ANZ Erebus crash 28 November 1979 - 34 years later.
Guest
Posts: n/a
from one who wishes to denigrate Captain Collins, and those who have the temerity to stand in his corner.
"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."
No doubt it has been noted that the official accident report states the" probable cause", no one will ever know with any certainty what actually happened, not even Justice Mahon. The theory of sector whiteout that was put forward , which had never been experienced by any other aviator, or at least reported on, after many years of operations in the area by a number of Air Force aircraft.
If one looks at the ALPA web site one can see the size of Mt Erebus, how it is possible to hit that mountain, and be in legal flight conditions is difficult to perceive.
Last edited by prospector; 30th Apr 2014 at 01:45. Reason: addition
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The was an old PPRuNer called Abraham
Whose opinion of me's not worth a damn
T'was not Collins I scorned
Nor people who mourned
But Paragraph ramming his ALPA scam.
Whose opinion of me's not worth a damn
T'was not Collins I scorned
Nor people who mourned
But Paragraph ramming his ALPA scam.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The theory of sector whiteout that was put forward , which had never been experienced by any other aviator, or at least reported on, after many years of operations in the area by a number of Air Force aircraft.
If one looks at the ALPA web site one can see the size of Mt Erebus, how it is possible to hit that mountain, and be in legal flight conditions is difficult to perceive.
If one looks at the ALPA web site one can see the size of Mt Erebus, how it is possible to hit that mountain, and be in legal flight conditions is difficult to perceive.
From FAA "General Aviation Pilot’s Guide to Preflight Weather Planning, Weather Self-Briefings, and Weather Decision Making"
Similarly, scientists who study human vision have determined that weather transitions are sometimes too subtle for the limits of the visual system. Like other sensory organs, the eye responds best to changes. It adapts to circumstances that do not change, or those that change in a gradual or subtle way, by reducing its response. Just as the skin becomes so acclimated to the “feel” of clothing that it is generally not even noticed, the eye can become so accustomed to progressive small changes in light, color, and motion that it no longer “sees” an accurate picture. In deteriorating weather conditions, the reduction in visibility and contrast occurs quite gradually, and it may be quite some time before the pilot senses that the weather conditions have deteriorated significantly. In essence, you have to learn how to look past the visual illusion and see what is really there.
Certain weather conditions also make it particularly difficult to accurately perceive with the eye. For instance, a phenomenon called “flat light” can create very hazardous operating circumstances. Flat light is a condition in which all available light is highly diffused, and information normally available from directional light sources is lost. The result is that there are no shadows, which means that the eye can no longer judge distance, depth features, or textures on the surface with any precision. Flat light is especially dangerous because it can occur with high reported visibility. It is common in areas below an overcast, and on reflective surfaces such as snow or water. It can also occur when blowing snow or sand create flat light conditions accompanied by “white-out,” which is reduced visibility in all directions due to small particles of snow, ice or sand that diffuse the light.
Awareness is important in overcoming these challenges, but you can also develop your visual interpretation skills. Appendix 8 provides tips and techniques you can use to estimate in-flight visibility and cloud clearance, thus enhancing your ability to evaluate in-flight weather conditions accurately.
Certain weather conditions also make it particularly difficult to accurately perceive with the eye. For instance, a phenomenon called “flat light” can create very hazardous operating circumstances. Flat light is a condition in which all available light is highly diffused, and information normally available from directional light sources is lost. The result is that there are no shadows, which means that the eye can no longer judge distance, depth features, or textures on the surface with any precision. Flat light is especially dangerous because it can occur with high reported visibility. It is common in areas below an overcast, and on reflective surfaces such as snow or water. It can also occur when blowing snow or sand create flat light conditions accompanied by “white-out,” which is reduced visibility in all directions due to small particles of snow, ice or sand that diffuse the light.
Awareness is important in overcoming these challenges, but you can also develop your visual interpretation skills. Appendix 8 provides tips and techniques you can use to estimate in-flight visibility and cloud clearance, thus enhancing your ability to evaluate in-flight weather conditions accurately.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Prospector, I'm afraid your post demonstrates your lack of understanding of whiteout.
Gordon Vette gave evidence in Washington expanding on his sector whiteout theory, but his suggestion that McMurdo should have realised the DC10 was in peril from whiteout was not taken seriously. Judge Greene
Since Gordon Vette was apparently the first person to have presented to experts in perceptual psychology and to the world at large the theory of SECTOR WHITEOUT with respect to an aircraft in level flight, the phenomenon was entirely unknown prior to the crash of Flight 901 and therefor by definition unfamiliar to the controllers at McMurdo on November 28, 1979. The Air Traffic controllers cannot be faulted for failing to predict that the flight crew would be unable to see the mountain on account of that phenomenon, particularly when neither its existence nor the possibility of its presence were ever mentioned to them.
This ground has been covered before in these threads but is still very relevant. The statements by Captain Derek Ellis in a letter to NZALPA.
Having read Gordon Vette's book, I can only conclude that something went very badly wrong at the Mahon hearing. I fully respect your duty to act as advocate for your members but I question, in this particular instance, was it all carried to far, with the result that the real causes were obscured and consequently, the wrong people blamed.
Last edited by prospector; 30th Apr 2014 at 09:56. Reason: addition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ornis and Prospector are acting out a play I think. In the play Prospector is Chippendale and Ornis is Muldoon I would say, judging by the way they are carrying on all emotional and angry like.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point I made was that nobody had defined any such thing as sector whiteout
It is certain that such weather phenomena like flat light and white out have existed since the beginning of time. However, to date, no real in-depth studies into these weather conditions have been examined extensively as they relate to the aviation community. The Federal Aviation Administration continues to explore this unusual visual condition and in the interest of safety is committed to reporting any new findings.
How many trips did Gordon Vette do to McMurdo?, and yet he discovered a phenomenon that people with many years experience in that environment had never encountered?
You will no doubt be aware of the qualifications and experience held by Captain Derek Ellis
I'm very much surprised, given your interest in Erebus, that you have not made an effort to educate yourself in the sector whiteout phenomena Prospector. The web is replete with information. I can only assume from your lack of interest in educating yourself you may have a closed mind, or an axe to grind.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an old PPRuNer called Ornis
Who Para tried to paint into a cornice
But to Prospector's delight
He stayed right in the fight
And ascribed Para's views to jaundice.
Who Para tried to paint into a cornice
But to Prospector's delight
He stayed right in the fight
And ascribed Para's views to jaundice.
Last edited by Ornis; 30th Apr 2014 at 19:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The facts have been put forward many times on this and other threads on this subject.
What it boils down to is there are those who think it is acceptable to completely disregard Company standing orders, CAA directions, and blat around at 1,500 ft in excess of 250kts, in a DC10 loaded with passengers, in conditions that are known can be hostile on your very first trip to the area, and make statements like "We may have to pop down here to 1,500ft here, I think, and the first officer replies "Probably see further in anyway."
Those that think whiteout obscured Mt Erebus at all times during the descent from 16,000ft, as it was never sighted at any time. Those that think going past Beaufort Island on the wrong side and not noticing is acceptable, then no amount of discussion, and fact, is going to change there beliefs, obviously.
What it boils down to is there are those who think it is acceptable to completely disregard Company standing orders, CAA directions, and blat around at 1,500 ft in excess of 250kts, in a DC10 loaded with passengers, in conditions that are known can be hostile on your very first trip to the area, and make statements like "We may have to pop down here to 1,500ft here, I think, and the first officer replies "Probably see further in anyway."
Those that think whiteout obscured Mt Erebus at all times during the descent from 16,000ft, as it was never sighted at any time. Those that think going past Beaufort Island on the wrong side and not noticing is acceptable, then no amount of discussion, and fact, is going to change there beliefs, obviously.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there are also those foolish enough to believe;
a) The Investigator actually had the skills to conduct such an investigation (which he didn't) and;
b) The Investigator was not a government footstool who was always going to ensure his investigation report blamed the crew otherwise his employer (the government) would be held liable and accountable and have to cough up a settlement amount to the deceased relatives, which at the time would have sent NZ broke.
And you post this classic;
If you actually believe what you have written then there is absolutely no doubt that you sir are Mr Chippendale reincarnated.
It took the intelligent non flying Mahon to understand, grasp, and expose 'whiteout' in this accident. No wonder there were/are pilots and aviation experts down to this day who still hold a grudge against Mahon. A number of 'experts' from the day were truly shown up to be exactly what they are - incompetent deceptive amateurs serving as the governments whore.
a) The Investigator actually had the skills to conduct such an investigation (which he didn't) and;
b) The Investigator was not a government footstool who was always going to ensure his investigation report blamed the crew otherwise his employer (the government) would be held liable and accountable and have to cough up a settlement amount to the deceased relatives, which at the time would have sent NZ broke.
And you post this classic;
Those that think whiteout obscured Mt Erebus at all times during the descent from 16,000ft, as it was never sighted at any time. Those that think going past Beaufort Island on the wrong side and not noticing is acceptable, then no amount of discussion, and fact, is going to change there beliefs, obviously.
It took the intelligent non flying Mahon to understand, grasp, and expose 'whiteout' in this accident. No wonder there were/are pilots and aviation experts down to this day who still hold a grudge against Mahon. A number of 'experts' from the day were truly shown up to be exactly what they are - incompetent deceptive amateurs serving as the governments whore.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ornis and Prospector are acting out a play I think. In the play Prospector is Chippendale and Ornis is Muldoon I would say, judging by the way they are carrying on all emotional and angry like.
Everything in my post is documented fact. Perhaps you have read Paul Holmes emotional claptrap and are using that tome as your source of in formation?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts have been put forward many times on this and other threads on this subject.
But he had received sufficient training for overflight
how it is possible to hit that mountain, and be in legal flight conditions is difficult to perceive
Guest
Posts: n/a
And an education regarding what whiteout is will greatly benefit.
But following your argument along, you do not disagree that your stance approves the decision to take a DC10 down to 1,500ft in weather conditions that were below, and reported by McMurdo to be below that needed for the cloud break procedure, at speeds that had to be above 260kts in an area that you had never before flown to, your tour guide just a few minutes before hand advised the Pax that when he knew where they were he would tell them, not appear to be unduly worried that they had not been identified by radar, had no VHF comms with the controllers, all mandatory requirements for this descent, and you would believe that this descent was not a foolish decision? If this is so, and by the content of all your posts thus far it would appear to be the case, then it is certainly pointless carrying on this discussion.
No doubt you will come up with the argument that previous flights had descended below 6,000ft. They had weather conditions suitable for such flight, and were all invited down by McMurdo radar after they had been positively identified. Mt Erebus was never sighted at any time by this flight, are you trying to tell me that was because of whiteout? from 16.000ft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how it is possible to hit that mountain, and be in legal flight conditions is difficult to perceive
Regardless of your Pprune status, it is likely you are a young pilot experienced in flying Caravans or hot air balloons whose only experience with whiteout is what you have read on the internet? Surely you are not an experienced, competent, reasonable and experienced widebody Captain?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was an old bore at PPRuNe
Whose head's wrapped in a cocoon
Calling Chippindale a whore
To even an old score
Tsk! The sound of barking at the moon.
Whose head's wrapped in a cocoon
Calling Chippindale a whore
To even an old score
Tsk! The sound of barking at the moon.
Last edited by Ornis; 1st May 2014 at 19:35. Reason: Chippindale double p
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As there was no intention of landing, and as the minimum VFR altitude specified by both the company and CAA was 6,000ft, then whiteout should not have been a problem.
Calling Chipindale a whore
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: At home
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron Chippendale's report simply stated the facts. The aircraft was flown into the side of a mountain.
None of the Airline Board of Directors or the General Manager was aboard the aircraft. The safe operation of the aircraft during the flight was delegated to, and was the responsibility of the Captain.
This was a CFIT event. The Captain, as we know was a consummate professional, was in full control of the aircraft, and flew it into the side on a mountain.
Where was the official Accident Report wrong?
None of the Airline Board of Directors or the General Manager was aboard the aircraft. The safe operation of the aircraft during the flight was delegated to, and was the responsibility of the Captain.
This was a CFIT event. The Captain, as we know was a consummate professional, was in full control of the aircraft, and flew it into the side on a mountain.
Where was the official Accident Report wrong?
Guest
Posts: n/a
This from para 377
Brian, you obviously are not reading what anyone else is posting when you post such garbage
The point I was making, is that no matter what track they thought they were on, the mountain should have been visible from many miles away, unless it was covered in cloud, which it was. The final moments may well have been sector whiteout, but it was to avoid such a scenario that the descent requirements were as they were. Bear in mind it was NZALPA that insisted that all their captains "had a turn" on these flights, not like the other operators who had to have been down to the ice a number of times before they went down in command.
incompetent deceptive amateurs serving as the governments whore.
You're really sinking to new lows Ornis. Please inform us who ever called Chippendale a whore, besides your good self.
Whiteout can be a problem no matter the altitude. In the case I experienced we were at 18,000.
Last edited by prospector; 1st May 2014 at 20:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian, ignore them as you were correct, this is what I actually said;
Of course the tag team of Ornis/Prospector have covertly picked out just some of my words, massaged them slightly and then come to a conclusion I was talking about Chippendale. I never actually mentioned Chippendale in that context and I also mentioned that were a number of 'experts' from that day who fit the bill of government whores.
What is interesting Ornis/Prospector is the method and style in which you choose to take just a handful of words from a statement and then you spin them into a completely untrue fabrication of what was actually said. This reeks of 'government training 101'. Who knows, perhaps you both worked for the CAA or the government back in those days?
A number of 'experts' from the day were truly shown up to be exactly what they are - incompetent deceptive amateurs serving as the governments whore.
What is interesting Ornis/Prospector is the method and style in which you choose to take just a handful of words from a statement and then you spin them into a completely untrue fabrication of what was actually said. This reeks of 'government training 101'. Who knows, perhaps you both worked for the CAA or the government back in those days?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there are also those foolish enough to believe;
a) The Investigator actually had the skills to conduct such an investigation (which he didn't) and;
b) The Investigator was not a government footstool who was always going to ensure his investigation report blamed the crew
a) The Investigator actually had the skills to conduct such an investigation (which he didn't) and;
b) The Investigator was not a government footstool who was always going to ensure his investigation report blamed the crew
(1) didn't have the skills, that is, was incompetent or amateurish
(2) was going to sacrifice his honour for money.
Chippindale was the government expert.
A number of 'experts' from the day were truly shown up to be exactly what they are - incompetent deceptive amateurs serving as the governments whore.
You wriggle like a worm, Paragraph 377. Of course you meant to include Chippindale in your diatribe.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paragraph 377 sums it all up
Paragraph 377 of the Mahon Report sums up this accident succinctly;
Near the end of the document under the section title "The Stance Adopted by the Airline Before the Commission of Inquiry": "The palpably false sections of evidence which I heard could not have been the result of mistake, or faulty recollection. They originated, I am compelled to say, in a pre-determined plan of deception. They were very clearly part of an attempt to conceal a series of disastrous administrative blunders and so& I am forced reluctantly to say that I had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies." (Paragraph 377)
Near the end of the document under the section title "The Stance Adopted by the Airline Before the Commission of Inquiry": "The palpably false sections of evidence which I heard could not have been the result of mistake, or faulty recollection. They originated, I am compelled to say, in a pre-determined plan of deception. They were very clearly part of an attempt to conceal a series of disastrous administrative blunders and so& I am forced reluctantly to say that I had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies." (Paragraph 377)