Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE Is that your belief as to the cause of this accident, the computer had been changed??[/QUOTE]
Prospector, we’ve danced this dance over the years. Go back and read all of my quotes. There were several causal factors. The root cause was the reprogramming of the nav system without telling the crew.
Thanks for checking my background, one can never be sure of whom they are speaking with dear friend. I could check yours, but to me that is as interesting as a bald weasel with a chainsaw eating broccoli while watching Gilligan's Island.
As for my very naughty use of the word ‘computer’, how simply awful. In future I will use correct terminology and phraseology such as Inertial Navigation System, Aircraft Information Network System, Computer Navigation Track, even Air New Zealand instead of ANZ. Hopefully you won’t be offended by my using more modern acronyms relating to the beautiful 777 such as AIMS, ADIRU, ADIRS and SAARU. And if you are, I really don’t care. My career was fulfilling and the 747 and 777 will always remain the two best commercial aircraft ever made. It’s been 5 years since I retired. How about you?
Prospector, we’ve danced this dance over the years. Go back and read all of my quotes. There were several causal factors. The root cause was the reprogramming of the nav system without telling the crew.
Thanks for checking my background, one can never be sure of whom they are speaking with dear friend. I could check yours, but to me that is as interesting as a bald weasel with a chainsaw eating broccoli while watching Gilligan's Island.
As for my very naughty use of the word ‘computer’, how simply awful. In future I will use correct terminology and phraseology such as Inertial Navigation System, Aircraft Information Network System, Computer Navigation Track, even Air New Zealand instead of ANZ. Hopefully you won’t be offended by my using more modern acronyms relating to the beautiful 777 such as AIMS, ADIRU, ADIRS and SAARU. And if you are, I really don’t care. My career was fulfilling and the 747 and 777 will always remain the two best commercial aircraft ever made. It’s been 5 years since I retired. How about you?
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Good, you picked the word that aroused my curiosity. And I must say a very eloquent reply. I have been out to pasture now for 15 years, still like to get involved in this discussion, especially when our esteemed prime minister makes statements on subjects she has no experience to comment on.
If she wants to quote judges why does she not quote Judge Harold Greene of the U.S. District Court in Washington when NZALPA tried to blame the controllers at McMurdo for a share in the disaster. I quote
"It is clearly established that, when the pilot told Mac Centre he wished to descend VMC, he effectively informed the controllers that he could see where he was going. In so doing he took sole responsibility for separating the airplane from other aircraft and the terrain and he was on his own"
"Judge Greene said the operational crew of flight TE901 acted unreasonably in several respects, including not plotting their actual position from the AINS and descending below 16,000ft, contrary to both prudent airmanship and Air New Zealand policy without first ascertaining what was there or following the other requirements for such descent. The crew also missed the obvious landmark of Beaufort Island being on the wrong side of the flight path and pressed on in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period."
If she wants to quote judges why does she not quote Judge Harold Greene of the U.S. District Court in Washington when NZALPA tried to blame the controllers at McMurdo for a share in the disaster. I quote
"It is clearly established that, when the pilot told Mac Centre he wished to descend VMC, he effectively informed the controllers that he could see where he was going. In so doing he took sole responsibility for separating the airplane from other aircraft and the terrain and he was on his own"
"Judge Greene said the operational crew of flight TE901 acted unreasonably in several respects, including not plotting their actual position from the AINS and descending below 16,000ft, contrary to both prudent airmanship and Air New Zealand policy without first ascertaining what was there or following the other requirements for such descent. The crew also missed the obvious landmark of Beaufort Island being on the wrong side of the flight path and pressed on in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period."
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hope you are enjoying retirement and keeping safe.
Whispering "T" Jet
''.....................in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period.''
You sound so much like ampan.
The day you get nine (9) adults in the cockpit of a DC10 during a critical stage of flight (your assumption, as the crew is not here to dispute), I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!
You sound so much like ampan.
The day you get nine (9) adults in the cockpit of a DC10 during a critical stage of flight (your assumption, as the crew is not here to dispute), I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
''.....................in the face of deteriorating weather, with five or six extra people in the cockpit causing some distraction during the critical period.''
You sound so much like ampan.
The day you get nine (9) adults in the cockpit of a DC10 during a critical stage of flight (your assumption, as the crew is not here to dispute), I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!
You sound so much like ampan.
The day you get nine (9) adults in the cockpit of a DC10 during a critical stage of flight (your assumption, as the crew is not here to dispute), I will stand naked in Queen Street on a Saturday morning!
I think the "five or six extra people" refers to the fact that the cockpit door was open, and people were milling around.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please wait until the middle of winter, and a very frosty morning
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And send the flight to Essendon when the crew think they're going to Tullamarine.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Auckland
Age: 52
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas still to this day operates a series of Antarctica in a day scenic flights every season with 747-400's - Not sure what QF will do when the final retirements occur of the 747.
Will they use the A380 for these or it that aircraft not suitable for such a mission?
https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Will they use the A380 for these or it that aircraft not suitable for such a mission?
https://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting advertisement, especially the altitude question, and they have been doing it for many years I believe
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.
How Low Will We Fly?
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting advertisement, especially the altitude question, and they have been doing it for many years I believe
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.
How Low Will We Fly?
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting advertisement, especially the altitude question, and they have been doing it for many years I believe
How Low Will We Fly?
When over Antarctica we fly at approximately 10,000 feet or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles. This altitude provides excellent viewing while still respecting the wildlife habitats at sea level.Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure if ever there were to be another accident, those height references (or the 2,000 feet one in particular) would disappear from that webpage and the internet, similar to how the NZ government and Air New Zealand scrambled to recover and destroy brochures advertising low altitude flights over the Antarctic. Now why would they do that if the cause was only Collins?
QF do not descend below the LSALT, period, which is set at 2,000 above the highest terrain. At least that was the standard when I flew as pax, not sure what to make of the 10,000 reference.
Whispering "T" Jet
".... there is no-one here that I am aware of who is suggesting the cause was "only Collins".
Jim Collins and his crew had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this accident as has been confirmed by highly qualified legal persons, multiple inquiries and aviation experts worldwide (I am not including the ones on this forum!). Only ignorance and a failure to grasp the facts in this accident would make anyone "suggest" otherwise.
Jim Collins and his crew had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of this accident as has been confirmed by highly qualified legal persons, multiple inquiries and aviation experts worldwide (I am not including the ones on this forum!). Only ignorance and a failure to grasp the facts in this accident would make anyone "suggest" otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think the only solution to this incident/accident is a re-investigation. With contemporary methods of investigation used. The investigation would avoid the use of the word blame and instead focus on contributory factors. Forty years later and the accident reports are heavily compromised.
Those hell-bent on being able to blame someone or thing would then be forced to take every factor on board. The political interference, the farcical conflicts of interest, the cover ups, missing documents, home break ins, the company culture that normalised deviation from SOPS, severe deficiencies from company flight ops and navigation departments, lack of regulatory oversight and yes, flight deck crew actions.
Those hell-bent on being able to blame someone or thing would then be forced to take every factor on board. The political interference, the farcical conflicts of interest, the cover ups, missing documents, home break ins, the company culture that normalised deviation from SOPS, severe deficiencies from company flight ops and navigation departments, lack of regulatory oversight and yes, flight deck crew actions.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"or 2,000 feet above the highest ground within 100 nautical miles." would be the relevant statement. I would read that as if they are within a 100 miles of Mt Erebus they would not be below FL160. Erebus I recall was 13,280ft, but changing slightly with time.
\
That would be my interpretation, but I stand to be corrected if need be.
\
That would be my interpretation, but I stand to be corrected if need be.
Last edited by prospector; 5th Dec 2019 at 00:09. Reason: An addition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we discovered anything new yet this time around?
Have we changed anything or, more importantly, will anything be changed?
Is it likely a new inquiry will happen?
Is any of the procrastination, expert, unprofessional, inexpert, amateurish, waffling or discussion going to create a new inquiry?
Rather than the continuous and no doubt a 40th anniversary review the most important thing is; Did this accident result in any improvements to aviation safety?
The answers is a resounding yes: the Flight Operations of ANZ was (for want of a better description) totally reviewed.
Flight operation departments around the world found an important need review, update their management of flight planning, computerization with flight deck application. Equally, Licencing Authorities.had to have a serious rethink.
Flight crew training improved.
Along with other accidents this one contributed to further research, creation, implementation of terrain warning systems.
These are only a few of the changes emanating from this accident and whilst hull loss, loss of life is always highly tragic and regrettable one of the most important things within the aviation industry is our absolute desire to learn from these working diligently to improve and prevent further incidents/accidents.
instead of an endless unproductive, sometimes vitriolic, self indulgent mishmash diatribe which changes little or nothing, concentrating upon the future will be a more highly productive contribution to our industry, aviation safety!.
Have we changed anything or, more importantly, will anything be changed?
Is it likely a new inquiry will happen?
Is any of the procrastination, expert, unprofessional, inexpert, amateurish, waffling or discussion going to create a new inquiry?
Rather than the continuous and no doubt a 40th anniversary review the most important thing is; Did this accident result in any improvements to aviation safety?
The answers is a resounding yes: the Flight Operations of ANZ was (for want of a better description) totally reviewed.
Flight operation departments around the world found an important need review, update their management of flight planning, computerization with flight deck application. Equally, Licencing Authorities.had to have a serious rethink.
Flight crew training improved.
Along with other accidents this one contributed to further research, creation, implementation of terrain warning systems.
These are only a few of the changes emanating from this accident and whilst hull loss, loss of life is always highly tragic and regrettable one of the most important things within the aviation industry is our absolute desire to learn from these working diligently to improve and prevent further incidents/accidents.
instead of an endless unproductive, sometimes vitriolic, self indulgent mishmash diatribe which changes little or nothing, concentrating upon the future will be a more highly productive contribution to our industry, aviation safety!.