Erebus 25 years on
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: North Up
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought in that case there would have been much more expressed then "that something was wrong"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAZ . . .. you have a familiar ring . .. . (oops ) . . . it smacks of the
ex? hot-shot driving Sabres Mirages F111s or later fast jets rather than lead sleds. (What that has to do with the serious vein of the the never ending story F-Nose.)
ex? hot-shot driving Sabres Mirages F111s or later fast jets rather than lead sleds. (What that has to do with the serious vein of the the never ending story F-Nose.)
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Holer says
.......which also applies to the "whiteout" theory. Often presented as fact, Vette's theory about mindset/false horizon causing the pilots to 'see' a flat vista of ice stretching out into the distance is nothing more than an idea - and a rather fanciful one at that I would suggest. Given the conditions at the time, and the comments made in the cockpit, I'm sure they saw a "sea" of white, but something akin to flying inside a ping pong ball. Something like this (minus the penguins and starlifter)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_penguins.jpg
There have been a number of "presumptions" on this thread and that highlights the point I made earlier. No one will ever know what went on during the descent/approach because the crew did not survive the crash.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_penguins.jpg
Whispering "T" Jet
Whiteout is not a theory, it is a factual optical illusion. Of course it would never
have been considered, along with all the postulation about this accident, if the changed co-ordinates of the flight planned route had been disseminated to the crew that morning.
have been considered, along with all the postulation about this accident, if the changed co-ordinates of the flight planned route had been disseminated to the crew that morning.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cazalet33,
You say, after posting the findings of Mahon via the video's you commended
And that is why this thread has been going for so long, Mahon took it upon himself to say the crew was blameless. As has been made evident, by many posters, many disagree with that opinion, and that is all it is, Mahon's opinion that is in dispute.
You say, after posting the findings of Mahon via the video's you commended
I haven't said that the crew were 100% blameless. I think they were complacent, just like everyone else in the causal chain.
You missed the point, if they had of been plotting the position on a chart, taken from the Lat/Long readouts, then they would have known where they were, rather thinking they knew where they were.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Once again proof positive of the lackadaisical approach to the entire operation by both the airline itself, and the CAA
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is only Mahon's opinion that the crew were blameless that is in dispute.
3 Holer said:
Whiteout is not a theory, it is a factual optical illusion.
No-one however has asserted that the crew were duped by some optical illusion all the way from 13,000' down to 1500' however - yet still, they never saw the mountain. That's because to the south of the aircraft from high altitude down it was pretty much a wall of cloud. Which they were happy to descend under, almost to ground level without radar guidance.
almost to ground level without radar guidance
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guest
Posts: n/a
[quote]Radar guidance would have only been available if they had followed the the RNC route down the sound, [/QUOTE
Not correct. Following from Gordon Vette "Impact Erebus"
That lack of any contact with the radar operator would be because the radar operator only had VHF, if the flight had of continued on the track it was on above MSA then the radar and VHF contact would have been made, and a DME lockon achieved. Instead, for some reason he requested a VMC descent.
Not correct. Following from Gordon Vette "Impact Erebus"
It is probably correct to say that Collins would have been genuinely surprised while he was still at safety altitude approaching McMurdo to hear McMurdo offer him a radar let down at that altitude.
He probably did not understand their reasons or else he would have been surprised that they had the radar switched to surveillance mode, which, even though it had its blind spots overhead, would allow them to monitor his initial approach and probably allow him to come below MSA on approach.
However, during the next stage of the approach his views would have been altered. Even though he saw that his transponder was being interrogated, he still apparently did not get any radar direction.
He probably did not understand their reasons or else he would have been surprised that they had the radar switched to surveillance mode, which, even though it had its blind spots overhead, would allow them to monitor his initial approach and probably allow him to come below MSA on approach.
However, during the next stage of the approach his views would have been altered. Even though he saw that his transponder was being interrogated, he still apparently did not get any radar direction.
Whispering "T" Jet
Mahon took it upon himself to say the crew was blameless
Guest
Posts: n/a
The view of the Hon P.T.Mahon as stated in the findings of the Royal Commission of Enquiry-
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.
Whispering "T" Jet
That is NOT saying the crew was blameless, that is saying the crew did not make any error which contributed to the disaster!
I neither have the time nor the inclination tutor you in formal legal writings. However, you can be satisfied in the knowledge you are not the only one who has used "poetic licence" (which I have coined postulation) in this debate.
I neither have the time nor the inclination tutor you in formal legal writings. However, you can be satisfied in the knowledge you are not the only one who has used "poetic licence" (which I have coined postulation) in this debate.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you 3-holer for your depth of understanding.
Maybe time to go a little easier with the PPRuNe verdict on Justice Peter Mahon, and the verdict on his findings. Patently his findings have been debated in microscopic detail ad nauseam . Leading to great polarisation of opinion . In this present instance what 3-holer is saying hits the interpretive nail squarely on the head.
1. He did not (Justice Mahon) say it was incontrovertible fact that the crew did or did not do anything contributing to the accident. He said that it was his opinion. It is telling that after months of intensive examination of every shred of evidence he qualified his finding on the issue of culpability or not to stating 'in my opinion'.
2. On that evidence he concluded that the CFIT occurred due to a complex series of systemic errors.
3. There are a multitude of 'ifs' and 'buts' in any analysis in depth of TE901. That really goes without saying.
4. Interesting to speculate that were Justice Mahon with us still today that he might on revisiting that verdict
believe with hindsight that between the words 'not' and 'responsible' the word 'primarily ' be inserted.
Maybe not. For to have 'made no error' presupposes an absence of guilt. Never should sight be lost that the complexities of this investigation were legion and that the lessons to be learned will be deserving of study for long into the future.
Maybe time to go a little easier with the PPRuNe verdict on Justice Peter Mahon, and the verdict on his findings. Patently his findings have been debated in microscopic detail ad nauseam . Leading to great polarisation of opinion . In this present instance what 3-holer is saying hits the interpretive nail squarely on the head.
1. He did not (Justice Mahon) say it was incontrovertible fact that the crew did or did not do anything contributing to the accident. He said that it was his opinion. It is telling that after months of intensive examination of every shred of evidence he qualified his finding on the issue of culpability or not to stating 'in my opinion'.
2. On that evidence he concluded that the CFIT occurred due to a complex series of systemic errors.
3. There are a multitude of 'ifs' and 'buts' in any analysis in depth of TE901. That really goes without saying.
4. Interesting to speculate that were Justice Mahon with us still today that he might on revisiting that verdict
believe with hindsight that between the words 'not' and 'responsible' the word 'primarily ' be inserted.
Maybe not. For to have 'made no error' presupposes an absence of guilt. Never should sight be lost that the complexities of this investigation were legion and that the lessons to be learned will be deserving of study for long into the future.
Last edited by FAR CU; 16th Jun 2016 at 09:29.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Age: 52
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cazalet33, I suggest you read Gordon Vette's Impact Erebus. Have a look at the diagrams on page 46 and 47. If this crew was on the ball, and they thought they were going down McMurdo Sound, why was it not noticed they were on the wrong side of Beaufort Island? Met conditions at that point were certainly VMC, there are passenger photo's retrieved from the wreck clearly showing Beaufort Island.