Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary

[Paragraph377]

Originally Posted by ampan

Quite right. It beggars belief. Usually, the dead captain is hung out to dry, without any regard to his family. That is the way it should be.

Another stupid comment from someone who potentially has his own version of some mental illness.

[Checklist Charlie]

Not sure what 'ampan' is trying to achieve, not that it matters,
Nothing anyone says here will change anything or even have a minor influence on the TE901 story.

CC

[The name is Porter]

And at NO STAGE have I said you did. But there is a bunch of what I consider to be learned contributors that do. That is truely incongruous to me...

Well, you kinda did by quoting my text.

I understand the social more not to speak ill of the dead, and to defend those can't defend themselves.

As an aside to this thread, to me, if you're a see you next Tuesday whilst you're alive, you're still one when you're dead. And vice versa of course.

I don't take any notice of posters coming onto the thread saying, 'same old, same old. Nothing's going to change,' I couldn't give a Tinker's Cuss.

I'm gaining a great deal of insight and paying a great deal of respect to the lessons learn't from this. Empathy to anyone who was and still are affected by this, it's not my intent to pick scabs off old wounds. Just learn lessons that will keep myself and my pax safe.

[prospector]

"I'm gaining a great deal of insight and paying a great deal of respect to the lessons learn't from this. Empathy to anyone who was and still are affected by this, it's not my intent to pick scabs off old wounds. Just learn lessons that will keep myself and my pax safe.'

And I am sure .those of us that are of a contrary view to the Mahon finding can ask no more.

[compressor stall]

Change the astrices to bravo Lima Oscar golf Sierra papa Oscar tango and it will work. This BB has a filter.

http://flight-engineers-air-nz.*****...og-page_3.html



There’s some really interesting stories in there if you’re into a bit of history, especially the one on the FE’s time on the DC10 - linked here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7N...Z1RmpJNGM/view
I enjoyed the photos of McMurdo taken from “tourist viewing altitude” (obviously meant 6000’) as I can see the buildings clearly to see the changes over the years. Same for Willy Field. He must have put the zoom lens on for that bit to make it look closer.

[PapaHotel6]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

What an arrogant response... I NEVER said he was incapable of making an error but you have said yourself in your response (where you allude to me being an idiot) "Collins was put into an unfamiliar environment and asked to perform a task (sightseeing) in which he had no experience."... AND WHO PUT HIM THERE WITHOUT ADEQUATE PREPARATION OR EXPERIENCE??? by your logic, throwing someone into a war zone with no training and no weapons knowledge, the person would be responsible for their own death when they inevitably got shot by the enemy???

Like I said, you cannot view it in a vacuum... yes, Air NZ put him in the unfamiliar environment, Air NZ failed to properly prepare the crew, Air NZ tolerated the low flying then claimed they didn't know, Air NZ shredded the documents, Air NZ gave the inconsistent evidence, Air NZ went against the advice of the USAF in operating the flights in the first place. But you suggest it's Collins' fault... or that seems like what you're saying.

Why is that so many of the Mahon disciples seem to have trouble seeing middle ground? There's no one here, that I'm aware of, who is saying Collins was wholely responsible for this accident. Yes, Air New Zealand, ALPA and CAA all made a string of bad judgements that were shoddy at best, negligent at worst but that in itself does not mean that far better couldn't have, and shouldn't have been expected of Collins on the day. Mahon opined that the crew made no error that contributed to the accident and there are plenty of us that have a major issue with that statement.

The only intelligent debate at this point (and it's actually not one I'm interested in having) is in how much (ie. greater than zero) blame can be attributed to the actions of the crew.

It also strikes me that there are several posters here who have a significant conflict of interest. To this I would just say one thing. There were 256 people apart from Collins who lost their lives that day. The legacy of those people - and those they left behind - deserves truth. And that truth is more important than imparting upon the pilot's family a comforting thought that is not, in fact, real.

[tail wheel]

When will he learn?

Keep it civil and reasonable if you don't wish to join him in an extended absence from PPRuNe.

And to "him" (you know who you are), no third chance, next time it will be permanent.

[Stationair8]

After this incident did ANZ and Qantas stop doing the Antarctic flights, for a period of time?

[megan]

Change the astrices to bravo Lima Oscar golf Sierra papa Oscar tango and it will work. This BB has a filter

CS, not sure to what you refer, seems I'm missing something. Link perhaps?

[AerialPerspective]

Originally Posted by PapaHotel6

Why is that so many of the Mahon disciples seem to have trouble seeing middle ground? There's no one here, that I'm aware of, who is saying Collins was wholely responsible for this accident. Yes, Air New Zealand, ALPA and CAA all made a string of bad judgements that were shoddy at best, negligent at worst but that in itself does not mean that far better couldn't have, and shouldn't have been expected of Collins on the day. Mahon opined that the crew made no error that contributed to the accident and there are plenty of us that have a major issue with that statement.

The only intelligent debate at this point (and it's actually not one I'm interested in having) is in how much (ie. greater than zero) blame can be attributed to the actions of the crew.

It also strikes me that there are several posters here who have a significant conflict of interest. To this I would just say one thing. There were 256 people apart from Collins who lost their lives that day. The legacy of those people - and those they left behind - deserves truth. And that truth is more important than imparting upon the pilot's family a comforting thought that is not, in fact, real.

And there seem to be multiple people on here who either CAN'T READ or can read but CAN'T UNDERSTAND... I never said Collins was blameless, only that the circumstances likely led to any errors he made because the environment he was placed in with no experience flying in the polar region and wrong coordinates, the terrible coincidence of a visible area of rising ground that perfectly matched what they expected to see in the area where they were led to believe they were flying, all contributed to the illusion that they were somewhere else entirely. That's my only salient point, that Mahon looked at all those factors which would have normally been dismissed by the standard of accident investigation of the time, but are now an integral part of accident investigation.

It beggars belief that on several occasions I've gone to pains to explain that my point in support of the Mahon approach is that he didn't just classify errors as errors, he put them in the context of the situation in which they occurred. A waste of energy repeating it I fear as some here just simply can't get the subtlety of that point and respond with the, frankly, p-ss weak "Mahon disciple".

I've even defended Chippendale on this thread, in the context of his examination of the accident being consistent with the accident investigation methodology of the time but what I can't defend, nor would attempt to is jetting off to the UK to have another transcript of the CVR completed, essentially by himself and with none of the rigour that was apparently applied to the first transcript, utilising people that knew the voices of the crew. Add to that the fact that a parliamentarian who later tabled the Mahon report in parliament also revealed information that Chippendale had enjoyed 23 free of charge trips for himself and his partner on Air NZ in the years that followed. Now, all of that may be totally innocent and/or naively accepted without realising the impression it might give but there's just two elements which in any reasonable and objective view would bring into question the efficacy of the report and the fact it blamed everything on the crew. Like I said, maybe entirely innocent, but in any forum it would raise questions.

Here's a tip. Try putting aside the ridiculous 'Mahon disciple' phrase and actually read the words.

[compressor stall]

Originally Posted by megan

CS, not sure to what you refer, seems I'm missing something. Link perhaps?

added it in the post for continuity as they got deleted when he got banned.

[megan]

Thank you CS. Mods, is it possible for you post the pertinent info that was deleted?



From which post? More details so I can find it.

TW

[PapaHotel6]

Originally Posted by AerialPerspective

Here's a tip. Try putting aside the ridiculous 'Mahon disciple' phrase and actually read the words.

Thank you for your erudite advice and concise post AerialPerspective; I shall give both the respect they deserve.

The term "Mahon disciple" is not inappropriate. There are users here who, rather than debate a point will simply reply "because the Hon. Justice Mahon declared......" as if that in itself clinches the argument. This either represents blind faith or blunted intellect or both; so in using the term "Mahon disciple" I was therefore applying the benefit of the doubt.

There were mitigating factors in this disaster which have been well documented but all they do is alter the degree to which the crew were responsible. Because the crew themselves still made many unforced errors even acknowledging the bad training and bad luck they had; those mitigating factors do not make the crew responsibility zero.

[Dora-9]

Can I ask some questions here please, just to clarify this in my own mind?

1. What type of INS did the DC10 have?
2. Did it have a triple-mix function?
3. How were the waypoints loaded? Individually as Lat/Longs by the crew or was it already pre-loaded by (say) the Nav Dept?
4. Was the CFP also changed on the day or was the infamous altered waypoint only changed? What I'm getting at here is would the crew have been able to pick up that there'd been a change by cross-checking the tracks/distances or even Lats/Longs?

Thanks.

[3 Holer]

Originally Posted by PapaHotel6

Thank you for your erudite advice and concise post AerialPerspective; I shall give both the respect they deserve.

The term "Mahon disciple" is not inappropriate. There are users here who, rather than debate a point will simply reply "because the Hon. Justice Mahon declared......" as if that in itself clinches the argument. This either represents blind faith or blunted intellect or both; so in using the term "Mahon disciple" I was therefore applying the benefit of the doubt.

There were mitigating factors in this disaster which have been well documented but all they do is alter the degree to which the crew were responsible. Because the crew themselves still made many unforced errors even acknowledging the bad training and bad luck they had; those mitigating factors do not make the crew responsibility zero.

............I shall give both the respect they deserve. How magnanimous of you PapaHotel6.

............represents blind faith or blunted intellect or both; so in using the term "Mahon disciple" I was therefore applying the benefit of the doubt. Patronising but hardly convincing You have an incredible ego.
.............the crew themselves still made many unforced errors ​​​​​​. What "unforced errors" are you talking about? This is not a tennis match we are debating.


Aerial Perspective is bringing some well balanced and educated reasoning into this debate. As requested - "actually read the words".

[Capt Fathom]

And I thought this thread would be locked today!

[tail wheel]

That is very highly likely!!

[prospector]

" What "unforced errors" are you talking about? This is not a tennis match we are debating"

They crashed into a mountain that they knew was there, in a perfectly serviceable aeroplane with the most modern navigation equipment, by disregarding all the safeguards that had been built into the system to allow Air New Zealand to conduct these flights.

Now then, who forced them to do that????

[PapaHotel6]

Originally Posted by 3 Holer

What "unforced errors" are you talking about?

It's been done many times before, but sure, allow me to explain again.

To exonerate Collins from responsibility, as Mahon did, it is necessary to believe all of the below

- that his decision to descend around McMurdo was appropriate given he had already been informed conditions were poor.

- that his descent from high altitude through a hole in the cloud in a region known to contain a 13,000' mountain, using only the (assumed) high altitude flight plan to verify his position was justifiable;

- that he was truly continuously in VMC conditions all the way down to and including 1500';

- that the requirement not to descend below 16000' MSA until south of Erebus was in fact not real;

- that he was psychologically tricked by whiteout and "saw" a clear, normal horizon stretching out in front of him all the time up until impact;

- that he maintained appropriate situational awareness in the last stages of flight, in spite of failing to establish VHF comms and several comments that were made from other crew members about High ground/Erebus/don't like this etc.;

- that it was appropriate to descend from 2000' to 1500' when good conditions were not apparent at 2000'.

I personally reject every one of the above points. Each one of them represents a poor choice Collins made, and not one was forced on him by the airline, the passengers, normalisation of deviance, destroying documents, or Swiss cheese.

[3 Holer]

Originally Posted by PapaHotel6

To exonerate Collins from responsibility, as Mahon did,...........................

Justice Mahon also exonerated Hewitt, Gemmel, Hawkins, Vette, Davis, Muldoon and many other individuals involved in this terrible disaster. Unlike the Chippendale report that pointed the finger squarely at the pilots.

It has been quoted before but I shall reproduce it again (we seem to be doing a lot of this lately). The following statements from the Chippendale Report that were the catalyst for the Mahon Inquiry:

· The whiteout phenomenon. Chippindale makes the statement in paragraph 2.20 that the whiteout conditions made the snow slope appear to the pilots as “an area of limited visibility”. Justice Mahon’s coverage of the issue shows a far greater understanding of the illusion presented to the crew. (Refer paragraphs 165-201, and paragraphs 266-288)

· Minimum altitude for Antarctic flights being 16,000ft, or 6000ft south of McMurdo if specified visual meteorological conditions (VMC) existed. Mr Chippindale makes much of the captain’s decision to descend below these company-promulgated “absolute” minimum altitudes. Justice Mahon disputes the “absoluteness” of the minimums. An examination of paragraphs 202-223of his report reveals that whilst Air New Zealand management claimed all Antarctic flights had observed the stated minimums, the majority had not. Furthermore, the company had advertised widely the wonderful views available from the “low-level” scenic flights. (Publicity efforts included the National Film Unit filming the low-level operations – refer MacFarlane book below).

· Changes made to the flight-plan coordinates without the flight-crew’s knowledge. Mr Chippindale acknowledges, in paragraph 2.5, the failure of Air New Zealand to notify the crew of the change to their flight plan from that on which they had been briefed, but goes on to make the astounding statement – later in the same paragraph – that “no evidence was found to suggest that they[the crew]had been mislead[sic]by this error”.

The majority of observers and participants in this debate will concede that Justice Peter Mahon never intended to apportion blame to any one person. Instead, through his exhaustive research of the evidence in this case, he discovered the organisational culpabilities and systemic failures within that organisation were the cause of the accident.

If you are not convinced, go back to the Mahon Report and "actually read the words" of the three sections, Areas of Pilot Error Suggested by The Airline or By Civil Aviation (para 289. pages 108-127), The Cause of The Disaster (para385. pages 157-158) and The Epilogue (para 395. page 159)