Erebus 25 years on
I don't recall anything about any other ONC style charts being used or even carried.
Guest
Posts: n/a
megan,
You are talking about two different things. VMC is visual meteorological conditions, VFR is Visual Flight Rules. The flights were, to the best of my knowledge, always operated under IFR, Instrument Flight Rules.
Are you referring to my post 672 in which I mistakenly used VFR rather than VMC? that was a mistake and has been rectified.
Dick Smith,
From the Bolt/Kennedy Report into the performance of NZCAA
For the Antarctic flights at what point did it become non VFR?
I hate to belabor the point that you are doing your best to avoid answering, on one hand you are saying some flights were in VMC, but
Are you referring to my post 672 in which I mistakenly used VFR rather than VMC? that was a mistake and has been rectified.
Dick Smith,
I don't recall anything about any other ONC style charts being used or even carried.
Regarding these matters, the Bolt/Kennedy report notes that the airliners captain (J.Collins) had in fact been issued with a map on the day of the flight but commented that while it may have been better that this map had been made available at the general crew briefing a day or so earlier, it considered this matter to be the responsibility of the airline rather than of the C.A.D
Last edited by prospector; 14th Jun 2016 at 07:49.
Whispering "T" Jet
prospector states:
How about this then from the Minister of Transport in 1999.
Justice Peter Mahon, take a bow. From ICAO, the report you methodically put together through obtaining facts and impartial investigation was 10 years ahead of it's time.
prospector, do you really think that findings of the Privy Council and NZ Appeal Court are more relevant, in this case, than those by ICAO?
As long as you and others keep on quoting the views of Mahon, that have been completely disagreed with by his peers and superiors in the law world, and have been printed in this forum many times, then one is left wondering as to the point of trying to establish fact. You may disagree with the Appeal Court of New Zealand, and disagree with the finding of the Privy Council, but you can go to no higher court to challenge them.
On 18 August 1999 the Minister of Transport, Maurice Williamson, who worked at Air New Zealand as a corporate planner at the time of the crash, tabled the Mahon report in Parliament. Present for the occasion were Maria Collins and Anne Cassin, the widows of two of the pilots on the flight, and Margarita Mahon, Justice Peter Mahon's widow.
Williamson argued that the time for apportioning blame was over and that he was tabling the report because 'of the lessons it taught'. He commented that:
The International Civil Aviation Organisation says the report was 10 years ahead of its time; that subsequent high-technology systems catastrophes such as those at Chenobyl and Bhopal need not have happened if the international safety community had grasped the message from Erebus and adopted its prevention lessons.
Williamson argued that the time for apportioning blame was over and that he was tabling the report because 'of the lessons it taught'. He commented that:
The International Civil Aviation Organisation says the report was 10 years ahead of its time; that subsequent high-technology systems catastrophes such as those at Chenobyl and Bhopal need not have happened if the international safety community had grasped the message from Erebus and adopted its prevention lessons.
prospector, do you really think that findings of the Privy Council and NZ Appeal Court are more relevant, in this case, than those by ICAO?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Justice Peter Mahon, take a bow. From ICAO, the report you methodically put together through obtaining facts and impartial investigation was 10 years ahead of it's time.
Firstly, there is no "ahead of its time". The facts of this accident have been clear since 1980. Secondly, "facts and impartial investigation" could not be a less apt description of the Mahon report. It is full of theory, false assumption and conjecture with incorrect conclusions presented as fact. While I'm sure Mahon believed himself to be impartial, in fact he was heavily manipulated by ALPA.
How about this then from the Minister of Transport in 1999.
From ICAO, the report you methodically put together through obtaining facts and impartial investigation was 10 years ahead of it's time.
Guest
Posts: n/a
prospector, do you really think that findings of the Privy Council and NZ Appeal Court are more relevant, in this case, than those by ICAO
Because the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry 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 the Office of Air Accidents Investigation report, which remains the sole official account- and has never been officially challenged.
You are talking about two different things. VMC is visual meteorological conditions, VFR is Visual Flight Rules. The flights were, to the best of my knowledge, always operated under IFR, Instrument Flight Rules.
In your,
1. Vis 20 km plus.
2. No snow shower in area.
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 degree Grid to 270 degree Grid from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH 29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.
2. No snow shower in area.
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 degree Grid to 270 degree Grid from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH 29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.
Since the NDB was out presumably they had to identify McMurdo by a combination of DME read out and INS.
For those asking about maps.
Topographical maps were not issued for use on the flight. With the exception of a Photostat copy of a small insert enlargement of a map of Ross Island (1:1,000,000), these were not issued to the crew until the day of the flight, and were of a relatively small scale i.e. 1:5,000,000 and 1:3,000,000.
More importantly, the strip map of the route from Christchurch to McMurdo issued on the day of the flight also had two tracks printed on it both depicting a passage to the west of Ross Island. Positive reinforcement of the track the Captain had taken the trouble of plotting in his atlas.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megan,
The McMurdo NBD was still transmitting despite being listed as out of service. There was no DME, but there was a TACAN. However the crew never received a signal from that NAVAID. They could also only communicate via HF radio and were never radar identified.
Why?
NDBs, TACANs, VHF radio and radar are all 'line of sight'. Unfortunately there was a 12,500" mountain between them (which none of the crew twigged to).
The McMurdo NBD was still transmitting despite being listed as out of service. There was no DME, but there was a TACAN. However the crew never received a signal from that NAVAID. They could also only communicate via HF radio and were never radar identified.
Why?
NDBs, TACANs, VHF radio and radar are all 'line of sight'. Unfortunately there was a 12,500" mountain between them (which none of the crew twigged to).
Well aware Hempy of the NDB state, but they were not permitted to use same. I said DME because that's the only function of TACAN they could access, not the bearing info. Any aircraft with DME can access that part of TACAN, a TACAN channel number has a corresponding VHF frequency. ie 84X=113.7
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm well aware of the UHF (DME) abilities of TACAN.
I'm also aware that 901 never interrogated the McMurdo TACAN. There was a whopping great mountain in the way...
(p.s you are aware that the reason civil aircraft can't interrogate bearing information off a TACAN is because TACAN is UHF, and NDBs and VORs operate on VHF, aren't you? The reason civil aircraft can get range information off a TACAN is because DME is UHF, as is TACAN..)
I'm also aware that 901 never interrogated the McMurdo TACAN. There was a whopping great mountain in the way...
(p.s you are aware that the reason civil aircraft can't interrogate bearing information off a TACAN is because TACAN is UHF, and NDBs and VORs operate on VHF, aren't you? The reason civil aircraft can get range information off a TACAN is because DME is UHF, as is TACAN..)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. The (non existent..) NDB operates between MF and VHF. And about TACAN/DME having a corresponding VHF frequency?
Which is all irrelevant to the facts. There was a mountain in the way. When you can't get NDB, TACAN, VHF radio or expected radar coverage, SURELY someone might think 'hmmm what is there around here that might possibly be blocking a signal from the ground based equipment? Surely not a huge fkn mountain..'
Which is all irrelevant to the facts. There was a mountain in the way. When you can't get NDB, TACAN, VHF radio or expected radar coverage, SURELY someone might think 'hmmm what is there around here that might possibly be blocking a signal from the ground based equipment? Surely not a huge fkn mountain..'
NDB operates between MF and VHF
And about TACAN/DME having a corresponding VHF frequency?
a TACAN channel number has a corresponding VHF frequency. ie 84X=113.7
Instrument Landing System (ILS) Frequencies - The RadioReference Wiki
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ILS??
Presumably you haven't read the investigation report. They never interrogated the TACAN.
Nor imply? Same as VMC/VFR?
Since, by your own admission, you have zero experience in civil ops, what's your beef?
Originally Posted by megan
Since the NDB was out presumably they had to identify McMurdo by a combination of DME read out and INS.
Originally Posted by megan
I did not say, nor I think, imply, that the DME or TACAN OPERATED on VHF.
Originally Posted by megan
I said DME because that's the only function of TACAN they could access, not the bearing info. Any aircraft with DME can access that part of TACAN, a TACAN channel number has a corresponding VHF frequency. ie 84X=113.7
Since, by your own admission, you have zero experience in civil ops, what's your beef?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is all irrelevant to the facts. There was a mountain in the way. When you can't get NDB, TACAN, VHF radio or expected radar coverage, SURELY someone might think 'hmmm what is there around here that might possibly be blocking a signal from the ground based equipment? Surely not a huge fkn mountain..'
The lack of situational awareness here was massive. And that, of course, followed the initial doozy decision to descend below MSA without radar guidance in marginal VMC.
ILS??
you haven't read the investigation report. They never interrogated the TACAN.
Since, by your own admission, you have zero experience in civil ops
what's your beef?
Whispering "T" Jet
..................and the ONLY reason a mountain was in the way was because some one changed the final co-ordinates of the route without telling the crew!
You forgot to add 3 Holer that immediately prior to the flight the crew were given the preflight planning folder contained the strip map with the track going down the route Captain Collins expected. Oh, and the nav department didn't give the required Ops Flash (I think it was called, can't be bothered looking it up right now) signifying that a change had been made to the flight plan.
Guest
Posts: n/a
you forgot to mention that the descent from 16,000 to the minimum of 6,000 had to be in VMC. So what were the stipulated VMC limits? There is nothing in the report that I can find, though the regs in force at the time state 8Km vis, 1 mile horizontally & 1,000 feet vertically.
The question is not really relevant though, the weather at McMurdo was well below that required for the only approved descent below MSA.
3 Holer,
..................and the ONLY reason a mountain was in the way was because some one changed the final co-ordinates of the route without telling the crew
Last edited by prospector; 14th Jun 2016 at 21:44.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather few characters came out well from the ghastly aftermath. Two who showed immense fortitude of character and great dignity were the widows of the two pilots.
Another two, both of whom were unusually gifted technocrats in their own fields, were Vette and Mahon.
I commend this video to the forum:
I also commend an accurately scripted docudrama which may embarrass some of the more mendacious members of the three government agencies which quite clearly had something to hide, as well as embarrassing one or two of those of whom did not make much effort to hide their involvement in what was a limited coverup:
Another two, both of whom were unusually gifted technocrats in their own fields, were Vette and Mahon.
I commend this video to the forum:
I also commend an accurately scripted docudrama which may embarrass some of the more mendacious members of the three government agencies which quite clearly had something to hide, as well as embarrassing one or two of those of whom did not make much effort to hide their involvement in what was a limited coverup:
Guest
Posts: n/a
I commend this video to the forum:
I would suggest you go back over the many posts in this forum, the docu/drama that you commend has very little credibility to many who have a good knowledge of what in fact caused this disaster. I must admit they do have some credence,as they were meant to, to the general public who have no intimate knowledge of the workings of the Aviation world.