Jet Scares Residents

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 22 September 1975

Jet scares residents

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, September 21.

Residents of the northern Wellington suburb, Newlands, dived for safety as an Air New Zealand DC8 jet made a “miss approach” above their homes last night.

The jet was making an instrument approach to Wellington Airport through mist and rain when the pilot apparently decided he was too low, and applied full power. Air traffic control officers were unable to give the plane’s exact height when the “miss approach” was made. But they described it as a normal landing procedure.

However, residents put its height as low as their lounge windows.

“When I heard the noise I could literally see the lights of the plane through my lounge windows,” said Mr A.D. Stephens, of Kenmore Street. He raced to his front door I when he heard a thundering noise.

“The plane was standing on its tail as it headed straight up,” he said. “It was miles too bloody low—that’s for sure.”

“SURGE OF POWER”
Mr Roy Cronin said he heard the plane about 8 pm. “I thought it was going to come right into the house. But suddenly there was a surge of power, and it took off up into the mist,” he said.

Mr R. M. Davie said he had frequently seen low-flying aircraft. “But this was the lowest I have ever seen one come.”

Mr G. McGuire described it as absolutely terrifying. "I just dived to the floor. It was really frightening. The whole house shook.” he said. “My wife dived under the table."

The plane, en route from Christchurch to Fiji, was making a short stop in Wellington to pick up passengers. In a southerly wind, it had begun an instrument approach, and had passed over Porirua at the required 3000 ft. It was required to pass over Newlands at 2100 ft — nearly 1300 ft above the directional beacon for aircraft on the hill.

NEW APPROACH
The pilot decided his approach was not perfect, and put on full power to circle again and begin another approach. “The standard procedure for a ‘miss approach’ is to apply full power and climb to 3000 ft,” said an air traffic control spokesman.

An aircraft was entitled to make a “miss approach” during an instrument landing, he said. ‘“Miss approaches” happened regularly — but not by DC8s over Newlands. “they usually happen closer to the runway,” he said. The pilot did a "precision approach and landing the second time round,” the air traffic control spokesman said. He declined to discuss the safety angle, but said it was extremely unlikely that there had been any danger to residents.

REPORT EXPECTED
The pilot would make a report to Air New Zealand, and air traffic control would see the report. This would probably not be made for several days, because the pilot and crew were on their way to Fiji.

However, Air New Zealand’s director of industry affairs (Mr C. W. Beresford) said last night that he would inquire into the incident today.

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 23 September 1975

Inquiry into low approach

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, September 22

The Minister of Civil Aviation (Dr Finlay) will receive a report from the Civil Aviation Division on a faulty landing approach of an Air New Zealand DC8 aircraft at Wellington Airport about eight last night.

A spokesman for the Minister said this morning that the division would report to the Minister as soon as it had completed an inquiry, begun this morning, into the plane’s low flying over the Wellington suburb of Newlands.

Residents of the suburb, on the northern hills of Wellington, said they thought the plane, on an instrument landing through mist and rain, was going to crash. But the pilot adopted what air traffic control officers described as “normal misapproach procedures,” and climbed quickly clear of the hills. The plane was making the regular Sunday night Christchurch - Wellington - Nandi service.

“The only way we can find out the rights and wrongs of the matter is to have an investigation, and that’s exactly what we are going to do,” said the Director of Civil; Aviation (Mr I. F. B. Walters)[ this morning, “We will question the crew, the passengers, and even consult the black box,” he added.

The incident made it clear that any extension of Wellington Airport into Evans Bay must reduce the safety of landings, said Mr W. L. Young, M.P. for Miramar. “Should there be no suitable aircraft to allow Air New Zealand’s Tasman service to continue without an extension of the runway, the extension must be to the south, into Cook Strait,” he said.

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 24 September 1975

DC8 crew will not fly during inquiry

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND. September 23.

The inquiry into what caused an Air New Zealand DC8 to fly too low over the Wellington suburb of New lands began in Auckland this morning, and could last up to 10 days.

The director for civil aviation, Mr I. F. B. Walters, said today it was a complicated inquiry. involving many witnesses and statements from witnesses.

The officers of the DC8 have been withdrawn from flying duties until the inquiry is over, but the Wellington manager of Air New Zealand (Mr C. Beresford) said today that they would still perform ground duties. The inquiry, in the airline building, is under the charge of Captain E. T. Kippenberger, the division’s assistant director (flight operations).

Mr Walters said it was possible evidence from some of the passengers aboard the aircraft would be called. Statements were being taken from people in Newlands who saw the aircraft.

The navigational aids for the landing approach to Wellington Airport were being checked, he said. It appeared the system was in order.

Five factors
The flight data recorder from the DC8 was removed from the aircraft yesterday when it returned from Nandi to Auckland.

The tape recording details of the aircraft’s approach to Wellington Airport have been processed, and the information is expected to be ready for the inquiry today.

The tape records five basic factors about an aircraft’s flight, including its altitude, air speed and the attitude of the machine. It is understood that preliminary investigations have uncovered no faults in the DC8’s navigational instruments.

Landings
An air traffic control supervisor in Wellington said tonight that though the aircraft was on instrument approach procedure, it was not on a precision approach.

Altitude information from the ground was given only during precision approaches and involved telling the pilot only whether he was above or below the required altitude.

Residents in the Kenmore Street, Baylands Drive, and Brooker Grove area of Newlands have claimed the jet was less than 100 feet above the ground.

The Ministry of Transport’s regional airways officer, Mr M. R. Vintiner, today gave a detailed account of the landing procedure for big jets at Wellington.

Hilly area
A DC8 jet en route to Wellington first makes radio contact with the airport when it is about 100 miles away and can land at Rongoitai from either a north or south direction.

About 60 per cent of landings are from the south and landings from the north are more difficult because of hilly terrain over Porirua and Newlands.

A DC8 is put on to a radar approach when it is about 22km from Wellington Airport. At this stage it is travelling at about 180 knots at an altitude of 3000 ft.

On a northern approach landing to Wellington, this occurs when the aircraft is lined-up over an unmanned radio beacon near Porirua.

Indicator
Air traffic controllers position the DC8 for its final approach to Wellington Airport while it is still at 3000 feet just after Porirua. The plane then descends to a similar beacon in Newlands which it crosses at 2100 feet.

Mr Vintiner said an indicator flashed in the jet’s cockpit when it crossed the radio beacons. The indicator would : flash regardless of the jet’s altitude over the beacon. In fine weather the DC8 can make a visual approach to the runway at Rongotai from its 2100 feet altitude near Newlands.

If there is cloud, rain or mist the jet is guided on to the runway by an instrument procedure approach in consultation with air traffic controllers.

In a few months, all of the Air N.Z. DC8 jets will be fitted with an alarm system which tells the pilots in no uncertain terms when they are too close to the ground. The system, known as the Ground Proximity Warning System (G.P.W.S.) would probably have averted Sunday’s incident.

The system makes a loud “Whoop, Whoop” sound, and then a taped voice repeats “Pull up, pull up.” At the same time a light flashes.

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 8th of October 1975.

DC8 CAPTAIN DEMOTED FOR NEWLANDS SCARE

(New Zealand Press Association)

AUCKLAND, October 7.

Air New Zealand has demoted the captain of the DC8 airliner which flew low over Newlands, a Wellington suburb, on September 21, and has withdrawn some seniority from both the captain and the first officer.

Captain D. Niccol, who has been with the airline nine years with the airline flying DC8s, now becomes a first officer.

The other pilot, First Officer L. Davidge, who has spent more than nine months, was formerly an Air Force pilot.

Mr M. R. Davis, the airline’s deputy chief executive, said today that Captain Niccol was an experienced pilot, and was considered “well up to the high standards of airmanship demanded by New Zealand standards”

First Officer Davidge was also considered a good and experienced pilot.

Before being allowed to return to flying duties, both pilots will undergo long and rigorous flight retraining. The Minister of Civil Aviation (Dr Finlay) said today in a report on the incident that the aircraft had descended to less than 200 ft above Newlands roofs.

Loss of pay
Mr Davis said the disciplinary action taken against the two men was the most severe the company had taken against pilots for flying misdemeanours. Both pilots will suffer loss of pay because of the losses of seniority, but the most severe punishment is considered the loss of command suffered by Captain Niccol. Neither will lose privileges.

The airline held its own inquiry, parallel to that of the Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport. The chairman of the airline inquiry was Captain P. Grundy. The findings of the inquiries were almost identical, Mr Davis said.

The airline was concerned about a spurious radio signal which led the flight crew to believe they were over the Newlands beacon when they were a few nautical miles to the north, Mr Davis said.

Regulations changed
The company had amended regulations to take into account that the validity of the signal could sometimes be open to question. The airline was convinced that a spurious signal had been received, and this view was supported by a signal received some days later by the crew of another DC8 flying in the area.

Mr Davis agreed that the incident could have resulted “in a catastrophe.”

Captain Grundy said the spurious signal could have been caused by natural phenomena, or by means such as transmission lines, or even an arc welder in the area.

He said the reason for the unusually rapid descent of the aircraft had yet to be fully explained. It was a complicated matter. The aircraft was in moderate turbulence during the descent, but the rate of descent was not in keeping with prudent airmanship.

Radio signal
Dr Finlay said in the report on the Civil Aviation Division inquiry that it had been found that the aircraft, on an instrument approach on a flight from Christchurch, received an indication that it was over the Newlands beacon when in fact it was one mile and a half to two miles north of that position. The Newlands medium-frequency radio beacon is on the Newlands ridge, immediately south of suburban houses. The pilot in charge, who did not use other aids to confirm the airliner’s position, began an immediate descent on the assumption that he was over Wellington Harbour.

“The descent was carried out at a much greater rate than normal, and the pilots were alerted to the incorrect flight path only when they saw the lights of the Newlands houses ahead,” Dr Finlay said.

"An emergency overshoot was initiated, the resulting noise of the four large jet engines at high power alarming the occupants of those houses beneath the flight path.’’

The aircraft descended to less than 200 ft above the rooftops before the overshoot climb was begun, he said. The investigation found that although the signal the aircraft received was "false and so far unexplained,” the incident would not have occurred if proper procedures had been followed by the pilots.

“Disciplinary action is therefore intended, and in the meantime both pilots remain grounded by Air New Zealand.

The flight engineer, the only other flight crew member, was found by the investigators to have carried out his duties correctly, and has returned to flying duties.

“This investigation has required exhaustive checking of the air navigational facilities servicing Wellington Airport, and of the aircraft’s equipment. No faults or irregularities have been found in either the ground equipment or the aircraft. Air traffic control also came under scrutiny, and was found to have properly and efficiently carried out its duties."

Second false signal
Dr Finlay said that a week after the incident an aircraft travelling from Wellington to Auckland received a similar false signal. The cause of the malfunction was still unknown, and investigations were continuing. As a precautionary measure all pilots were being warned to verify the Newlands position using the other navigational facilities available.

“Both the Government and Air New Zealand regard this incident as one of the utmost gravity. It was precipitated by some external cause and compounded by human error, both of which are being dealt with. Continued recourse to the Newlands beacon is necessary, but all references to it will be double checked from other sources,’’ Dr Finlay said.

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 8th of October 1975.

Pilots hold own inquiry

(N.Z. Press Association) WELLINGTON, Oct. 7.

The Airline Pilots’ Association was holding its own inquiry into the incident of the jet airliner that flew too low over a Wellington suburb, the association’s general secretary (Captain) J. W. Dickinson said tonight.

“We view this sort of incident as seriously as Air New Zealand does,” he said. “Our function is to make sure the report is accurate. All we want to do is make sure the findings are in accordance with the facts, “The men involved in this incident are members of our association, and we must support their interests.

“We are a responsible association, and have regard for airline safety, and if we find that the report is accurate there is little we can do about it.”

Captain Dickinson said there was no question of industrial action. The principal officers of the association would discuss the matter at their regular meeting in Wellington on Thursday, he said. 

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 9th of October 1975.

Demoted DC8 captain: ‘I’m not bitter’

(New Zealand Press Association) AUCKLAND. October 8.

“The judgment was harsh, but I don't feel bitter." said the demoted Air New Zealand pilot, now First Officer D. Niccol, at his Epsom home today.

“We are appealing against the findings, but this is only on the fine technical points of the decision." he said.

Mr Niccol said there was “no reason to believe that we are being made scapegoats because of the publicity surrounding the incident."

“As pilot, you are placed in a position of responsibility to make judgments,” he said. "If these decisions lead to a potentially dangerous situation, you have to expect to bear responsibility for those decisions.

“I can sympathise with the Newlands residents, we must have made a shocking noise.”

Of the incident, he said: “Any professional pilot would naturally be most upset to find himself in such a situation."

Reports suggesting that he and his crew had made no attempt to check their position by means other than the radio beacon were “not quite correct.”

Distance-measuring equipment, which tells the pilot exactly how far he is from the runway, was being used, but "came unlatched at the critical time."

"This happens often. In other kinds of approaches — even in this case — it would not have been critical."

But the spurious signal, from the Newlands beacon gave a false position.

Approach explained
Explaining such an approach, Mr Niccol said: “You are flying along a narrowly defined beam, which in this case was 100 per cent accurate. You define your passage by a series of radio beacons. The indications we got were that we had crossed over the Newlands beacon, when in fact the aircraft was one mile and a half short of it. 

“From this point you normally carry out the descent to the airport." He said the aircraft was flying about two miles a minute.

“We did have other things available to us but the actual decision to descend was based on erroneous information."

Passengers had nothing to fear about approaches to Wellington Airport .—"the whole procedure has been changed to prevent it from happening again.”

He said he had made 1000 approaches.

He and his professional association would look into the details of the report. Too much had been made of the word, “grounded." Grounding was normal procedure in such cases. He would have to undergo a certain amount of revision to take over the co-pilot seat, but this would take only about a week, Mr Niccol said.

Action ‘adequate'
The Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport considers the disciplinary action taken by Air New Zealand adequate, and will not be supplementing it. The Director of Civil Aviation (Mr I. F. B. Walters) said today that he had power to impose further disciplinary action, but he considered that the judgment of the airline met the case. A spokesman for the airline said that the two pilots would appeal against the disciplinary action.

“This was to be expected; it is a matter of course,” he said.

[Dave Homewood]

From The Press, 13th of October 1975:

DC8 report raises questions on beacon

(By DUNCAN CAMPBELL, an aviation writer in Wellington)

The Director of Civil Aviation (Mr I. F. B. Walters) has evaded the most important questions raised by the publication of official statements about an Air New Zealand DC8’s “rooftop” flight over Newlands when it was approaching Wellington Airport in mist and rain on the night of September 21.

But for the speed with which the pilot, Captain D. Niccol, reacted the moment he recognised the emergency, the Fiji-bound flight from Christchurch might have ended in disaster.

Held in camera, the subsequent inquiry found that the aircraft received a false reading of the Newlands beacon.

Mr Walters has denied that the inquiry, conducted by members of his staff, which is also responsible for the operation of radio aids, was held in secret. His grounds are that it was attended by representatives of the Airline Pilots’ Association and by the Marine and Power Engineers’ Association.

Within a few days of the incident three airlines regularly using Wellington Airport had warned their pilots that the Newlands beacon could be unreliable, and one pilot recalled that he had reported receiving false signal from the beacon about 15 months before.

Pending investigation, it is customary to ground all aircraft of a particular type if an unexpected defect is found in one. So the question arises: Should not similar standards apply to navigational aids?

Why, then, did the Civil Aviation Division take 17 days to issue a warning to all pilots that the Newlands beacon was likely to be unreliable, and instructing them to use it only in conjunction with another aid?

Referral usual
Mr Walters says the delay occurred because he had little reason to believe the beacon was suspect until he received the report. Does this imply that the three airlines were not adopting a sound precautionary procedure that the division itself should have adopted? And the speed with which the Minister of Civil Aviation (Dr Finlay) announced the content of the inquiry report appears to leave something to be desired.

A report arising from an accident is invariably referred for comment to the pilot involved or to his representatives, before being released to the public.

In the case of the low-flying DC8 Dr Finlay had issued a statement damaging to its pilots. His comments were based on a report neither had seen, and on which they were not given an opportunity to comment.

The proper procedure in this investigation required the referral of the report arising from it to any person who might be found at fault. Many people could have been killed, seriously injured, or rendered homeless had the DC8 crashed.

Full Inquiry
Surely such a circumstance requires that a full court of inquiry be properly convened to discover the real reason the incident occurred and to uncover all the circumstances.

Only in this way can a recurrence — perhaps with a less favourable outcome — be prevented.

[chinapilot]

Some more info here from the flying canoe department;

www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/AviationIncidentOverNewlands1975.pdf

[aileronroll]

Wow, this is a blast from the past! I lived in Newlands until age 9 and was 5 at the time of this incident. I don’t remember much of the actual event but Mum, Dad, and our neighbors spoke of it for years afterwards. Like most of Newlands we lived under the approach to Wellington airport and were all very use to the sight and sound of large, loud, and low level passenger jets. At this approximate time our chimney was blown off the roof, I remember Dad telling us it was the AIr New Zealand jet that had knocked it down.

The street names mentioned above are familiar, it is nice to read them after 45 years, they were close by to were we lived. Thank you all for posting the above I have not thought of this event for almost 50 years but will be sure to mention it to Mum when visiting New Zealand next.

[avenger]

A Google search produced the following.

Upon investigation, by the NZCAD, it was determined, and much to the surprise/concern of all parties, that signals emanating from the Newlands beacon, were in fact being ghosted/transmitted by power cables for a considerable distance north of the beacons location .... therefore resulting in false navigation fixes/indications aboard aircraft approaching Wellington from the north and using this particular navigational aid .... as was then confirmed to have been the case in this particular DC-8 incident.

[Dave Homewood]

Wow.

[chinapilot]

Not saying the source is incorrect but the website doesn't quote any citation for the assertion.
Fyfe did apologise for the Erebus accident to the famillies involved.