Erebus 25 years on
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Desert Dingo,
Couldn't agree with you more. The crew THOUGHT that they were in VMC conditions. They were not INTENTIONALLY ignoring visual descent requirements. Prospector doesn't seem to understand that basic point.
If NO ONE at Air NZ was aware of sector whiteout, what the hell were they doing there and why did the NZ CAA give them approval to conduct flights to Antarctia? "No one does it better!"
Couldn't agree with you more. The crew THOUGHT that they were in VMC conditions. They were not INTENTIONALLY ignoring visual descent requirements. Prospector doesn't seem to understand that basic point.
If NO ONE at Air NZ was aware of sector whiteout, what the hell were they doing there and why did the NZ CAA give them approval to conduct flights to Antarctia? "No one does it better!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
How many times!!!!
Read at least requirement No 3 above. It gives no leeway for inventing a personal descent profile, it is very specific, and as it states it is there to avoid Mt Erebus.
I say again and again, this was a mandatory requirement by the owners of the aircraft and CAA, if it had been complied with, no matter what the weather, the aircraft would not have impacted Mt Erebus.
Surely the requirement to get the pax and the aircraft home safely was of more importance than breaking all the rules to see a landscape a bit closer, in an area that is known for great visibility.
Front Pit,
"It’s also amazing, and quite appalling that some here wish to dance on the graves of Jim Collins & Greg Cassin for not actually seeing an optical illusion!!………. What a prospect!"
Actually I find that statement quite disgusting, uncalled for and completely without foundation
Read at least requirement No 3 above. It gives no leeway for inventing a personal descent profile, it is very specific, and as it states it is there to avoid Mt Erebus.
I say again and again, this was a mandatory requirement by the owners of the aircraft and CAA, if it had been complied with, no matter what the weather, the aircraft would not have impacted Mt Erebus.
Surely the requirement to get the pax and the aircraft home safely was of more importance than breaking all the rules to see a landscape a bit closer, in an area that is known for great visibility.
Front Pit,
"It’s also amazing, and quite appalling that some here wish to dance on the graves of Jim Collins & Greg Cassin for not actually seeing an optical illusion!!………. What a prospect!"
Actually I find that statement quite disgusting, uncalled for and completely without foundation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dunrootin Retirement Village
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touchy
Front Pit,
"It’s also amazing, and quite appalling that some here wish to dance on the graves of Jim Collins & Greg Cassin for not actually seeing an optical illusion!!………. What a prospect!"
Actually I find that statement quite disgusting, uncalled for and completely without foundation
"It’s also amazing, and quite appalling that some here wish to dance on the graves of Jim Collins & Greg Cassin for not actually seeing an optical illusion!!………. What a prospect!"
Actually I find that statement quite disgusting, uncalled for and completely without foundation
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the company had not given the Captain incorrect information he would not have flown into the mountain.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with 400rulz. There were about half a dozen requirements as to when the flight could descend below MSA and they had to have all of them, which they didn't. To say that they could descend below MSA in an area of terrain safe in the knowledge that the FM put them close to a mountain when it actually put them over it is garbage. Either way they were trying VFR below MSA without meeting the company requirements.
Mahon looked at what happened after descent below a safe altitude, not at why they were down there in the first place. Chippendale said that if they had abided by the SOP's, irrespective of where the plan had them going the aircraft would have remained safe. Mahon leaned heavily on explaining the white out phenomena, and Gordon Vette did amazing work in showing plenty of us a phenomena we had little experience with. But Mahon spent little time looking at the fact that the US military wanted nothing to do with the flights and cited a number of reasons why, with the unusual Antarctic met conditions being one of them.
Commercial pressures angle was garbage, the company had (has) an AOC and legally flies the aircraft from the procedures the CAA has based the AOC on. If the skipper want to go outside of these, he need good reason to do so. Giving the punters a good show is rarely one of them.
There is no way AirNZ at the time thought their procedures in flying a widebody to LA could easily accomodate VFR at the south pole. No doubt when planning sat down to put together a route guide they put in place a bunch of draconian requirements for VFR descent below MSA when down there.
If Collins et al had stayed above MSA the punters wouldn't have got much of a show, sales and marketing would have been told this by a bunch of unhappy customers, marketing would have then moaned to flt ops who would have said "sorry that's the best we can safely do" and after a few more, the flights would have been canned and we would be remembering the 10 for what a nice plane it was to operate instead of this.
It really is that simple.
Mahon looked at what happened after descent below a safe altitude, not at why they were down there in the first place. Chippendale said that if they had abided by the SOP's, irrespective of where the plan had them going the aircraft would have remained safe. Mahon leaned heavily on explaining the white out phenomena, and Gordon Vette did amazing work in showing plenty of us a phenomena we had little experience with. But Mahon spent little time looking at the fact that the US military wanted nothing to do with the flights and cited a number of reasons why, with the unusual Antarctic met conditions being one of them.
Commercial pressures angle was garbage, the company had (has) an AOC and legally flies the aircraft from the procedures the CAA has based the AOC on. If the skipper want to go outside of these, he need good reason to do so. Giving the punters a good show is rarely one of them.
There is no way AirNZ at the time thought their procedures in flying a widebody to LA could easily accomodate VFR at the south pole. No doubt when planning sat down to put together a route guide they put in place a bunch of draconian requirements for VFR descent below MSA when down there.
If Collins et al had stayed above MSA the punters wouldn't have got much of a show, sales and marketing would have been told this by a bunch of unhappy customers, marketing would have then moaned to flt ops who would have said "sorry that's the best we can safely do" and after a few more, the flights would have been canned and we would be remembering the 10 for what a nice plane it was to operate instead of this.
It really is that simple.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Not as simple as that by any means, have a look at the definition of mandatory, that is what the descent requirements were, not make up your own descent profile, vmc or otherwise. And the descent profile that was required was designed to ensure that nobody flew into Erebus. The requirements were ignored with the results obvious. It matters not a whit that other crew had gone lower, they all complied with at least some of the requirements, including being identified on McMurdo radar. And they did not fly into Erebus.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I go spending $10 or more with CASA for a copy is anyone able to direct me to a copy of Chippendales report on line (have all the books etc but never seen the report)? Searched the usual suspects with no joy. Thanks in advance, Brian
Guest
Posts: n/a
It used to be available from the TAIC web, but it would appear to have been deleted for some reason.
Not even google comes up with anything on Flt 901, NZP, accident report 79-139. compiled by Ron Chippendale. Wonder why??
Not even google comes up with anything on Flt 901, NZP, accident report 79-139. compiled by Ron Chippendale. Wonder why??
Last edited by prospector; 25th Jan 2008 at 23:07.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZWN New Zealand
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Adding my tuppence worth... The truth lies somewhere between both extreme positions here.
Pilots acted unwisely and did not consider or comprehend why if they were so close to McMurdo why they could not raise them on line of sight VHF.
On the other hand Air NZ screwed up with wrong INS co-ordinates giving crew a false sense of comfort.
There was obviously too, an element of management tolerance about not following SOPs.
Prospector asked:
At the time of the enquiry, not only as Casper pointed out were the homes of pilots broken into (presumably by the NZ SIS on behalf Air NZ under Muldoon's instructions), but also according to my friend at the time, Tim Mahon son of Peter Mahon, the judge's house was also broken into.
Remember that in 1977 the SIS Ammendment Act was passed prohibiting publication of SIS activities, so what we had here was a politician abusing an instrument of state for political reasons and using statutory secrecy to conceal the facts.
Tim told me the only things taken from his father's house were papers relating to the Erebus enquiry.
That is why the phrase "orchestrated litany of lies" continues to hold currency. Because sadly, Prospector Mahon was right too.
Pilots were wrong on the day, but they were also corporate fall guys for a corporate which failed to properly manage this aviation goldmine and their drunkard CEO and a bombastic Prime Minister were unwilling to accept some of the responsibility (or financial liability) which rested with the airline.
Pilots acted unwisely and did not consider or comprehend why if they were so close to McMurdo why they could not raise them on line of sight VHF.
On the other hand Air NZ screwed up with wrong INS co-ordinates giving crew a false sense of comfort.
There was obviously too, an element of management tolerance about not following SOPs.
Prospector asked:
The statement "Orchestrated litany of lies" has been shot down by so many people, including Mahons peers, his superiors, and up to the Privy Council, it is hard to understand why it is still quoted.
Remember that in 1977 the SIS Ammendment Act was passed prohibiting publication of SIS activities, so what we had here was a politician abusing an instrument of state for political reasons and using statutory secrecy to conceal the facts.
Tim told me the only things taken from his father's house were papers relating to the Erebus enquiry.
That is why the phrase "orchestrated litany of lies" continues to hold currency. Because sadly, Prospector Mahon was right too.
Pilots were wrong on the day, but they were also corporate fall guys for a corporate which failed to properly manage this aviation goldmine and their drunkard CEO and a bombastic Prime Minister were unwilling to accept some of the responsibility (or financial liability) which rested with the airline.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, they didn't because their aircraft was programmed to fly up McMurdo Sound NOT directly at Mt Erebus.
You allow little room for nav or baro or wind error.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Here. Over here.
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here we go again
Jackred you appear to have a slight grasp on MSA so allow me. Whether they flew up mcMurdo sound or around McMurdo sound or baked a cake and called it McMurdo Sound there was a rather large hill nearby that raised the MSA for the area. Unfortunately it isn't enough to look on the track on the chart and then decide a safe altitude for yourself based on how close the track line passes to the terrain the MSA is based upon.
The airline briefing notes stated “ if VMC cannot be maintained, FL160 is the Minimum Safe Altitude.” Even Chippindale’s report states “He was not violating any local restriction by descending to 1500 feet in VMC”
Anyone care to explain how the NZ regulations require flight above the MSA when operating in VMC?
Anyone care to explain how the NZ regulations require flight above the MSA when operating in VMC?
Guest
Posts: n/a
And who has not got a grasp on a mandatory requirement? Got nothing to do with NZ regulations. VMC descents or whatever.
This was the requirement for descent on that flight,
Delete all reference in briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 to 6,000ft as follows.
1. Vis 20 Km plus.
2. No snow showers in area.
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 degrees Grid through 360 degrees grid to 270 degrees grid from McMurdo Field, within 20nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be co-ordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area
This was the requirement for descent on that flight,
Delete all reference in briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 to 6,000ft as follows.
1. Vis 20 Km plus.
2. No snow showers in area.
3. Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 degrees Grid through 360 degrees grid to 270 degrees grid from McMurdo Field, within 20nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be co-ordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area