Mt Erebus Disaster 40th Anniversary

[PapaHotel6]

Originally Posted by Pickuptruck

So with zero air accident investigation experience and zero widebody transport flying experience a Judge in the space of a few months knew as much about flying the DC10 as anyone on the flight deck. Mahon’s explanation of the INS and his snippets of knowledge on flying and airmanship were downright embarrassing as was his idea that it was perfectly acceptable to forget about a Tacan lock and descend anyway. Mahon was way out of his depth.

Well said.

Mahon's snippets of aviation knowledge were indeed embarrassing. Not least of which was his assertion that "anecdotally, Air NZ crews had found the INS to be unerringly accurate therefore Collins was entitled to have 100% faith in it". It's laughable.

But laughable as it may be, Mahon's premise was well communicated and easily understood by the general public. And those with an agenda (like the crew family members) latched onto it like a junkie to meth.

Which brings us to where we are today.

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by PapaHotel6

I'll save him the bother. "Because the Hon. Justice Mahon declared the cause was the change in Navagation coordinates with the airline neglecting to tell the crew combined with the polar phenomenon of whiteout."

I'm certain that he never said that there was a change in "Navagation" coordinates

[Pickuptruck]

Originally Posted by Chris2303

I'm certain that he never said that there was a change in "Navagation" coordinates

So what did it matter? In the previous hour not once did the crew look at a chart and check where they were. The INS held maybe 6 coordinates in it and if they had looked even once at them they would have seen that there was no left turn to overhead Scott Base after passing over Erebus. Who goes flying and never looks on the chart once to see where they are? Chippendale was correct in that the crew threw the SOP and airmanship out the window. Unbelievable they got no Tacan lock to check INS drift and confirm position and descended anyway.

[Dark Knight]

And; so, it goes ON, & On & ON, ad infinitum repeating the same old posts over and over again, proving nothing, changing nothing nor is it likely to!

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?"



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 Hhd 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!.


Jeeze; you guys need to get out in the sunshine and get a life! (not looking forward to the 40th anniversary)

[PapaHotel6]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

And; so, it goes ON, & On & ON, ad infinitum repeating the same old posts over and over again, proving nothing, changing nothing nor is it likely to!

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?"



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 Hhd 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!.


Jeeze; you guys need to get out in the sunshine and get a life! (not looking forward to the 40th anniversary)

Going on and on with vitriol? Dark Knight do you even see the irony?

[3 Holer]

Originally Posted by morno

3 Holer, can you please tell me how you come to the conclusion that the crew were not a factor in this accident?

I shall not waste bandwidth with a single reply to your question as I have made myself clear on this subject many times on this forum. Search "Erebus 25 years on" and this present thread and you will have your answer.
The Honourable Peter Mahon was a man of wide experience in the judicial system, and one of high intelligence and competence. He conceded he was far from an established expert in any of the technical and operational matters of the subject investigation, however, he applied his searching intellect, enormous integrity and great legal and judicial experience, to mastering an appreciation of even the smallest details of his tenure. For these reasons, I aligned myself with his cause of the disaster very early after the release of his report in the early eighties.

I can only suggest you read the Mahon Report thoroughly, without prejudice and you will see why I made my conclusion.

I look forward to hearing from Porter on this forum when he convenes the new Inquiry into the Erebus crash. I would like a ringside seat for those proceedings as they have the potential (used loosely) to change the course of legal history in New Zealand.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

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?

Flight crew training improved.

If the crew were considered blameless why would flight crew training be improved?

[prospector]

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.


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.
Who were his "Technical adviser's' Did they have any conflict of interest?? for my money they certainly did.


No doubt you will come back and say they never altered Mahons finding on the cause of the accident, They did not do that because it was not what they were asked to do,tHEY WERE ASKED TO GIVE A RULING ON THE CONDUCT OF THE ENQUIRY and the Chippendale report remains the only ACCIDENT REPORT as such, Mahon's finding was only a legal opinion.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by 3 Holer

For these reasons, I aligned myself with his cause of the disaster very early after the release of his report in the early eighties.

The cause had already been established by the accident investigation - CFIT. A number of defences preventing CFIT were defeated by the actions (and inaction) of the navigation department and the flight crew.

A man of considerable judicial experience would likely be inclined to apportion blame which is specifically not the remit of accident investigations. In doing so Mahon overtly ignores the flight crew influence on the outcome.

[Pickuptruck]

Originally Posted by 3 Holer

I shall not waste bandwidth with a single reply to your question as I have made myself clear on this subject many times on this forum. Search "Erebus 25 years on" and this present thread and you will have your answer.
The Honourable Peter Mahon was a man of wide experience in the judicial system, and one of high intelligence and competence. He conceded he was far from an established expert in any of the technical and operational matters of the subject investigation, however, he applied his searching intellect, enormous integrity and great legal and judicial experience, to mastering an appreciation of even the smallest details of his tenure. For these reasons, I aligned myself with his cause of the disaster very early after the release of his report in the early eighties.

I can only suggest you read the Mahon Report thoroughly, without prejudice and you will see why I made my conclusion.

I look forward to hearing from Porter on this forum when he convenes the new Inquiry into the Erebus crash. I would like a ringside seat for those proceedings as they have the potential (used loosely) to change the course of legal history in New Zealand.

Chippendale mentioned all the casual factors as an accident investigator should. Whiteout and navigation were amongst them. But primary cause was Collins decision to ditch SOP for the Erebus flights and knowingly descend the aircraft below MSA. He is paid to operate the aircraft within the SOP that the Air NZ AOC relates to.

He didn’t and from this lessons have been learnt. Mahon knew nothing of aviation and it is a joke to state he could pick up a lifetime of experience in a matter of months.

[megan]

So with zero air accident investigation experience and zero widebody transport flying experience a Judge in the space of a few months knew as much about flying the DC10 as anyone on the flight deck

A judge is not required to have an intimate knowledge of the subject before him. It could be an aircraft accident one day, finance and accounting the next, collapse of a bridge or building the next, explosion in an oil refinery etc

[Pickuptruck]

Originally Posted by megan

A judge is not required to have an intimate knowledge of the subject before him. It could be an aircraft accident one day, finance and accounting the next, collapse of a bridge or building the next, explosion in an oil refinery etc

sadly that would be correct if the judge was presenting an impartial examination of the factors, cause and effect. Mahon set out to without any impartiality to exonerate the crew from their actions in flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft into the side of a mountain. Couldn’t have picked a worse judge.

[prospector]

". Couldn’t have picked a worse judge."

And as the Minister of Transport at the time said in hindsight years later, "It was a mistake to only appoint one commissioner"

[megan]

that would be correct if the judge was presenting an impartial examination of the factors

Same could be said of the airline, there was no way they were interested in an impartial examination of the facts, disappearance of pages from the Captains note book, break in and robbery of his home, disappearance of the F/O briefing notes collected from his home by an airline employee. ampan tried to tell us the notebook pages disappeared because they had the details of the Captains girl friends, if that were the case they would have kept the pages to further discredit the Captain.

[Chris2303]

Originally Posted by Pickuptruck

Couldn’t have picked a worse judge.

Let's turn it around a little and apply that comment to Morrie Davis "Couldn't have picked a worse airline boss"

[3 Holer]

Originally Posted by prospector

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.

ampan, I have debated many points with yourself and others on this subject and in this forum. As I advised mourno and suggest you do the same, search this website and you will find all the debate you want. The trouble with you and a few of your mates, when you start losing credibility from your debated points, you get personal. Not good form in any debate.

By the way I couldn't find a relative of mine in my utterances, nor could I find any relevance that the Mahon report was fireproof either.

[prospector]

" "Couldn't have picked a worse airline boss""

What a stupid misinformed statement to make, how many flights had been successfully completed to the ice before a captain thought he knew better than everybody who laid down all the requirements for a successful flight to the ice could be totally ignored, designed own descent procedure knowing that the weather at Mcmurdo was well below that required for a successful sight seeing flight and it is the bosses fault??

You do not use another Nom de Plume of 3 Holer do you???
.

3 Holer
Please tell us what you think of the Privy council ruling on Justice Mahons conduct of the enquiry were


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.


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??

I notice you still have not answered the query on post 264, Is there a reason for this??

[3 Holer]

See post #336 and search your heart out. It was all debated, rebated and sedated fifteen (15) years ago.

[prospector]

And that is an answer to specific questions?? Thank you, means absolutely nothing.

[Pickuptruck]

How many of those previous Captains had the waypoints changed, without being let let know, the day before the flight?

Amateur hour. You want the airline to call you everytime you go flying? Waypoints change all the time, you look on the chart to see what your route is. You telling me you never look at where you are on a chart and that constitutes great airmanship.
Collins was the last line of defense in getting those pax safety from A to B. That’s what you get paid for.

Was pretty poor airmanship of Collins to assume track would be the same from a previous flight plan.