Quote:
Not one of the mandatory requirements for descent as laid down in the memorandum from the Company to Antarctic crew was complied with.
[You forgot to add "by any crew" (as far as can be elicited).]

How about the crew that diverted to the South Magnetic Pole?

DARK KNIGHT #1266

If I get your drift you could be implying that the tone of many posts on this thread is at times rude and abusive. Hence barely tolerable. But on the other hand you may be familiar
with the works of Pablo Neruda who often refers in his poetry to stones
worn smooth by the passage of water down millennia. That is a more pleasing image than -

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me
Prov. You do not hurt me by calling me names. (A reply to someone who has called you names. Primarily used by children; sounds childish when used by adults.) Brother: You're stupid and mean, and everybody hates you! Sister: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

If you are libelled or slandered and have recourse to the law then that
is an overt acknowledgement of the harm that words can do.

There can be no doubt, that on the evidence, the late Justice Peter Mahon and the late Captain Gordon Vette have been libelled here. I will not name the chief offenders, as they are beyond the pale and because what is the point in responding to piss and wind, repeated to the point of imbecility.

And if I call you an imbecile that is defamation… (Unless you have a certificate from a medical person that certifies you as insane.)

I had a father-in-law once who had been certified . When after years of treatment that dreadful stigma was lifted by the revoking of the certification, for which he had a document to prove that. He delighted in telling people he was in the rare position of having written proof of his sanity.

Your idiocy knows no bounds....

Firstly, the "New Zealand Government" is not a static entity, and it does not have a view, regardless of whether the Mahon report was "tabled in parliament". Secondly, do you have a metric for the determining the "majority view here on this thread"? If so, please share it.

Alas, I knew your recent promise of "only one reply" was fantasy....

PapaHotel6, read Fantome's 31st August (#1282) post particularly paragraph four (4). If the cap fits, wear it!
Apology if this is too cryptic for you.:=

Your magnanimity knows no bounds.

see . . . . my very point . . .. courtesy is not catching round these
halls of hate and blame .

(Where is a Rumpole to add dry wit, turning a legal phrase to a nicety ? .. . . weary though he was of
the Temple Courts. RIP Leo McKern)

I fail to see your point, from whence do you draw the conclusion that my post has any "hate or blame"?

.Perhaps you should consult your dictionary as to the meaning of the word used in my post?

You just don't get it prospector, et al.

The cause of this accident was "directly attributable to the incompetent administrative airline procedures" sanctioned by Air NZ. That is FACT.

It includes blatant defiance of the rules set in place, untrained aircrew, CVR tampering, shredding of documents, late route changes and a plethora of other unprofessional admissions. Given what came out of that Inquiry, I am perplexed Air NZ ever qualified to hold a AOC. Then again, CAANZ is an arm of the New Zealand government. No wonder they tabled the report in Parliament and conceded theirs and Air NZ's behaviour throughout the Inquiry was less than acceptable.

No, that is not FACT. Look up the term in the dictionary if you're unclear. What you have written above is OPINION.

Air New Zealand's failings have been well documented. But what YOU don't get - Whiskery et al. - is that one party's failings does not clear another from sharing the blame. And regardless of Air New Zealand's failings, many of us here believe Collins performed poorly - in a way that cannot be explained away by precedents, commercial pressure, optical illusions, or to use megan's catch phrase - "normalisation of deviance".

Let us just examine some of these facts.

Defiance of rules: The company provided the crew with an IFR plan to McMurdo, The IFR plan makes no mention of any descent, that is up to the discretion of the crew, taking into account all relevant details,ie weather conditions, traffic etc. The Company gave the crew a list of mandatory requirements to be met prior to descent below route MSA, FL160. It is established fact that the crew were well aware of these requirements, a copy of such was found amongst cockpit debris. Not one of those mandatory requirements were complied with prior to descent below route MSA.

So what party is guilty of blatant defiance of the rules????

Untrained aircrew: It would no doubt have suited the Company to have just one, or perhaps two crews assigned to carry out all these flights. It is most likely that this did not occur because NZALPA insisted that these "perk"flights be shared amongst their senior members. If this was not so then the aircrew operating these flights would have been exposed to the Antarctic experience that all other operators demanded before going down there as PIC. Perhaps the company could be at fault for not insisting on the experience requirements required by all other operators to the ice, and the NZCAA could also be faulted for the same reason. It could perhaps also be said in CAA's defence that they had nobody on staff with experience on heavy jets and relied on information supplied by NZALPA and Air NZ

CVR tampering: Ron Chippindale, and all the others had a very difficult task trying to get anything of value from the recordings prior to the descent, it was reported that there could have been up to eight people in the cockpit, all being recorded by one open microphone. To me that begs the question, what were all these people doing in the cockpit when critical decisions regarding unapproved descent procedures were being carried out? or is it, as is most likely, the decision was made by one man, the captain, without any discussion with the other crew members?

Shredding of documents: Whilst not very wise happened well after the accident occurred, so how could such action be in any way be part the cause of the accident? And if you read the official accident report compiled by the very well qualified Aircraft Accident Inspector assigned the task of determining the cause of the "accident" you will note that his report stated"The most probable cause". Which with no survivors is going to be the most positive report that it is possible to return.

Thanks FAR C U, I'm off for another Erebus holiday. It appears nothing has changed around here and won't until new evidence surfaces. That would appear highly unlikely, as it was probably buried 37 years ago!;)

prospector, your post needs a "winner" button. :ok:

Prospector, you are quite correct in saying that none of the requirements were met. As pointed out by grummanavenger, one flight diverted, but all the other flights didn't comply with requirements either, which were (Bolding mine),PapaHotel6, as with all of us you are entitled to believe what you wish, my "normalisation of deviance" comes principally from the failure of all but one of the previous flights to comply with the requirements I state above, and the airline knowing what was going on not doing anything about it.