Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To many of us, truth is important.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern Sun
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality, or fidelity to an original or standard. Truth is also sometimes defined in modern contexts as an idea of "truth to self", or authenticity.
Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also suggest a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.
The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.
To some, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to an independent reality, in what is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth.
Truth is often as seen in the eye of the beholder.
As was said by one far more eloquent than I; "I have never been untruthful to you however, which version of the Truth would you care to hear?"
Truth is usually held to be opposite to falsehood, which, correspondingly, can also suggest a logical, factual, or ethical meaning.
The concept of truth is discussed and debated in several contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.
To some, truth is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to an independent reality, in what is sometimes called the correspondence theory of truth.
Truth is often as seen in the eye of the beholder.
As was said by one far more eloquent than I; "I have never been untruthful to you however, which version of the Truth would you care to hear?"
"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.
Did the captain have any responsibility at all on this flight? A responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight perhaps?
The cause was CFIT.
You mean the outcome was CFIT, caused by multiple errors made by the crew, and contributors included the change in the flight plan, the company culture, and the weather?
I’m no expert in this crash, but you can’t tell me that the captain didn’t contribute to the outcome.
I’m no expert in this crash, but you can’t tell me that the captain didn’t contribute to the outcome.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Auckalnd
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When Mahon's report goes to 5 of his peers and 3 of them have conflicts of interest, two conflicting reports that end up in the Privvy Council, etc etc etc, I think there's a problem that needs to be resolved.
From the Qantas Antarctica flight blurb:
"There is a fantastic atmosphere of cooperation among passengers as they share the experience. This is unlike any flight you have been on before."
That sounds rather attractive..
The Qantas Antarctica flights are ongoing so it looks like they will be chartering others' B747s.
"There is a fantastic atmosphere of cooperation among passengers as they share the experience. This is unlike any flight you have been on before."
That sounds rather attractive..
The Qantas Antarctica flights are ongoing so it looks like they will be chartering others' B747s.
Whispering "T" Jet
Chronic Snoozer says:
"So you're saying that anyone who questions with the outcome of the Mahon inquiry (which of course was infallible) is either ignorant or fails to grasp the facts?"
Not at all Snoozer, what I said was (and I shall spell it out for you- in BOLD text) - Jim Collins and his crew hadnothing 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.
The Mahon Inquiry was only a part of the of the many appeals, exhaustive investigations by Vette et al, into the effects of whiteout and visual deception, open admissions by Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government that they had got it wrong about the findings of the Chippendale report blaming Pilot Error for the crash and finally, the Privy Council conceding the pilots had NO CASE TO ANSWER in this whole disgraceful affair.
As I said in the last debate (15 years ago), there will never be a change to Mahon & the Privy Council's official finding. However, it is OK to get together on this forum and chew the fat.
Look forward to 2020 when they officiate the memorial in Antarctica.
"So you're saying that anyone who questions with the outcome of the Mahon inquiry (which of course was infallible) is either ignorant or fails to grasp the facts?"
Not at all Snoozer, what I said was (and I shall spell it out for you- in BOLD text) - Jim Collins and his crew hadnothing 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.
The Mahon Inquiry was only a part of the of the many appeals, exhaustive investigations by Vette et al, into the effects of whiteout and visual deception, open admissions by Air New Zealand and the New Zealand government that they had got it wrong about the findings of the Chippendale report blaming Pilot Error for the crash and finally, the Privy Council conceding the pilots had NO CASE TO ANSWER in this whole disgraceful affair.
As I said in the last debate (15 years ago), there will never be a change to Mahon & the Privy Council's official finding. However, it is OK to get together on this forum and chew the fat.
Look forward to 2020 when they officiate the memorial in Antarctica.
Last edited by 3 Holer; 5th Dec 2019 at 05:13.
But they went against policy and the basics for descent below MSA/LSALT. How can that not be the fault of the crew?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: oz (30% of the time)
Age: 62
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
same players and same boring arguments. get a life chaps
oh and by the way, this accident would never had happened if they had not changed the final waypoint OR told the crew they had changed it.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And 36 years ago this was the finding of the Privy Council.
In their judgement, delivered on 20 October 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy council dismissed the Commissioners appeal and upheld the Court of Appeals decision, which set aside costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be intended to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company's chief executive, had ever existed.
You will note, committed clear breaches of natural justice, a ruling by his own peers that he could not run a commission of enquiry in his own field, yet he could make a ruling in a field in which he had no expertise whatsoever.
In their judgement, delivered on 20 October 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy council dismissed the Commissioners appeal and upheld the Court of Appeals decision, which set aside costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be intended to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company's chief executive, had ever existed.
You will note, committed clear breaches of natural justice, a ruling by his own peers that he could not run a commission of enquiry in his own field, yet he could make a ruling in a field in which he had no expertise whatsoever.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWO of them had alleged conflicts of interest. All of them agreed he'd overstepped the mark, Messrs Woodhouse and McMullin went further with their language. Why do we discount the other 3 who didn't have a conflict?
another private pilot wanting to play with the big boys. nice to see you all back together again i thought you would all be retired by now and playing with grand kids.
same players and same boring arguments. get a life chaps
oh and by the way, this accident would never had happened if they had not changed the final waypoint OR told the crew they had changed it.
same players and same boring arguments. get a life chaps
oh and by the way, this accident would never had happened if they had not changed the final waypoint OR told the crew they had changed it.
I apologise if you disagree because the captain was a mate of yours.
Would you like to tell me how they DIDN’T breach policy and the basics of descent below MSA/LSALT?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWO of them had alleged conflicts of interest. All of them agreed he'd overstepped the mark, Messrs Woodhouse and McMullin went further with their language. Why do we discount the other 3 who didn't have a conflict?
While air travel remains one of the safest modes of transport, controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) continues to remain one of the leading causes of commercial aircraft accidents.
Not at all Snoozer, what I said was (and I shall spell it out for you- in BOLD text) - Jim Collins and his crew hadnothing 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.
Anyone who relies 100% on the Mahon report and considers the crew to be 100% free of responsibility (I will not use the phrase 'blame') has their head in the sand as is anyone who believes the Company is without responsibility. My problem with the crew 'is blameless' angle is to accept this is to accept that the crew of an aircraft are merely passengers who have no input or influence on the outcome of a flight i.e. you believe that given the flight plan change and the whiteout conditions this crew were crashing on that day no matter what, it was destined to happen and every person on that aircraft was dead the moment it departed. The fact is that there were multiple opportunities to avoid this crash:
- if the crew had taken heed of the McMurdo controller who advised the conditions were not suitable, due to cloud and whiteout, for sightseeing in the area then the crash would have been avoided.
- if any of the crew had questioned the relative position of Bird Island then the position error could have been picked up.
- given the inability to see any of the expected landmarks in VMC if any of the crew (some of who were trained navigators) had plotted a position on the chart or atlas the crash would have been avoided.
- if the crew had decided that given their unfamiliarity with Antarctic operations they were just going to follow published procedures for let down below MSA instead of opting for a figure eight descending pattern in VMC when the CVR shows they weren't 100% certain of their position then the crash would have been avoided.
- if the crew had initiated a climb to above MSA at the first instance of doubt being expressed as to their situation the crash MAY have been avoided.
The Company had multiple systemic and organisational factors that contributed to the crash, the crew decisions and actions on the day contributed to the crash. The aftermath was appallingly handled by the Government, CAA, Airline and in my opinion Mahon, anyone who has been involved in safety investigation knows that we are not trying to allocate blame, we are trying to identify the causal factors that contribute to the incident and then see if procedures or knowledge can result from the investigation that may help prevent a similar incident in the future. The lack of a thorough and balanced report in this case goes against all best practice.
- if the crew had taken heed of the McMurdo controller who advised the conditions were not suitable, due to cloud and whiteout, for sightseeing in the area then the crash would have been avoided.
- if any of the crew had questioned the relative position of Bird Island then the position error could have been picked up.
- given the inability to see any of the expected landmarks in VMC if any of the crew (some of who were trained navigators) had plotted a position on the chart or atlas the crash would have been avoided.
- if the crew had decided that given their unfamiliarity with Antarctic operations they were just going to follow published procedures for let down below MSA instead of opting for a figure eight descending pattern in VMC when the CVR shows they weren't 100% certain of their position then the crash would have been avoided.
- if the crew had initiated a climb to above MSA at the first instance of doubt being expressed as to their situation the crash MAY have been avoided.
The Company had multiple systemic and organisational factors that contributed to the crash, the crew decisions and actions on the day contributed to the crash. The aftermath was appallingly handled by the Government, CAA, Airline and in my opinion Mahon, anyone who has been involved in safety investigation knows that we are not trying to allocate blame, we are trying to identify the causal factors that contribute to the incident and then see if procedures or knowledge can result from the investigation that may help prevent a similar incident in the future. The lack of a thorough and balanced report in this case goes against all best practice.