NZ Flight 901
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NZ901 early in the flight made a position report to Auckland Oceanic HF that they were over Queenstown then just a minute or two later corrected that to Invercargill.
Is it being suggested here that they left Auckland with a huge discrepancy in the INS. Queenstown and Invercargill (airports) are 85NM apart.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 77
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not suggesting anything, I am just saying that I recall an amended position report being discussed soon after the accident. I never saw the logs nor listened to any tapes.
But it does make one think, for instance how would such a discrepancy compare with the discrepancy(?) that caused the accident?
But it does make one think, for instance how would such a discrepancy compare with the discrepancy(?) that caused the accident?
There had been a string of major total loss DC-10 accidents in the preceding 18 months - Continental at LAX (heading to New Zealand I believe), American at Chicago, Western at Mexico City (less than a month before), and then Air NZ in Antarctica. This is the sort of thing that will cause loss of confidence in a type whatever the facts, especially in a small market where the accident had been keenly felt. Notable Air NZ got rid of their fleet of 8 DC-10s by the end of 1982, together with their last 3 DC-8s, but only took 5 747s, and they were the only overseas type in their fleet until the 767s came along later in the decade. They must have suffered a substantial reduction in passenger demand.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Ron Chippendale (RIP) had it right the first time."
Comments like that offer no insightful purpose. Speculation and conjecture on this unfortunate accident is likely to persist forever. We all have our opinions on the views we subscribe to as being "correct", but stating them in the manner above doesn't add anything to the debate.
I believe Chippindale and Mahon were both right. Should the pilots have descended into an area unfamiliar to them without first confirming their position on radar? No. Should ANZ have let pilots with no experience in Antarctic conditions fly there? No. Should ANZ have briefed pilots properly about the insidious nature of whiteout? Yes. Should the coordinate change in the flight plan have been communicated to the flight crew? Yes.
I must admit I am fascinated at the story of the misreported position as the flight left mainland NZ.
Comments like that offer no insightful purpose. Speculation and conjecture on this unfortunate accident is likely to persist forever. We all have our opinions on the views we subscribe to as being "correct", but stating them in the manner above doesn't add anything to the debate.
I believe Chippindale and Mahon were both right. Should the pilots have descended into an area unfamiliar to them without first confirming their position on radar? No. Should ANZ have let pilots with no experience in Antarctic conditions fly there? No. Should ANZ have briefed pilots properly about the insidious nature of whiteout? Yes. Should the coordinate change in the flight plan have been communicated to the flight crew? Yes.
I must admit I am fascinated at the story of the misreported position as the flight left mainland NZ.
Last edited by alistair®; 6th Feb 2009 at 20:41.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found an interesting 5 part documentary on YouTube:
YouTube - Mount Erebus Disaster (1979) (Part 1 of 5)
YouTube - Mount Erebus Disaster (1979) (Part 1 of 5)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alistair: The Erebus accident has already been examined in reasonably-minute detail on another thread.
PS - The crew were flying VMC, so they could descend, on the basis that they could avoid hitting high ground because they could see it ahead of them. Problem was, they could not, in fact, see it, given the sector whiteout.
The issue is whether the crew were completely blameless, as Mahon found. That cannot be right, despite what various media dickheads might think.
PS - The crew were flying VMC, so they could descend, on the basis that they could avoid hitting high ground because they could see it ahead of them. Problem was, they could not, in fact, see it, given the sector whiteout.
The issue is whether the crew were completely blameless, as Mahon found. That cannot be right, despite what various media dickheads might think.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 64
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fascinated at the story of the misreported position as the flight left mainland NZ
Crews make mistakes on every flight. NASA conducted a study of errors made on airline flight decks and found 899 mistakes on the 60 flights audited.
http://faasafety.gov/files/notices/2...nitoring_2.pdf
Should the pilots have descended into an area unfamiliar to them without first confirming their position on radar.No.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: East of Java
Age: 64
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 30th anniversary is in Nov; the debates and arguments are still ongoing, with opinion polarised between the two respective camps.
Hopefully there's a tv retrospective and a screening of all of the relevant TV docs ect
Interestingsummary below from Arthur Marcel, Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane interested in systems analysis.
transcript here in full:
Ockham's Razor - 14*January*2007* - Mount Erebus plane crash
...Perhaps, though, the paradigms for determining who is in command, who is in direct control and who is responsible, are changing. The levels of complexity of modern transportation systems are such that the notion of the sole commander and his executive crew, all powerful and totally responsible for the safety of the ship, a notion developed over many millennia of maritime (and more lately of aerial) navigation, is not as relevant as it used to be. We now live in an era of transportation systems in which many minds are involved in the operation of any particular vehicle, and the safe delivery of that vehicle to any particular destination can be seen as the product of systematic co-operation by a team of decision makers. There has to be trust at all levels for such systems to function properly. The pilots of modern aircraft have to place their trust in the organisation behind hem for the system to work. The crew of November Zulu Papa were let down by a system they not only had little option other than to trust, but one which they were given every conceivable reason to trust. In the paraphrased words of the Royal Commissioner, 'The cause of this accident was programming an aircraft to fly directly at a mountain and not telling the crew.' Certainly, the pilots of November Zulu Papa were directed into a very subtle trap and, even though it was they who took that sixth and final step, it's difficult to blame them for it.
Hopefully there's a tv retrospective and a screening of all of the relevant TV docs ect
Interestingsummary below from Arthur Marcel, Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane interested in systems analysis.
transcript here in full:
Ockham's Razor - 14*January*2007* - Mount Erebus plane crash
...Perhaps, though, the paradigms for determining who is in command, who is in direct control and who is responsible, are changing. The levels of complexity of modern transportation systems are such that the notion of the sole commander and his executive crew, all powerful and totally responsible for the safety of the ship, a notion developed over many millennia of maritime (and more lately of aerial) navigation, is not as relevant as it used to be. We now live in an era of transportation systems in which many minds are involved in the operation of any particular vehicle, and the safe delivery of that vehicle to any particular destination can be seen as the product of systematic co-operation by a team of decision makers. There has to be trust at all levels for such systems to function properly. The pilots of modern aircraft have to place their trust in the organisation behind hem for the system to work. The crew of November Zulu Papa were let down by a system they not only had little option other than to trust, but one which they were given every conceivable reason to trust. In the paraphrased words of the Royal Commissioner, 'The cause of this accident was programming an aircraft to fly directly at a mountain and not telling the crew.' Certainly, the pilots of November Zulu Papa were directed into a very subtle trap and, even though it was they who took that sixth and final step, it's difficult to blame them for it.
Last edited by flatfootsam; 9th Feb 2009 at 13:56.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<That they were 'lost' before they even left NZ? This is way out of my league I am afraid.>>
Aircraft flying over the mainland of somewhere like NZ don't get "lost". Even at the southern tip of South Island I am sure that they would have been under radar surveillance.
My wife and I were almost on that flight and the circumstances still give us serious shivers nearly 30 years later.
Aircraft flying over the mainland of somewhere like NZ don't get "lost". Even at the southern tip of South Island I am sure that they would have been under radar surveillance.
My wife and I were almost on that flight and the circumstances still give us serious shivers nearly 30 years later.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alistair®, sorry, once again the impreciseness of the written word in communicating what is meant, besides, I have a degree in picking up sticks by the wrong end. 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Adelaide, SA, Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JO'B - Salut
JO'B - Salut
The 30th anniversary is in Nov; the debates and arguments are still ongoing, with opinion polarised between the two respective camps.
I vaguely recall, perhaps it was on the 25th anniversary of the crash, or maybe each year since then, that relatives of the deceased were pushing the NZ Govt for the opportunity of visiting Antarctica and the site (or at least close to it) on Erebus. I suppose this will gather more momentum as the year progresses.
What is everyone's thought on this happening? (Or at least the possibility of it).
I seem to remember a 737 landing down there last year, for memory, Peter Garrett (Australian politician, enviromentalist and former rock musician) was on that flight. Depending on the level of interest by relatives of the deceased, if, hypothetically 1 or 2 737's were chartered for the trip by the NZ Govt, would such a trip be possible? Given the obvious limitations on accommodation at McMurdo, I'm presuming if it was at all possible, then the plane(s) and passengers would have to return on the same day.
Malcom,
Freezy jet: First charter flight airbus lands in the Antartic | Mail Online
The aircraft is a modified A319 and as far as I know the only one of it's kind. The chances of the NZ Govt. leasing this from the Aussies to charter them there I think is low, but nothing is impossible. Also currently this aircraft is used to fly to Wilkins Research Base with staff and scientisits the only ones being allowed on board.
Tis a pity, hope one day the mysteries are solved and not left to freeze over and shift with the ice.
Freezy jet: First charter flight airbus lands in the Antartic | Mail Online
The aircraft is a modified A319 and as far as I know the only one of it's kind. The chances of the NZ Govt. leasing this from the Aussies to charter them there I think is low, but nothing is impossible. Also currently this aircraft is used to fly to Wilkins Research Base with staff and scientisits the only ones being allowed on board.
Tis a pity, hope one day the mysteries are solved and not left to freeze over and shift with the ice.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it hard to believe that the NZ government would consider such a trip because it would present problems that Scott Base is not equiped to handle.
Would something like the previously mentioned A319 be big enough for all those relatives who would want to go ?
Presuming they would not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab, the relatives might get a shock when they found out how much it costs to transport the extra fuel to Antartica.
Where would all these people be accommodated if their stay is longer than a few hours ?
Would they be prepared to go all that way for just a sightseeing flight around the mountain on the inbound/outbound leg ? because there is not the chopper capacity to take them to the site.
Would something like the previously mentioned A319 be big enough for all those relatives who would want to go ?
Presuming they would not expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab, the relatives might get a shock when they found out how much it costs to transport the extra fuel to Antartica.
Where would all these people be accommodated if their stay is longer than a few hours ?
Would they be prepared to go all that way for just a sightseeing flight around the mountain on the inbound/outbound leg ? because there is not the chopper capacity to take them to the site.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen this "JO'B" mentioned 3 times on this thread now. I'm buggered if I can work out what it means. So I need to ask that dumb question - what does it mean?