'No need to be at Erebus’

Press, 15 August 1980, Page 3

'No need to be at Erebus’

.. . .ip. inquiry

: PA Auckland ! The weather at Mount ! Erebus at the time of the Air New Zealand DC 10 ' crash was unsuitable for I sightseeing, the commission of inquiry into the disaster (was told yesterday, by Mr R.: B. Thomson, superintendent: 'of the Antarctic Division off 'the Department of Scientific land Industrial Research. : Low cloud was-round the mountain, Mr Thomson said. There was no need for the aircraft to be there. The passengers had earlier enjoyed' ja good view of Northern iVictorialand, something that; I had not always been enjoyed, ion earlier flights. i The flight crew had been i told conditions were suitable | for sightseeing over the Dry I Valley area, which would jhave provided a good alter- ! native. Mr Thomson, who was a commentator on four Air New Zea'and flights, said that if he had been on the ill-fated ■ flight he would have strongly recommended that the pilot .take the aircraft to the Dry Valley area and not bother about trying

to sightsee over- Mount Erebus.

He also presented a letter from Mr 17.I 7 . Nishio, of the Japanese National Institute of Polar Research, and Dr S. Soma, an instructor with the Seikei University in Japan, in which they outlined their attempts to analyse the weather on Mount Erebus. Earlier, Mr Thomson said scenic flights did not use the established operational route. He said he believed

that air traffic controllers at, McMurdo Sound were “totally inexperienced” in .making; contact with aircraft on the Ross Island route adopted by Air New Zealand. Cross-examined by Mr P. J. Davison, representing the pilot of the DC 10, Captain T. J. Collins, Mr Thomson agreed it would be incomprehensible that the descent would have been approved if the controllers had! “any idea” where the plane! actually was. "I assume the air traffic! controller must have thought the aircraft was just ‘generally north’,” he said. Air traffic controllers at McMurdo were highly! skilled in directing aircraft' on the established flight route.

The commission heard that communications between the base and aircraft could have been impaired by high ground. Mr Davison asked the witness if he was more surpris~ed that the air traffic controller.-. — rather than the crew — failed to realise

I this. Mr Thomson said he |could not answer that precisely. He considered that I the crew had a greater degree of responsibility for their aircraft. However, he later agreed with Mr Justice Mahon, who, said that since- the controllers were more familiar] with the local terrain they should have been more read-; ily able to detect the rea-[ son for the loss of contact. . Optical illusions in the' Antarctic made flying in the! area potentially hazardous. I Mr Thomson said the large number of accidents in the area seemed to confirm [that even pilots with great [experience in Antarctic flying could be deceived. Elaborating on visibility' difficulties in the Antarctic, Mr Thomson described a trend noticed in the area of the crash site. Between about 10.30 a.m. and 1 p.m, sea fog often rolled up over the land while cloud came down to meet it. If this hac happened before the crash.it could indicate why' the pilot failed to see the mountain.