Christchurch accident report- family of Pilot unsatisfied
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: here
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Christchurch accident report- family of Pilot unsatisfied
An official finding that pilot error was the most likely cause of one of New Zealand's worst air crashes has been challenged by the pilot's family and business.
A Transport Accident Investigation Commission report into the crash last June - in which seven leading scientists as well as pilot Michael Bannerman died on an approach to Christchurch Airport - says it was probably caused by him becoming distracted.
Investigator-in-charge John Goddard found the 52-year-old pilot's cellphone was turned on three minutes before his Piper Chieftain clipped some trees and hit the ground, and that he failed to monitor his altitude after beginning the approach too fast and erratically.
But Mr Bannerman's family and his partner, fellow Air Adventures director Janice Williams, disputed key parts of Mr Goddard's report.
They described Mr Bannerman as a cautious and conscientious pilot not given to taking shortcuts, and said indications of malfunctioning instruments were not investigated adequately, a claim Mr Goddard denied last night.
The family said the aircraft's consistent position below a recommended glide path in its descent to Christchurch Airport strongly suggested the pilot was receiving incorrect information.
It claimed aircraft instruments found to be pointing down suggested they were indicating incorrectly to the pilot that the aircraft was above the glide slope and that the aircraft therefore needed to be lower for a safe arrival.
"It is our firm belief Michael was misled by malfunctioning instruments ... "
They also contested Mr Goddard's dismissal of wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft, a Boeing 737, as possibly destabilising the Chieftain.
Mr Goddard was too busy last night to comment, referring the Herald to his report, which noted that Mr Bannerman's aircraft was three minutes and 50 seconds behind the Boeing.
This was substantially more than a three-minute separation prescribed for the avoidance of wake turbulence.
The report said any deficiency in navigation aids transmitted electronically from Christchurch Airport was unlikely, as they worked for the Boeing's landing and were found to be operating normally when checked afterwards.
Mr Goddard acknowledged in the report that the possibility of a faulty glide-slope indication by the Chieftain's own instruments was unlikely to be resolved.
But while it was possible the pilot's cellphone might have caused faulty indications, tests on the aircraft's altimeter showed it was working normally, and was not susceptible to electronic interference
Here's the official report http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pdf/chieftanreport.pdf
A Transport Accident Investigation Commission report into the crash last June - in which seven leading scientists as well as pilot Michael Bannerman died on an approach to Christchurch Airport - says it was probably caused by him becoming distracted.
Investigator-in-charge John Goddard found the 52-year-old pilot's cellphone was turned on three minutes before his Piper Chieftain clipped some trees and hit the ground, and that he failed to monitor his altitude after beginning the approach too fast and erratically.
But Mr Bannerman's family and his partner, fellow Air Adventures director Janice Williams, disputed key parts of Mr Goddard's report.
They described Mr Bannerman as a cautious and conscientious pilot not given to taking shortcuts, and said indications of malfunctioning instruments were not investigated adequately, a claim Mr Goddard denied last night.
The family said the aircraft's consistent position below a recommended glide path in its descent to Christchurch Airport strongly suggested the pilot was receiving incorrect information.
It claimed aircraft instruments found to be pointing down suggested they were indicating incorrectly to the pilot that the aircraft was above the glide slope and that the aircraft therefore needed to be lower for a safe arrival.
"It is our firm belief Michael was misled by malfunctioning instruments ... "
They also contested Mr Goddard's dismissal of wake turbulence from a preceding aircraft, a Boeing 737, as possibly destabilising the Chieftain.
Mr Goddard was too busy last night to comment, referring the Herald to his report, which noted that Mr Bannerman's aircraft was three minutes and 50 seconds behind the Boeing.
This was substantially more than a three-minute separation prescribed for the avoidance of wake turbulence.
The report said any deficiency in navigation aids transmitted electronically from Christchurch Airport was unlikely, as they worked for the Boeing's landing and were found to be operating normally when checked afterwards.
Mr Goddard acknowledged in the report that the possibility of a faulty glide-slope indication by the Chieftain's own instruments was unlikely to be resolved.
But while it was possible the pilot's cellphone might have caused faulty indications, tests on the aircraft's altimeter showed it was working normally, and was not susceptible to electronic interference
Here's the official report http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pdf/chieftanreport.pdf
Kiwi PPRuNer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: rockingham, western australia
Age: 42
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as someone who was out and about on the night of the crash, the weather was crap, i got put on standby to go search the waimakariri river bed for the plane, but we were stood down soon after caus they had found it, judging by where it came down and the trees it hit, it was way too low too soon, weather or not it was pilot error i dont know, but something caused it to crash, but from what i do know the plane had enough fuel to return to palmerston north if need be, and i think the pilot had put down woodbourne (blenheim) as his alternate, what begs the question is why did a state of the art govt research facility send 9 staff on a small charter plane when there are at least 3 daily flights on major carriers to palmerston north
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is so much nonsense being spouted about this.
Your primary responsibility on an instrument approach is to not go below DA/MDA without seeing something- and to give the approach your entire attention.
Cellphones do not interfere with pressure altimeters.
He obviously went below DA, without being visual. Why- that is the question.
Probably the saddest thing is watching the relatives refusing to accept that their loved one may have made a mistake- we all do, it is not a character flaw or reason to think less of the guy.
It also baffles me as to what possible motive the accident investigation team woud have for doing anything other than arriving at the most likely conclusion...???
Your primary responsibility on an instrument approach is to not go below DA/MDA without seeing something- and to give the approach your entire attention.
Cellphones do not interfere with pressure altimeters.
He obviously went below DA, without being visual. Why- that is the question.
Probably the saddest thing is watching the relatives refusing to accept that their loved one may have made a mistake- we all do, it is not a character flaw or reason to think less of the guy.
It also baffles me as to what possible motive the accident investigation team woud have for doing anything other than arriving at the most likely conclusion...???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Mor
One must accept that everyone makes mistakes at some time.
The trick is not to make them where they are going to bite you.
My answer to the why part, is the driver was wearing to many hats in the Company Operation. CEO, Chief Pilot, Check and Training, with very little real experience himself, and certainly not very current, 2 ILS apps in the preceeding 90 days, 3 hours something IF in the same period. Running an operation, knowing what the cost will be if a missed approach is required, finding alternative accommodation or transport for the Pax is not conducive to precision flying. With the weather the way it was a missed approach was a very real possibility, yet the ADF's were not even tuned to the first beacon of the missed approach.Why?? was it contemplated that a missed approach was not an option?
Prospector
One must accept that everyone makes mistakes at some time.
The trick is not to make them where they are going to bite you.
My answer to the why part, is the driver was wearing to many hats in the Company Operation. CEO, Chief Pilot, Check and Training, with very little real experience himself, and certainly not very current, 2 ILS apps in the preceeding 90 days, 3 hours something IF in the same period. Running an operation, knowing what the cost will be if a missed approach is required, finding alternative accommodation or transport for the Pax is not conducive to precision flying. With the weather the way it was a missed approach was a very real possibility, yet the ADF's were not even tuned to the first beacon of the missed approach.Why?? was it contemplated that a missed approach was not an option?
Prospector
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prospector
I quite agree.
Dragon Driver
The similarities between this and Erebus are... let me see... nil.
With Erebus (ancient history that it is), there was enormous political pressure being brought to bear, and an enormous amount at stake for both the airline and the country. Hardly the case with this accident. I see no evidence at all that these investigators arrived at anything other than the correct conclusion. Let the conspiracy theorists loose...
An orchestrated litany of lies...???
I quite agree.
Dragon Driver
The similarities between this and Erebus are... let me see... nil.
With Erebus (ancient history that it is), there was enormous political pressure being brought to bear, and an enormous amount at stake for both the airline and the country. Hardly the case with this accident. I see no evidence at all that these investigators arrived at anything other than the correct conclusion. Let the conspiracy theorists loose...
An orchestrated litany of lies...???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dragon Driver,
Are you sure you remember the TAIC report on Erebus???
Dont believe they had even been thought of at that time. The official, and still the only accident report as such was compiled by Ron Chippendale of the Accident Investigation Branch of the NZCAA.
Prospector
Are you sure you remember the TAIC report on Erebus???
Dont believe they had even been thought of at that time. The official, and still the only accident report as such was compiled by Ron Chippendale of the Accident Investigation Branch of the NZCAA.
Prospector
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not really. One is CFIT due to navigational error, although if you wanted to be really picky you could question descent below MSA. The crew were alert, the systems were all working, they hadn't broken any (company) rules, and they responded correctly to the warnings they received.
The other was CFIT due to inattention and/or distraction. The aircraft was deliberately descended below the glideslope, and DA, with no corrective action taken. The cardinal rule was broken (descent below DA with no visual reference).
Now you seem to be implying that you were involved with the investigations. I doubt that, but feel free to correct me by stating the actual capacity in which you served in both investigations (presumably whilst working for a small Chinese airline).
The other was CFIT due to inattention and/or distraction. The aircraft was deliberately descended below the glideslope, and DA, with no corrective action taken. The cardinal rule was broken (descent below DA with no visual reference).
Now you seem to be implying that you were involved with the investigations. I doubt that, but feel free to correct me by stating the actual capacity in which you served in both investigations (presumably whilst working for a small Chinese airline).
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Errr... no. At the time of Erebus it was CAD-MOT (Civil Aviation Division, Ministry of Transport).
Employed by both Dragonair and NZ CAA? Don't think so. Dragonair just suspend your roster while you swan around doing accident investigations?
But- playing along with your claims for a bit- please explain how "things may not be exactly as they appear"...
Employed by both Dragonair and NZ CAA? Don't think so. Dragonair just suspend your roster while you swan around doing accident investigations?
But- playing along with your claims for a bit- please explain how "things may not be exactly as they appear"...
