Pilots - what caused Erebus?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 Greens & Prospector
I'm unaware of the ANZ policy at the time re checking of lat & long. However, I suspect that, if any pilot was advised of ANY doubt in regard to any waypoint, then that pilot would indeed check the lat & long of every waypoint on the flt plan.
In this case, I believe that Capt Collins was not advised of any discrepancy, despite the flt planning dept being aware of what they perceived to be a minor one. Also, why would any route so near to Mt Erebus be included in the plan? Can anyone explain?
I agree with a previous post that stated the opinion that a large amount of paperwork was shredded because ANZ perceived that they could be held responsible for some contribution to the disaster.
Please also correct me if I'm incorrect but was not the reason for the Privy Council's finding based on points of law and not of fact?
I had also heard a claim that the NZ Appeals Court had on its bench some persons with vested interests in ANZ. It may have simply been a wild claim at the time - I don't know.
I'm unaware of the ANZ policy at the time re checking of lat & long. However, I suspect that, if any pilot was advised of ANY doubt in regard to any waypoint, then that pilot would indeed check the lat & long of every waypoint on the flt plan.
In this case, I believe that Capt Collins was not advised of any discrepancy, despite the flt planning dept being aware of what they perceived to be a minor one. Also, why would any route so near to Mt Erebus be included in the plan? Can anyone explain?
I agree with a previous post that stated the opinion that a large amount of paperwork was shredded because ANZ perceived that they could be held responsible for some contribution to the disaster.
Please also correct me if I'm incorrect but was not the reason for the Privy Council's finding based on points of law and not of fact?
I had also heard a claim that the NZ Appeals Court had on its bench some persons with vested interests in ANZ. It may have simply been a wild claim at the time - I don't know.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Prospector et al for the gen on Lats and Longs. It was a requirement in most airlines for all waypoints to be cross checked using the chart. In other words they would have noticed the route discrepancy much earlier if they had been doing this.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
4Greens, is it possible that this requirement (to check Lats and Longs) was initiated BECAUSE of the Erebus crash?
My experience with this type of navigation was on B74 classics (one of the Captains with whom I flew, being Derek Ellis, mentioned earlier), and the system from recollection involved one crew member reading the co-ordinates from the Flight Plan whilst a second crew member input them.
After all (or in the earlier system - a max of 9) were entered, all crew members then checked Tracks and Distances against the Flight Plan!
So even IF Capt Collins' crew had performed these checks, the tracks and distances would have shown NO discrepancies!
Even with today's extremely accurate onboard navigation systems, there are OFTEN differences between Flight Plan tracks and distances, and those shown on Jepp charts. It is also quite probable that the final tracks and distances on TE901's flight plan were not represented on any navigation charts, as this was supposed to be the visual (sightseeing) part of the flight.
Remember, it was not ALL co-ordinates that were changed - WITHOUT the knowledge of the crew - but only the last few, which, in all likelihood the crew (and Air New Zealand Flight Planning staff) probably did NOT expect to use, as at this stage of the flight, they would have expected to have been visual - which Capt Collins undoubtedly THOUGHT they were, but with a little less than optimum visibility.
20nm visibilty is not great, and in whiteout conditions it is quite conceivable that one could believe they had met that requirement.
It is my understanding that Air New Zealand did NOT proceed with these flights, when weather conditions in Antarctica would have prevented the low level sightseeing.
My experience with this type of navigation was on B74 classics (one of the Captains with whom I flew, being Derek Ellis, mentioned earlier), and the system from recollection involved one crew member reading the co-ordinates from the Flight Plan whilst a second crew member input them.
After all (or in the earlier system - a max of 9) were entered, all crew members then checked Tracks and Distances against the Flight Plan!
So even IF Capt Collins' crew had performed these checks, the tracks and distances would have shown NO discrepancies!
Even with today's extremely accurate onboard navigation systems, there are OFTEN differences between Flight Plan tracks and distances, and those shown on Jepp charts. It is also quite probable that the final tracks and distances on TE901's flight plan were not represented on any navigation charts, as this was supposed to be the visual (sightseeing) part of the flight.
Remember, it was not ALL co-ordinates that were changed - WITHOUT the knowledge of the crew - but only the last few, which, in all likelihood the crew (and Air New Zealand Flight Planning staff) probably did NOT expect to use, as at this stage of the flight, they would have expected to have been visual - which Capt Collins undoubtedly THOUGHT they were, but with a little less than optimum visibility.
20nm visibilty is not great, and in whiteout conditions it is quite conceivable that one could believe they had met that requirement.
It is my understanding that Air New Zealand did NOT proceed with these flights, when weather conditions in Antarctica would have prevented the low level sightseeing.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Casper,
The specifics of this accident are far to complex to enter into on this forum. The errors of ommission and commission are many and varied. I would like to recommend that you read all that is written about the subject in "New Zealand Tragedies-Aviation, Accidents and Disasters" by John King. It has the benefit of hindsight and all the conflicting points of view are well presented. It is also the source of a wealth of information on many other aeronautical facts and would be an asset in anybodies library. I would like to quote again from this book, many people would not agree, but I do.
" The one exception was Captain Roger Dalziell's flight which, because of unfavourable McMurdo weather, took the alternative route over the South Magnetic Pole, diverting even before reaching the specified decision point of Cape Hallett. It's unpopularity with the passengers, however, was a likely factor in making Captain Collins more determined to press onto McMurdo when conditions were marginal and, according to company instructions, well below minuma for the area"
Re the findings of the Privy Council. No, point of fact and in particular Exhibit 164, which Mr Mahon laid inordinate faith in to prove his theories.
Re the appeal Court, some people tried to make an issue of the fact that there was some family relationships between ANZ staff and Court members. You must, like the rest of us draw your own conclusions as to the relevance of this.
Prospector
The specifics of this accident are far to complex to enter into on this forum. The errors of ommission and commission are many and varied. I would like to recommend that you read all that is written about the subject in "New Zealand Tragedies-Aviation, Accidents and Disasters" by John King. It has the benefit of hindsight and all the conflicting points of view are well presented. It is also the source of a wealth of information on many other aeronautical facts and would be an asset in anybodies library. I would like to quote again from this book, many people would not agree, but I do.
" The one exception was Captain Roger Dalziell's flight which, because of unfavourable McMurdo weather, took the alternative route over the South Magnetic Pole, diverting even before reaching the specified decision point of Cape Hallett. It's unpopularity with the passengers, however, was a likely factor in making Captain Collins more determined to press onto McMurdo when conditions were marginal and, according to company instructions, well below minuma for the area"
Re the findings of the Privy Council. No, point of fact and in particular Exhibit 164, which Mr Mahon laid inordinate faith in to prove his theories.
Re the appeal Court, some people tried to make an issue of the fact that there was some family relationships between ANZ staff and Court members. You must, like the rest of us draw your own conclusions as to the relevance of this.
Prospector
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does consipracy theory affect facts of crash?
I would like to say straight off that I am not a pilot and that I do have a vested interest. I am on the side of the crew.
Your posts were put up a long time ago and you may never read this but I had to point something out.
Prospector said that he did wish to get into the whole "conspiracy" theory as it was not relevant. However if there was a conspiracy that destroyed evidence, and intimidated witnesses, is it not possible that if there had been no conspiracy there would have been more evidence on the side of the pilots - to show perhaps that flying at such a low level had been discussed verbally in their briefing for instance...I'm not saying that that is the case, by the way, but just pointing out that notes from a briefing were one of the main things that seemed to keep disappearing.
I'm sorry but you can't separate the two. And just because a conspiracy can't always be proved, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. That's kinda the whole idea of the people behind it...
If anyone does know of things that happened in this way, they are more than welcome to private message them to me. I am afraid that one day all that information will die away with the people who knew...perhaps one day the history books will read more accurately...
Oh and also, I do feel it might be better not to quote Chippendale's transcripts if you want anyone to take you as seriously unbiased, best to use the official washington transcript.
Your posts were put up a long time ago and you may never read this but I had to point something out.
Prospector said that he did wish to get into the whole "conspiracy" theory as it was not relevant. However if there was a conspiracy that destroyed evidence, and intimidated witnesses, is it not possible that if there had been no conspiracy there would have been more evidence on the side of the pilots - to show perhaps that flying at such a low level had been discussed verbally in their briefing for instance...I'm not saying that that is the case, by the way, but just pointing out that notes from a briefing were one of the main things that seemed to keep disappearing.
I'm sorry but you can't separate the two. And just because a conspiracy can't always be proved, doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. That's kinda the whole idea of the people behind it...
If anyone does know of things that happened in this way, they are more than welcome to private message them to me. I am afraid that one day all that information will die away with the people who knew...perhaps one day the history books will read more accurately...
Oh and also, I do feel it might be better not to quote Chippendale's transcripts if you want anyone to take you as seriously unbiased, best to use the official washington transcript.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Previous discussion about all of this can also be found on the thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=152934
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=152934
Guest
Posts: n/a
A common thread in accident reports which attract media publicity is that the pilot in command is usually described as an excellent pilot. (He may be dead due a cock-up but he remains an "excellent" pilot). It doesn't mean a thing. Excellent pilots make mistakes like the rest of us average pilots.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knew them personally did you?
SO I assume that you knew these pilots personally then, and can say that they weren't excellent pilots. You can't make a comment like that without backing it up.
Not just pilots make cock ups, so do airlines, sometimes big ones.
Not just pilots make cock ups, so do airlines, sometimes big ones.
What a magnificent thread. I'm going to add my two cents worth, the company is as guilty as hell.
Before you all jump down my throat, this has absolutely nothing to do with the technical matters.
Someone said it in the beginning. There were procedures in place, minimum descent altitudes etc, to keep everyone safe. These procedures were not followed in the interests of giving the passengers a better view.
The fact that the procedures were not followed was known to the company. It appears they knew but did nothing about it.
The crew of the aircraft wanted to give the passengers the best view, and did not follow procedures.
In effect the company and the crew had tacitly agreed not to enforce the procedures. This cost the crew and passengers their lives.
Esso Australia did the same thing to me thirty years ago and they tried to do it again to the plant operators after the Longford gas plant explosion. They put reams of safety procedures in place - but you have no way of following them and keeping your job. You either have to resign or tacitly agree not to do things by the book and just hope that nothing bad happens. If something does happen - well you weren't following procedures were you? Blame the victims.
Of course this does beg the question of wether following procedures would have kept them safe. I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone know?
Before you all jump down my throat, this has absolutely nothing to do with the technical matters.
Someone said it in the beginning. There were procedures in place, minimum descent altitudes etc, to keep everyone safe. These procedures were not followed in the interests of giving the passengers a better view.
The fact that the procedures were not followed was known to the company. It appears they knew but did nothing about it.
The crew of the aircraft wanted to give the passengers the best view, and did not follow procedures.
In effect the company and the crew had tacitly agreed not to enforce the procedures. This cost the crew and passengers their lives.
Esso Australia did the same thing to me thirty years ago and they tried to do it again to the plant operators after the Longford gas plant explosion. They put reams of safety procedures in place - but you have no way of following them and keeping your job. You either have to resign or tacitly agree not to do things by the book and just hope that nothing bad happens. If something does happen - well you weren't following procedures were you? Blame the victims.
Of course this does beg the question of wether following procedures would have kept them safe. I don't know the answer to that. Does anyone know?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere between Cape Reinga and Invercargill
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Continental-520
"Wasn't Gordon Vette the ANZ Capt. that bailed out that C188 that got lost in the pacific ocean from his B767?
520."
Vette was definitely involved in the rescue of Jay Prochnow, can`t remember the exact a/c Prochnow was in but Vette was in a DC-10 for that. An amazing demonstration of the art of astro-navigation. I`m not sure if that is the incident you are thinking of but it sounds similar
Cheers
Rottenlungs
"Wasn't Gordon Vette the ANZ Capt. that bailed out that C188 that got lost in the pacific ocean from his B767?
520."
Vette was definitely involved in the rescue of Jay Prochnow, can`t remember the exact a/c Prochnow was in but Vette was in a DC-10 for that. An amazing demonstration of the art of astro-navigation. I`m not sure if that is the incident you are thinking of but it sounds similar
Cheers
Rottenlungs
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Paradise
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pacific rescue
Continental 520 & Rottenlungs
Not only did Gordon Vette display great airmanship in effecting the safe arrival of the C188 but he also demonstrated a high level of CRM. I would be interested to know if ANZ were training crews in CRM at that time.
Regarding the incident in question the story featured in a copy Reader's Digest (which I still have somewhere) and I recall that it eventually turned up as a TV movie.
To the rest of you who have contributed to this thread I must also add my thanks for the high standard of meaningful discussion.
Vampire 91
Not only did Gordon Vette display great airmanship in effecting the safe arrival of the C188 but he also demonstrated a high level of CRM. I would be interested to know if ANZ were training crews in CRM at that time.
Regarding the incident in question the story featured in a copy Reader's Digest (which I still have somewhere) and I recall that it eventually turned up as a TV movie.
To the rest of you who have contributed to this thread I must also add my thanks for the high standard of meaningful discussion.
Vampire 91
