Erebus 25 years on
Guest
Posts: n/a
How do you come to that conclusion when the photographic evidence says otherwise?
It was obviously VMC out to the West where the flight was advised to go, and behind them, that showed up Beaufort Island, but why no photo to the south, could it be that no one wanted to waste film taking shots of cloud?
Last edited by prospector; 5th Jul 2016 at 03:20.
Whispering "T" Jet
who apparently were getting hate letters for years after the crash
but why no photo to the south
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megan #1040:
Can I first say how much I admire your youthful curiosity. The VMC issue has two parts: (1) Was he actually VMC? (2) Did he believe he was VMC?
As to (1), the answer is obviously 'no', given what happened. As to (2), the photos, I accept, show that the aircraft was flying in clear air and was not flying in cloud. But that assumes that Captain Collins knew nothing of sector whiteout. Not true: 5 years at Wigram, a recent visit to operation Deep Freeze and, most importantly: "Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice." Fifteen minutes later he's between the cloud and the ice declaring that he's VMC. The only word for that is "pretending".
Can I first say how much I admire your youthful curiosity. The VMC issue has two parts: (1) Was he actually VMC? (2) Did he believe he was VMC?
As to (1), the answer is obviously 'no', given what happened. As to (2), the photos, I accept, show that the aircraft was flying in clear air and was not flying in cloud. But that assumes that Captain Collins knew nothing of sector whiteout. Not true: 5 years at Wigram, a recent visit to operation Deep Freeze and, most importantly: "Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice." Fifteen minutes later he's between the cloud and the ice declaring that he's VMC. The only word for that is "pretending".
Guest
Posts: n/a
..
I would suggest you get with the program. Have you seen the actual descent plot as against where they thought they were? There were two race track patterns flown during the descent, the first one was very close to Ross Island, yet no photo of Mt Erebus or Ross Island. And the presentation was from both sides, like I have said, who wants to take photos of cloud?
.
.
They would have to have been taken from the cockpit. Get with the program, that comment was made before. Pity we can't get the crew to verify.
.
.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Holer said
That's pure gold right there. 3 Holer has contradicted Mahon. Someone had better call the crisis line (or at least send them an email flagged with high importance) because Mr Holer will be sobbing onto his framed Mahon portrait about to end it all.
Darn I'm at LHR otherwise I could find the page reference from Mahon's book. Mahon made a big deal about the absence of photographs to the south as if if were some big mystery - noting, correctly, that there would have been four opportunities for photographs to the south during the descending orbits. He hinted of yet another big conspiracy, as if Gemmell had somehow removed all the photos of the south from the crash site. Why the obvious reason there were no photos to the south - ie. because we know it was pretty much a solid wall of cloud from cruise altitude down (if not, they would've seen the mountain) and passengers didn't want to waste film on cloud didn't occur to him, is just another example of Mahon's blinkered-ness.
Ampan #1043 - absolutely. Collins's comment says it all. He knew exactly the problems associated with flying above ice below a cloud layer.
They would have to have been taken from the cockpit. Get with the program, that comment was made before. Pity we can't get the crew to verify.
Darn I'm at LHR otherwise I could find the page reference from Mahon's book. Mahon made a big deal about the absence of photographs to the south as if if were some big mystery - noting, correctly, that there would have been four opportunities for photographs to the south during the descending orbits. He hinted of yet another big conspiracy, as if Gemmell had somehow removed all the photos of the south from the crash site. Why the obvious reason there were no photos to the south - ie. because we know it was pretty much a solid wall of cloud from cruise altitude down (if not, they would've seen the mountain) and passengers didn't want to waste film on cloud didn't occur to him, is just another example of Mahon's blinkered-ness.
Ampan #1043 - absolutely. Collins's comment says it all. He knew exactly the problems associated with flying above ice below a cloud layer.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Whether they were VMC legally, or not, still begs the question who in their right mind would be scud running, 1,500ft right on the cloud base, and not to go below 260kts, in an area you have never been to before, yet must know about the vagaries of the Antarctic weather, and your main navigation system being AINS that was not cleared for ops below MSA and yet, according to Mahon, it was the fault of the Company for programming the aircraft to fly into Mt Erebus?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would be scud running, 1,500ft right on the cloud base
Guest
Posts: n/a
Where do you get all this information from?
Here we go again.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly ironically - the most massive "assumptive, presumptive" leap of faith in all of this is Vette's "false horizon" hypothesis, which there is scant circumstantial evidence for at best. Yet it was embraced by Mahon and it's so often quoted as if it were fact.
Whispering "T" Jet
You facing an uphill battle Whiskery. I ask the same questions over & over & over again. I call it poetic licence!
Can we return to the debate sometime soon, please?
Can we return to the debate sometime soon, please?
And you get the same answers with irrefutable evidence, over and over and over again.
The VMC issue has two parts: (1) Was he actually VMC? (2) Did he believe he was VMC?
As to (1), the answer is obviously 'no', given what happened.
As to (1), the answer is obviously 'no', given what happened.
Captain Collins knew nothing of sector whiteout. Not true
Chippindale again,
RCU Briefing failure: A comprehensive discussion of the visual phenomenon peculiar to the Antarctic, i.e. the whiteout conditions, which might be anticipated with overcast sky and snow covered terrain below.
Whiteout phenomenon. The following detailed information was included in authenticated information supplied to the investigating team by the USN Antarctic Support force. Whiteout is an atmospheric effect which results in loss of depth perception and is especially common in Polar regions when there is snow cover. Only two conditions are necessary to produce a whiteout, a diffuse shadowless illumination and a mono-coloured white surface. Whiteout, it must be emphasised, is not necessarily associated with precipitation or fog or haze. The condition may occur in a crystal clear atmosphere or under a cloud ceiling with ample comfortable light and in a visual field filled with trees, huts, oil drums and other small objects.
1.17.47 In Polar regions these conditions occur frequently. Large unbroken expanses of snow are illuminated by a sky overcast with dense, low stratus clouds that blot out all trace of surface texture or shadow and merge hollows and snow covered objects into a flattened white background. In addition, cloud and sky may have the same apparent colour, so horizon discrimination is lost and the ground plane disappears. Whiteouts also occur in water or ice fog, blowing snow or precipitation conditions.
1.17.48 Those who have not been exposed to whiteout are often sceptical about the inability of those who have experienced it, to estimate distance under these conditions, (and to be aware of terrain changes and the separation of sky and earth).
1.17.49 The probable reason for the diffuse lighting which is responsible for a whiteout is a complex process where a large percentage of the light which penetrates the cloud cover is reflected back by the snow, and similarly is reflected by the white cloud undersurface, and so on. The transmission and reflection paths which this system develops are most complex as they pass from one water droplet or ice crystal to another through the cloud and are then reflected by the myriads of ice mirrors tilted in all directions on the snow surface. The consequence is that the light is diffused and results in a white shadowless lighting effect.
1.17.50 For the person operating on the ground, whiteout may only be a nuisance in that he may stumble and fall on terrain which appears to be flat but which actually has undulations. In crossing ice, crevasses may be missed.
1.17.51 For the pilot of the fixed wing aircraft there are several hazardous losses of perception. First there is the effect of loss of horizon, where it becomes impossible or very difficult to separate sky from earth since both are the same colour and to establish a ground plane. The result on an attempted landing may be misjudgement of the approach or a stall well above the surface, or else the pilot may fly the aircraft “into the ground”.
1.17.52 A second major problem for pilots who must operate in winter with snow or ice landings where to strip exists is that they will have considerable difficulty assessing the condition of the terrain and determining whether it is flat or hummocky. They may, in landing encounter hummocks which cannot be avoided since they are literally not visible, and damage the aircraft and/or suffer injuries.
1.17.53 A third hazard reported by many pilots is disorientation, especially occurring on take off, where features such as trees which are providing a ground plane referenced are lost as the aircraft turns away from them and the pilot suddenly encounters a complete loss of references and height and altitude perception leading to disorientation.
1.17.54 Some flyers have also reported a phenomenon known as the “floating air strip”, where a dark or black runway appears to be floating well above the apparent ground level once again resulting in disorientation.
1.17.55 One other hazard is the effect caused by dark coloured rocks or ridges visible above the snow, which may give the impression that good contrast conditions exist, resulting in a landing attempt on terrain which is not suitable for the purpose, but which due to the whiteout effect appears to be safe since the pilot has not realised that the dark colour of the rocks is giving the illusion of contrast.
1.17.56 The helicopter pilot is faced often with difficulty in estimating his distance above ground and establishing his attitude. A combination of loose snow with the characteristic snow cloud plus whiteout can make helicopter operations difficult.
1.17.57 In addition, a commonly reported problem is a loss of distance judgement or perception and it becomes difficult to estimate whether a perceived hill or hummock is a distant hill or a small protrusion a few feet away.
1.17.58 One of the most critical effects of a whiteout is a loss of height perception and this appears to be a problem for pilots during aircraft turns especially if there are marginally visible references.
Whiteout conditions can exist within the normal VMC minima and even in the conditions defined by ANZ as the minima for VMC descents to 6,000 feet.
Whiteout phenomenon. The following detailed information was included in authenticated information supplied to the investigating team by the USN Antarctic Support force. Whiteout is an atmospheric effect which results in loss of depth perception and is especially common in Polar regions when there is snow cover. Only two conditions are necessary to produce a whiteout, a diffuse shadowless illumination and a mono-coloured white surface. Whiteout, it must be emphasised, is not necessarily associated with precipitation or fog or haze. The condition may occur in a crystal clear atmosphere or under a cloud ceiling with ample comfortable light and in a visual field filled with trees, huts, oil drums and other small objects.
1.17.47 In Polar regions these conditions occur frequently. Large unbroken expanses of snow are illuminated by a sky overcast with dense, low stratus clouds that blot out all trace of surface texture or shadow and merge hollows and snow covered objects into a flattened white background. In addition, cloud and sky may have the same apparent colour, so horizon discrimination is lost and the ground plane disappears. Whiteouts also occur in water or ice fog, blowing snow or precipitation conditions.
1.17.48 Those who have not been exposed to whiteout are often sceptical about the inability of those who have experienced it, to estimate distance under these conditions, (and to be aware of terrain changes and the separation of sky and earth).
1.17.49 The probable reason for the diffuse lighting which is responsible for a whiteout is a complex process where a large percentage of the light which penetrates the cloud cover is reflected back by the snow, and similarly is reflected by the white cloud undersurface, and so on. The transmission and reflection paths which this system develops are most complex as they pass from one water droplet or ice crystal to another through the cloud and are then reflected by the myriads of ice mirrors tilted in all directions on the snow surface. The consequence is that the light is diffused and results in a white shadowless lighting effect.
1.17.50 For the person operating on the ground, whiteout may only be a nuisance in that he may stumble and fall on terrain which appears to be flat but which actually has undulations. In crossing ice, crevasses may be missed.
1.17.51 For the pilot of the fixed wing aircraft there are several hazardous losses of perception. First there is the effect of loss of horizon, where it becomes impossible or very difficult to separate sky from earth since both are the same colour and to establish a ground plane. The result on an attempted landing may be misjudgement of the approach or a stall well above the surface, or else the pilot may fly the aircraft “into the ground”.
1.17.52 A second major problem for pilots who must operate in winter with snow or ice landings where to strip exists is that they will have considerable difficulty assessing the condition of the terrain and determining whether it is flat or hummocky. They may, in landing encounter hummocks which cannot be avoided since they are literally not visible, and damage the aircraft and/or suffer injuries.
1.17.53 A third hazard reported by many pilots is disorientation, especially occurring on take off, where features such as trees which are providing a ground plane referenced are lost as the aircraft turns away from them and the pilot suddenly encounters a complete loss of references and height and altitude perception leading to disorientation.
1.17.54 Some flyers have also reported a phenomenon known as the “floating air strip”, where a dark or black runway appears to be floating well above the apparent ground level once again resulting in disorientation.
1.17.55 One other hazard is the effect caused by dark coloured rocks or ridges visible above the snow, which may give the impression that good contrast conditions exist, resulting in a landing attempt on terrain which is not suitable for the purpose, but which due to the whiteout effect appears to be safe since the pilot has not realised that the dark colour of the rocks is giving the illusion of contrast.
1.17.56 The helicopter pilot is faced often with difficulty in estimating his distance above ground and establishing his attitude. A combination of loose snow with the characteristic snow cloud plus whiteout can make helicopter operations difficult.
1.17.57 In addition, a commonly reported problem is a loss of distance judgement or perception and it becomes difficult to estimate whether a perceived hill or hummock is a distant hill or a small protrusion a few feet away.
1.17.58 One of the most critical effects of a whiteout is a loss of height perception and this appears to be a problem for pilots during aircraft turns especially if there are marginally visible references.
Whiteout conditions can exist within the normal VMC minima and even in the conditions defined by ANZ as the minima for VMC descents to 6,000 feet.
The following is a Turbo Commander at night in VMC operating below the MSA.
Absolutely no problem with visibility. Could it be he went into the mountain because he couldn't see it? Three adults, three children aged 5 to 9.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who was it who said that youth was wasted on the young? Ithink it was me, just then.
As regards the programming of the simulator, at page 220 of his book, MacFralane quotes part of Captain Johnson’s evidence. Although a lot of Captain Johnson’s evidence was disupted, this bit wasn’t:
“Before commencing the [simulator] exercise the area inertial navigation system was programmed through the computer display unit (CDU) by First Officer Cassin and, to the best of my knowledge, First Officer Gabriel , using a sample manually produced Antarctic flight plan dated 10 October 1977.”
The flight plan is shown at p104, the waypoint being at McMurdo Station.
As to whether he was actually VMC, are you seriously contending that he was? The aircraft was flown into the side of a mountain which, I accept, no-one ever saw. So what more evidence can one possibly need?
Whether he believed he was VMC is slightly more debatable. He certainly knew of the problem, even if he might not have experienced it before –just like you young drivers know of the danger of driving down an unlit country road at night with no headlights, even if you’ve never actually done that. The point is that he correctly identified the visual problem and, again correctly,was going to go elsewhere. Then the offer of the radar assist, which was accepted and announced to the passengers (and F/O Lucas). 15 minutes later, the inexplicable off-the-cuff descent.
It’s not that he didn’t believe he was VMC according to me, or according to Chippindale. It’s that he didn’t believe he was VMC accordingto himself: “Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice.” (A comment conspicuously ignored in Mahon’s report, Mahon’s book, Vette’s book, MacFarlane’s book and Holmes’ book.)
As regards the programming of the simulator, at page 220 of his book, MacFralane quotes part of Captain Johnson’s evidence. Although a lot of Captain Johnson’s evidence was disupted, this bit wasn’t:
“Before commencing the [simulator] exercise the area inertial navigation system was programmed through the computer display unit (CDU) by First Officer Cassin and, to the best of my knowledge, First Officer Gabriel , using a sample manually produced Antarctic flight plan dated 10 October 1977.”
The flight plan is shown at p104, the waypoint being at McMurdo Station.
As to whether he was actually VMC, are you seriously contending that he was? The aircraft was flown into the side of a mountain which, I accept, no-one ever saw. So what more evidence can one possibly need?
Whether he believed he was VMC is slightly more debatable. He certainly knew of the problem, even if he might not have experienced it before –just like you young drivers know of the danger of driving down an unlit country road at night with no headlights, even if you’ve never actually done that. The point is that he correctly identified the visual problem and, again correctly,was going to go elsewhere. Then the offer of the radar assist, which was accepted and announced to the passengers (and F/O Lucas). 15 minutes later, the inexplicable off-the-cuff descent.
It’s not that he didn’t believe he was VMC according to me, or according to Chippindale. It’s that he didn’t believe he was VMC accordingto himself: “Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice.” (A comment conspicuously ignored in Mahon’s report, Mahon’s book, Vette’s book, MacFarlane’s book and Holmes’ book.)
Last edited by ampan; 5th Jul 2016 at 07:32.
Whispering "T" Jet
megan, same as for Whiskery. You are facing an uphill battle. The facts speak for themselves and the rest is pure speculation, unless we can get Jim and his crew back down here sometime to answer some questions.
Mahon got it right. The Privy Council agrees, the New Zealand government agrees and so do most observers of this debate. The others will soon get sick of posting rubbish about VMC, low cloud, poor visibility, photos that don't exist, lazy eights (now that's a new one) and CEOs getting threatening phone calls.(but don't let the police in on them - that's a new one too)
I'm off for a bit of R&R down the Island. Should be two or three pages of same old, same old by the time I get back. The fishing is great.
Mahon got it right. The Privy Council agrees, the New Zealand government agrees and so do most observers of this debate. The others will soon get sick of posting rubbish about VMC, low cloud, poor visibility, photos that don't exist, lazy eights (now that's a new one) and CEOs getting threatening phone calls.(but don't let the police in on them - that's a new one too)
I'm off for a bit of R&R down the Island. Should be two or three pages of same old, same old by the time I get back. The fishing is great.
A side tale...
A number of years ago I was flying (true) northwest toward a particularly barren part of the Antarctic coast from high in the interior. It was seriously SKC, a brilliant day. The vast empty white terrain, bereft of mountains and nunataks, stretched to the horizon in all directions. Ground level was around 7000 feet and falling fast as it does as you near the coast.
Ahead I saw a white sheet of altostratus - around 8000'; we'd been cruising unpressurised above 10k, and were gently descending as the terrain dropped away, hunting the best winds and oxygen.
One of my pax was an aviation forecaster for an major international airline on secondment. Whiteout had obviously been covered in training and we'd talked about it at the bar a few weeks before. I summonsed the forecaster to flight deck, pointed out the cloud ahead and descended to about 7500' (the ground had dropped away further by this stage). We flew along in the bright sunshine and as we went under the edge of the cloud, the forecaster was absolutely speechless for about ten seconds then uttered various exclamations of disbelief. Even though whiteout had been covered in all the classes for forecasters, actually seeing the disorientating bowl of milk outside for real was beyond comprehension.
I pointed out in the 2:45 position some rocky mountains on the coast over 100nm away proving we weren't in cloud. After an hour or so we, along with our slack jawed jumpseater, finally reached our base under the same layer of altostratus.
Whiteout approaches as Megan points out are the "reverse" of black hole approaches. I've also done plenty of black night landings with small kero flares and no horizon or any other lights outside besides those small points of light.
A whiteout landing is just approached the same way, just with the shades reversed - like a film negative. All white outside, no sense of cloud or ground - or height- just a few black dots to tell you where the landing area is.
The major difference is the last thirty feet. At night your lights light up the ground and you flare normally. In a whiteout you can't see the ground. Even from ten feet. In extreme cases, particularly for off field landings, you set up an early very shallow rate of descent and chop the powers when something goes bump.
Ahead I saw a white sheet of altostratus - around 8000'; we'd been cruising unpressurised above 10k, and were gently descending as the terrain dropped away, hunting the best winds and oxygen.
One of my pax was an aviation forecaster for an major international airline on secondment. Whiteout had obviously been covered in training and we'd talked about it at the bar a few weeks before. I summonsed the forecaster to flight deck, pointed out the cloud ahead and descended to about 7500' (the ground had dropped away further by this stage). We flew along in the bright sunshine and as we went under the edge of the cloud, the forecaster was absolutely speechless for about ten seconds then uttered various exclamations of disbelief. Even though whiteout had been covered in all the classes for forecasters, actually seeing the disorientating bowl of milk outside for real was beyond comprehension.
I pointed out in the 2:45 position some rocky mountains on the coast over 100nm away proving we weren't in cloud. After an hour or so we, along with our slack jawed jumpseater, finally reached our base under the same layer of altostratus.
Whiteout approaches as Megan points out are the "reverse" of black hole approaches. I've also done plenty of black night landings with small kero flares and no horizon or any other lights outside besides those small points of light.
A whiteout landing is just approached the same way, just with the shades reversed - like a film negative. All white outside, no sense of cloud or ground - or height- just a few black dots to tell you where the landing area is.
The major difference is the last thirty feet. At night your lights light up the ground and you flare normally. In a whiteout you can't see the ground. Even from ten feet. In extreme cases, particularly for off field landings, you set up an early very shallow rate of descent and chop the powers when something goes bump.
Last edited by compressor stall; 6th Jul 2016 at 02:10. Reason: Clarity.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of years ago I was flying (true) northwest toward a particularly barren part of the Antarctic coast from high in the interior. It was seriously SKC, a brilliant day. The vast empty white terrain, bereft of mountains and nunataks, stretched to the horizon in all directions. Ground level was around 7000 feet and falling fast as it does as you near the coast.
Ahead I saw a white sheet of altostratus - around 8000'; we'd been cruising above 10k, and were gently descending as the terrain dropped away, hunting the best winds and oxygen.
One of my pax was an aviation forecaster for an major international airline on secondment. Whiteout had obviously been covered in training and we'd talked about it a few weeks before. I summonsed to forecaster to flight deck pointed out the cloud and descended to about 7500' (the ground had dropped away further by this stage). We flew along in the bright sunshine and as we went under the edge of the cloud, the forecaster was absolutely speechless for about ten seconds then uttered various exclamations of disbelief. Even though it had been covered in all the theory, the disorientating bowl of milk outside was beyond comprehension.
I pointed out in the 2:45 position some rocky mountains on the coast over 100nm away proving we weren't in cloud. After an hour or so we, along with our slack jawed jumpseater, finally reached our base under the same layer of altostratus.
Whiteout approaches as Megan points out are the reverse of black hole approaches. I've done plenty of black night landings with small kero flares and no horizon or any other lights outside besides those small points of light.
A whiteout landing is just the opposite. All white outside, no sense of cloud or ground - or height- just a few black dots to tell you where the strip is.
The major difference is the last thirty feet. At night your lights light up the ground and you flare normally. In a whiteout you can't see the ground. Even from ten feet. Instead you set up an early very shallow rate of descent and chop the powers when something goes bump.
Ahead I saw a white sheet of altostratus - around 8000'; we'd been cruising above 10k, and were gently descending as the terrain dropped away, hunting the best winds and oxygen.
One of my pax was an aviation forecaster for an major international airline on secondment. Whiteout had obviously been covered in training and we'd talked about it a few weeks before. I summonsed to forecaster to flight deck pointed out the cloud and descended to about 7500' (the ground had dropped away further by this stage). We flew along in the bright sunshine and as we went under the edge of the cloud, the forecaster was absolutely speechless for about ten seconds then uttered various exclamations of disbelief. Even though it had been covered in all the theory, the disorientating bowl of milk outside was beyond comprehension.
I pointed out in the 2:45 position some rocky mountains on the coast over 100nm away proving we weren't in cloud. After an hour or so we, along with our slack jawed jumpseater, finally reached our base under the same layer of altostratus.
Whiteout approaches as Megan points out are the reverse of black hole approaches. I've done plenty of black night landings with small kero flares and no horizon or any other lights outside besides those small points of light.
A whiteout landing is just the opposite. All white outside, no sense of cloud or ground - or height- just a few black dots to tell you where the strip is.
The major difference is the last thirty feet. At night your lights light up the ground and you flare normally. In a whiteout you can't see the ground. Even from ten feet. Instead you set up an early very shallow rate of descent and chop the powers when something goes bump.
And your point is?
Who was it who said that youth was wasted on the young?
As to whether he was actually VMC, are you seriously contending that he was? The aircraft was flown into the side of a mountain which, I accept, no-one ever saw. So what more evidence can one possibly need?
It’s that he didn’t believe he was VMC accordingto himself: “Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice.”
It’s that he didn’t believe he was VMC accordingto himself
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is not the situation at all. He was VMC laterally, but the vision ahead deteriorated - whiteout, surfeit of light. No different to the Commander, VMC laterally, but no effective vision ahead - black, devoid of light.
We will never know with certainty what was seen out the cockpit window. But the point is this. Unless Collins perceived exactly what Vette theorised - which was sky above, ice below, a horizon in the middle and a flat vista of land extending to the "horizon" ahead, (not to mention VMC conditions all the way during the descent) then his failure to immediately climb away at 1500' is completely inexcusable.
Vette's theory is highly speculative. It's a big leap of faith to use this to explain away a CFIT event which took the lives of 257 people.
Last edited by PapaHotel6; 5th Jul 2016 at 16:31.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megan #1058:
Yes, the cloud/ice comment was made 140 miles out, but not in reference to that location. It was made in reference to the McMurdo Station area, 140 miles down the track:
0018:05 - McMurdo Station on HF: " ... If you have copied our latest weather we have a low overcast in the area (at) about 2000 feet and right now we’re having some snow but our visibility is still about 40 miles and if you like I can give you an update on where the clear areas are around the local area. '
0018:11 Capt Collins to crew: "Clouds come down a bit *** may not be able to ** McMurdo. Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice ** "
Yes, the cloud/ice comment was made 140 miles out, but not in reference to that location. It was made in reference to the McMurdo Station area, 140 miles down the track:
0018:05 - McMurdo Station on HF: " ... If you have copied our latest weather we have a low overcast in the area (at) about 2000 feet and right now we’re having some snow but our visibility is still about 40 miles and if you like I can give you an update on where the clear areas are around the local area. '
0018:11 Capt Collins to crew: "Clouds come down a bit *** may not be able to ** McMurdo. Very hard to tell the difference between the cloud and the ice ** "