Talk:Air New Zealand Flight 901/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Moved

I have moved text from the Air New Zealand article to this daughter article. WhisperToMe 15:40, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Beat me to it Whisper. Cheers. Moriori 19:41, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I have removed this sentence: so he could not be said to have been guilty of unauthorised low flying.

Why? It is totally accurate. You are deliberately censoring significant remarks made by Justice Mahon. (Incidentally, I have reformatted the par indents here to hopefully make it clearer).

Air NZ sent a briefing to pilots dated 8/11/79 with the following notification: Delete all reference in briefing dated 23/10/79. Note that the only let-down procedure available is VMC below FL160 (16,000ft) to 6,000ft as follows: 1.Vis 20 km plus 2.No snow shower in area. 3.Avoid Mt Erebus area by operating in an arc from 120 Grid through 360G to 270G from McMurdo Field, within 20nm of TACAN CH29. 4.Descent to be coordinated with local radar control as they may have other traffic in the area. Thus, although Collins had been cleared to descend by McMurdo, he was still in breach of company regulations.

Excuse me! Do you think we should also state that the company DELIBERATELY encouraged its pilots to breach regulations? You do acknowledge that Air New Zealand ADVERTISED its Antarctic flights on TV by showing aircraft at very low altitude? I didn't think that especially relevant to the original article, but it would be relevant and would need to be included if you added that information.
I don't think the airline can be accused of deliberately encouraging pilots to breach regulations when they issue an unequivocal briefing such as the one above. However, if you can find and quote sources to prove this, in addition proving that the TV ad footage showed flights below permitted altitude, please let me know where it is. I seem to recall the ads didn't depict the DC10 flying as low as all that.

In this light, 'not being guilty of unauthorised low flying' is incorrect, however, I'm not sure how to replace the sentence. I do realise it was in Mahons report and the sentence was no doubt reflecting that, but I can't figure out a good place to point out this briefing that he failed to take account of. Perhaps someone else can.

Wikipedia can't censor those words. They are correct because the pilot was indeed authorised to fly low, the words were written by Justice Mahon, the Privy Council did not overturn them, and the government has formally accepted his report.
I am not censoring those words - as already said, I removed them because it is misleading for Wikipedia to present Mahon's claim without also presenting the information from Air NZ that pilots were briefed on the minimum allowable height. Hopefully the new structure of the article will make it easier for Mahon's view as well as the Air NZ information to be presented for evaluation without committing the 'sin of omission'.

By the way, while researching this all, I came across this web link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111360&perpage=15&pagenumber=1 in which airline pilots discuss the accident. Originally I believed the Mahon report in that the pilots were completely not to blame, but after reading this thread I have changed my mind. -- 219.88.44.214 08:20, 11 December 2003 (UTC)

We can all believe what we like. But we can not change facts, or censor them. The purpose of the enquiry was to try to deternmine what happened. The main question everyone was asking was, who was to blame. Justice Mahon cleared the crew of blame, yet you have embellished the article with information which deals not with blame but with allegations of ANZ coverup/lies. Why?

Moriori objected to some additions I made to the article on the grounds it made the article unbalanced, and so deleted them. I have reinstated them and hope we can move the discussion to the talk page rather than engaging in an edit war. Personally, I think that adding content to the other theory is a more constructive way of restoring balance.

I think it disengenuous of you to ex post facto say you hope we can move discussion to the talk page. Why not before amending the page? If I revert the article to where it was before you added your POV, I trust you will heed your own advice to discuss my action here. Or does disussion before action apply only to people other than you?
Because you amended the page without calling for discussion first as well. The change in structure to the article will hopefully allow both theories to be detailed without disturbing the other.

I suggest this is done by maybe breaking the page up into two subheadings - 'Crew Error Theory' and another heading reflecting Mahon's verdict - although I'm not sure what it would be called - System breakdown theory? Communication error theory? These would contain a summary of the main points from the Official Accident Report and the Mahon Enquiry, with a brief ending stating Mahon's verdict was overturned on appeal, however public opinion remains polarised. I'll start on that when I next have some time. How does this sound to everyone? -- 219.88.44.214 10:05, 11 December 2003 (UTC)

No. The original article was a factual report on Flight 901, without POV, and should be retained. As it correctly stated, Mahon's verdict was NOT overturned as you claim here. The part dealing with coverup/lies was overturned, but his remarks regarding blame were not overturned. By insisting on publishing such a deliberate error you would sucessfully destroy the integrity of Wikipedia as an authority on anything. We may not agree with Mahon's findings but we are bound to report them accurately. If you feel you need to have an article on "Crew Error Theory" then fine, you should create it, and add a link to it. The page you amended was about Flight 901, not latter day crew error theory (which of course would need to include that Mahon's enquiry has significantly influenced how air accidents are investigated today). Subsequent writings and postulations are fine, but they can't change history. The original article was an accurate encyclopedia report of an event in NZ's history. I have no axe to grind. Note that I added the word "controversially" to describe Mahon's outburst re coverup/lies, and I added the line "and public opinion regarding this disaster still remains polarised." Moriori 00:35, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
Again, I hope the headings I've added to the article will make things clearer. I have no axe to grind either - in fact, as stated previously, I agreed with the Mahon report until reading some of the opposing literature and discussing the issue with every pilot I could lay my hands on. JazzNZ 04:08, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)


List of victims

Moving on to another topic altogether - should a list of the victim's names be posted? Cast your vote here. I am ambivalent but leaning towards 'yes'. I suggest first majority rules. -- JazzNZ 04:11, 12 December 2003 (UTC)

YES - publicly accessible information, possible historical interest in future, for sake of completeness. (I note some Sep 11th victims have articles, if convention matters at all) -- JazzNZ 04:13, 12 December 2003 (UTC)
This is a very old thread and it appears that nothing has been done about it. Nevertheless, my vote is YES, but the data should be held somewhere seperately, either in a separate article or possibly at WikiSource. -- FP <talk><edits> 12:22, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
FP, if you're interested into incorporating a list of victims into the article, here is a list. — † Webdinger BLAH | SZ 01:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of the Article

Currently this article is called Air New Zealand Flight 901. However I believe it should be changed to Mount Erebus disaster, because most New Zealanders would know the accident under this name, rather than flight 901.

Also the title of the royal commission in the accident was called Report of the Royal Commission into the crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica, of a DC10 aircraft operated by Air New Zealand Limited, 1981, it does not even contain a mention of the flight number. A quick survey of how the media refers to the accident reveals that Mount Erebus disaster (or some variant) [1] [2] . -- Popsracer 11:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article has been moved back to Air New Zealand Flight 901 in line with the (emerging) Wikipedia naming practice for other air disasters. Mount Erebus disaster redirects to it. Personally I think the current title is more encyclopedic. Any objections? -- FP <talk><edits> 12:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'm not sure that the new name is based on a Wikipedia naming practise at all, although GCarty seemed to think so [3]. I will ask for comments on the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board to get some feedback on the more appropriate name. -- FP <talk><edits> 12:34, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Exhibit 164

So what was exhibit 164? The article mentions the number but no more. -- William M. Connolley 11:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone has since added this to the article: "Exhibit 164" refers to a photocopied diagram of McMurdo Sound showing a southbound flight path passing west of Ross Island and a northbound path passing the island on the east. The diagram didn't extend sufficiently far south to show where, how, or even if they joined, and left the two paths disconnected. Evidence had been given to the effect that the diagram had been included in the flight crew's briefing documentation. -- FP <talk><edits> 12:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.