Erebus 25 years on
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The decision to leave FL160 without proper visual reference was stupid and ultimately fatal
And if they had been where they (supposedly) thought they were, still stupid and still possibly fatal - only the never referenced Mt. Bird might've been the relevant obstacle.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ON TOP OF OLD SMOKEY
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A month has passed, in silence. Astonishing. Who would seek the final word anyway? Cut away thirty-seven years of fatuous comment and we are typically left with such brilliant summation as "stupid and ultimately fatal". Is he absolutely certain about this? On both counts?
Refer earlier post referencing the book "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert Thouless.
Refer earlier post referencing the book "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert Thouless.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps someone could explain to me why there was a minimum altitude of 16000. Do you think it would have been there id the highest terrain was 1000 feet? Obviously the CAA didn't want people going below the highest terrain level. Any idea why? Well, in hindsight, we know why. Screwups happen and that is what happened on that day with the route. The 16000' altitude was designed to prevent a mountain being flown into if there was a screwup.
Since when does someone else breaking the rules mean that it is not your fault if you do the same and as a result a further happening leads to an accident that would not have happened if you had followed the rules.
If I had been captain on that DC-10, I almost certainly would have gone down lower for a better view as well(at least on a nice day). But, I also acknowledge that I would be at fault if I had hit terrain or had some other incident which would not have happened above the MSA. Why are so many excuses made to absolve responsibility. The decision to descend below the MSA was one of the direct causes of this accident regardless of whether they were visual or not.
Since when does someone else breaking the rules mean that it is not your fault if you do the same and as a result a further happening leads to an accident that would not have happened if you had followed the rules.
If I had been captain on that DC-10, I almost certainly would have gone down lower for a better view as well(at least on a nice day). But, I also acknowledge that I would be at fault if I had hit terrain or had some other incident which would not have happened above the MSA. Why are so many excuses made to absolve responsibility. The decision to descend below the MSA was one of the direct causes of this accident regardless of whether they were visual or not.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some might recall that National Geographic's "Air Crash Investigation" was to do an episode on Erebus - but years have passed, with nothing. Why? Because no-one will risk their credibility by supporting Mahon. The man was, and still is, an idiot.
mercy me .. why bother to rise to take the bait? silly me
once again as the stuck needle on the pathetic record repeats itself . . . where is the respect? .. even if begrudging?
Where is the common decency that affords a mark of respect to the deceased?
.
who but a complete drongo clown rooster and braying donkey would continue on and on to malign the names and the characters of Justice Peter Mahon and Captain Gordon Vette ?
Be it never forgotten that the highly esteemed Mr Ron Chippindale was found guilty of doctoring the transcripts; was he not? He may have been evil in that instance, but never was he an idiot.
The man was, and still is, an idiot.
Where is the common decency that affords a mark of respect to the deceased?
.
who but a complete drongo clown rooster and braying donkey would continue on and on to malign the names and the characters of Justice Peter Mahon and Captain Gordon Vette ?
Be it never forgotten that the highly esteemed Mr Ron Chippindale was found guilty of doctoring the transcripts; was he not? He may have been evil in that instance, but never was he an idiot.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be it never forgotten that the highly esteemed Mr Ron Chippindale was found guilty of doctoring the transcripts; was he not?
Chippindale listen to the CVR, and made his own interpretation. He always maintained that he was able to hear comments that didn't make it onto the Washington transcript. This in itself isn't unreasonable; that Chippindale who was familiar with New Zealand vernacular may well have provided a more valid interpretation of the recording than the Washington team, who at the end of the day were just another set of ears.
Chippindale wasn't as transparent about this as he could have been, and this was a major failing. But to use language like "doctored the transcripts" isn't accurate.
This in itself isn't unreasonable; that Chippindale who was familiar with New Zealand vernacular may well have provided a more valid interpretation of the recording than the Washington team, who at the end of the day were just another set of ears.
As well as the Inspector of Air Accidents (NZ), the team members consisted of the airline’s Fleet Manager DC10, Captain Barney Wyatt, the Chief Flight Engineer DC10, Don Olliff, and a representative from the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association, DC10 Captain Arthur Cooper. These three were employed by the airline and well acquainted with the accident flight crew. To carry out the transcription this team took the working copy of the CVR tape to the American National Transportation Safety Board audio laboratory in Washington DC. Prior to commencing their task they received specialised training in the audio transcription protocols from NTSB flight recorder specialists and FBI audio technicians.
Taken from Gary Parata's article, it would seem the 'team' would have been well versed with the New Zealand vernacular. He should never have been allowed to make those 55 changes to the transcript, at least not without a discussion and the agreement of the original team, they were not even aware of the changes until the report came out? He leaves himself wide open to accusations of changing the transcript to suit his conclusions.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He should never have been allowed to make those 55 changes to the transcript, at least not without a discussion and the agreement of the original team, they were not even aware of the changes until the report came out? He leaves himself wide open to accusations of changing the transcript to suit his conclusions.
It seems to me the tragedy here (apart from the crash itself) is that this has never had the investigation it deserves. Chippindale made a couple of errors of process (but I believe his conclusions were ultimately correct). Mahon was lead off on a tangent of fantasy by Vette and ALPA. Which leaves us still vehemently debating the issues today.
doc¦tor
[ˈdɒktə]
VERB
change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify
Since no one knows Chippindale's reason, and given the unsavoury aspects surrounding the entire affair to ensure the crew were found to be entirely at fault, the claim is not beyond the realm of possibility. That shrinking violet Muldoon was in power after all. To paraphrase, It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is New Zealand national interest.
[ˈdɒktə]
VERB
change the content or appearance of (a document or picture) in order to deceive; falsify
But to say he "was found guilty of doctoring the transcript" is incorrect.
Whispering "T" Jet
The Honourable Justice Peter Mahon's Royal Commission of Inquiry's conclusions and findings have been tabled, unabridged and original, in the New Zealand Parliament. This means the cause of the accident remains, now(again)official, as found during the inquiry and that Mahon got it 100% correct.It makes outstanding reading from the Hansard.
Love being back, if only for one reply !!!!!
Love being back, if only for one reply !!!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
From John King publication, which covers this situation very well.
The decision to carry out the descent the way it was carried out was entirely up to the crew. Not one of the mandatory requirements for descent as laid down in the memorandum from the Company to Antarctic crew was complied with.
It is more than mere semantics. An IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) Flight plan does not mention any descent procedures, which are a separate issue altogether and operated in accordance with weather and other traffic at the destination at the time of arrival, factors impossible to foresee during planning. The descent procedures were covered by the memorandum to all Antarctic aircrew and the flight plan had nothing to do with the sightseeing aspect of the flight, yet the navigation section was blamed for just that. Pilots operate their aircraft in all three dimensions, by no means the least of which is height.Sixteen thousand feet is well above the highest point in the McMurdo area, whereas 1,500ft will not clear much terrain at all, particularly in the whiteout-inducing weather conditions which prevailed when the DC10 arrived but which the aircrew had been told very little about by the airline, simply because at the specified MSA there was no risk of hitting anything.
Not one of the mandatory requirements for descent as laid down in the memorandum from the Company to Antarctic crew was complied with.
Guest
Posts: n/a
You forgot to add "by any crew" (as far as can be elicited).
That may be, or by my interpretation,.would not be correct.
The requirements for descent for this flight were
This was referred to in a Company memorandum to Antarctic crews<OAA: 14/13/28 dated 8th November 1979, headed McMurdo NDB not available, it was succinct and unambiguous.
Delete all reference to briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 (16,000ft) as follows.
Delete all reference to briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 (16,000ft) as follows.
You will no doubt note the date of this memorandum, well after all the previous flights.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then the mandatory requirements are spelled out, as has been stated many times in this thread, not one of which was complied with. If even one had been complied with the disaster would have been avoided.
You will no doubt note the date of this memorandum, well after all the previous flights.
You will no doubt note the date of this memorandum, well after all the previous flights.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That being the case, you have just confirmed that Mahon was correct in his conclusion that the flaws in Air NZ's administration etc,. contributed to the cause.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whiskery, If what you said "
", then it might be possible to accept Mahons theories as holding some water, but that is not what he stated.
He puts the blame entirely on the Company and further states that
That statement by Justice Mahon is, to many people involved in the aviation world, manifestly wrong.
contributed to the cause
He puts the blame entirely on the Company and further states that
": 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"
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That statement by Justice Mahon is, to many people involved in the aviation world, manifestly wrong.
I agree with Mahon in that the Flight Engineers made no error that contributed to the disaster. If Collins had possesed some situational awareness, and listened to Brooks "where's Erebus in relation to us at the moment/high ground in the area/I don't like this" there might well have not been a disaster. If I was a surviving member of the Brooks family, I would be harbouring one hell of a lot of resentment towards Collins.
Could Gordon Brooks have done better? Instead of simply saying "I don't like this" should he have said "For ****'s sake Jim, these conditions aren't VFR, get out of 1500'"? I don't believe so. That guy wasn't happy, and he did his bit to protect the flight.
Whispering "T" Jet
An argument which has been well won on this forum many times over.
