Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster: C.A. 95/81 — John Shaqi
Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster: C.A. 95/81New Zealand. Court of Appeal
History
Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster: C.A. 95/81
New Zealand. Court of Appeal
Air New Zealand; Aircraft accidents; New Zealand. Royal Commission to Inquire into the Crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica, of a DC10 Aircraft Operated by Air New Zealand Limited
There is a difference in the two reports upon the cause of the accident.
Mr Chippindale considered the probable cause to have been pilot error.
On the other hand the Royal Commission exonerated the pilots completely
and spoke instead of "incompetent administrative airline procedures".
Since this case is concerned with allegations by the Commissioner that
the affected officers of Air New Zealand had engaged "in a
pre-determined plan of deception ... to conceal a series of disastrous
administrative blunders" (administrative mistakes which he himself had
found to be the real cause of the disaster) it is not unimportant to ask
what relevant information the airline had actually been able to provide
which was not supplied to Mr Chippindale. For that last reason the
material made available for consideration by Mr Chippindale deserves
some examination. An example concerns the change made to the final stage
of the computer flight track to the Antarctic which the Commissioner
regarded as a central reason for the accident. During a period of
fourteen months prior to the fatal flight Air New Zealand's ground
computer had contained an incorrect geographical reference to the
southern waypoint of the journey at McMurdo. Accordingly, in that period
it was shown incorrectly on any computer print-outs of the flight plan.
But a few hours before departure of the DC10 an amendment was made and
the flight crew was not informed that amended co-ordinates (since their
briefing 19 days earlier) had thus been fed into the aircraft's
computer.
In paragraph 44 the Report explains that the chief executive of the
airline was told of this matter on 30th November. Then in paragraph 45
it is said that the chief executive "determined that no word of this
incredible blunder was to become publicly known". There follows a
statement that a direction was thereupon given "that all documents
relating to Antarctic flights, and to this flight in particular, were
to be collected and impounded. They were all to be put on one single
file which would remain in strict custody. Of these documents all those
which were not directly relevant were to be destroyed". The reference in
this context to the amendment to the co-ordinates invites the question
as to whether Mr Chippindale had been given that particular information
by the airline during his own investigation. It is made plain in his own
report that this had been done immediately.
He himself was not uncritical of the administrative work of the airline
as it touched upon the fatal flight and concerning this matter he said:
"3.5 The flight planned route entered in the company's base
computer was varied after the crew's briefing in that the position
for McMurdo on the computer printout used at the briefing, was
incorrect by over 2 degrees of longitude and was subsequently
corrected prior to this flight."
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account