Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been much said about the lack of training for the Captains of these Antarctic flights. But they were highly qualified professionals in their own fields. Who were Justice Mahon's technical advisers during the course of this enquiry, seeing that he had no aeronautical expertise or experience.?
The comments made by the Appeal Court, and confirmed by the Privy Council, which have been printed in this forum a number of times, really show up the failings of the way Justice Mahon's Commission of enquiry. was conducted.
Even the Minister of Transport at the time has stated that the appointment of only one commissioner was a mistake.
The debate is whether the crew were blameless, when all the rules and regulations that were broken prior to the descent, no matter all the claimed background mistakes that try to justify these bad decisions by captain, on his own without any prior conferring with any other member of the flight crew, than that statement is of course open to much debate. If the statement was the cabin crew were blameless than that would be believed without any debate..
The comments made by the Appeal Court, and confirmed by the Privy Council, which have been printed in this forum a number of times, really show up the failings of the way Justice Mahon's Commission of enquiry. was conducted.
Even the Minister of Transport at the time has stated that the appointment of only one commissioner was a mistake.
The debate is whether the crew were blameless, when all the rules and regulations that were broken prior to the descent, no matter all the claimed background mistakes that try to justify these bad decisions by captain, on his own without any prior conferring with any other member of the flight crew, than that statement is of course open to much debate. If the statement was the cabin crew were blameless than that would be believed without any debate..
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the activity that reportedly happened at Air New Zealand offices were after the accident had happened, so how could any of that be attributed to the cause of the accident?
You don't destroy documents if you've got nothing to hide.
Whispering "T" Jet
Ah, I feel the end is nigh for the 40 years debate on Erebus.
The winner is still the Mahon Camp because:
1. No new evidence to dispute any of the findings in the Mahon Inquiry during the past fifteen (15) years. More accurately, the past 38 years but who wants to split hairs?
2. Same old arguments from the Chippendale Camp that cannot be substantiated by facts and most lack credibility anyway.
3. Points deducted from the Chippendale Camp for personal and libelous attacks on individuals during the debate.
I still want tickets to Porter's new Erebus Inquiry when it is convened. I am sure ampan and Papa Hotel 6 will let me know the dates.
Merry Christmas to all and keep your powder dry!!!!
The winner is still the Mahon Camp because:
1. No new evidence to dispute any of the findings in the Mahon Inquiry during the past fifteen (15) years. More accurately, the past 38 years but who wants to split hairs?
2. Same old arguments from the Chippendale Camp that cannot be substantiated by facts and most lack credibility anyway.
3. Points deducted from the Chippendale Camp for personal and libelous attacks on individuals during the debate.
I still want tickets to Porter's new Erebus Inquiry when it is convened. I am sure ampan and Papa Hotel 6 will let me know the dates.
Merry Christmas to all and keep your powder dry!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still want tickets to Porter's new Erebus Inquiry when it is convened.
One thing I can guarantee you, it won't be a Prune discussion that resolves this for me, it's just whetted the appetite. What Prune DOES do is illustrate the major bias carried by quite a few.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I think most of us realised that... some picky individuals might have missed it though.." No never missed it,, "But only the facts. Maam" sure I never hurt Paragraph 377 feelings by picking up that small error, more a sly dig than anything.
3 holler, Are you aware that there are more books, and reports than that published by Justice Mahon on the subject of Erebus??
(the spelling is not an error)
3 holler, Are you aware that there are more books, and reports than that published by Justice Mahon on the subject of Erebus??
(the spelling is not an error)
The debate is whether the crew were blameless
it is only recently that very dubious management malpractices are being identified and their contribution to accidents given sufficient weight. For though the pilot’s actions are at the tip of the iceberg of responsibility, many other people have had a hand in it – faceless people in aircraft design and manufacture, in computer technology and software, in maintenance, in flying control, in accounts departments and in the corridors of power. But the pilot is available and identifiable
1. On a formation flight with someone who's never done it before
2. On a night IMC hose and drogue aerial refuel sortie with a guy who's never done it before
3. On a flight into a New Guinea high altitude uphill strip who's never done it before
4. On a ILS to minima in IMC with a guy who's never done an ILS previously
5. On a carrier landing with someone who's never seen a carrier before
6. On a sight seeing flight to Antarctica with a guy who's never done it before
It seems that all the above require intensive training, except for 6.
Some anecdotes.
One of my SDOs had been a PBY Catalina pilot in Patrol Squadron Six (VP-6 CG) at Bluie West One (BW-1), that frigid, fog-bound, wind-driven outpost in Greenland responsible for ant-sub patrols, SAR, and other missions in that part of the North Atlantic. Among the many stories this SDO told was a fantastic one of a pilot landing on the Greenland ice cap. It seems this pilot and his PBY crew were flying on instruments in thick clouds and falling snow. As the pilot concentrated on the gauges, he noticed something moving out of the corner of his eye. And when he glanced out the window, there standing in the snow was his crew chief ... waving his arms and giving the “cut engines” signal! They had unintentionally landed on the ice cap! It seems they had flown onto a very gradually rising slope in white-out conditions, and the snow was so soft and featureless they did not even feel it when the “Cat” touched down and slid to a stop.
Many years ago an Air Force PBY flying out of (I believe) Elmendorf AFB in Alaska found itself in a white out in a mountainous area. The pilot was familiar with the various peaks and their respective altitude. Knowing where he was when he entered the whiteout he began to climb with the intention of flying over the mountain range. He was several minutes into the climb when the aircraft lurched. The airspeed dropped to zero and his rate of climb indicated no climb and no dive. His altimeter also stopped indicating an increase in climb. His first thought was his pitot sensing or his static port had frozen over. He turned on the pitot heat with no effect. It seems that the P Boat intersected the rising surface of the mountain at a very slight angular difference and became stuck in the snow
I was at CGAS Savannah aboard Hunter AFB, then home of the 63rd Troop Carrier Wing (Heavy). The 63rd was operating C-124 Globemasters at the time. While one of their planes was operating in Antarctica, and flying in white-out conditions, the observer in the after station noticed the props were starting to kick up snow! Imagine the panic on the flight deck when the observer yelled, PULL UP! ... PULL UP!” on the ICS!
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good read. but to get back to the cause of Erebus tragedy. There has been much written about the Airlines transgression. But the following from History of New Zealand Antarctic Research Programme 1965-88
This has been printed in this Forum before. but either folks do not read it, or fail to realise the import of the statement from one of the most experienced people to have flown to the Antarctic, Some 50 flights to the Antarctic, most in the cockpit, and for the first Air New Zealand flights the Tour commentator.
"Air New Zealand and NZALPA went to some lengths to ensure that their senior pilots and members were seen as professionals who knew it all and did not therefor need to seek advice from elsewhere, such as the RNZAF, USAF, USN or the Division, wrote Bob Thomson"
Nor did Air New Zealand take advantage of the experience gained by members of their aircrews who flew on earlier flights. Apparently the NZALPA saw the Antarctic flights as a "Special perk" for their members and had an agreement with Air New Zealand that flight crews should be spread widely amongst its members. Therefore Aircrews, including Captains, usually had not had any previous experience which would have avoided the Erebus disaster from ever happening".
So with those facts, which are facts, history shows the accuracy of them, is the airline the sole arbiter of this disaster???
This has been printed in this Forum before. but either folks do not read it, or fail to realise the import of the statement from one of the most experienced people to have flown to the Antarctic, Some 50 flights to the Antarctic, most in the cockpit, and for the first Air New Zealand flights the Tour commentator.
"Air New Zealand and NZALPA went to some lengths to ensure that their senior pilots and members were seen as professionals who knew it all and did not therefor need to seek advice from elsewhere, such as the RNZAF, USAF, USN or the Division, wrote Bob Thomson"
Nor did Air New Zealand take advantage of the experience gained by members of their aircrews who flew on earlier flights. Apparently the NZALPA saw the Antarctic flights as a "Special perk" for their members and had an agreement with Air New Zealand that flight crews should be spread widely amongst its members. Therefore Aircrews, including Captains, usually had not had any previous experience which would have avoided the Erebus disaster from ever happening".
So with those facts, which are facts, history shows the accuracy of them, is the airline the sole arbiter of this disaster???
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No hurt feelings with me Prospector. You’ve picked up a couple of my errors, so be it. I’ve seen numerous errors in this thread and I too could have pointed a stick, but I’m too old and not interested these days to pay a meaningless retort. I’ve been quite candid with the fact that a few of us on here are definitely retired widebody Pilots and there is shortage of ego, pride and opinion within our group. And that includes me. We all have our thoughts, reasons and agendas. That probably won’t change for another 40 years. Perhaps Tailwheel will still be moderating the Erebus discussion when our grandchildren are flying the heavies? However I think he too will be just a plaque on a wall by the time that happens. My personal agenda is ‘justice’. In the case of Erebus, the airline, the Regulatory and the Government failed in NZ. No different to today’s failure of justice in Australia by successive Governments, CASA and other parties. It’s a drum I will beat as long as it remains an issue.
You have to feel sorry for NZ though, the next battle for them will be the public game blame over the White Island volcano tragedy. That will transpire between the Government, the tour operator, insurance companies, Geonet, WHS and whoever else can be thrown under the bus. Have fun.
You have to feel sorry for NZ though, the next battle for them will be the public game blame over the White Island volcano tragedy. That will transpire between the Government, the tour operator, insurance companies, Geonet, WHS and whoever else can be thrown under the bus. Have fun.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am afraid you will be proven correct re the kerfuffle that will arise out of the White Island tragedy. The lawyers will be rubbing their hands together in glee. Already being printed who will be liable for what and how much they could be sued for. The.people went there voluntarily, knowing the risks that must be faced wandering around the crater of an active volcano
\
3 Holer, Once again this question which has been asked a number of times, never gets a reply
3 holer'
You never debate a point, all you have ever contributed to this thread is the findings of Justice Mahon, are absolutely watertight. The following is relative to your utterances that Mahon report was fireproof.
You say
"Ah, I feel the end is nigh for the 40 years debate on Erebus.
The winner is still the Mahon Camp because:
1. No new evidence to dispute any of the findings in the Mahon Inquiry during the past fifteen (15) years. More accurately, the past 38 years but who wants to split hairs?
2. Same old arguments from the Chippendale Camp that cannot be substantiated by facts and most lack credibility anyway.
3. Points deducted from the Chippendale Camp for personal and libelous attacks on individuals during the debate.
Please advise the facts that lack credibility, especially those made by Ron Chippindale, an investigator with much experience, who also points out the failings of Air New Zealand.
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."
That is fact, tell me why you disagree with their finding?? or do you believe that is not fact?? Then tell us why??
Do not come up with the argument they never challenged his findings as to cause. They did not do that because that was not their brief, their job was to give a ruling on the conduct of the commission of enquiry... Note the comments re exhibit 164.
\
3 Holer, Once again this question which has been asked a number of times, never gets a reply
3 holer'
You never debate a point, all you have ever contributed to this thread is the findings of Justice Mahon, are absolutely watertight. The following is relative to your utterances that Mahon report was fireproof.
You say
"Ah, I feel the end is nigh for the 40 years debate on Erebus.
The winner is still the Mahon Camp because:
1. No new evidence to dispute any of the findings in the Mahon Inquiry during the past fifteen (15) years. More accurately, the past 38 years but who wants to split hairs?
2. Same old arguments from the Chippendale Camp that cannot be substantiated by facts and most lack credibility anyway.
3. Points deducted from the Chippendale Camp for personal and libelous attacks on individuals during the debate.
Please advise the facts that lack credibility, especially those made by Ron Chippindale, an investigator with much experience, who also points out the failings of Air New Zealand.
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."
That is fact, tell me why you disagree with their finding?? or do you believe that is not fact?? Then tell us why??
Do not come up with the argument they never challenged his findings as to cause. They did not do that because that was not their brief, their job was to give a ruling on the conduct of the commission of enquiry... Note the comments re exhibit 164.
Last edited by prospector; 12th Dec 2019 at 04:56.
Ah so many facts, so many theories and so many irons in fires. But as always in aviation the buck definitely stops at the pointy end. Stay safe everyone - if in doubt pull out.
Whispering "T" Jet
That is fact, tell me why you disagree with their finding?? or do you believe that is not fact?? Then tell us why??
I spelt it all out for you and your Mates in "Erebus 25 years on". Use the search function and happy reading.
Whispering "T" Jet
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and the other Believers have difficulty with the concept of relevance. You and the other Believers have a tendancy to throw everything in, whatever it might have to do with anything. When cornered, you and the other Believers start babbling on about burglaries and Swiss cheese. The only way to get a point across to you and the other Believers is to shove right up your jacksy, and the jacksys of the other Believers, so bend over: Assume that after the accident, Muldoon, Morrie Davis and Ian Gemmell went on a murderous killing spree. In all, they executed over 400 NZers in the space of 5 weeks. Over half of the victims were sadistically tortured before their deaths, and after, the three chaps danced around their corpses laughing. Does this make the captain blameless?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Zealand
Age: 71
Posts: 1,475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think ampan has really lost the plot and I’m afraid for his mental health. Now he is blabbering on about serial killers other demented ramblings. Jeez I hope this bloke doesn’t fly anything that has wings and carries passengers.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing you have ever stated about the Appeal Court finding and backed up by the Privy Council is that they agreed with Mahon finding. Those findings printed above do not look like any sort of agreement at all. How do you reconcile the fact that they were not tasked to, nor were they qualified to, make any ruling on the cause of the accident.
Their brief, I say again, was to investigate the conduct of the Commissioners methods. And if you think telling a Justice that he breached the requirements of natural justice in his findings is what one would expect then I feel again that pointing out fact to you is a waste of time.
" i am sure glad some of you blokes aren't lawyers or pilots." Some of us were, some for many years before retirement. I would say reading some of these posts it should be obvious who were, or still are, aeroplane drivers.
Their brief, I say again, was to investigate the conduct of the Commissioners methods. And if you think telling a Justice that he breached the requirements of natural justice in his findings is what one would expect then I feel again that pointing out fact to you is a waste of time.
" i am sure glad some of you blokes aren't lawyers or pilots." Some of us were, some for many years before retirement. I would say reading some of these posts it should be obvious who were, or still are, aeroplane drivers.
Last edited by prospector; 12th Dec 2019 at 06:19. Reason: correction
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legal side of this is as simple as the blame side: Mahon's findings on blame could not be appealed. Some of the appeal judges could not help making a comment or two, but those comment were just that: Comments. The Privy Council judges also couldn't help blowing a bit of smoke up Mahon's arsehole after hammering him for his conduct of the inquiry. That's all that was: Some kind words for a stupid old twit.
Whispering "T" Jet
May as well have some fun, after all, it is nearly Christmas.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Paraparaumu
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still using these licences are you?"? Licence Type (eg CPL. Pilots only)HR/MC or is that just a weak joke???
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC).
These are the only licences I can find with those designations. Am I on the right track??? Heavy rigid a 747, DC10 or perhaps an Airbus 380?
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC).
These are the only licences I can find with those designations. Am I on the right track??? Heavy rigid a 747, DC10 or perhaps an Airbus 380?
Last edited by prospector; 12th Dec 2019 at 07:27. Reason: addition
Viewpoint
Was called out on the SAR that day, however recalled before going on site. My flatmate flew a few of the recoveries, a very pragmatic guy who was deeply affected by the experience, as the whole country was. We provided input into the original investigation, and the consensus viewpoint was quite strongly held, until Justice Mahon's insightful review occurred. The Royal commission report, and the revelations that uncovered remain the most profound shock in my brief 45 years flying. As a safety officer at that time, involved in investigations, that changed my view for the next 40 years.
The visual illusion was remarkable, and the relocation of a way point incidental to a notamed aid outage that impacted a previous nomenclature/position effor was devastating.
but for the grace of God go many crew that operate in that area.
The visual illusion was remarkable, and the relocation of a way point incidental to a notamed aid outage that impacted a previous nomenclature/position effor was devastating.
but for the grace of God go many crew that operate in that area.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Couch
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor Stall has extensive experience flying in Antarctica, both jet and smaller aircraft used for commuting about the ice, so any thing he has to say you can take as gospel. Posters commenting, such as the quote, don't seem to understand the whiteout phenomena. As I've commented before, I sat in the cockpit of a 747 as we climbed from 16,000 through to on top of a overcast layer at 20,000, below the overcast the vis was unlimited, right around the world, VMC, yet you could see nothing but white in any direction. It's one of those things you have to experience to believe. I liken it to the reverse of a pitch black night, vis may be unlimited but you can't see anything. To see something you need contrast.
What “posters commenting such as he quote (above)” “don’t seem to understand” is that “we” are not asking about why they didn’t see the mountain in the literal sense (even the ampans & PH6s of the world). We understand the concept of whiteout/bouncing light/sector whiteout/lack of contrast. It staggers me that the “zero blame/responsibly” brigade miss the actual reason for the question - why, in “unlimited” visibility, one of the taller mountains in the world, was unsighted to them in any direction throughout two 360° turns. If they truely believed they were VMC (and I don’t doubt that they thought they were) WHERE WAS THE MOUNTAIN? It was only 27nm away after all...
I know why he couldn’t SEE it because of whiteout, I want to know why not seeing it (a very nearby, tall mountain) didn’t ring alarm bells.
You don’t destroy documents if you’ve got nothing to hide
What prune DOES do is illustrate the major bias carried by quite a few
3. Points deducted from Chippendale Camp for personal and libellous attacks on individual during the debate
How are we, as professionals STILL saying that because everyone else did it, the crew on this occasion are EXONERATED? This crew did something none of the other crews did - they hit the ground! As a thought experiment; had they successfully flown the escape manoeuvre and made it back to base - would an investigation have found them absolutely blameless?