspiracy and deception unsupported and contrary to the principles of natural justice.But what was lost in all this was the fact that no challenge was made to the Judge’s findings as to the cause of the accident. On the contrary, the Law Lords placed on record their tribute to the brilliant and painstaking investigative work undertaken by the Judge in the course of his inquiry. They said there was ample supportive evidence at the Judge’s inquiry for his conclusions about causation, and noted that his different conclusion from the Chief Inspector was based in part on new evidence before the Judge that was not available to the Chief Inspector.In particular, the Privy Council said, and I quote, “the Royal Commission Report convincingly clears Captain Collins and First Officer Cassin of any suggestion that negligence on their part had in any way contributed to the disaster. That is unchallenged.”I've come to the conclusion that our poster is a relative of the briefing officer or the navigation officer, and is attempting to shine the spotlight away from their involvement.

This accident was seminal in showing James Reasons Swiss Cheese model in action, lack of training (never been to the ice previously), failure to follow SOPs by most if not all flights, airline culture, lackadaisical administration being just a few. Military flights were not permitted to overfly Erebus, it's a Strombolian volcano after all capable of throwing debris over 6,500 feet in hight ie to 18,950 feet, lava bombs 10 metres in diameter were known to go to 15,700. LSALT was 16,000, what was the airline thinking, military aircraft were not permitted to overfly Erebus, it's merely a demonstration of how out of their depth the airline was and the lack of planning involved. Why would you overfly Erebus? The military required crews to ride on three trips to Antarctica before flying themselves. I flew for many years with a chap who captained the first RAAF C-130 to the ice, he had his indoctrination with a RNZAF C-130 crew, on boarding the aircraft the Commander said "you can have the left seat" rather than the expected jump, and was absolutely gob smacked of the offer, but also with the instruction for him to run the show as he saw fit. Of course he had the backup of all the high experience in the right and jump seat, unlike ANZ crews.

A heartfelt salutation to all who have suffered, it's an event that has taught the professionals within the aviation industry much.

The name is Porter

28th Nov 2019, 13:27

About the level of observation we've come to expect. I said back at post #3 this thread was a bad idea. Of all the Erebus threads this has reached a new low, thanks to one poster with his bile, invectiveness and libellous statements (I read all the posts prior to deletion). I can't fathom how he has not been banned, this thread is beyond the pall, and the likes of it I've not seen on PPRuNe.

Couldn't disagree more. I can't understand how people cannot just see those posts for what they are. I for one have learnt a great deal from this thread, post #100 being extremely thought provoking. The more people that listen to the podcasts, the better, in particular, White Silence. It doesn't take sides and like any good investigation doesn't try and apportion blame but look at all the causal factors.

I'm not outraged by his posts, there's something going on there and if he gets taken for libel he deserves it.

Airbubba

28th Nov 2019, 14:42

Fair points. It is a pity his narrative wasn't recorded immediately when it would've been more accurate, rather than nearly 40 years after the event.

But your original point about no mention of the C-141 in the CVR transcript is indeed puzzling. The descent to 5000 feet is in the transcript which starts at top of descent 140 miles out of McMurdo.

From Lieutenant Knock's recent interview posted earlier:

Knock recounts the scene on the Starlifter in the moments before the crash. "We called them [Flight 901], we got a hold of them and we were talking with them, saying 'how was it?' They said 'well we're here now and we're flying, but it's overcast over the area'. So our guys go: 'Where are you located?' They gave me a position which I plotted and they said they were descending to 5000 feet. Which made my heart stop, because I stopped and I went 'they're pretty close to Erebus.' I said 'call them back, call them back now'. What I realised, they were headed straight for the mountain, going down. I said 'they're headed towards the mountain and they're descending. There's no way they're going to make it'.

Was this conversation about position on an unrecorded second HF radio? Or was the memory of events four decades later faulty or perhaps somewhat embellished?

Airbubba

28th Nov 2019, 15:17

Does anyone know how to upload PDF files?

Click on the 'Manage Attachments' button at the bottom of the message edit window or the paperclip button above the window to bring up an upload page.

You might need permission from the mods to get this feature activated.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1452x864/attach_2_9104d48300da043c81fc50c4e4186531d53304d1.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x985/attach_3_1dc95a61dd341ed914f0b39729f61cbd4f29b7aa.jpg

Okihara

28th Nov 2019, 17:43

No-one flew over Erebus.
And why would that be? How many of the previous 13 flights were not in VMC around Ross Island? And how many of those flew the previous version of the flight plan with the final waypoint over McMurdo Sound and not Mt Erebus?

The nav track was an aid, not a railway line
Fine, I think you finally just outed yourself on this. Just try saying this to your examiner while doing an instrument approach at your next proficiency check: You know mate, we might well be in cloud and beyond half-scale deflection, but you know, the track is just an aid anyway, not a ``railway line'' so stick with me, will you?

The good thing is, you'll find yourself flying VFR for a little while after this.

It made perfect sense to put the waypoint right behind the big mountain,visible from many miles away, on a fine day.
There's so much compressed stupidity in this sentence. How, just how can it make "perfect sense" to put a waypoint behind a "big mountain" on the premise that it would be "visible from many miles away, on a fine day"? I mean that quite seriously. What's your answer when the day is not so fine after all and that you have a waypoint taking you straight over a mountain 12,500' while you have a sound at sea level just a few miles west? How can you even be writing this?

There's just no way that you can use Perfect, sense, big, mountain, visible, and on a fine day in any combination and make an English sentence that is even remotely appropriate on this thread.

Okihara

28th Nov 2019, 18:49

Okay ampan, I also don't mind 60 year olds who pretend to know better. Some are right, others dead wrong.

However, I will admit it, you have a point. You certainly might have a weird way to express it in my view, but I'll agree to this much with you: the captain can't be entirely exonerated. He should have been 100% certain of his position before descending below LSALT. Here's a passage found on another forum that made me think that this is what you are trying to say:This pilot knew that he would not be visual below the cloud layer. He knew he could only go below MSA on instruments and he knew that the INS was not sufficient. He did not, at the time of his cloud/ice comment, know about the available ground radar facilities, so on receipt of the weather report, he correctly decided to bail out and go somewhere else.The fact that the captain knew he would not be visual below the cloud layer is confirmed by what happened shortly after he decided to go elsewhere, when he was offered a radar-assisted descent. From the captain’s perspective, this changed everything, because he could have his position confirmed before going below MSA. On receipt of the offer, the captain gratefully accepts it and then announces the plan to the passengers. If the captain believed that he would be visual below the cloud layer, the radar would have made no difference, because he could have gone below MSA with or without it. Ten minutes later, without any discussion with the rest of the crew, the captain dived down below MSA through a hole in the cloud layer on the basis that he was visual. He effectively decided to ignore his own warning and that decision has to be the primary cause of the accident. His decision to fly visually when he knew he couldn't see properly was not caused by any mistake made by the navigation section or any inadequecies in the briefing. It was caused by a very bad error that bordered on reckless.(https://www.erebus.co.nz/Guestbook/Forum/Forum-Module-Page/forumid/17/threadid/105/scope/posts)

That being said, let's not forget that mistakes made by the airline by not communicating the change of coordinates were probably a compounding factor here. It's hard if not impossible to ascertain what chain of thoughts Collins had. I still find it hard to imagine that Collins wouldn't have assumed that he was doing his 8 figure over the sound based on the initial waypoints and the radar assist that he was offered. None of this, however, exonerates him from establishing his actual position with 100% certitude before descending below MSA.

3 Holer

28th Nov 2019, 20:10

......................the captain can't be entirely exonerated.

He was and that finding is now etched in stone. A indisputable fact that can be debated ad infinitum but it will make no difference.

prospector

28th Nov 2019, 21:16

" Before the 28 November flight the McMurdo NDB was officially withdrawn. Although still operating, it was no longer being maintained and so its accuracy could not be guaranteed. The nearby TACAN was used instead. This was referred to in Company memorandum to AntArctic crews, OAA:14/13/28 dated 8 November 1979. Headed MCMURDO NDB NOT AVAILABLE, it was succinct and unambiguous
Deletev all reference in briefing dated 23/10/79. Note the only let down procedure available is VMC below FL160 to 6,000ft as follows.
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 270 grid from McMurdo field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in area.

A copy of this memorandum was recovered from the cockpit wreckage, so there was no way the crew were not aware of it."

megan

28th Nov 2019, 23:29

The nav track was an aid, not a railway lineAbsolute nonsense. Prior to the unavailability of the NDB (it never was unavailable, it was on air, but expectation was it could fail as maintenance had been withdrawn) and the institution of the VFR procedure the aircraft was to fly Cape Hallett direct to the NDB for an instrument let down, that track led directly over Erebus. There was no instruction to put in any offset or such to avoid overflying Erebus. Para 1.1.1 of Chippendales report.The briefing gave details of the instrument flight rules (IFR) route to McMurdo which passed almost directly over Mt Erebus, a 12450 ft high active volcano, some 20 nm prior to the most southerly turning point, Williams Field.He knew he could only go below MSA on instrumentsOkihara, this snippet from your quote is incorrect, the only way they could descend below MSA was in visual conditions. The requirements were detailed at 1.17.39 in Chippendales report.Note that the only letdown procedure available is VMC below FL160 to 6000’ as follows:
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 360G to 270G from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be co-ordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.”Such was the disorganisation within the airline was that the McMurdo controllers had no knowledge of the procedure.

3 Holer

29th Nov 2019, 00:33

Too much wine over lunch.

......................the captain can't be entirely exonerated.

He was and that finding is now etched in stone. A indisputable fact that can be debated ad infinitum but it will make no difference.

Who was OJ Simpson?

Chronic Snoozer

29th Nov 2019, 00:43

There's so much compressed stupidity in this sentence. How, just how can it make "perfect sense" to put a waypoint behind a "big mountain" on the premise that it would be "visible from many miles away, on a fine day"? I mean that quite seriously. What's your answer when the day is not so fine after all and that you have a waypoint taking you straight over a mountain 12,500' while you have a sound at sea level just a few miles west?

You maintain LSALT. You wouldn’t be able to see the sound on a ‘not so fine day’.

Chronic Snoozer

29th Nov 2019, 01:04

......................the captain can't be entirely exonerated.

He was and that finding is now etched in stone. A indisputable fact that can be debated ad infinitum but it will make no difference.

The only thing indisputable is that the aircraft hit Mt Erebus. I very much doubt any professional pilot would think the Captain did not contribute to the cause of the accident. Blame is not a word I believe should be used in the context of accidents - professional pilots know this. There are causes and contributing factors which combine to lead to an event. To say the captain is not part of that puzzle is presumptuous and highly disputable. But yes, in the Mahon inquiry, he was exonerated.

3 Holer

29th Nov 2019, 02:17

Not only the Mahon inquiry. The Privy Council, Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government all, finally, conceded pilot error was NOT a factor in this Accident.

Airbubba

29th Nov 2019, 03:00

But I have a more pressing matter: Before lunch I was looking at one of those podcast things and watched two cops with the surnames Gilpin and Leighton referring to the small black ring binder. They had seen the ring binder while working on the body recovery and they were sure there were pages in it containing technical information. When the ring binder was produced a the hearing, the pages were missing. Both the policeman were concerned. Eventually, this causde one or both of them to contact Mahon directly.

Then, a letter from Mahon appeared on the screen of my laptop. The letter tells the two cops, very unequivocally, that the missing pages would have contained the co-ordinates of the waypoint given to the pilots at the briefing, begin a subject that had been just debated on this thread.

When I looked for the letter again after lunch, all reference to it had disappeared from the world wide web.

Was I seeing things? Or did someone else see the letter too?

Did this letter somehow mysteriously reappear on the world wide web before dinnertime? Any idea of the provenance of this alleged letter from Judge Mahon? Was it published by the recipient? Or the Collins family?

Here's Judge Mahon's discussion of the notebooks in his 1981 report:

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x892/mahon_3_c6bc695474364862115aa8701ed298f93bc39c35.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/644x436/mahon_2_e23f7382d5cdd46c665566c2b89d70f168f1ccf7.jpg

Melbjorn

29th Nov 2019, 03:09

People, isn't time you all let go? It's been 40 years, whatever the causes, they're all gone. Nothing can justify the amount of energy some of you here are putting into debating this subject.

Airbubba

29th Nov 2019, 03:33

Here are accounts of the recovery of Captain Collins' ring binder from Inspectors Gilpin and Leighton posted on a pilots' union website:

What has really troubled me over the years though as a police officer, is the issue of pilot, Captain Jim Collins’, ring binder notebook which was located amongst the wreckage and handed to me on the site. It was intact and contained numerous pages of legible technical writing and figures that indicated they related to the flying of aircraft. We recognised that this could be of importance to any investigation into the crash, and I sealed and secured it in a bag before it was returned to McMurdo.

The ring binder was later produced in 1981 at the Commission of Inquiry into the disaster in an altered condition to how it was found, in that the pages were missing. It had earlier been returned to Mrs Collin's in this condition by an airline official. The reason why and how the pages came to be missing has never been satisfactorily explained or resolved.

G J Gilpin M.N.Z.M
Inspector, NZ Police
Wellington

https://www.erebus.co.nz/The-Accident/The-Recovery-Operation/Inspector-Gilpins-Account (https://www.erebus.co.nz/The-Accident/The-Recovery-Operation/Inspector-Gilpins-Account)

I found Captain Collins ring binder diary which I read. It contained what appeared to me to be handwritten briefing notes so I handed it to Sergeant Gilpin. It was later produced empty at the enquiry. It has never been adequately explained to me how this happened.

Inspector Stuart Leighton
NZ Police

https://www.erebus.co.nz/The-Accident/The-Recovery-Operation/Inspector-Leightons-Account (https://www.erebus.co.nz/The-Accident/The-Recovery-Operation/Inspector-Leightons-Account)

Weheka

29th Nov 2019, 05:02

People, isn't time you all let go? It's been 40 years, whatever the causes, they're all gone. Nothing can justify the amount of energy some of you here are putting into debating this subject.

A lot of people find this subject very interesting, even 40+ years on. There will always be different views and sides to a never ending discussion. The best thing for you and others who want the threads closed, is to not click on the subject header in the first place and leave the thread to those who find it, and the points of views expressed, well worth reading.

Capt Fathom

29th Nov 2019, 05:56

The best thing for you and others who want the threads closed, is to not click on the subject header in the first place

We naively believed the discussion might be more restrained each time we came back! Alas, not to be. :(

Weheka

29th Nov 2019, 06:40

It seems very likely that Mahon's brain was being affected by cancer and that the effect was getting worse over time. Look at paragraph 358 of his report. He says there was probably nothing of significance in the missing pages. Two years later, he says the opposite.

I haven't read anywhere that Justice Mahon had brain cancer, where did you get this information? He "suffered a mild heart attack in 1975. By the early 1980s he was displaying the early symptoms of the cardiomyopathy which would eventually kill him."

The name is Porter

29th Nov 2019, 06:45

The best thing for you and others who want the threads closed, is to not click on the subject header in the first place and leave the thread to those who find it, and the points of views expressed, well worth reading.

Exactly. If you can't handle the heat.

Weheka

29th Nov 2019, 07:14

Holmes book said he died of a tumour in his cheek. (Mahon was a smoker)

Unless I'm mistaken Holmes must have got it wrong.

prospector

29th Nov 2019, 07:37

Search ResultsFeatured snippet from the webPeter Mahon died of heart failure in Auckland on 11 August 1986, aged 62. He had been suffering poor health for several years, and the stress of the Erebus report may have contributed to his relatively early death.

Asturias56

29th Nov 2019, 08:03

People, isn't time you all let go? It's been 40 years, whatever the causes, they're all gone. Nothing can justify the amount of energy some of you here are putting into debating this subject.

And the abuse being (selectively) piled upon the dead who can't defend themselves - some of the posts on here are a disgrace whatever your views on blame :(

Chris2303

29th Nov 2019, 08:10

Holmes book said he died of a tumour in his cheek. (Mahon was a smoker)

https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6m7/mahon-peter-thomas

"Peter Mahon died of heart failure in Auckland on 11 August 1986, aged 62. He had been suffering poor health for several years, and the stress of the Erebus report may have contributed to his relatively early death. He had built up some momentum as an author, and death ended what could have been a successful literary career."

The name is Porter

29th Nov 2019, 08:35

And the abuse being (selectively) piled upon the dead who can't defend themselves - some of the posts on here are a disgrace whatever your views on blame

Don't you think the abuse is being exposed for what it is? Multiple responders have pointed out his inaccuracies in many different areas.

What is wrong with people that they can't read accounts, evidence and opinion without resorting to 'outrage?'

His comments about the Pilot and in particular the Pilot's wife are disgusting. When he made a comment about Mahon being affected by brain cancer when the cause of death was not that all, doesn't that lead you to a conclusion about the rest of what he says?

The more inaccuracies that are dispelled on this thread the better.

blorgwinder

29th Nov 2019, 10:57

This tragic accident, even 40 years on, gives us learning points across a broad range of topics which those present and future hopefully can learn from.

The reality of some items is not in dispute, the way points were changed, the crew was not told. Police officers have clearly said they found a note book in the accident which indicated the Captain had made notes about the flight, yet those note were no present later on. It appears that someone got to them and removed them, for reasons we can only assume but seem on the basis of known facts to be quite straightforward to understand.

Had Justice Mahan used other words then the famous phrase to comment, things may have been viewed differently. And it may not of been orchestrated, but corporate culture can be orchestrated without appear to be so.

Ampan, for the pain you continue to suffer after so many years, as we have noted all involved directly or indirectly suffer pain as well. For your sake and the health of those around you, family and friends, you need to find a less confrontational, argumentative, slanderous and ill mannered way to deal with it. And that should start with you leaving the familes, especially Mrs Collins and her daughter's alone. They have suffered enough over the years, there are few if any cockpit crews who have had more scrutiny of their actions then Capt. Collins and his crew. Its time to let things move on in peace for your sake and those of many others.

The thread has value and should be seen in that light, but perhaps the Mod can in future remove/stop/block the annual personal assaults on the crew. They did not set out that day to kill themselves and all the others but for a wide range of reasons it happened and the results can not be, as much as we want and need, changed.

Airbubba

29th Nov 2019, 14:47

Did this letter somehow mysteriously reappear on the world wide web before dinnertime? Any idea of the provenance of this alleged letter from Judge Mahon? Was it published by the recipient? Or the Collins family?

I don't think the letter was "taken down" briefly. More likely, I simply could not find it again - but when I did I copied the video, got a screenshot, and typed it out word for word on this thread. You will see that that the letter was sent to Sgt Gilpin by Mahon in 1983. It was effectively published by Gilpin this week, in the podcost, when he read it out load and held it up to the camera.

Thanks for taking the time to type the letter into this discussion. Of course, as some have pointed out, even if Air New Zealand had a coordinated effort to remove evidence exculpatory to the pilots it doesn't mean that they were blameless in the mishap.

If they were really visual, how did they not see Mount Erebus? They thought they were approaching McMurdo Station in the descent to 1500 feet but didn't have TACAN, VHF comms or radar contact. Also, the mountain should have painted on weather radar. I'm obviously raising these questions as a pilot, not as a politician or grieving family member.

Alchad

29th Nov 2019, 15:05

Thanks for taking the time to type the letter into this discussion. Of course, as some have pointed out, even if Air New Zealand had a coordinated effort to remove evidence exculpatory to the pilots it doesn't mean that they were blameless in the mishap.

If they were really visual, how did they not see Mount Erebus? They thought they were approaching McMurdo Station in the descent to 1500 feet but didn't have TACAN, VHF comms or radar contact. Also, the mountain should have painted on weather radar. I'm obviously raising these questions as a pilot, not as a politician or grieving family member.

Lucky hit on Google..
Cant copy the relevant part but apparently the radar wouldn't see the mountain!

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JEtJfDanJBQC&pg=PT150&lpg=PT150&dq=dc10+weather+radar&source=bl&ots=hhjtAWiCIw&sig=ACfU3U1KB0icf-uaVsuappm7hYhsxg0qvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiCwczO5Y_mAhUJMewKHZQ2CwgQ6AEwDnoECAkQAg#v=onepag e&q=dc10%20weather%20radar&f=false

blorgwinder

29th Nov 2019, 18:09

Ampan, ok who do you want to say the pilot was in error? Once that is written will you then be happy and more importantly just go away?

blorgwinder

29th Nov 2019, 18:50

Well I am NOT going to say it, and even it was said you wont be happy. I owe you nothing in the way of any explanations, you can continue to post here unitl this gets cut off or closed. Your attacks, your anger, your world of reality are yours so you can continue to dwell and live in that world. It is evident by your continued presence and pathetic postings you are not going to go away nor will you let up so keep playing at whatever it is you are doing that makes you happy and angry ad the same time.

morno

29th Nov 2019, 20:09

Jesus Christ, what difference is someone on an internet forum, who could be a 12 year old kid for all you know, blaming the Captain, going to make to you? What do you gain by this occurring?

You’re an idiot, there’s no other word for it

machtuk

29th Nov 2019, 21:10

Some people feed off the attention especially on public forums, stop feeding this person!

prospector

30th Nov 2019, 01:34

The company has been hauled over the coals many times for lack of foresight when these trips were planned, however, one problem that had been covered was whiteout. Again from John King publication "New Zealand Tragedies, Aviation".

"We didn't put anything in the briefing about whiteout, but we discussed it with Operation Deep Freeze and went into quite some depth. At 6,000ft there was no whiteout"
That was part of Captain Gemmel, ("chief pilot.) statement.

"But the 6,000ft aspect was more than a company order, to be broken by pilots if they felt like it and the weather was fine. It was a strict CAD rule, part of the original conditions for the airlines scenic flights to Antarctica as stipulated by by the Director of Civil Aviation under regulation 136(3) giving vertical clearance from Mt Aurora, the highest point in the sightseeing manoeuvring area".

The impact point was at 1,500ft. How could Justice Mahon come to the conclusion that the crew were blameless? A problem with that view that is widely held now is
"Because the findings of the Royal Commission on the cause of the disaster were limited in scope, being legally an opinion and not a statement of fact, they could not be appealed in legal terms, unlike to Office of Air Accidents Investigation report, which remains the sole official account---and has never officially been challenged"

megan

30th Nov 2019, 02:48

There was also no instruction to NOT put in an offset to avoid overflying Erebus. If th volcanco is erupting in front of you, you are not obliged to fly over it, and it might be quite a good idea not to.You truly are an idiot. How are you going to determine a volcano is erupting if you're in IMC? Mods, this prat has had enough airtime, the discussion is going no where, please do the right thing.

Fogliner

30th Nov 2019, 03:05

My impression of what am pan is trying to accomplish is thus:
He wants pilots to realize that there were more things Collins could have done to assure he had the situational awareness he thought he did.
There were subtle clues that he let pass without taking the time to recheck things.
I know I myself have learned from this that one should never just take someone else's numbers without verifying. Take the 5 minutes then.
To me the key moment was when Collins accepted the new coordinates without rechecking them against his notes at least and thus not realizing the last few numbers were different.
Had he at that point sat down with his notes and compared numbers we would not be chatting today.
Am pan reminds me of a teacher I had in school who would use similar rather harsh comments in an attempt to get us to rethink our answers or get to a different level of discussion.
While I don't like the way he has kept at it, I do rather admire how he has not backed down on his convictions.
If i am correct he is attempting to teach everyone to be better pilots. Not win a popularity contest.

Fog

prospector

30th Nov 2019, 03:30

..the captain can't be entirely exonerated.

He was and that finding is now etched in stone. A indisputable fact that can be debated ad infinitum but it will make no difference.

It is statements like that that have no foundation in fact that is the main cause for dissent with many..

It is very disputable, and has been many times. One point that has not been put forward is the fact that the airline could very well have only used two crews for all these flights. That would have served the purpose of only having captains who had done the flight before, as recommended by RNZAF and US Air force who had much experience operating to the ice.. However, it has been put forward that NZALPA pilots were very keen to have their TURN at this flight. As has been stated before, a Captain may be perfectly qualified and experienced on scheduled flight on airways to major airports, but that in no way qualifies a captain to be making decisions on sight seeing flights in the Antarctic. in a DC10 at no less than 260kts at an altitude that was below all laid down minimums for this flight.

Justice Mahons findings were no more than a legal opinion that could not be appealed, the findings by the Aircraft Accident Inspector, Ron Chippendale is still the official finding, and has never been appealed

megan

30th Nov 2019, 05:11

I know I myself have learned from this that one should never just take someone else's numbers without verifying. Take the 5 minutes then.
To me the key moment was when Collins accepted the new coordinates without rechecking them against his notes at least and thus not realizing the last few numbers were different.
Had he at that point sat down with his notes and compared numbers we would not be chatting today.The crew should have been alerted to the change of coordinates by an "Ops Flash" contained at the top left of the flight plan, the relevant box contained no message of any sort. The way point had been changed some eight hours prior to departure and the navigation section, in keeping with its previous lack of attention to detail, didn't see fit to notify the change. Captain Collins plotted the route of flight from the coordinates given at the briefing and used by the previous flight undertaken by Captain Simpson two weeks prior. Those same erroneous coordinates for McMURDO had been used by flights on 7/11/78, 14/11/78, 21/11/78, 28/11/78, 7/11/79, 14/11/79. Captain Collins flight had the way point changed to the coordinates of the TACAN.

Flights on the 15/2/77 and 22/2/77 used the coordinates of Williams Field as the McMURDO way point. For the flights on 18/10/77 and 1/11/77 the McMURDO way point was changed to the NDB, about two miles from the Williams Field way point. It should be pointed out that through all the way point changes it was annotated and identified as McMURDO on the flight plan.

The navigation section and crews flying the route on five previous occasions did not detect the anomalous way point position 27 miles away in the sound. It was not until the sixth flight, immediately preceding Captain Collins, that the error was questioned Captain Simpson.

The accident was the culmination of airline culture, lack of training, lack of observance of SOP's by all crews, unclear briefings (the reason for lack of SOP observance, hell, the airline even used the lack of SOP observance as publicity). Captain Collins and crew unfortunately pulled the trigger of a gun manufactured and loaded by many others. A seminal accident for the James Reason Swiss Cheese model. RIP all.

Safety is everyone’s responsibility -“Responsibility lies with those who could act but do not, it lies with those who could learn but do not and for those who evaluate it can add to their capacity to make interventions which might make all our lives the safer”. (Phillip Capper)

Chris2303

30th Nov 2019, 05:19

I find it sad that one pilot(?) has so much hatred towards others in his profession.

prospector

30th Nov 2019, 05:25

"The accident was the culmination of airline culture, lack of training, lack of observance of SOP's by all crews, unclear briefings (the reason for lack of SOP observance, hell, the airline even used the lack of SOP observance as publicity). Captain Collins and crew unfortunately pulled the trigger of a gun manufactured and loaded by many others. A seminal accident for the James Reason Swiss Cheese model. RIP all."

That would be the most accurate precise account of this tragedy that I have seen . It does not agree with Mahon's findings, which is why this question has been raised so many times.

Weheka

30th Nov 2019, 06:40

Don't you think the abuse is being exposed for what it is? Multiple responders have pointed out his inaccuracies in many different areas.

What is wrong with people that they can't read accounts, evidence and opinion without resorting to 'outrage?'

His comments about the Pilot and in particular the Pilot's wife are disgusting. When he made a comment about Mahon being affected by brain cancer when the cause of death was not that all, doesn't that lead you to a conclusion about the rest of what he says?

The more inaccuracies that are dispelled on this thread the better.

Spot on. The mods delete the really offensive posts.

PapaHotel6

30th Nov 2019, 07:52

Some apology is appropriate. But I'm astonished Jacinda Ardern has waded in and backed the Mahon report. Mahon was heavily manipulated by ALPA and while I believe he was sincere, his conclusions about the pilots having zero culpability were patently incorrect. The Privy Council did rubber stamp his findings but found him guilty of not following due process and for a member of the judiciary, there is no higher criticism. Really, I think the only credible debate at this point should be around whether the pilots deserve some of the blame or all of it.

We said it all - sometimes quite eloquently - here.

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/152934-erebus-25-years.html

Asturias56

30th Nov 2019, 07:55

Some people feed off the attention especially on public forums, stop feeding this person!

Agreed - I'm out of this - you can't argue with someone who has Ampan's issue.

occasional

30th Nov 2019, 08:07

The company has been hauled over the coals many times for lack of foresight when these trips were planned
"there is a group of victims that hardly anyone considers, namely, the AirNZ employees that Mahon labelled as perjurers. Most of them were immediately suspended when Mahon's report was released. The Police investigated, given that perjury is a serious criminal offence. They and their families were publicly flogged. Then they had to spend many thousands of dollars to clear their names, which they actually did. Unfortunately, the general public never seemed to take any notice of that." . Ampan, in an earlier thread.

The name is Porter

30th Nov 2019, 10:45

The above post by PapaHotel6 with the link............

Is a must read, particularly when you get to 400Rulz contributions.

PapaHotel6

30th Nov 2019, 20:00

A seminal accident for the James Reason Swiss Cheese model. RIP all.
Megan I know you love to quote Reason's Swiss Cheese model; but as someone like myself who is regularly involved in incident analysis can I advise you the model is mercifully no longer as trendy as it once was, and Reason himself has said the model has been way over quoted. It's failings are it doesn't identify relevance differentials between the factors (slices of cheese) and also doesn't identify what was a "factor" and what was an "error". For example the weather over Ross Island was a factor in this disaster; but only became one because of the human factors surrounding it. It's important to make the distinction, because the reasons behind the errors are where the learning points lie.

I guess Erebus isn't the worst application of Reason's model I've ever seen; but it needs to remembered this was nothing more than a 1990's cute way of saying "adverse events are multifactorial".

Sorry for digression.

Weheka

30th Nov 2019, 20:10

Spot on? Spot off, actually: You can be affected by brain cancer and die of something else.

Well, apparently Dr Paul Holmes diagnosed, "cancer of the sinus which travelled down to the gum"? Who knows? We only have his book to go on. But, you have decided that it was probably also in the brain. Bit of a stretch?

tail wheel

30th Nov 2019, 21:29

I gave a warning, sadly some are very slow to learn......... :mad:

It was NOT your opinion that cost you the 10 day 'holiday', you are entitled to your opinions, but the way you expressed that opinion. :=

megan

30th Nov 2019, 21:40

PH6, we are but children of our times, the world moves on and advances, I gave it up 16 years ago.

Your link at post #160 doesn't work for me.

gulfairs

30th Nov 2019, 22:39

I was on standby for the fatal flight, and but for the grace of God Go I.
The Bull**** that has been written over this accident is basically unbelievable.
I distinctly remember an ALPA member stating that no ALPA member can be blamed for the accident.
It had to be the fault of the company management!
MSA for that route was 7500 ft, and to go below that was inviting a sever case of unrewarding folly.
Although there were some cowboy pilots who did duck down low and "Buzz Mc Murdo tower and got away with it.
Change one thing, be it time, personnel or circumstances and the accident may not have occurred.

Gulfairs.

prospector

30th Nov 2019, 22:52

Just to get the facts straight.
The route MSA was FL160, For descent below this there were four conditions that had to be met, none were. the minimum descent for any reason was 6,000ft, this was a mandatory requirement laid down by CAA before these flights could commence. The impact point was 1500ft, Yet according to Mahon the crew were blameless. The official accident report compiled by Accident Investigation professional only stated a probable cause, This probable cause was accepted by many with much experience in Aviation..

PapaHotel6

30th Nov 2019, 23:06

I was on standby for the fatal flight, and but for the grace of God Go I.
The Bull**** that has been written over this accident is basically unbelievable.
I distinctly remember an ALPA member stating that no ALPA member can be blamed for the accident.
It had to be the fault of the company management!

Great post gulfairs.

Gordon Vette was also overheard telling Mahon "we've got to get Jim off!"

What's really sad is how effectively Mahon swallowed, and then communicated all the bull****.

3 Holer

30th Nov 2019, 23:16

prospector says

"………….One point that has not been put forward is the fact that the airline could very well have only used two crews for all these flights."

Hindsight is a beautiful thing.

"…………the findings by the Aircraft Accident Inspector, Ron Chippendale is still the official finding, and has never been appealed"

You bet it was appealed. What do you think ignited the Mahon Inquiry and the incredible investigative work done by Captain Gordon Vette and NZAlpa? If not for that, yes, Chippendale's report may have remained the official finding and what a travesty of justice that would have been.

Paragraph377

1st Dec 2019, 02:54

Gordon Vette was also overheard telling Mahon "we've got to get Jim off!"

i call bull**** on that. Where did you get that info from?

PapaHotel6

1st Dec 2019, 02:59

Gordon Vette was also overheard telling Mahon "we've got to get Jim off!"

i call bull**** on that. Where did you get that info from?
A peer of Collins/Vette/Gemmell etc.

Paragraph377

1st Dec 2019, 03:42

A peer of Collins/Vette/Gemmell etc.

Yeah well that is heresay, sorry. Anyone can say or make up statements that are ‘allegedly’ true. Who is this ‘peer’? Why has he/she not mentioned this fact publicly? The evidence shows Vette to be a company man, towing the company line. But regardless, if that statement was true and he said that about Jim Collins, then why has it not been documented previously, or mentioned in any inquiry? Why haven’t the person’s who were on the receiving end of Vette’s so-called comment come forward publicly at any time since 1979 and raised that point? I think you are throwing around herring’s mate.

PapaHotel6

1st Dec 2019, 04:20

Yeah well that is heresay, sorry. Anyone can say or make up statements that are ‘allegedly’ true. Who is this ‘peer’? Why has he/she not mentioned this fact publicly? The evidence shows Vette to be a company man, towing the company line. But regardless, if that statement was true and he said that about Jim Collins, then why has it not been documented previously, or mentioned in any inquiry? Why haven’t the person’s who were on the receiving end of Vette’s so-called comment come forward publicly at any time since 1979 and raised that point? I think you are throwing around herring’s mate.

You can think what you like, but there are many people with relevant information who were either not invited or chose not to submit evidence to the Royal commission.

Regardless, you're right - there's no way to prove such a statement was ever made but I have no personal reason to disbelieve it. In any case there's plenty of information available on public record to conclude Mahon was significantly off piste and the crew must at the very least share the responsibility for this accident.

3 Holer

1st Dec 2019, 05:28

Paragraph377

1st Dec 2019, 06:08

Weheka

1st Dec 2019, 06:30

I'm with you Paragraph377 and anyway, as your leader correctly and succinctly states (along with all the other expert legal boffins involved in this accident):

"In particular, the Privy Council said, and I quote, “the Royal Commission Report convincingly clears Captain Collins and First Officer Cassin of any suggestion that negligence on their part had in any way contributed to the disaster. That is unchallenged.”

Those findings stood then, and they stand now. The pilots were not responsible for this tragedy, and I stand here today to state that again."

Prime Minister of New Zealand Jacinda Ardern. 28th November 2019.

Here ends the lesson......................................

The Prime Minister of NZ, Jacinda Ardern, should only have apologised on behalf, for the failings of the Government of the day and the company they owned, Air New Zealand and the roll they played in the accident. She had no need as Prime Minister to add comments on who was and who wasn't responsible for the accident, it is an argument that will go on for the next 100 years and I doubt she has any idea of the complexity of the accident chain ( she most certainly is not an expert legal boffin!). But she just couldn't help herself. I know a lot of Australians would like to adopt Jacinda, like you did with Split Enz, Phar Lap and Pavlova to name a few. Please take her.

Pinky the pilot

1st Dec 2019, 06:34

I know a lot of Australians would like to adopt Jacinda, like you did with Split Enz, Phar Lap and Pavlova to name a few. Please take her.

Er...Thanks but no, thanks.

Weheka

1st Dec 2019, 06:44

“as your leader correctly and succinctly states (along with all the other expert legal boffins involved in this accident)”

1. She isn’t my leader. She is just another smooth talking political fool..
2. I actually couldn’t give a crap what she says because she is a politician, and they all speak utter Tosh.
3. Legal Boffins said Capt. Collins was innocent. Again, I don’t give a crap what they say said either.
4. My ‘issue’ has never been about whether Capt.
Collins was or was not accountable for the accident. My issue was, regardless of who was at fault, the Muldoon Government and Morrie Davies lied, stole, hid and covered up facts, and acted corruptly and with malfeasance. That has and will remain my issue through this entire accident and subsequent 40 years. Capt. Collins, sadly, was one of several causal factors, but not the root cause. Dead men can’t speak for themselves, and it’s been a sham how he has been treated in absence of being able to either defend himself, admit to error, or explain other actions that we will never fully know.

The other odd thing is Paragraph, Mahon gets severely criticised because the accident investigator did not have the chance to refute, comment or argue his findings because it was a commission of enquiry . Well no one mentions the fact that Capt Collins obviously has no chance to refute, comment or argue the inspectors final report, which blamed him and his equally dead colleagues for the accident. I agree with you in that its not who was accountable for the accident, all participants had a part in it, its the behaviour of Govt and the Airline after the accident.

Weheka

1st Dec 2019, 06:46

Er...Thanks but no, thanks.

Don't be so hasty, please, give it some more thought, the offer will still be on the table.

The name is Porter

1st Dec 2019, 06:54

Er...Thanks but no, thanks.

Er......Thanks but yes, thanks.

Australia, the lucky country.

I'll take Jacinda over the complete pack of ******** that have run this place over the last 15 years.

Weheka

1st Dec 2019, 06:58

Er......Thanks but yes, thanks.

Australia, the lucky country.

I'll take Jacinda over the complete pack of ******** that have run this place over the last 15 years.

SOLD!! please send address for delivery. Sorry...no returns.

The name is Porter

1st Dec 2019, 07:03

Are you taking Morrison? Abbott and Turnbull thrown in as the steak knives.

Weheka

1st Dec 2019, 07:16

Umm, let me think for a second.....no! We have Judith in waiting.

73qanda

1st Dec 2019, 08:59

I doubt she has any idea of the complexity of the accident chain ( she most certainly is not an expert legal boffin!). It’s clear when legal boffins and politicians and the general public comment on Erebus that they have no working understanding of VMC, VFR, IFR, MSA etc ( how could they?). In most documents I’ve read on this crash, non-pilot authors demonstrate that they simply don’t understand what it is that keeps them safe when they take their holidays by air, the general principals that allow them to descend through the cloud and find the runway without hitting terrain.
It often seems obvious that they have sought advice from experts, only partially understood it, then applied their authority, or in the case of Holmes just written their opinion like it was fact. Jacinda is no different.
It would be remarkable if only one party carried responsibility and the other parties were completely ‘innocent’. Almost unthinkable that such a terrible outcome wasn’t the result of a chain of errors made by several parties. Yet that’s what we bang on about.

The name is Porter

1st Dec 2019, 08:59

Tailwheel, any chance of restoring the link on post #160? Or is there too much Kaptin M in there? ;-)

-------------------------------------

The link works fine for me. Here it is again:

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/152934-erebus-25-years.html (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/152934-erebus-25-years.htmlI)

I didn't check for Kaptin M but I did notice a few names that, with a sigh of relief, I note have long since moved on.

TW

Pinky the pilot

1st Dec 2019, 09:19

I'll take Jacinda over the complete pack of ******** that have run this place over the last 15 years.

Sorry Porter; You might be willing to take that risk but I'm not!:=

Waheka; Once again, thanks, but No Thanks!!

Porter; Am willing to discuss the issue over a bottle of a *good Barossa Shiraz anytime!:ok:

* Memo to self: There is no such thing as a bad Barossa Shiraz!:=

The name is Porter

1st Dec 2019, 10:03

Pinky..........You're on! even if there's no discussion ;-)

Artisan

1st Dec 2019, 10:28

Paragraph377 says repeatedly that: “The evidence shows Vette to be a company man, towing the company line.”

Capt A G Vette acted as a technical representative for NZALPA and the Royal Commission of Enquiry, to selflessly and tirelessly establish the true causes of this accident, to the ultimate detriment of his career, in opposition to his employer who was engaging in an orchestrated litany of lies. He is a true hero of the piloting profession.

lest we forget!

megan

2nd Dec 2019, 00:54

Just to get the facts straight.=left
The route MSA was FL160, For descent below this there were four conditions that had to be met, none were. the minimum descent for any reason was 6,000ft, this was a mandatory requirement laid down by CAA before these flights could commence.A strict reading of the requirements would have you believe that prospector, however that is not what was said at the briefings nor carried out by crews. As said prior, the very fact that they didn't comply was known to all via the media, including airline management.

Aircraft were known to fly up the sound at 2,000/1,500, having descended to that altitude via an enroute descent. The excuse is given that they were in severe clear VMC, the argument then becomes what defines VMC. There is no evidence that Captain Collins was in anything other than VMC up to the point of impact, to say otherwise is not to understand whiteout. It should be noted too that McMurdo folk observed an aircraft on one occasion operating in and out of cloud at some 2,000 while the aircraft reported they were in VMC. I recall on climb out in Antarctica as a pax and being in severe clear VMC all the way to entering the overcast at 20,000, yet it was like being in a milk bottle, absolutely nothing distinguishable in the visual field, except rare shadows on the surface cast by invisible isolated small puff ball clouds below. The manner in which the airline operated was an accident looking for a time and place to happen, and happen it did, unfortunately to Captain Collins, crew and passengers.“The evidence shows Vette to be a company man, towing the company line.”I'd like to see the evidence, he fought the company tooth and nail, and the company reciprocated by doing all they could to get rid of him.

RubberDogPoop

2nd Dec 2019, 02:00

You bet it was appealed. What do you think ignited the Mahon Inquiry and the incredible investigative work done by Captain Gordon Vette and NZAlpa? If not for that, yes, Chippendale's report may have remained the official finding and what a travesty of justice that would have been.

Wait? There's a second air accident investigation report? Great, could you pass the reference number I'd love to have a read....

PapaHotel6

2nd Dec 2019, 07:09

Aircraft were known to fly up the sound at 2,000/1,500, having descended to that altitude via an enroute descent. The excuse is given that they were in severe clear VMC, the argument then becomes what defines VMC. There is no evidence that Captain Collins was in anything other than VMC up to the point of impact, to say otherwise is not to understand whiteout.

Disagree. Firstly - no other pilot descended below 2000'. If Collins (who was not VMC at 2000' - what other reason was there to descend further) had climbed out at 2000' rather than descending further to 1500', the accident might have been averted. Secondly, there is no argument "what defines VMC" - the definition is quite clear. 5km visibilty with 2km separation from cloud. It is literally impossible to imagine that these conditions were maintained as Collins orbited from 16000' to 1500' given the weather conditions at the time - and, as I have already said is also evidenced by the fact he said "we might have to pop down to 1500 here" when he was at 2000'. Thirdly - if by "whiteout" you mean the whole "false horizon" hypothesis - that too is just a theory. We'll never know exactly what the crew saw - or thought they saw - in the final moments of flight. But backing up that particular truck for a moment - every pilot including Collins knows (he said as much himself) that if sandwiched between cloud and ice, it is difficult to tell one from the other.

Yet down he went.

prospector

2nd Dec 2019, 08:20

If the flight was VMC at FL160, and the photo's taken show they were, why was it not noticed that Beaufort Island was on the stbd side, and if they were on the track they thought they were on it should have been on the port side. Beaufort Island is plainly visible in some of the pax photos.
The Altitudes that were mandatory requirements. I do believe the original reason for going below 6,000ft was by invitation of the controller at McMurdo. Does this invitation overide CAA mandatory requirement??
Most know that the rules and regulations are bent at times to suit the occasion, but if they are disregarded one has to be very certain that they are fireproof, and if it turns to custard then there will be repercussions.
There are reports that the flight was advised by ground staff at McMurdo that the weather conditions were no good, in fact hopeless for sightseeing around the base and it was recommended that the flight proceed to the Dry Valleys which were reported clear. This procedure had been carried out on a previous flight due weather. The pax had been briefed that this was always a possibility. The person who did this advising from the ground at McMurdo was never called to give evidence at the Mahon enquiry.
Most know there was enough fault from all concerned, the Company, CAA for letting Air New Zealand be virtually self monitor the Antarctic operation, and by the crew. The cause for all this discussion would be Mahons findings that the crew were "In my opinion neither Captain Collins nor first officer Cassin nor the flight engineers made any error which contributed to the disaster, and were not responsible for its occurrence"

Obviously many very experienced aviators do not agree with this statement and never will. The fact that our prime minister, who has as much aeronautical experience as Justice Mahon, None, agrees with his finding does nothing to change any knowledgable persons view.

TWT

2nd Dec 2019, 08:30

Disagree. Firstly - no other pilot descended below 2000'

Are you sure about that ? Not according to Ian Hambly.

He claims that a flight captained by Gordon Vette flew at 1300 feet.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10609805

compressor stall

2nd Dec 2019, 08:32

PH6
If Collins (who was not VMC at 2000' - what other reason was there to descend further) had climbed out at 2000' rather than descending further to 1500', the accident might have been averted.
They could have been at A060 below a BKN070 layer with vis 50km+ and likely speared in just the same on the same track. The only difference would be the wreckage ~3nm further south. Quibbling over the descent to 1500 is immaterial. I'm certainly not condoning his actions, but it's not really relevant to the systemic issues at play.
Thirdly - if by "whiteout" you mean the whole "false horizon" hypothesis - that too is just a theory.
We'll never know exactly what they saw. But we can't paint a pretty accurate picture from the photos out the side windows. As you likely recall, I've been there and seen similar conditions first hand- and posted the photos to a previous thread before photo bucket killed the internet. Whiteout might be a theory, but it's a bloody good one, and noone has come up with any plausible alternative.

Descent below LSALT should never have been related to VMC in those flight orders, It should have been related to what we now define as SKC or SCT at most - and 30km+ vis.

-----------
addendum 1... whilst looking for the map list in the Chippendale report for my post below, I found the following quote which is relevant to this one:
"2.17 Whiteout conditions can exist within the normal VMC minima and even in the conditions defined by Air New Zealand as the minima for VMC descents to 6000 feet."

addendum 2:
PH6 statedDisagree. Firstly - no other pilot descended below 2000'
Chippendale Report says 1.17.40 On 22 November 1979 CAD advised Air New Zealand Limited that reports had been received from US Authorities in Antarctica that civil aircraft had been observed at lower than normal altitudes over some glaciers and at 1000 above ground level.

compressor stall

2nd Dec 2019, 10:39

why was it not noticed that Beaufort Island was on the stbd side, and if they were on the track they thought they were on it should have been on the port side. Beaufort Island is plainly visible in some of the pax photos.
Which flight deck map would they have found Beaufort Island on?

prospector

2nd Dec 2019, 19:06

In Gordon Vette publication "Impact Erebus" on page 42 there is a chart that is shown as "Antarctic strip chart showing McMurdo route:Annex 1.

"In the Antarctic envelope handed to the crew at their pre- despatch briefing shortly before take off, was an Antarctic strip chart which depicted two routes between New Zealand and McMurdo. both routes ran through the Byrd reporting point in the middle of McMurdo Sound"

Even on the scale reduced enough to fit on to the book page Beaufort Island is clearly shown as to be passed on the port side if they were on the track they believed they were on.

Would this flight have been conducted the way it was if there had of been a C AA airline inspector onboard? I have heard one was scheduled to do the trip but had to cancel due to family reasons. Not confirmed only heard through grapevine many years ago.

Capt Fathom

2nd Dec 2019, 19:59

prospector, are you any relation to ampan?

compressor stall

2nd Dec 2019, 20:00

Have a look at the Antarctic Strip Chart Appendix I in the Chippendale report.

If this is the same one to which you refer, there is a label for Beaufort Island, but the actual location (outline) of the island is not actually depicted on the chart.

I've never looked at chart aspect in detail so if they were given something better (like the USGS maps @ 1:250:000 of Ross Island and Franklin Island first published in 1962) please let me know.

prospector

2nd Dec 2019, 20:08

The outline of Beaufort Island is certainly depicted on the chart. It even has the height depicted as 2428 + or --.

PapaHotel6

2nd Dec 2019, 20:28

Compressor Stall - but the existence of "whiteout" as an optical illusion - even if it existed - still doesn't excuse the pilots!

Every pilot knows - including them - that if you're at only 1500' with a cloud layer above you, ice below you, and rising ground ahead of you - you won't see it. So by descending to this level below cloud and above ice (and not taking any one of several earlier opportunities to abort the descent) Collins had 100% total faith that he was at the entrance to Mc Murdo. And that was simply not justified.

Sure, if at 1500' they were subject to some dastardly optical illusion that made it look like they were in perfect VFR with nothing but flat ice ahead of them; that sealed their fate. But the bad decisions had already been made.

3 Holer

2nd Dec 2019, 20:32

"......................... But the bad decisions had already been made."

Two actually, changing the position of the final way point and not telling the crew.

Cool banana

2nd Dec 2019, 20:36

This accident was another classic example of a whole series of errors, omissions, poor procedures, lack of training, weather conditions, commercial pressures and really poor decision making coming together to create the disaster that occured on the afternoon of 28 November 1979.

Yes, the crew of TE-901 descended below the minimum safe altitude on the 28 November 1979 - but then so too had a number of other crews during previous Antarctic flights - all to give their passengers the best possible experience in seeing the wonders of the Antarctic environment. I doubt that Collins would have been foolish enough to have deliberately descend below the minimum safe altitude if he knew that Erebus was directly in front of his current flight track, and if he fully understood what white-out phenomena was. Brooks seemed to be the only one on the flightdeck that showed any real concern for the location of any high ground in the area (i.e. Erebus) - the rest seemed to be going along with Mulgrew's interpretation of what he was seeing out of the window.

Air New Zealand management .... we haven't forgotten you bunch of Criminals, Breaking into people's homes and destroying evidence and with Air N.Z.'s denial that they promoted the flight on the low level flyover around Erebus, certainly showed the company's actions to be "orchestrated" and deceitful, in trying to move the blame from themselves, and place it squarely on the flight crew. The crew were scapegoat as often happens.

In the end, no one really came out of this whole saga looking very good at all - especially a number of personnel from Air New Zealand for their handling of the situation in the aftermath of the disaster.

Paragraph377

2nd Dec 2019, 20:37

"......................... But the bad decisions had already been made."

Two actually, changing the position of the final way point and not telling the crew.

Spot on! And this was the root cause.

PapaHotel6

2nd Dec 2019, 20:37

If you need further evidence that these pilots weren't really situationally aware, and never really had a clear mental picture of their location, consider this. If they were where they supposedly thought they were, one of their orbits would have taken them very close to Mt Bird. A pilot flying VFR who knew precisely where he was would have identified this. "Need to maintain clearance of Mt Bird/ no current visual on Mt Bird" etc. etc. But no reference to Mt. Bird was ever made.

prospector

2nd Dec 2019, 20:47

Captain Fathom, no, no knowledge of who Ampan is. But I believe Bob Thomson with his experience of Antarctic travel summed up the situation very well. Here are some of his qualifications to make these statements.

But Thomson had more experience in the area than almost anybody else. During his 75 trips to Antarctica in the course of a long career with the DSIR Antarctic division, at least 50 had been on the flight deck of aircraft approaching from the north, observing the ice edge and conditions. He was the commentator on Air New Zealand's inaugural flight back in February 1977, with Captain Ian Gemmel in command, and also on the last completed trip before flight 901 on 28 November.
In fact he was originally scheduled to fly on the fatal flight, but had to change his plans because of an expected visit to Scott Base by Prime Minister Robert Muldoon in early December 1979. Instead mountaineer Peter Mulgrew took his place--and was on the flight deck nof ZK-NZP at the moment of impact.
Has Bob Thomson ever felt uneasy that, but for a twist in fate, he might have died that day?Not at all. I always insisted on a complete circuit of Ross Island before letting down below 17,000ft, that way I could get an idea of the complete situation and what the weather was like, where any clouds were.
" There is traditionally bad weather in Lewis Bay where they crashed" says Thomson
The captain didn't give attention to problems that he might have around there. These people were taking a Sunday drive. When I heard the transcript of the CVR I fell out of my chair. Most of the times Mulgrew had been there he'd gone in by sea, and all his travel from Scott Base was to the South. Hardly anybody ever went into Lewis Bay.
Had they orbited Ross Island they would have seen the cloud. If a pilot is unsure he always goes up, never down. The co-pilot of Flight 901 never opened his flight bag to look up the coordinates. I always had a chart in the cockpit and checked the latitude and longtitude readout, but the crew of the fatal flight never referred to it" . That was taken from John King Publication New Zealand Tragedies Aviation

That to me, from someone with that level of experience in AntArctic operations, and in the flight deck, even if not as operating crew, gives a far more accurate picture of events than Mahon version.

Chris2303

2nd Dec 2019, 21:59

I may have said this before but I am firmly of the opinion that Mulgrew's presence on the flight deck was a major distraction and the seat should have been occupied by Brick.

73qanda

2nd Dec 2019, 22:08

Two actually, changing the position of the final way point and not telling the crew.
and descending below MSA, to 1500ft, at 260kts, in an area you have never been to before, with met conditions that prompt you to say “actually it doesn’t look very good up here”, after being told that the conditions for sightseeing were unsuitable, and without getting the radar ID and let down that was in the pipeline.
If we combine all of those factors, we get a picture of why the accident happened, if we decide to ignore either the company mistakes, or the pilot mistakes, we get an inaccurate picture of why the crash happened.

PapaHotel6

2nd Dec 2019, 23:01

Airbubba

3rd Dec 2019, 02:26

and descending below MSA, to 1500ft, at 260kts, in an area you have never been to before, with met conditions that prompt you to say “actually it doesn’t look very good up here”, after being told that the conditions for sightseeing were unsuitable, and without getting the radar ID and let down that was in the pipeline.If we combine all of those factors, we get a picture of why the accident happened, if we decide to ignore either the company mistakes, or the pilot mistakes, we get an inaccurate picture of why the crash happened.

I agree.

The Erebus tragedy was the subject of two official reports, the first of which blamed pilot error, while the second blamed Air New Zealand's navigation system, [Prime Minister Jacinda] Ardern said.

While the latter inquiry was marred with accusations of conspiracy and false information, no challenge was made to the finding that "convincingly clears" the pilot and first officer of the plane.

"The pilots were not responsible for this tragedy, I stand here today to state that again," Ardern said.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117746516/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-apologises-for-air-new-zealand-erebus-tragedy-at-40th-anniversary-event (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/117746516/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-apologises-for-air-new-zealand-erebus-tragedy-at-40th-anniversary-event)

What would be the political motivation for the Prime Minister's statement that the pilots were not responsible? Is she playing to the families and NZALPA? Does it give her leverage over an opposition political party to refute the conclusions of the Chippindale report?

I'm obviously not very knowledgeable about New Zealand politics (although the few Kiwis I've worked with seemed to be experts on everything American ;)).

Paragraph377

3rd Dec 2019, 03:43

Who knows what Ardern’s real agenda is. Maybe some Government archives (buried dirty secrets) to be released? But don’t let the ‘happy go lucky, I’m a new age mum and a politician’ persona fool you. This is the woman who was an ‘advisor’ to Tony Blair, and Blair left a toxic legacy upon the people of England. She is a politician, so as far as credibility, honesty, transparency and integrity goes - I would trust Charles Manson before I trusted her.

Why she would wade into the Erebus issue is anyone’s guess, but it is certainly unusual and it’s been very very public. Perhaps time will tell.

An agenda, there shall be....Maybe it is in here:

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/media-and-resources/ministry-statements-and-speeches/historical-diplomatic-files-declassified-and-released/

compressor stall

3rd Dec 2019, 04:53

The outline of Beaufort Island is certainly depicted on the chart. It even has the height depicted as 2428 + or --.

Thanks Prospector - on my copy of the Chippendale report, it doesn't appear - probably due to being a photocopy....

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1766x1660/screenshot_2019_12_03_16_1_33_17_c5a74e9ffd7e679cf16a5157db3 0c392a039f231.jpg

I dug out my original Antarctic Strip Chart from the back of the study as I haven't used it for a couple of months. It's a more recent edition and yes Beaufort outline there, clearly against the blue background. The chart labels are identical in the same place so it's the same map origin so I don't doubt that it was labelled on the original published chart at the time. Is there any confirmation anywhere if the recovered strip map from the accident flight was an original or a photostat? If the latter there's every chance that the island may not have been visible on the chart for navigation.

Either way, it's not really a good map for VFR nav is it? Why weren't they given better ones, if the expectation was that they were to navigate visually in VMC?

Bob Thomson .... always insisted on a complete circuit of Ross Island before letting down below 17,000ft, that way I could get an idea of the complete situation and what the weather was like, where any clouds were.

Couldn't agree more. But this was not ANZ SOP. And I said as much in reply to you 4 years ago. https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/152934-erebus-25-years-56.html#post9435358

VMC weather rminma was not enough to operate safely.

3 Holer

3rd Dec 2019, 05:39

PapaHotel6

3rd Dec 2019, 07:34

There would have been no need to debate LSALT, what constitutes VMC conditions, white out, CVR recordings, FDR configurations and the plethora of other assumptions, innuendos, insinuations and orchestrated litany of lies had the crew simply been told by the Air New Zealand navigation section of the track change. Collins would have methodically plotted the new route and seen that it followed a track down Lewis Bay directly at Mt. Erebus and not the safe, flat, over sea route down McMurdo sound with Erebus well clear, miles from the aircraft flight path.

No accident, no Chippendale report, no Mahon inquiry, no nefarious behaviour by Air New Zealand management and NZ government of the day and more importantly, NO LOSS of LIFE.

Some of the participants on this forum just don't seem to grasp that fact. You can bang on all you like about Swiss cheese, advances in human factors, causal factors and the apportionment of blame. The FACT is, in this accident, the "trigger was pulled" when the route was changed and Jim Collins and his crew were not advised.

There would have been no need to debate LSALT, what constitutes VMC conditions, white out, CVR recordings, FDR configurations and the plethora of other assumptions, innuendos, insinuations and orchestrated litany of lies had the crew simply maintained MSA until established radar contact with McMurdo/plotted their position off the INS readout/not placed 100% faith in their supposition of the NAV track/aborted their descent earlier/climbed out immediately at 1500' instead on pontificating whether to turn right or left.

No accident, no Chippendale report, no Mahon inquiry, no nefarious behaviour by Air New Zealand management and NZ government of the day and more importantly, NO LOSS of LIFE.

prospector

3rd Dec 2019, 07:52

And add to that list, the INS was not cleared for Nav use below MSA, yet it was all they were relying on.

reubee

3rd Dec 2019, 23:31

And add to that list, the INS was not cleared for Nav use below MSA, yet it was all they were relying on.
it wasn't ALL they were relying on, they were also relying on their eye-sight. Unfortunately the geographic features they could see and identify (incorrectly) were not telling them anything to contradict their opinion of their location.

reubee

4th Dec 2019, 00:02

Did anything ever arise out of a letter to Justice Mahon on page 232 of Paul Holmes book? In it a passenger who claimed to be on the "first flight to Antarctica" had descended through cloud to a low altitude "When we did come out of the cloud, at about 9000 feet there was this huge mountain just off the right wing-tip". The writer had some "unspliced film" of this trip. I suspect they were mistaken in one or two areas (was it the first flight or perhaps first flight of a year, was it left or right wing-tip, how did they measure altitude etc) but was this account ever fact-checked?

Paragraph377

4th Dec 2019, 00:06

it wasn't ALL they were relying on, they were also relying on their eye-sight. Unfortunately the geographic features they could see and identify (incorrectly) were not telling them anything to contradict their opinion of their location.

Corrct. And a point that people keep overloooking. The Crew thought they were in the right place and had no reason to believe otherwise because nobody had told them that the computer had been changed the night before. And as I’ve siad previously, ‘whiteout’ was a phenomena that although known back in 1979, it wasn’t fully understood or appreciated in the commercial aviation sector. This accident caused changes in the understanding of whiteout and spacial anomalies.

prospector

4th Dec 2019, 00:40

Paragraph 377, I had a look at your public profile, which is why it is there I suppose.; It states you have an ALTP and current types are 747 and 777.

"The Crew thought they were in the right place and had no reason to believe otherwise because nobody had told them that the computer had been changed the night before."

Is that your belief as to the cause of this accident, the computer had been changed??

Paragraph377

4th Dec 2019, 03:00

[QUOTE Is that your belief as to the cause of this accident, the computer had been changed??[/QUOTE]

Prospector, we’ve danced this dance over the years. Go back and read all of my quotes. There were several causal factors. The root cause was the reprogramming of the nav system without telling the crew.

Thanks for checking my background, one can never be sure of whom they are speaking with dear friend. I could check yours, but to me that is as interesting as a bald weasel with a chainsaw eating broccoli while watching Gilligan's Island.

As for my very naughty use of the word ‘computer’, how simply awful. In future I will use correct terminology and phraseology such as Inertial Navigation System, Aircraft Information Network System, Computer Navigation Track, even Air New Zealand instead of ANZ. Hopefully you won’t be offended by my using more modern acronyms relating to the beautiful 777 such as AIMS, ADIRU, ADIRS and SAARU. And if you are, I really don’t care. My career was fulfilling and the 747 and 777 will always remain the two best commercial aircraft ever made. It’s been 5 years since I retired. How about you?

prospector

4th Dec 2019, 04:02

Very Good, you picked the word that aroused my curiosity. And I must say a very eloquent reply. I have been out to pasture now for 15 years, still like to get involved in this discussion, especially when our esteemed prime minister makes statements on subjects she has no experience to comment on.

If she wants to quote judges why does she not quote Judge Harold Greene of the U.S. District Court in Washington when NZALPA tried to blame the controllers at McMurdo for a share in the disaster. I quote

"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"

"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 16,000ft, contrary to both prudent airmanship and Air New Zealand policy without first 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 flight path and pressed on in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period."

Paragraph377

4th Dec 2019, 04:33

still like to get involved in this discussion, especially when our esteemed prime minister makes statements on subjects she has no experience to comment on.
Good to see we agree on a mutual point - she is an idiot and has no place for making the extensive comments that she did. I am still suspicious as to her reasons.

Hope you are enjoying retirement and keeping safe.

3 Holer

4th Dec 2019, 06:47

prospector

4th Dec 2019, 06:50

I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!

Please wait until the middle of winter, and a very frosty morning

PapaHotel6

4th Dec 2019, 07:14

''.....................in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period.''

You sound so much like ampan.

The day you get nine (9) adults in the cockpit of a DC10 during a critical stage of flight (your assumption, as the crew is not here to dispute), I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!
The irony is that that wouldn't lower the tone of Queen St. terribly much.

I think the "five or six extra people" refers to the fact that the cockpit door was open, and people were milling around.

The name is Porter

4th Dec 2019, 07:17

Please wait until the middle of winter, and a very frosty morning

Mate............what's winter got to do with it? It's summer here, snowing at Hotham and fecking freezing in Melbourne. You could do a scenic flight around Melbourne and pass it off as Antarctica.

PapaHotel6

4th Dec 2019, 07:26

Mate............what's winter got to do with it? It's summer here, snowing at Hotham and fecking freezing in Melbourne. You could do a scenic flight around Melbourne and pass it off as Antarctica.
And send the flight to Essendon when the crew think they're going to Tullamarine.

Paragraph377

4th Dec 2019, 08:06

And send the flight to Essendon when the crew think they're going to Tullamarine.
Or fly a commercial airline flight to NTL and line up with a coal ship on final approach.

reubee

4th Dec 2019, 09:59

Or fly a commercial airline flight to NTL and line up with a coal ship on final approach.
Plan NZWB-NZNP only to discover that NZWB-NZJQ has been entered.

rog747

4th Dec 2019, 14:26

Qantas still to this day operates a series of Antarctica in a day scenic flights every season with 747-400's - Not sure what QF will do when the final retirements occur of the 747.
Will they use the A380 for these or it that aircraft not suitable for such a mission?

https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

prospector

4th Dec 2019, 20:53

PapaHotel6

4th Dec 2019, 21:48

Interesting advertisement, especially the altitude question, and they have been doing it for many years I believeHow Low Will We Fly?
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.
But if the pilots as a group start flying down to..... oh, I don't know, 1500 feet, and one of them hits rising ground they didn't expect to be there and didn't see because of the low cloud cover, it's NOT THEIR FAULT.

Paragraph377

4th Dec 2019, 21:49

Interesting advertisement, especially the altitude question, and they have been doing it for many years I believeHow Low Will We Fly?When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.

I am sure if ever there were to be another accident, those height references (or the 2,000 feet one in particular) would disappear from that webpage and the internet, similar to how the NZ government and Air New Zealand scrambled to recover and destroy brochures advertising low altitude flights over the Antarctic. Now why would they do that if the cause was only Collins?

PapaHotel6

4th Dec 2019, 22:02

I am sure if ever there were to be another accident, those height references (or the 2,000 feet one in particular) would disappear from that webpage and the internet, similar to how the NZ government and Air New Zealand scrambled to recover and destroy brochures advertising low altitude flights over the Antarctic. Now why would they do that if the cause was only Collins?
I have no idea why; but getting back to TE901..... there is no-one here that I am aware of who is suggesting the cause was "only Collins".

megan

4th Dec 2019, 23:45

QF do not descend below the LSALT, period, which is set at 2,000 above the highest terrain. At least that was the standard when I flew as pax, not sure what to make of the 10,000 reference.

3 Holer

4th Dec 2019, 23:56

".... there is no-one here that I am aware of who is suggesting the cause was "only Collins".

Jim Collins and his crew had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this accident as has been confirmed by highly qualified legal persons, multiple inquiries and aviation experts worldwide (I am not including the ones on this forum!). Only ignorance and a failure to grasp the facts in this accident would make anyone "suggest" otherwise.

The name is Porter

5th Dec 2019, 00:00

I would think the only solution to this incident/accident is a re-investigation. With contemporary methods of investigation used. The investigation would avoid the use of the word blame and instead focus on contributory factors. Forty years later and the accident reports are heavily compromised.

Those hell-bent on being able to blame someone or thing would then be forced to take every factor on board. The political interference, the farcical conflicts of interest, the cover ups, missing documents, home break ins, the company culture that normalised deviation from SOPS, severe deficiencies from company flight ops and navigation departments, lack of regulatory oversight and yes, flight deck crew actions.

prospector

5th Dec 2019, 00:02

"or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles." would be the relevant statement. I would read that as if they are within a 100 miles of Mt Erebus they would not be below FL160. Erebus I recall was 13,280ft, but changing slightly with time.
\
That would be my interpretation, but I stand to be corrected if need be.

Dark Knight

5th Dec 2019, 00:10

Have we discovered anything new yet this time around?

Have we changed anything or, more importantly, will anything be changed?

Is it likely a new inquiry will happen?

Is any of the procrastination, expert, unprofessional, inexpert, amateurish, waffling or discussion going to create a new inquiry?

Rather than the continuous and no doubt a 40th anniversary review the most important thing is; Did this accident result in any improvements to aviation safety?

The answers is a resounding yes: the Flight Operations of ANZ was (for want of a better description) totally reviewed.

Flight operation departments around the world found an important need review, update their management of flight planning, computerization with flight deck application. Equally, Licencing Authorities.had to have a serious rethink.

Flight crew training improved.

Along with other accidents this one contributed to further research, creation, implementation of terrain warning systems.

These are only a few of the changes emanating from this accident and whilst hull loss, loss of life is always highly tragic and regrettable one of the most important things within the aviation industry is our absolute desire to learn from these working diligently to improve and prevent further incidents/accidents.

instead of an endless unproductive, sometimes vitriolic, self indulgent mishmash diatribe which changes little or nothing, concentrating upon the future will be a more highly productive contribution to our industry, aviation safety!.

PapaHotel6

5th Dec 2019, 00:46

Have we discovered anything new yet this time around?

Have we changed anything or, more importantly, will anything be changed?

Is it likely a new inquiry will happen?

No.

Is any of the procrastination, expert, unprofessional, inexpert, amateurish, waffling or discussion going to create a new inquiry?

Impossible that any of those things will; the only thing that might is money. And given that the only people that could be charged with a crime are dead, and as you say the institutions that could learn from this already have; it's impossible to imagine from where such a funding source might arise.

Rather than the continuous and no doubt a 40th anniversary review the most important thing is; Did this accident result in any improvements to aviation safety?

Probably, but not as many as might have if a full, comprehensive enquiry had taken place by an impartial body of people who were qualified to undertake one.

instead of an endless unproductive, sometimes vitriolic, self indulgent mishmash diatribe which changes little or nothing, concentrating upon the future will be a more highly productive contribution to our industry, aviation safety!.

If that's what you think of this discussion, then don't contribute to it or read it. But the fact you're even here suggests you agree there is a debate to be had, and it's useful on some level to have it.

To many of us, truth is important.

prospector

5th Dec 2019, 00:57

"To many of us, truth is important." Well said.

Dark Knight

5th Dec 2019, 01:27

Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. Truth is also sometimes defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self", or authenticity.

Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also suggest a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.

The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.

To some, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to an independent reality, in what is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth.

Truth is often as seen in the eye of the beholder.

As was said by one far more eloquent than I; "I have never been untruthful to you however, which version of the Truth would you care to hear?"

Dark Knight

5th Dec 2019, 01:44

“What's done cannot be undone.”
― William Shakespeare, Macbeth

Chronic Snoozer

5th Dec 2019, 02:36

"Jim Collins and his crew had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this accident as has been confirmed by highly qualified legal persons, multiple inquiries and aviation experts worldwide (I am not including the ones on this forum!). Only ignorance and a failure to grasp the facts in this accident would make anyone "suggest" otherwise.

So you're saying that anyone who questions with the outcome of the Mahon inquiry (which of course was infallible) is either ignorant or fails to grasp the facts?

Did the captain have any responsibility at all on this flight? A responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight perhaps?

The cause was CFIT.

morno

5th Dec 2019, 03:34

You mean the outcome was CFIT, caused by multiple errors made by the crew, and contributors included the change in the flight plan, the company culture, and the weather?

I’m no expert in this crash, but you can’t tell me that the captain didn’t contribute to the outcome.

PapaHotel6

5th Dec 2019, 03:44

you can’t tell me that the captain didn’t contribute to the outcome.
Not you, not me, not the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents (a man of incredible warmth and intelligence who I knew briefly) nor a multitude of highly qualified unbiased observers and commentators.

The name is Porter

5th Dec 2019, 03:55

When Mahon's report goes to 5 of his peers and 3 of them have conflicts of interest, two conflicting reports that end up in the Privvy Council, etc etc etc, I think there's a problem that needs to be resolved.

gerry111

5th Dec 2019, 03:59

From the Qantas Antarctica flight blurb:

"There is a fantastic atmosphere of cooperation among passengers as they share the experience. This is unlike any flight you have been on before."

That sounds rather attractive..

The Qantas Antarctica flights are ongoing so it looks like they will be chartering others' B747s.

3 Holer

5th Dec 2019, 04:34

Chronic Snoozer says:
"So you're saying that anyone who questions with the outcome of the Mahon inquiry (which of course was infallible) is either ignorant or fails to grasp the facts?"

Not at all Snoozer, what I said was (and I shall spell it out for you- in BOLD text) - Jim Collins and his crew hadnothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this accident as has been confirmed by highly qualified legal persons, multiple inquiries and aviation experts worldwide (I am not including the ones on this forum!). Only ignorance and a failure to grasp the facts in this accident would make anyone "suggest" otherwise.

The Mahon Inquiry was only a part of the of the many appeals, exhaustive investigations by Vette et al, into the effects of whiteout and visual deception, open admissions by Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government that they had got it wrong about the findings of the Chippendale report blaming Pilot Error for the crash and finally, the Privy Council conceding the pilots had NO CASE TO ANSWER in this whole disgraceful affair.
As I said in the last debate (15 years ago), there will never be a change to Mahon & the Privy Council's official finding. However, it is OK to get together on this forum and chew the fat.

Look forward to 2020 when they officiate the memorial in Antarctica.