‘No arrangement’ on crash causes

Press, 13 August 1980, Page 3

‘No arrangement’ on crash causes

PA Auckland! No arrangement had been, made between Air New Zealand and the Civil Aviation ! Division of the Ministry ofTransport over what they would put forward as the causes of the DCIO crash on Mount Erebus, the inquiry was told.yesterday. The Director of Civil Aviation (Captain E. T. Kippenberger) who has suggested that the actions of the pilot, Captain T. J. Collins, were a big factor in the crash, said there had been no talk of a combined approach to the commission on the probable causes of the crash. He was answering a question by the chairman, of the commission of inquiry, Mr Justice Mahon.

Captain Kippenberger said he could understand the initial pilot error, of proceeding into McMurdo Sound in marginal weather when the alternative route should have been taken; because the pilot had a reasonable amount of fuel and probably considered he would be able to provide a scenic flight up the western side of McMurdo Sound.

However, it was difficult to say what caused the later errors.

His Honour: Aren’t you' saying the sole cause was pilot error for which you can find no rational explanation? Captain Kippenberger: No. Having decided the cause of the accident was pilot error, I would, look to see what other parties who have been parties to this error did. The sole cause, he said, was pilot error, but the sole responsibility was not necessarily that of the pilot. “If he had had an insufficient briefing that could have contributed.” The action of Captain Collins was so alien that a medical or psychological explanation had to be considered. Captain Kippenberger said it appeared that the first officer, Mr S. M. Cassin, was either afflicted by the same complaint or else was too busy working the radio to check on Captain Collins. He agreed with his Honour that for both men to suffer from either a medical or psychological complaint would be an extremely rare phenomenon. Captain Kippenberger told the commission that if the crash had not occurred Air New Zealand could have ex-

Ipected a requirement for AnItarctic survival training and ispecial clothes for the new season.

The inquiry also learned from Captain Kippenberger that a Pan American aircraft had begun landing north of the South Island believing it was landing at Auckland. It was using similar equipment, though not as sophisticated as the inertial navigation equipment carried by DCIO aircraft, he said. He was enlarging on evidence he had given the previous day when he said of the- DCIO equipment: “Any pilot' who trusts it more than the certification standards are for, is putting his life on the line.” His Honour: Was it not the belief of the pilots in the airline that this system was so accurate that after a 51-hour flight it would only

be a mile out? Witness: If that was the faith they had in the equipment ... I suggest it was misplaced. His Honour said he under-; stood from expert engineering witnesses that if a recurrent error was found in; any aircraft equipment it was deduced and rectified when the error was slight. Captain Kippenberger agreed with this.

He said there was no evidence that an error was found in the inertial navigation equipment and he was quite sure that Air New Zealand kept equipment as accurate as possible. But if minimum safe altitudes were established which disregarded the possibility of maximum errors, there could be “an accident similar to the one we have had.” Captain Kippenberger was returned to his previous evidence that another first officer on the flight, Mr G.

Lucas, should have been brought up to the flight deck to help with the workload. . Witness said he would have hoped this would have enabled Mr Cassin to be more active in endeavouring to establish the position of the aircraft. This was a normal first officer duty in monitoring the progress of a flight.

His Honour: Suppose he was satisfied with the position of the aircraft.

Captain Kippenberger: I cannot see how he could have been satisfied because they did not apparently fix

the position of the aircraft in relation to the terrain in the area at any stage. Counsel assisting the commission, Mr W. D. Baragwanath, asked Captain Kippenberger to comment on the opinion of the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents (Mr R. Chippindale) that pilots should go through a ques-tion-and-answei" session t 0 ensure that they understood a flight briefing. (Regulation 77 of the , Civil Aviation Regulations says a pilot shall not be in command unless he had demonstrated an adequate knowledge of route, terrain and other factors.) Witness said the manner in which Air New Zealand had complied with the briefing regulation was in common use in many airlines, although he was aware of an American airline which used a question-and-answer system.

“I am advised by my office solicitor that in examining Mr Chippindale’s suggestion that the Air New • Zealand method does not comply with the regulations, that Mr Chippindale is probably correct,” witness said. He had been advised, Captain Kippenberger said, that he should ensure that an identifiable method of demonstrating knowledge developed by Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand had already been told of this. However, he did not believe the Air New Zealand method of briefing had been inadequate. He knew of no problem in its routine operations which derived from inadequate knowledge. “I accept that; what has been done may not be strictly legal and I- must ; take such steps as are necessary to. ensure compliance with the regulations.” i Earlier, to Mr Baragwanath, Captain Kippenberger : said the responsibility for Antarctic flights in Air New [ Zealand rested with its , director of flight operations > (Captain D. Eden). There : was no written job descrip- ’ tion. Witness said his reply . was based almost entirely t on inferences from a study t of different responsibilities as they interlocked. , Mr Baragwanath: In your ' own organisation where the ■ buck stops rests with you? Witness: Yes.

Wouldn’t you expect in Air New Zealand, responsibilities to be spelt out just as clearly? — Yes,, you would.