Paul Holmes and Erebus
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the "SOP" for SYD-AKL said to go under the harbour bridge on landing approach, would you do it? Of course not.
Last edited by prospector; 2nd Apr 2012 at 07:43.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This from Gordon Vette's "Impact Erebus" publication page 213.
[quote] When I flew visually in the Antarctic I believed there was no problem. Prior to my research on the Antarctic crash, I would have scoffed at this requirement. I am now firmly convinced that under certain lighting conditions an aircrew could fly into terrain, even when that terrain is in the field of view and with plenty of time to take avoiding action. Therefor descent below the top of Mt Erebus, or other Polar terrain, even in clear conditions, is hazardous. It appears to me that those of us who conducted the Antarctic flights may unwittingly have exposed ourselves, our passengers and crew, to a similar danger.[/QUOTE
Now relate that to the descent requirements laid down by the company for this flight. They have been posted many times before but the intent of certain key words seem to have been missed entirely by some posters.
It has been stated a number of times that it was not possible to use the azimuth information from the TACAN with civilian equipment. That is correct, but we have also been told how accurate the AINS was and as this was a VMC descent below MSA it was quite acceptable to use this information gained from the AINS.
You will note that it states the only let down available is VMC below FL160.
There was at the enquiry held by Mahon considerable discussion over the meaning of the word ONLY.
You will also note that nothing is mentioned of a cloud break procedure, it is specified VMC between FL160 and 6,000ft.
Nowhere is it specified that a radar monitored descent is acceptable. Nowhere is it specified that any VMC descent in any other area is acceptable.
To my way of thinking there can be no misinterpretaion of the word ONLY
The reported weather was such at McMurdo that this approved descent was not possible so a diversion to the alternate sightseeing area, which was reported as having clear weather conditions was the obvious choice.
The word Hubris would appear to be very appropriate after we read from Gordon Vette's publication what he realised after his research into Antarctic conditions relative to visibility.
Many people were well aware of these vis problems in the Antarctic, that is why the descent instructions were so restrictive and specific. It is why the other airline QANTAS carrying out these scenic flights to the Antarctic does not allow any flight below FL160 under any circumstance. Obviously the punters are satisfied they get their monies worth at this altitude, the flights have been conducted for a number of years with no problem.
There have been some eloquently phrased posts supporting the actions of Capt Collins and crew, the only problem is they have been short on fact, and missinterpretation of the word ONLY.
[quote] When I flew visually in the Antarctic I believed there was no problem. Prior to my research on the Antarctic crash, I would have scoffed at this requirement. I am now firmly convinced that under certain lighting conditions an aircrew could fly into terrain, even when that terrain is in the field of view and with plenty of time to take avoiding action. Therefor descent below the top of Mt Erebus, or other Polar terrain, even in clear conditions, is hazardous. It appears to me that those of us who conducted the Antarctic flights may unwittingly have exposed ourselves, our passengers and crew, to a similar danger.[/QUOTE
Now relate that to the descent requirements laid down by the company for this flight. They have been posted many times before but the intent of certain key words seem to have been missed entirely by some posters.
Delete all reference to briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 (16,000ft) 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 Grid through 360 Grid to 270Grid from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.
1. Vis 20 km plus.
2. No snow showers in area.
3. Avoid MT EREBUS area by operating in an arc from 120 Grid through 360 Grid to 270Grid from McMurdo Field, within 20 nm of TACAN CH29.
4. Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area.
It has been stated a number of times that it was not possible to use the azimuth information from the TACAN with civilian equipment. That is correct, but we have also been told how accurate the AINS was and as this was a VMC descent below MSA it was quite acceptable to use this information gained from the AINS.
You will note that it states the only let down available is VMC below FL160.
There was at the enquiry held by Mahon considerable discussion over the meaning of the word ONLY.
You will also note that nothing is mentioned of a cloud break procedure, it is specified VMC between FL160 and 6,000ft.
Nowhere is it specified that a radar monitored descent is acceptable. Nowhere is it specified that any VMC descent in any other area is acceptable.
To my way of thinking there can be no misinterpretaion of the word ONLY
The reported weather was such at McMurdo that this approved descent was not possible so a diversion to the alternate sightseeing area, which was reported as having clear weather conditions was the obvious choice.
The word Hubris would appear to be very appropriate after we read from Gordon Vette's publication what he realised after his research into Antarctic conditions relative to visibility.
Many people were well aware of these vis problems in the Antarctic, that is why the descent instructions were so restrictive and specific. It is why the other airline QANTAS carrying out these scenic flights to the Antarctic does not allow any flight below FL160 under any circumstance. Obviously the punters are satisfied they get their monies worth at this altitude, the flights have been conducted for a number of years with no problem.
There have been some eloquently phrased posts supporting the actions of Capt Collins and crew, the only problem is they have been short on fact, and missinterpretation of the word ONLY.
Last edited by prospector; 3rd Apr 2012 at 00:31.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Collins was the worst pilot ever employed by AirNZ, or TEAL. According to Holmes' book, he couldn't even manage to pass School C. The only surprising aspect about his death in 1979 is that it took that long to happen.
I come away from the threads here that some people would have preferred Captain Collins to have survived the accident, so that he could be hung, drawn and quartered, and his head stuck on a pike in the town square.
There are any number of people who have abysmal school records, including pilots, who have gone onto excel in their chosen career. Lets have the justification of him being "the worst pilot". Put up or shut up with your libellous outpourings.
Sadly further discussion seems rather pointless with such a poisoned and closed mind.
Good post prospector. What continues to amaze me is that Holmes has as yet (I am not finished yet) no mention of the arc requirement and avoiding Mt Erebus, in his book. He's got plenty of inspiring thoughts of the "innocent hero" of the day, Captain Collins though...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole "arc requirement" was unrealistic, given the comfortable bank angle for passengers travelling at close to cruising speed. No-one took much notice of it.
To repeat: All but two of the captains had blue skies. Of those two, Dalziel didn't even bother going to Cape Hallett. Ruffell did, but headed off to the Dry Valleys once he got the weather report. If anyone has Vette's book, the cover photo is of Cape Washington, in the Dry Valleys' area, taken by a Jap film crew at 10,000 feet, with Ruffell in the left-hand seat.
To repeat: All but two of the captains had blue skies. Of those two, Dalziel didn't even bother going to Cape Hallett. Ruffell did, but headed off to the Dry Valleys once he got the weather report. If anyone has Vette's book, the cover photo is of Cape Washington, in the Dry Valleys' area, taken by a Jap film crew at 10,000 feet, with Ruffell in the left-hand seat.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The whole "arc requirement" was unrealistic, given the comfortable?? bank angle for passengers travelling at close to cruising speed. No-one took much notice of it.
The arc requirement would have been set up, and then approved by senior captains on the DC10, I am quite certain they would not have demanded any maneouver that would have upset the Pax.
.
Last edited by prospector; 3rd Apr 2012 at 09:54.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Metung RSL or Collingwood Social Club on weekends!
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Abraham is Brian Abraham. He doesn't hide behind User Names and Anonymous Facebook/Twitter handles.
I have always found his arguments and comments to be balanced,relevant and to the point.
A typical military man !
I have always found his arguments and comments to be balanced,relevant and to the point.
A typical military man !
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Abraham
There are always going to be differences of opinion depending on how you weight outcomes. If you drive through a red light you might get a warning, you might get a fine. If you drive through a red light and kill someone you will be done for dangerous driving causing death. Why? What changed?
Police and ambulances drive through red lights because they need to. Collins did not need to "drive through a red light", but did so; the consequences were catastrophic.
I have not changed my opinion from the day of the crash. AirNZ was out of its depth and Collins was a very stupid man. He was not asked to take the aircraft down the way he did. That is the point. Had he been asked to do so that would have been an entirely different matter.
Had he called operations in Auckland and said he was at 1500ft about to head to "McMurdo" he would have been asked if he was he out of his mind.
You can make all the excuses you like but at the end of the day they are only excuses. Collins cannot be exonerated by parliament, which is what the discussion here in NZ is about. It would be absurd.
I am now at Warbirds over Wanaka and if I can find one single pilot who thinks otherwise I'll let you know.
And yes, you can know SOMETHING when you don't know. You can know you THAT don't know and stick to what you do know. Which is why I didn't fly into Franz Josef Glacier and around Mt Cook coming down the West Coast. I am an old pilot who wants to keep out of trouble.
Collins went looking for trouble and he found it. Fact.
There are always going to be differences of opinion depending on how you weight outcomes. If you drive through a red light you might get a warning, you might get a fine. If you drive through a red light and kill someone you will be done for dangerous driving causing death. Why? What changed?
Police and ambulances drive through red lights because they need to. Collins did not need to "drive through a red light", but did so; the consequences were catastrophic.
I have not changed my opinion from the day of the crash. AirNZ was out of its depth and Collins was a very stupid man. He was not asked to take the aircraft down the way he did. That is the point. Had he been asked to do so that would have been an entirely different matter.
Had he called operations in Auckland and said he was at 1500ft about to head to "McMurdo" he would have been asked if he was he out of his mind.
You can make all the excuses you like but at the end of the day they are only excuses. Collins cannot be exonerated by parliament, which is what the discussion here in NZ is about. It would be absurd.
I am now at Warbirds over Wanaka and if I can find one single pilot who thinks otherwise I'll let you know.
And yes, you can know SOMETHING when you don't know. You can know you THAT don't know and stick to what you do know. Which is why I didn't fly into Franz Josef Glacier and around Mt Cook coming down the West Coast. I am an old pilot who wants to keep out of trouble.
Collins went looking for trouble and he found it. Fact.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Collins went looking for trouble and he found it. Fact.
Any attempt to argue otherwise shows a total and complete lack of understanding of accident causation.
Quite right, you cannot libel the dead, although it is possible that a comment about someone no longer living may be libellous of that person’s relatives, colleagues or friends. I repeat, It seems that there is absolutely nothing you will not say in an attempt to demonise, denigrate, malign or besmirch the good man.
Brian Abraham" (whoever that might be)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quite right, you cannot libel the dead, although it is possible that a comment about someone no longer living may be libellous of that person’s relatives, colleagues or friends. I repeat, It seems that there is absolutely nothing you will not say in an attempt to demonise, denigrate, malign or besmirch the good man.
If the odious little man called Paul Holmes would not publish such rubbish as is in his book Daughters of Erebus, and libel other people who were doing their jobs successfully, then these threads would not need be started.
I notice you make no comment on the cloud break procedure, descent requirements, or other statements you made that were patently wrong.
Your are no doubt aware of Gordon Vette's pedigree, and when he wrote the following he at least knew that he had stuffed up, and been very lucky to get away with it.
That sentence may well be interpreted as
It appears to me that those of us who conducted the Antarctic flights and completely ignored SOPs and CAA regs, may unwittingly have exposed ourselves, our passengers and crew, to a similar danger.[/QUOTE
Last edited by prospector; 5th Apr 2012 at 02:55.
I'll end my participation by saying that Collins did not go looking for trouble
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting observation, if what he didn't do was "go looking for trouble" some of the decisions he made on that day are highly questionable...
Very few accidents are the result of the actions of any one man or crew acting in isolation. The following is a listing of a few slices of swiss cheese, blocking any one had the capability of preventing the accident.
1. Regulator - knowing SOPs were not being complied with sat on their hands
2. Airline Management - ditto
3. Route Planning - over the top of Erebus subjecting aircraft to possible volcanic ejecta
4. Crew Training - lack of
5. Nav Department - input data into flight plan without any idea where the waypoint was
6. Nav Department - changing flight plan data without any idea from where they were changing it
7. Nav Department - failure to provide notification of waypoint change as was required
8. Previous Flights - failure to comply with SOPs
9. Previous Flights - failure to detect waypoint was 26 miles in error, other than Captain Simpson, which then set in train 6 and 7
10. Captain Collins - having been diligent enough to plot the expected track (something which nobody else apparently had) did not ask why there was no flight plan leg to McMurdo for a possible cloud break
You can make all the excuses you like but at the end of the day they are only excuses
Ahhhh . .. . dear Brian, once more I have to dip me lid to your superior grasp of not just the fundamentals, but the complex, very complex, multitude of factors that have led to this never-ending tragic story.
As Horace said about the " braying crowd tossing their stinking greasy caps in the air" (admittedly my memory of 'Odi profanum vulgus' is poor, but you get the drift), that allusion does induce a puzzlement as to WHY??
Why persist in arguing a case with those whose prejudices, biases and ignorance lend absolutely nothing to reasoned debate.
Some of them are just the sort who would if they could, contrive to 'send the boys round'.
Incidently, when I do at last come your way it will be clutching a bottle of good single malt, relishing the prospect of much Rumpolian reminiscence.
"Here's to the good old days" "Here's to the old country" "What old country?" "Any old country!"
As Horace said about the " braying crowd tossing their stinking greasy caps in the air" (admittedly my memory of 'Odi profanum vulgus' is poor, but you get the drift), that allusion does induce a puzzlement as to WHY??
Why persist in arguing a case with those whose prejudices, biases and ignorance lend absolutely nothing to reasoned debate.
Some of them are just the sort who would if they could, contrive to 'send the boys round'.
Incidently, when I do at last come your way it will be clutching a bottle of good single malt, relishing the prospect of much Rumpolian reminiscence.
"Here's to the good old days" "Here's to the old country" "What old country?" "Any old country!"
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm not making excuses, I look for rational explainable reasons. Of course he can not be exonerated, but we need to understand why and how it happened, which was not the result of any one mans actions.
Just one point I would differ on your post.
4. Crew Training - lack of
But, I do believe it has been established, without fear of contradiction, that Holmes book calling for exoneration of Capt Collins is completely misguided, and of all the politicians he gave a copy to, only Peter Dunne is stupid enough to go public and call for Parliament to proclaim this exoneration is justified.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4. Crew Training - lack of
There is no demonstration on this thread that any one has any real concept of the white out phenomena.
clutching a bottle of good single malt
Why persist in arguing a case with those whose prejudices, biases and ignorance lend absolutely nothing to reasoned debate.
Guest
Posts: n/a
What ever crew training was carried out it was sadly deficient
When one blatantly disregards what one has been taught, and flagrantly breaks company SOP's and CAA regs, then one must bare some responsibility for the consequences, even Gordon Vette acknowledges that when he states
It appears to me that those of us who conducted the Antarctic flights may unwittingly have exposed ourselves, our passengers and crew, to a similar danger.[/QUOTE
I would presume that there are those who don't have a grasp on aviation reading, and would hate to see them take away the venomous messages being broadcast here denigrating a good man. I find it quite sickening.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, you have missed the whole point of Prrune. The idea is to assess the comment, irrespective of the person making it. As has been suggested several times in the past, Prospector might be some deranged housewife from Dannevirke, whose only knowledge of the operation of heavy jets has been obtained from the internet - and I might fall into the same category, or might not.
Forget the man, and play the ball. Not VMC. Couldn't use the AINS. Still went below MSA. Didn't get School C. To put things at their most polite, Captain Collins was a very stupid person.
Forget the man, and play the ball. Not VMC. Couldn't use the AINS. Still went below MSA. Didn't get School C. To put things at their most polite, Captain Collins was a very stupid person.
. . . . and to reiterate old son . . .. . n'ere worthy of response . . . . .
(whether 'sickening' or not, let them not get your goat or spoil your composure . . .. . as the late great Arthur Baird was wont to say in his broad brogue -
'He needs to be wiped laddie . . . . just like a dirty ****')
(whether 'sickening' or not, let them not get your goat or spoil your composure . . .. . as the late great Arthur Baird was wont to say in his broad brogue -
'He needs to be wiped laddie . . . . just like a dirty ****')