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
On the face of it the unqualified idea expressed in that sentence is
that Mr. Davis had decided to suppress from everybody outside the
airline all information about the changed flight track. But if that
meaning were intended it has been greatly modified in paragraph 48.
There it is said--
"It was inevitable that these facts would become known. Perhaps the
chief executive had only decided to prevent adverse publicity in
the meantime, knowing that the mistake over the co-ordinates must
in the end be discovered."
Of course if the decision were merely "to prevent adverse publicity in
the meantime" then such an attitude could not in any way be consistent
with an attempt "orchestrated" by Mr. Davis to hid from official
scrutiny what finally was held by the Commissioner in paragraph 393 to
be "the single dominant and effective cause of the disaster". Despite
that, paragraph 48 goes on to say this:
"This silence over the changing of the co-ordinates and the failure
to tell the air crew was a strategy which succeeded to a very
considerable degree. The chief inspector discovered these facts
after he had returned from Antarctica on or about 11 December
1979. In his report, which was published in June 1980, the chief
inspector referred to what he termed the 'error' in the McMurdo
destination point, and the fact that it had been corrected a matter
of hours before the flight left Auckland."
It is difficult to understand why the Commissioner considered "this
silence over the changing of the co-ordinates and the failure to tell
the air crew" had been "a strategy which succeeded to a very
considerable degree". The information had been given to the chief
inspector immediately on his return from Antarctica. That much is
acknowledged in the two sentences that follow. It becomes apparent,
however, that this was criticized not because the information had been
kept away from those to whom it most certainly had to be given, those
charged with the important responsibility of inquiring into the causes
of the disaster. Mr. Davis was criticized for nothing more than his
failure to release the material to the outside world. That is made plain
by a subsequent statement towards the end of the Report which leads on
to the very severe pronouncement in paragraph 377 that the Commissioner
had been obliged to listen to "a predetermined plan of deception ... an
orchestrated litany of lies". The relevant passage is in paragraph 374:
"The fact that the navigation course of the aircraft had been
altered in the computer had been disclosed by the chief inspector
in his report dated 31 May 1980, 6 months after the disaster. But
it was not until the Commission of Inquiry began sitting that the
airline publicly admitted that this had occurred."
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