Erebus 25 years on

[grummanavenger]

[All the crews thought they were out for a Sunday drive. See Chippendales comment re no one checking the INS against topographical information. Took 14 months for some one to wake up.]
The above incorrect, the First Officer behind the Captain's seat in the aircraft commanded by Dalziell maintained a track plot using the overhead lat/long data and transferred this to a topo so near real time actual position available.

[prospector]

Re the radar,


Quote:

The captain of a USAF C141 Starlifter following 49 minutes behind the Air New Zealand flight said no terrain was visible and he made a long gradual descent over the water, navigating entirely by the inertial navigation system and maintaining 16,000ft until being picked up by McMurdo radar about 38 miles out.He immediately entered cloud on starting his final descent, passing between layers with good visibility but no sight of the ground until the aircraft broke out of cloud at about 5,000ft and landed normally at McMurdo

Megan, you say,

And radar monitoring was not required for the introduced VMC descent. And it wouldn't have been available if it was because of the above. Another great, great element in the airlines planning.

Requirements for descent
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.

How could they coordinate anything if they had not identified the aircraft doing the descending??

I have taken quotes from "Impact Erebus" that confirm the radar was available. They have been printed in this thread a number of times, or was Gordon Vette also mistaken about the availability of radar for the descent?

[framer]

The above incorrect, the First Officer behind the Captain's seat in the aircraft commanded by Dalziell maintained a track plot using the overhead lat/long data and transferred this to a topo so near real time actual position available.

So Dalziell kept his flight safe aye..... who would have thought? According to Megan and 3 Holer only Captain God could have prevented this flight ending up this way.
Is Dalziell actually God? I might have to change my Sunday routine.

[3 Holer]

I thought you already had changed your Sunday routine framer. I recall reading post #814 where you state:

I'm arguing that Collins made mistakes and asking for, or expecting exoneration is inappropriate.

How do you know Captain Collins is asking for or expecting exoneration? Do you have a line to my Captain God or is this just another one, in your long, line of assumptions!

[grummanavenger]

A prior comment, [Drift on those old IRS must have been in the order of 3-6 nm an hour.]

Not so, drift on the Radio/inertial on the DC 10 closer to 1.7 nm/hr but an uncomfortable circle of uncertainty remained after the flight south.
CRM only in its infancy in those days, but in today's era, the flight deck map reading supporting the crew's understanding of their position would be described as " confirmation bias."
On other matters, I confirm there was not any company briefing to the operating crews and not any private or casual discussions.

[megan]

The controllers clearly offered him a radar let down right before he elected to go down VMC

Have you looked at a map and seen where the airline letdown procedure was in relation to the radar. The problem was likely that the aircraft would be too close and too high. Coming down the sound they would have been miles away.The person in charge of McMurdo said that radar would not have been available, nor capable, for surveillance in the sector the airline designated for descent. Are you suggesting he didn't know what the capabilities of his radar was? Or are you suggesting they were somewhat economical with the truth ie lied?

The same radar was also used for the PAR approach, so it may have been that the azimuth portion was centred on traffic coming down the sound to the Bryd waypoint to feed traffic into the PAR. In the PAR mode the azimuth only swept plus/minus 15°. I've asked experts on the radar what it's capabilities were, as it was widely used by the RAAF in the past. No reply as yet.

transferred this to a topo

Must have taken his own topo, as Collins was never issued with one, I don't think the other flights were either (not checked categorically).

[framer]

3 Holer.
You've interpreted my post incorrectly. Fantome might be able to help as he seems to be expert with language.
A comment from you on Delziell's crew plotting from the INS would be appropriate.

[PapaHotel6]

The same radar was also used for the PAR approach, so it may have been that the azimuth portion was centred on traffic coming down the sound to the Bryd waypoint to feed traffic into the PAR. In the PAR mode the azimuth only swept plus/minus 15°. I've asked experts on the radar what it's capabilities were, as it was widely used by the RAAF in the past. No reply as yet.

It really, really, doesn't matter. The point is, Captain Collins was offered a radar descent, said "Crikey, that's what we want"...... and then proceeded to descend "VMC" without one. End of story. He never went down the road of ascertaining whether a radar descent would even be possible.

3 Holer.
You've interpreted my post incorrectly. Fantome might be able to help as he seems to be expert with language.
A comment from you on Delziell's crew plotting from the INS would be appropriate.

3-Holer will simply say "Mahon, guided by the erudite wisdom of Vette, is uncontested...crew made no error... but he never said they were blameless....not that they were in any way to blame either.......", but I'm going to go in to bat for Collins here. Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, continual plotting from the INS onto a topo would have added a layer of safety and probably would have saved the aircraft. But to do so was not a regulation or SOP; no crew member offered to do it, so the fact that Collins did not do so doesn't make him negligent - it just makes Dalziell, to his credit, extra vigilant.

The chain of errors Collins made has been well described. I don't think that the absence of continual plotting on a topo is one of them.

[ampan]

As regards topographic maps, here's NZMS135:


https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=nz...3o_TSlhbKxM%3A


At they briefing, they were given a photocopy of the inset.


At despatch on the morning of the flight, they were given the whole chart.


Captain Collins atlas, which he probably studied the night before, was the same was the whole chart but obviously reduced in size to fit inside the atlas.

[3 Holer]

You guys are incredible:

3 Holer.
You've interpreted my post incorrectly.

So you now need Fantome to help you with the english language. If you can't explain yourself framer, what chance have others got of trying to decipher your posts? Look up the meaning of the word exonerate in a dictionary, it does not apply to Collins.

but I'm going to go in to bat for Collins here.

I am sure he'll be really thrilled about that PapaHotel6. On the evidence, I believe Collins was descending VMC and unless you were in the cockpit, you can not argue otherwise.

the aircraft should have requested, and been cleared for, a “visual approach.” Instead, the clearance was for a “descent maintaining VMC,” which means “visual meteorological conditions,” that is, clear of clouds and with good visibility. Since the requirements for maintaining VMC are similar to those for a visual approach this anomaly was not a factor in the accident.

[PapaHotel6]

On the evidence, I believe Collins was descending VMC

Yes, we know.

unless you were in the cockpit, you can not argue otherwise

Why?? Because we weren't there, and he said he was VMC, we have to discount all evidence to the contrary (like the clouds everywhere, the fact he kept arming the INS, never mentioned Mt. Bird which should have been nearby) and just give him the benefit of the doubt?? Sorry, but no.

But you are right in that we will never know with certainty. That is why even if Collins saw the horizon and was clear of cloud the whole way down, the case against him based on the facts (that I listed earlier) still stands

[jack red]

the case against him based on the facts

There was never a case against him. Re-read the Mahon report and this time, try to comprehend the findings. Please.

[PapaHotel6]

There was never a case against him.

Can we please stop trying to make arguments based on semantics? It's tiresome, wastes time and everyone can see right through it. Okay, there was never a case against him in a court of law - because he was dead - but there is definitely an argument to be made that he is culpable.

Re-read the Mahon report and this time, try to comprehend the findings. Please.

Thanks, but I've read it sufficient times to know I understand and disagree with the findings. What specific findings are you suggesting I don't comprehend?

[ampan]

False Horizon

From page 69 of Mahon's report:


"We asked Mr Shannon whether the overcast extended forward would form an illusory horizon in the distance at a point where it me the snow-covered rising ground. Mr Shannon said he though not. He said that in such conditions the almost invariable effect is that the underside of the overcast turns white so that there would be no horizon at."


And Mr Shannon was right, but Mahon omitted any further reference to Mr Shannon's views, because they didn't suit. This is a video of an aircraft landing in Antartica, in clear air, in a sector white-out. There is no visible horizon until the aircraft is almost on the ground, and even then it's barely discernable.


http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/191...ml#post6996814

[framer]

So you now need Fantome to help you with the english language. If you can't explain yourself framer, what chance have others got of trying to decipher your posts? Look up the meaning of the word exonerate in a dictionary, it does not apply to Collins.

3 Holer, everyone else appears to have interpreted my post as I intended, which is that Collins made mistakes, and requests for the crew to be exonerated ( by P Holmes , politicians, yourself etc etc) are inappropriate. I have never suggested that Collins would want to be exonerated .
You should probably concede that you were wrong to suggest that no Captain other than Captain God could have prevented the crash. Just look at it like losing a battle but the war goes on. Every time you are pressed on something you don't have an answer for you play the man not the ball. It's quite revealing really.
Cheerio

[3 Holer]

ampan

Mahon omitted any further reference to Mr Shannon's views, because they didn't suit.

If you had continued reading para.169 on page 70, you will find your statement incorrect.

.“Mr Shannon was not very interested in the cross – talk which was taking place behind the pilots. He said he drew the conclusion that neither the pilot nor the co-pilot entertained the slightest apprehension at any stage, and he drew the further conclusion that each of them was perfectly satisfied as to the course and position of the aircraft.”

Would that be because the crew thought they were flying over the flat, safe waters of McMurdo Sound? Absolutely it would.
PapahHotel6

I understand and disagree with the findings.

So did Air NZ and the Muldoon government and in a democracy, this is a basic human right known as freedom of speech. However, you have other people in the community that understand and AGREE with those findings. Are they not entitled to the same right of freedom of speech?
Nothing is going to change. This debate (I use that term loosely) will possibly go on for another forty years and no amount of postulation will convince either party they are wrong.

[3 Holer]

framer please look up the definition for the word exonerate.
Dancing on people's graves is not a war it's puerile. Re-read some of your posts and maybe you will reconsider your "war and battle" scenario.

Whilst you have the dictionary open, have a look at the meaning of the word "metaphorical" and see if you can see how my reference to Captain God may fit into the context of my post. If you still think I am playing the man, then I think Fantome is going to have his work cut out.

[prospector]

I, and many others, are more in agreement with the OFFICIAL report, rather than an opinion

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.

[ampan]

3 holer: Perhaps I should have said "Mahan omitted any further reference to Mr Shannon's views [about the absence of a false horizon], because it didn't suit." (although I would have though that was implicit.)


What the captain saw in front of him was as shown in the above video: no horizon, inside a ping-pong ball. He should have been out straight away. But he had his nav track, so he locked the aircraft back onto it, and Mahon approved, noting that the AINS was never wrong. That was one of the dumbest of his many stupid findings, given what occurred.

[PapaHotel6]

I understand and disagree with the findings.

So did Air NZ and the Muldoon government and in a democracy, this is a basic human right known as freedom of speech. However, you have other people in the community that understand and AGREE with those findings. Are they not entitled to the same right of freedom of speech?

Absolutely. Did I ever imply otherwise?? I was simply replying to jack red who accused me of "not comprehending' Mahon's findings.

Nothing is going to change. This debate (I use that term loosely) will possibly go on for another forty years and no amount of postulation will convince either party they are wrong.

It could well go on for another forty years. However people can change their minds. For twenty five years I myself had the same revered view of Mahon and his opinions that you seem to. I now see them as incompetent at best, manipulative and slightly evil at worst.

What the captain saw in front of him was as shown in the above video: no horizon, inside a ping-pong ball. He should have been out straight away. But he had his nav track, so he locked the aircraft back onto it, and Mahon approved, noting that the AINS was never wrong. That was one of the dumbest of his many stupid findings, given what occurred.

Agreed. The way he said "anecdotally pilots had found the AINS to be extremely accurate, therefore Collins was justified in his complete faith in it" almost defies belief. And it never dawns on him that it's not just the AINS as a piece of equipment we're talking about - but the whole system including training, system redundancy, the process of data loading etc. etc.