Air New Zealand's DC8 era Part 1

THE DC-8-52 ERA. 1965 –  1965 – 1981 1981

 ––––– ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Gary Sommerville - Flight Engineer with T.E.A.L./Air New Zealand 1965-2000.

In response to a request from Len Mills, the moving force behind the ON BLOX website, “ ….to encourage AIR NEW ZEALAND's International "ON-BLOX" fraternity to share info,  photos, nostalgia, tall tales, etc.............. ....”  I am offering the following photos, nostalgia and tall tales etc. Len goes on to say “Understandably, the measure of success of this co-operative venture will be determined by the level of interest and the inputs from those who choose to participate.... So what follows is my sixpenneth worth to further the cause. When you have been part of a community for quite some time, there comes a time when you should give something back to that community. After 47 years in the aviation community, 37 years with the Company, 35 of those years with Flight Operations, I retired. After retirement I started to put a few things down on paper for my children, using my flight logbook as a reference and the end result grew into a sizeable tome. I emphasise the intent of these writings was for my children so those with aviation knowledge please forgive some passages designed to explain to the uninitiated the workings of the complex world of aviation .

To me the DC-8 era was the most fulfilling and exciting period of my aviation career. It was the beginning of New Zealand’s foray into International commercial Jet aviation and I was proud to be a part of it. It is my hope that this period in our history does not just slide into obscurity. I include here  just a few extracts from my musings, dealing with the period 1967 to 1973, six of the seven years I was on the DC-8 fleet including a two year period when I was a crewmember of five crews based in Sydney to exclusively operate the Company’s new routes to Singapore and Hong Kong.

th

20 July 1965

Air New Zealand’s First Douglas DC-8-52 Delivery Flight The crew of ZK-NZA on arrival at Auckland after the delivery flight from th Long Beach California. 20 July 1965. From top of stairs to bottom: Purser Frank Collier. Chief Flight Engineer Jim Robinson. Chief Navigator Brian Hewitt. Captain Jim Kennedy. Captain Phil Le Coutuer. Chief Pilot Captain Doug Keesing shaking hands with Air New Zealand’s C.E.O. Frank Reeves. The Hon JK McAlpine, minister of Civil Aviation.

 It was often said in jest by our pilot pilot friends, the Flight Engineer was employed to ----“- kick the tyres and count the engines” before each Take -Off.

Well we did -- in addition to many other tasks to ensure the aircraft was mechanically sound and ready for flight. Then once it was off the ground and in the environment for which it was designed and built we attended to all its needs -- kept its engines well fed -- listened to its problems through small changes in sounds -- felt it communicate changes in its wellbeing by minute changes in its vibrations -- smelt it -- ran all its systems and accessories -- directed its electricity to a thousand internal addresses -- watched over its complex circulatory systems sending their vital 'blood' surging through a myriad of arteries to move the flying controls, landing gear etc. --- controlled its massive lungs ensuring it and its human cargo breathed easily far up in the hostile sub-zero reaches ten to twelve kilometres above the earth's surface. When it fell ill far from immediate help we soothed -- cajoled -- pampered -- and together we kept on going until we reached safety. What we did enabled the pilots to do what pilots do so well -- fly the aeroplane --- while we 'attended to the whirly bits' -- the nuts -- the bolts --The Machine.

I had joined flight operations as an Abinitio Flight Engineer in January 1965 when T.E.A.L.’s fleet comprised just three aircraft, Lockheed Electra L- 188C’s, ZK -TEA -TEA  –  ZK-TEB and ZK-TEC. The fleet was reduced by one third when during my type rating course ZK-TEC crashed and was written off. th

The DC-8 entered revenue service on 18 September 1959 with Delta and United Airlines just 10 years after the first flight of the world’s first jet airliner, the prototype Comet in 1949 and 8 years afte r the Comet’s introduction to revenue service. The DC -8 was one of the earliest jet-powered

commercial passenger aircraft and represented a significant chapter in the evolution of commercial air transport design. In the decade following its maiden flight, the DC-8 established commercial transport world records for speed, altitude, distance and payload. Air New Zealand was to play a significant role in the long distance records. From its inception, the four-engine DC-8 embodied advanced aerodynamic and structural concepts as well as internal systems designed for maximum service reliability, operational convenience and passenger comfort. On 21 st August 1961 a DC-8 broke the sound barrier at Mach 1.012/ 660 mph in a controlled dive through 41,000 feet. The flight was to collect data on a new wing leading-edge design. The introduction of the DC-8 to the Company’s fleet heralded the arrival of International commercial jet aviation into New Zealand history. The de Havilland Comet, Sud – Caravelle, Caravelle, Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8 and the Convair 880 were the pioneering first generation aircraft types of the new, 'High speed - High altitude - Swept wing' era of  commercial jet passenger transports, and we who flew those aircraft, along with those who designed, built and maintained these aircraft were pioneering in the use of this new and revolutionary type of equipment. The procedures and techniques required to operate these machines professionally and with safety, in the upper level environment in which we flew, were also pioneering. Many things occurred in these years that were unexpected, unexplained and for which no procedures were in place to combat them, simply because no one had previous experience of them. This period in aviation, in the two decades immediately after the Second World War, both Civil and Military was one of rapid advance into new and untried areas, and the pace of change was frenetic. Military aircraft had long flown in this high and fast environment so there was a wealth of operational knowledge available. Military aircraft though, were operated by the young and fit and specially chosen, sitting on parachutes and ejector seats. Now an era arrived when large commercial aircraft were required to carry as passengers, the very young, the very old, the infirm, and the average citizen, high and fast over long distances in a new and alien environment. The challenge was to do it economically, with a much higher level of safety than previously possible, and in stress free comfort. These aircraft were designed using principles and methods evolved during the war years. The computing world was also still in its infancy so these aircraft were very much, cables, pulleys, bell cranks and levers and seat of the pants stuff. Very little redundancy was built into systems and a lot of systems were single systems with limited back up. False warnings of impending failures were common place. th

On the 4 July 1966 the following was printed in the ‘Auckland Star’ newspaper. Flight Simulator: An Air New Zealand executive said today that the question of whether the airline would buy a digital computer flight simulator  was still under consideration. The cost would be not less than £500,000 but with spares and a building to house it the final price could reach £600,000. One point being studied was the extent to which a simulator would be accepted by the Department of Civil Aviation. This would  depend entirely on the type of simulator. Great advances were being made in simulators and developments in the next two years or so could  allow a considerable amount of training to be done on them. The more computerised the process could become, the more likely it to be accepted  in lieu of flying. Few in use: The assistant general manager of Air New Zealand, Captain J.R. McGrane, last month met in Britain representatives of two firms making new types of sophisticated sophisticated simulators. These have only just become available available and there are few in use just yet. Captain McGrane McGrane said  only now had simulators suitable for Air New Zealand become available and it would take at least a year to buy one.

After just under two years on the Electra fleet I was p laced on a DC-8 type rating course cour se th

th

which ran from 28 March 1967 to 15 May 1967.

This Type Rating course was conducted in Air New Zealand's new training facility at Auckland International Airport, Mangere. Well lit air-conditioned rooms, real tables and chairs. In sharp contrast to the L-188C Electra eight week Type Rating course (plus an extra two week flight engineer ‘O’ licence course) which was conducted in T.E.A.L.’s ground training school, an old two -storey wooden building in Fanshawe St. Auckland. The classroom was on the second floor above busy Fanshawe St. and next door to Mason and Porter’s shipbuilding yard. None of  the windows in the room could be opened, so in the hot January - February summer weeks, with traffic noise and banging and crashing noises from the shipyard, we set off on the journey, gaining new knowledge and skills. Hard work, especially after lunch. Not as hard though as the upright two-person wooden school desks we occupied for the duration of the course, with built-in wooden bench seat. The desk top still had the neat little holes to accommodate the white china ink wells so familiar in my primary school years. The DC-8 ground course took seven weeks and the content was based on previous thinking, in that it was considered necessary to delve deeply into the inner workings of systems and their components. Far deeper than was necessary

to be an operator of the system, more like a maintainer of the system. We learnt all about things like spring tension settings, the inner workings of complex hydraulic valves, fuel pumps and complicated electrical circuits and their components. The kind of stuff a maintenance engineer would need to know. Pilots and engineers did the same course together. United Airlines crews in comparison, as we were to learn later, did a 3 week ground course. As Air New Zealand had not received its Flight Simulator at this time we were sent to United Airlines Training Centre, Stapleton Field, Denver, Colorado, for Simulator training. Circuit training would be conducted from United Airlines Flight Training Centre at San Francisco International. We would fly DC-8 Freighter aircraft departing SFO and joining the circuit at either Stockton or Fresno. Travelling with me were Captains, Ken Chappell, and Russ Meyer, First Officers Guy Clapshaw and Tom Furse, and fellow Flight Engineer Ron Spencer. The DC-8 Simulator by today's standards was primitive, but at the time was high technology. It had a limited Visual system, a movie played on the two front windscreens only. Motion consisted of the cab being hinged at the rear and a hydraulic ram at the front to pitch the nose up for take-off, and limited tilt, left and right to simulate banking. I found that without the 'G' forces of a balanced turn, the effect of the tilting on the balance organs, without outside visual reference made me feel quite seasick at times. The cockpit instrumentation was hooked up to an early type of basic computer and provided realistic readings and lighting. It was certainly a comprehensive and valuable training tool that enabled us to perform hands on procedures, Normal, Ab normal, and Emergency, that we co uldn't perform in the real aeroplane, unless a real emergency existed. It was absorbing and hard work with the pressure on all the time. After completing the Simulator sessions were given a three day break in San Francisco before flying training commenced. On one of those days four of us hired a car and took a tour around San Francisco and surrounding area. It was a typically large American car, white, with lots of chrome and big tail fins. I was conned into doing the driving job, and the car was automatic. Never driven an automatic before so naturally the first time I slowed down for the traffic lights I went to push the clutch in with a touch of brake, ending up with both feet on the very wide brake pedal. No seat belts in those days and I was very quickly joined in the front seat by everybody else. My travelling companions were First Officer Tom Furse, Flight Engineer Ron Spencer, and Training Captain Peter Grundy who had recently arrived from Auckland to monitor the flying training programme. We did the normal touristy things and crossed the Golden Gate Bridge to Sausalito, visited Coit Tower on Telegraph Hill, Fisherman's Wharf, and drove down Lombard Street the world’s crooke dest street. Union Square, rode the Cable car, went up Twin Peaks and drove through Golden Gate Park. We crossed over to Oakland, using the Oakland Bay double-deck  bridge. Tom Furse was the navigator on this journey and occupied the other side of the front bench seat, and was responsible for map reading. Tom managed to run us completely off the side of the map getting us lost. “Let’s find a watering hole and sort this thing out"  someone suggested. It didn't take long to spot one so I parked the car outside 'Lefty's Bar'. A dark dingy establishment with large red velvet curtains with gold rope trim covering the entrance. It was quite clear nobody of our acquaintance had ever come across 'Lefty's Bar', buried in the back of beyond as it was, and off the side of the San Franciscan map. My first and greatest need of the moment was bladder relief and a quick search found the urinal in the back of 'Lefty's Bar' and was entertained for a brief spell, reading the copious and informative graffiti on the wall. There quite s uddenly within my gaze, appeared the inscription ' Ray Poole, Don Olliff, Air New Zealand'. Well that pretty well blew my socks off. Here was I thinking I was some kind of a pioneer explorer, and I find two other Air New Zealand Flight Engineers had reached these dizzy heights before me. th

On the 29 of May 1967 we started flying training. United Airlines DC-8-54F

We had the same United Instructors who trained us in the Simulator in Denver. Namely Captain Matt Briggs and Captain Lloyd Olsen a retired U.S.A.F. Colonel and more recently from the flying training staff of TWA (Trans World Airlines), and United Air Lines. Flight Engineer Instructors Bob Masonheimer and Jim Newman. We flew United Airlines DC-854F aircraft ('F' for Freighter), and each day gathered up one at United's Maintenance Base at San Francisco International Airport, and flew it east across the Coast Ranges to Stockton in the Joaquin Valley (bordered further east by the Sierra Nevada mountains) , where we joined the circuit with other

United aircraft on training details. Some days there would be other DC-8's or maybe a Boeing -707 or Boeing -727 sharing the circuit with us. The flying training initially started with the two Air New Zealand Captains, Russ Meyer and Ken Chappell, on the same crew, occupying the left hand seat in turns, with the United instructor in the right hand seat. Ron Spencer flew with this crew and one of United F/E Instructors. I started off with the two First Officers, Guy Clapshaw and Tom Furse, and the other United Pilot and F/E instructor. Later in the programme Ron and I were swapped and I did some details with the two Captains. On one of the last details, Ron and I did half the four hour detail each. For the two hours I wasn't on the flight deck, I was seated on the one seat installed in the main fuselage of the empty Freighter. That was some kind of an experience too. A large empty aircraft with no windows, except for two on each side in the over wing exits, no passenger seats and the entire metal floor covered with steel balls and rollers that were there to glide cargo pallets over the floor. During the take-off roll hundreds of metal balls would get up and dance in their metal cages, and the noise was deafening. The 'G' forces experienced during upper air work and constant circuits was a bit unsettling and not being able to see much from within this large empty, noisy, aluminum tube, made the ride somewhat uncomfortable. A four hour detail would typically start, after departure from San Francisco International with some upper air work such as a Stall series, Steep Turns, Dutch Rolls, Emergency Descent, or High Speed Buffet runs. We would then descend from say 35,000 ft. and enter the circuit at Stockton, and do perhaps two hours of touch-and-go landings and some full stop landings.

st

Sunday 31 May 1967. U.A.L. DC-8-54F N8042U. San Francisco International Airport. Circuit Flying detail. Setting out from San Francisco International for another circuit training detail at Stockton. Photo above: Capt. Ken Chappell Air NZ, Capt. Lloyd Olsen U.A.L. F/E Jim Newman U.A.L. Capt. Russ Meyer Air NZ, F/E Gary Sommerville Air NZ. F/O Guy Clapshaw Air NZ. This is the only photo I have of a UAL DC-8-54 Freighter taken during our time on course showing the blue and white livery of  the time. Note the aircraft ‘construction number’ (cn) on the nose leg door is 2042. United Airlines replaced the leading 2 numeral with the numeral 8 to denote DC-8 giving a registration (painted on the rear body as N8042U) and radio call sign of 8042. Radio call sign “United Eight Zero Four Two”  An economy of words indicating to recipients, Air Traffic controllers et al, that they were dealing with a Heavy Jet of the DC-8 variety belonging to United Airlines and specifically aircraft 042. Air Traffic Controllers upon hearing the prefix 8 were without having to ask aware of  the flight characteristics of the type of aircraft, its minimum speed requirements, turning radius etc. and how to slot this aircraft into the flight patterns around the area with other different aircraft possessing quite different flight characteristics and requirements.

th Tuesday 30 May 1967. U.A.L. DC-8-54F N8047U.

Circuit Flying. On this night landing, just as we were flaring to touch down, a large seabird appeared in the glare of the landing lights, sitting on the runway. It flapped its wings and got airborne, then about four feet above the concrete changed its mind and sat back down on the runway. Mistake! The last I saw of it was being sucked off the runway and disappearing off to my right, heading backwards. The engines were throttled back to idle at this stage, but nonetheless there was a possibility that it had been ingested into one of the engines. Having just come off the Lockheed Electra fleet, ingesting such a large bird into the small engines like those installed on the Electra, would have had serious consequences. Though nothing was obvious on the engine instrumentation to me, the new boy, I attempted to draw the instructor’s attention to this possibility. Now it's all action and talk during a training detail. After landing, and indeed during the landing roll, there is constant banter from the instructors. Questions from the pupils and accompanying answers. Checklists to be read, actions to be taken monitored and confirmed by another crew member, for example resetting Flap and Stabiliser settings, switches to be repositioned, and all the time the aircraft is being taxied back to the take-off end of the runway. Clearances and instructions to be received over the radio from the Control Tower, and be ready at short notice to be slotted into the landing and take-off sequence with other aircraft. I attempted several times to draw the attention of the others to my c oncern, and I was frustrated by the seeming lack of interest from the A mericans.

DC-8 cockpit. Flight Engineer’s panel mounted on the right sidewall. During taxi, landing and take-off the F/E seat is swivelled to face the front between and behind the two pilot’s seats from where the F/E monitors the forward engine instruments, handles the engine power levers on pilot’s request, monitors flight control settings and movement (Flaps, Spoilers etc.), and Landing Gear movements and forward warning light clusters.

As we turned onto the runway I said again in a raised voice tinged with a little anxiety, “I think we've swallowed a  bird in Number Four e ngine!". "Yup"  was the calm unconcerned reply from Lloyd Olsen. "Set take-off power please"  he said, addressing me and off we went for another two hours around the circuit. When we arrived back at San Francisco International and all the Shutdown and Securing tasks were done I hurried down the stairs and in the darkness shone my torch in the intake of Number Four Engine. There were feathers, blood, and evil smelling mince smeared around the first stage blades and intake area. I shouted out triumphantly to Lloyd's retreating back, disappearing in the direction of the flight hut, “Hey Lloyd! We did suck a bird into Number  Four". "Yup"  was his nonchalant reply - without turning around. "Maybe these bigger engines handle birds a lot easier"  I muttered quietly to myself as I trailed off behind the others, head down and shoulders hunched.

th

Sunday June 4 1967. U.A.L. DC-8-54F N8041U. Stockton Airport. United Training Captain Matt Briggs and United Training Engineer Bob Masonheimer.

Air New Zealand Captains, Ken Chappell and Russ Meyer, and me in the Engineer's position. Same Air New Zealand crew as pictured above but a different aeroplane with different United Airlines instructors. Part of this detail required our pilots to do a full instrument approach down to 200 feet and then look up and do a visual landing. This was simulating a bad weather in-cloud approach, with a cloud base at the minimum of 200 feet. This training was achieved on a fine clear day by placing a black curved shield (hood) on top of the glare-shield in front of the trainee, in case he took a sneaky look up and out the window when he should have had his head firmly down and flying only on instruments. At 200 feet the Training Captain would reach across and whip the hood away to allow the trainee to look up and complete the landing visually. Stockton airfield had two parallel runways, the long right-hand runway which we were using, and a considerably shorter one on the left. The left-hand runway did not seem to get much week-day traffic. However this was the weekend and the weekend fliers were out in force, using the short left-hand runway. Ken Chappell was in the lefthand (Captain's) seat and under the hood, Matt Briggs the United Airlines instructor occupied the right-hand seat and I was in the Engineer's seat in the middle. Bob Masonheimer was in the Observer’s se at immediately behind the Captain and to my left. Russ Meyer the other Air NZ Captain was seated back in the ‘Aloominum Toob’ having his ears assailed by the dancing metal balls. Bob at this time was giving me a thousand words of good advice as we made this approach, and I'm reading the approach checklists trying to get the pilot's to take the checklist actions and respond to my calls. Ken is concentrating hard on his flying and Matt's giving him the good word. We were just about at the 200 foot decision height when I looked up and out the windshield, and there turning left in front of us was a single engine Cessna which had overshot its turn onto the left-hand runway. I think my first shout was a strangled splutter, but I managed to get out “LLLLight Aircraft”  and stabbed a wagging finger in the general direction. Ken under the hood of course couldn't see a thing and never did during the whole encounter. Matt very calmly said “I have control"  and took over flying the aircraft, asking me to give him Go- Around Power. As I advanced the throttles, Matt dropped the left wing slightly and the Cessna passed over the top of our left wing at about mid-point. I could recognise the pilot of the Cessna to this day. He has enormous staring eyes and a big wide open mouth - as if he is shouting some kind of expletive. We turned right and then re-joined the circuit behind a Boeing 707. "What was that all about?” said Ken, who saw nothing and therefore wasn't at all alarmed. Matt explained the situation which was just as well as I was still trying to stop my hands from shaking, and taking deep breaths to calm my racing heartbeat. Bob Masonheimer my instructor had stopped his patter and was strangely quiet for a few minutes. So the detail carried on as if nothing had happened, and an hour or two later we returned to San Francisco.

Stockton Airport Joaquin Valley showing the long and short runways very close to one another. Our approach was from the far end.

rd

th

th

N8041U in which I flew a total of 11 hours 55 minutes in 3 details on 3 4 and 5 June 1967, two details at Stockton and the last one at Fresno. During these three details take-offs and landings were practiced 3 engine and 4 engine  – day and night flying, circuits, touch and go landings, full stop landings, bad weather circuits and landings. This is the aircraft in which we nearly clouted a Cessna at Stockton, and the left th rd wing over which the Cessna passed so close on 4 June. The previous day June 3 the N°3 engine N°1 bearing carbon seal blew, causing a mild loss of oil quantity. Seen here in new livery landing at Los Angeles 1985.

16th June 1967. Auckland-Auckland. ZK-NZA. Captain Gordon Vette. Flight time 4:25. Circuit detail to illustrate the differences between United Airlines aircraft and Air New Zealand aircraft before Route Training commenced.

There were minor differences between the specification of the United aeroplanes and ours and before we could move onto Route Training on regular passenger flights it was necessary to complete a four hour circuit detail in one of our aircraft under the eye of our Training people. As mentioned earlier United Airlines crews completed just a three week ground course compared with our seven week course and as a consequence all of our guys without exception got top marks from the United trainers when technical discussions took place. Additionally United Airlines flight engineers were the most junior of the pilot ranks and had aspirations to move out of the F/E seat as quickly as possible and move on with their pilot careers. The glowing reports which preceded us on returning to Auckland were not well received by some of the more senior folk in our training establishment. The man rostered to give me my ‘differences’ flight check was one of these very senior people who I had never actually met before. Before any training flight there was always a meal put on in the staff cafeteria to ensure that the blood sugar levels were okay and so on, and it also provided the opportunity for the crew to meet informally before the action started. I was already in the cafeteria when I saw my mentor walk in so went over and introduced myself saying "Hi I'm Gary Sommerville" , extending my hand. Reply; “United says you are some kind of a bright bastard. We'll soon see about that", and walked on ignoring my outstretched hand. For the next four hours in the aircraft he set about putting me firmly in my place, and succeeded magnificently, and I walked away suitably humbled. I also walked away with the conviction that if I ever became a Training Engineer, and at that moment it seemed highly improbable, then I would treat my pupils a lot differently.

th

6 February 1968. Auckland-Sydney. ZK-NZA. Captain Ross McWilliams. Flight time 3:10.

Positioned to Sydney for a two year basing.

Registrations: ZK-NZA ZK-NZB ZK-NZC ZK-NZD ZK-NZE ZK-NZF ZK-NZG The first DC-8 (ZK- NZA) touched down on Auckland’s new International airport at Mangere 20th July 1965. The DC8s ushered in a new pure jet aircraft age, when a recently named Air New Zealand expanded its routes throughout the Pacific basin. The first trans-tasman DC-8 flight between Christchurch and Sydney (October 1965) cut crossing time to under three hours. By the late 60’s routes were established to Fiji, American Samoa, Los Angeles, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tahiti and Cook Islands.

Air rights to Tahiti had been terminated by the French government in February 1964. The rights were re-negotiated in early 1967. Air New Zealand was able resume a weekly service to Tahiti and continuing on to Los Angeles. This occurred on 5th November 1967, 16 years after the Company's first Tahiti service in the flying boat era.

However before the inaugural DC-8 flight it was determined it would be more economical to have crews based in Los Angeles. They would operate the Los Angeles - Honolulu return sectors and the Los Angeles - Tahiti return sectors. This basing was to commence in October 1967. At the same time the accountants thought basing crews in Sydney to operate the Sydney - Hong Kong and return sectors, plus the Sydney Singapore and return sectors, would be the best economical use of crews on the Asian routes. The Sydney basing was to commence in February 1968. Applications were called for both  basing’s, and as I was number thirty seven of forty flight engineers on the DC-8 fleet i.e. 3 rd from the bottom of the seniority list, I thought my chances were zero, but applied anyway.

To my great surprise I got the Sydney basing. The question one might ask is how did people on the bottom of the seniority list get these  basing’s ahead of the top people. This came about because union negotiations to determine the pay and conditions for the postings were such that there was no monetary advantage for the higher paid senior blokes. They figured the flying which was to be all single-engineer long-haul flights (9 to 10 hours) -- continuously for two years, was going to be very hard work for little advantage. The Electra era which they came from never flew sectors longer than 5 hours. Uprooting families, renting out or selling their homes, taking children out of schools, and a lot of other considerations convinced them that without a large financial gain, it was not worth it. Besides the salaries were to be tied to Qantas salaries. We would be living in the same location as Qantas people and doing a similar job so our standard of living was to be aligned with them. Qantas salaries were nothing special at the time but marginally better than ours. We would also be paid a little extra as a location allowance. I had nothing to lose by applying as my junior salary was such; I was going to be a little better off in Sydney. Two weeks after we arrived in Sydney, Qantas aircrew through union negotiation received a whopping 33% increase to their salary, and with our Sydney Location Allowance, I doubled my New Zealand salary and found myself on the same rate as a New Zealand based, eighth year DC-8 Captain. A wise man once said “He who dares…………..” A year or so later when a New Zealand based senior Training Engineer was giving me my annual Route Check on the way to Hong Kong he said rather indignantly, "How did  you get this basing ". I replied "I applied for it! Did you?"  "Ah well no"  he muttered and proceeded to grumble about the unsatisfactory union negotiations before the basing’s implementation. This was an absolutely marvellous opportunity for a young keen relatively inexperienced engineer, to come to grips with a new aeroplane type, with all the challenges associated with operating to Asian destinations and Alternate aerodromes that were new even to the most experienced people in the Company. All this could be done away from the intimidating arena of home base. We were to fly the longest sectors that the company had ever flown, into relatively new destinations, operating in an environment that required decision making without reference to head office. We would find ourselves occasionally, in the months to come, in locations where there were no qualified DC8 ground personnel, and the Flight Engineer would be required to do the tasks of refuelling, ground checking and signing the aircraft off as airworthy and other tasks normally performed by licensed ground engineers. It was a wonderful learning curve for me, free from the restraints of home base. So new was the DC-8 to Air New Zealand's fleet, and the accompanying change from low - slow flight which characterised the Company's previous history, to higher - faster - further, that the experience pool in this sphere of operations was fairly small. Because of this factor some as yet untried procedures in the manual were supposed to be the exclusive domain of the senior Training establishment. For example the carriage of a spare engine, known as the Fifth Pod operation, We were to find quite suddenly we would have this type of thing thrust upon us, and in a way were pioneering in these new and untried areas. There were five crews based in Sydney to operate two weekly flights to Hong Kong and two weekly flights to Singapore. From Sydney, Sunday was a departure for Hong Kong, Monday a Singapore departure, Wednesday, Hong Kong, and Saturday Singapore. At any one time there was a crew laying over in Hong Kong, for either three days or four days. The stopover in Singapore was only fourteen hours and we would park the aircraft overnight and depart at 7:15 in the morning in the same aeroplane, so no crews would lay over in Singapore. Unlike the Los Angeles basing which had Cabin Crew based there, our Cabin Crews were based in Auckland, and moved between Auckland-Sydney-Auckland as passengers. My work roster cycle in the twenty four months was virtually unchanged. I would do a flight to Singapore, 14 hour stop, return to Sydney in the same aircraft, 2 days off, fly to Hong Kong, 3 days in Hong Kong, return to Sydney, 6 days off, fly to Hong Kong, 4 days in Hong Kong, return to Sydney, 9 days off, fly to Singapore, 14 hour stop, return to Sydney, 1 day off, fly to Singapore, 14 hour stop, return, 2 da ys off, then repeat the cycle. The crewmembers based in Sydney were Captains, Jack Shorthouse, Nevill (Nobby) Clarke, Jack Curtis, Roger Dalziell, Arthur (Spike) Jones, and Rex Mangin. First Officers Geoff King, Jack Griffiths, Noel McGuire, Bryan Gault, Derek Stubbs, Leon McCready, Ken Gaddis and Errol Carr. Flight Engineers Nick Caulton, Bill Wallace, Graeme Wood, Les Sutherland, and me. When Sydney crew annual leave was due replacement crew came over from Auckland and flew the occasional sector with us. Navigators Jim Robinson, Peter Heares, Alan Murray, (An  Australian) and Rudy Theissen (A Canadian).

Due to a shortage of Navigators caused by the forthcoming demise of their position with the upcoming shift to automated Doppler Navigation, there were only 4 of their number based in Sydney who were supplemented when required by an Auckland based Navigator. One of the perks of living overseas was the ability to purchase a new motor vehicle at an affordable price and bring it back to New Zealand as household effects. The chance of the average person affording or being able to purchase a new vehicle under existing legislation in New Zealand was remote. The Customs rules of the day were you had to own the vehicle for twelve months prior to landing it in New Zealand, and the owner was not to step foot in New Zealand in the preceding eighteen months. Very tight regulations meaning that one could not return to New Zealand during a holiday break, even in the event of a family emergency, if you wanted to bring a car into the country duty free. Annual refresher courses, annual emergency drill sessions, and our regulatory six monthly Licence medical examinations were all conducted in Sydney by Air New Zealand people flown over for the purpose plus the New Zealand doctors accredited by the New Zealand Civil Aviation Department to perform Licence medicals. All this was achieved by the conditions set during the Company - Union negotiations, to ensure that we stayed out of the country for the required minimum eighteen months.

Sydney - Hong Kong non-stop flight was over the Gulf of Carpentaria, crossing Groote Eylandt in the top north

western corner of the Gulf, then south of New Guinea, up the Philippine chain to Manila and then across the South China Sea to Hong Kong. An occasional stop was made at Darwin or Manila for fuel. In the advent of Hong Kong airport being closed, our Alternate aerodromes were Manila, or Kaohsiung on the Island of Taiwan, or Canton (now Guangzhou) in China. The return journey was via overhead Manila, overhead Townsville, to Brisbane to re-fuel and from there to Sydney. Sydney to Singapore and return by the same route. Sydney to overhead Alice Springs, to overhead Derby and

over the Indonesian chain of Islands to Paya Lebar in Singapore. (In the Malay language Paya means ‘swamp’ and Lebar  means ‘wide’). An occasional stop was made at Darwin for fuel, and once at Alice Springs. A couple of my journeys as a passenger to position a crew, went via Jakarta. During the 24 months of this Sydney basing I was to complete 47 return flights to Hong Kong and 29 return flights to Singapore. Transited Brisbane 47 times, Manila 18 times, Darwin 4 times, Jakarta 2 times, Melbourne 1 time, Alice Springs 1 time, Adelaide 1 time and landed at Sydney 77 times. Clocked up 1250 hours operational flying, 112 hours passenger flying and covered over 1 million kilometres.

12th May 1968 Singapore-Sydney. Captains Doug Keesing and Jack Shorthouse. ZK-NZE. Flight 228. Flight time 8:17. I mention this flight for two reasons. First was the fact that we were flying at 41,000 feet, the first time that I had flown that high, and 41,000 feet was at the 'Service Ceiling' of a DC-8. That is the maximum height that the aeroplane was certified to fly at. The second reason was the Captain for the duty, Sydney - Singapore - Sydney, was Doug Keesing, the Company's Chief Pilot, over from Auckland to check up on this new Sydney based operation. The regular pilot also on board was Captain Jack Shorthouse, the Chief Pilot of the Sydney Base. In addition to the two Captains, we also carried a First Officer. All the sectors we flew to and from Singapore were daylight sectors of  around seven and a half hours, usually with just two pilots and the Flight Engineer, and were quite pleasant duties. This particular day we were all on our best behaviour because the big boss from Auckland was part of the crew. Probably the only reason we were at 41,000 feet, was because Doug wanted to know how his new aeroplane type would perform at the top of the operating envelope. I remember how comparatively quiet it was at this height, in the thinner air with less noise from the air passing over the cockpit. The aircraft also had a slight wallowing feel to it. There was a Civil Aviation / Federal Aviation Administration regulation, (American Law), that stated, any time a passenger carrying aircraft flew above 39,000 feet, one of the pilots at the controls, should at all times wear an oxygen mask. In the most unlikely event of a sudden loss of Cabin Pressure at this height, one pilot would be prepared to instantly commence the Emergency Descent, whilst the rest of us were donning our oxygen masks. The maximum height we ever flew at was 39,000 feet so this requirement had never been observed, until today that is. We had just step-climbed to this new altitude and settled down in the cruise, when I wondered if the boss was now waiting to see if this crew was on the ball, so I quietly leaned over to Jack Shorthouse sitting on the Observer's seat,  just behind Doug Keesing, and whispered "Do you think Doug is waiting to see if the co-pilot is going to don an oxygen mask, or is he waiting for you to tell him to do so?" . Jack quietly rasped back  “I’m not going to say anything, you do it!" . So I bravely said to Doug “Excuse me Captain, but shouldn't one of you be wearing an oxygen mask at this altitude, in accordance with the regulations".

Now I was either going to get a pat on the back here, or a kick up the bum. Captain Gruff turned slowly around in his seat and fixed me with one of those penetrating stares from under hooded eyebrows for which he was famous and said " If you are worried about it lad - You put one on". He then slowly faced the front and continued to silently stare out the window. I was aware of a flash of stifled mirth from Jack who had turned around, and with reddening complexion was now looking at the rear of the cockpit. The co-pilot was implacable and said nothing. Such was the aura that surrounded Captain Doug. Whatever rank you were, you never quite sure where you stood with him - or what was required of you in his presence.

th

6 July 1968. Sydney - Alice Springs - Singapore.. ZK-NZC. Flight TE227. Flight time 8:41. Captain Nevill 'Nobby' Clarke. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Re-Fuel Stop at Alice Springs In the 1960's when rampant militant unionism was an everyday occurrence in New Zealand and Australia, we became used to refuellers going on strike at the drop of a hat, particularly in New South Wales. Like all militant unions who made unrealistic demands, they always chose a time to cause maximum disruption to the travelling public. The DC-8, like the Boeing 707 did not have the fuel capacity to fly non-stop distances like Auckland to Hong Kong or Auckland to Singapore. Because of this, a scheduled refuelling stop was necessary en-route. The scheduled stop west bound was of course Sydney, for the commercial advantage of carrying New Zealand to Australia passengers and uplifting passengers from Australia's largest city. When fuel was not available in Sydney the aircraft would depart Auckland with enough fuel plus reserves to fly to Sydney and then on to another en-route refuelling station. The usual en-route refuelling station for either the Singapore o r the Hong Kong flights was Darwin. On this day however someone in Flight Planning in Auckland had a rush of blood to the brain and thought it would be a good idea to plan a flight through Alice Springs. This had never been done before --- and has never been done since. One of the several drawbacks which we were about to discover was Qantas did not operate any aircraft through Alice, and therefore did not have any licensed ground engineers based there. The Sydney ground engineers like their Air New Zealand counterparts in Auckland, were dual rated on both the Air New Zealand DC-8 and the Qantas Boeing-707 and under contract conducted each other’s outstation turn-rounds. That is, the Transit Check, any rectification maintenance and the refuelling. All Air New Zealand Flight Engineers had Civil Aviation Department certification to do re-fuelling and ground engineer Transit Checks at off-line stations, but could not do any rectification work should the aircraft arrive with any defects. The whole purpose of the Civil Aviation Department approval given to Flight Engineers was to get the aircraft on the way again, if for some unplanned reason the aircraft had to divert to an off-line station which had no licensed ground support personnel. For example, a diversion caused by the destination airfield being closed by weather, and the usual planned Alternate aerodrome being closed also. It was never meant to be used as part of a planned exercise to save time or money. Well this day arrived and we showed up for work in Sydney knowing that the refuellers were again on strike. Then were surprised to find we had been planned through Alice Springs. This was exciting as after all we had all read the book as we grew up by the great Australian author Neville Shute, 'A Town Like Alice' and seen the movie version starring that other great Australian 'Chips' Rafferty. Also ‘The Alice’ was in the heart of Australia's outback which then was pretty inaccessible to most people. So the flight got underway and after about two hours we were approaching top-of-descent into Alice. One of the Flight Engineer's functions was to make contact with the local ground people by radio, giving the estimated time of  arrival and discuss any special passenger requirements and maintenance requirements that we may have. Having completed this task, I was about to put down my radio transmitter hand set, when the Trans Australian Airways (T.A.A.) representative in Alice said , “Hey mate, does your aircraft accept Boeing ground equeepment ?" "Yes. Use it  all the time in Sydney"  I replied, thinking Boeing 707. He was talking Boeing 727, the smaller three engine aircraft the internal airlines, Trans Australian and Ansett-ANA operated throughout Australia. We descended through mildly turbul ent air caused by the rising hot air from the heart of Oz and landed at ‘The Alice', taxied in and shut the engines down. The Captain, 'Nobby' Clarke being a good Company schedule man, wanted to get away on time, and expected to have a one hour turn-around time, despite the fact that in addition to my usual one hour's pre'-flight routine, I was going to have to refuel the aircraft, and do the ground engineer's Transit Check as well. A manual flight plan was required to be constructed by the First Officer who gathered up the relevant Flight Planning manuals from the aircraft's on-board library, and disappeared down the air stairs. He knew that he had quite a time consuming task ahead of him, and asked one of the ground people if he could be directed to a suitable place where he could spread his books out and get on with the task. "Yeah mate, in that teen shed over  there" . So he walks over to the tin shed and enters. He'd just spread his books out when the phone rang. No one else was around and being a helpful and thoughtful lad he answered it, and identified himself. The voice on the other

end said "Air New Zealand Flight Planning Office Auckland here. I have a flight plan for you, are you ready to copy". Lucky lad, 'Nobby' was going to be impressed with his efficiency. In the meantime I had descended the stairs to confer with the T.A.A. ground fellow to organise the refuelling. Refuelling of a DC-8 could be controlled from an under wing refuelling panel on the left side of the aircraft by a properly train ed operator, or from the flight engineer’s cockpit station, using the fuel valve switching and levers. Battery powered Inter-phone radio contact was maintained with the man on the ground, who had plugged the refuelling lines from the underground tanks into the aircraft's under wing refuelling point. The DC-8 (and B-707) was not equipped, as modern day aircraft are, with an A.P.U. (Auxiliary Power Unit, a small jet engine in the tail section) to supply AC and DC electricity and compressed air when the aircraft was on the ground with engines shut do wn. Electricity was supplied by an external ground electrical cart plugged into a connection near the nose, an external conditioned-air cart, and compressed air for engine starting was supplied either from an underground supply or above ground means.

Fuel System controls in the cockpit at the Flight Engineer’s st ation. Bottom half of  photograph.

When I arrived at the nose area I found the ground engineer trying unsuccessfully to make the electrical connection. "Doesn't seem to feet"  he said. For reasons that escape me now, it appears there was a subtle difference between the Boeing 707 connector and the Boeing 727 connector and it didn't ‘feet’/fit, so we weren't going to get any electricity onto the aircraft systems. Without AC (alternating-current) electricity the aircraft was crippled and amongst other problems, I was unable to open any of the fuel tank fill valves to refuel the ship.

Here we were in the middle of the Australian Continent with a plane load of passengers, and the nearest suitable electrical ground cart 1,000 miles away in Sydney or Darwin. An overland trip by truck of a few days, if a cart could be supplied by Qantas. Decision time! "What do you think about starting an engine to supply electricity to the systems"  I said to the ground engineer (Using limited aircraft DC battery power for essential engine starting circuitry, warning lights and ignition). Strictly against regulations I might add. I placed my hand on my forehead to shade my eyes and imitated a Dingo thinking about an early morning breakfast. I did a low slow scan of the Spinnifex grass for the full 360° and couldn't see any Civil Aviation Department inspectors lurking. “Well eet's the only way  you're going to get out of here mate"  he cheerfully replied. Enter now Captain 'Nobby'. "Nearly finished Gary?"  he asked. "Haven't even started"  I answered, and went on to explain the difficulty and my proposed fix, which naturally required his approval, as he had ultimate responsibility for our multi-million dollar piece of machinery. "Well get on with it” he stated. Now as I said, the DC-8 was not designed with an A.P.U. and normally an underground source of compressed air was available at all airports to be plugged into the aircraft's Pneumatic System at the nose (Photo left ) to supply the necessary compressed air used amongst other purposes to operate the engine starter motors. The exception was Pago Pago in Samoa, where the Company had positioned a large mobile air tank, about the size of a small petrol tanker, fitted with a petrol driven air compressor. There was a special procedure used to start engines with a compressed air tank and something I was reasonably familiar with. Anyway before this I said to the ground engineer , "Plug in the ground air supply and let's get started". "Don't have eeny"  he responded with that irritating cheerfulness. We were to discover later that domestic jet aircraft which

transited Alice, B-727 e.g. all had APU’s and there was not a requirement for an underground pneumatic source. Bigger jets simply did not transit this airfield. Getting desperate now I said hopefully. "Do you have a Mobile Compressed Air Tank"? To my relief he answered in the affirmative and disappeared and returned a short time later on a tractor, towing a tank about half the size of the one in Pago P ago. This was duly plugged in and by this time I'm up on the flight deck ready to do the engine start. On my command the bloke downstairs opened up the supply valve on the tank and I pushed the engine starter button for N°3 (Photo left), the inboard engine on the right side. There was a short lived muffled whoosh that trailed off to nothing and the engine starter did not budge. There was just enough air in the tank to fill the pipes leading up to the starter valve, and nothing left to turn the engine over. 'Nobby' keeps his calm and says nothing as I advise him that I'm going downstairs to confer. "Jeez sorry mate, the tank must 'ave been half empty"  said the apologetic ground engineer. "Well let's tow it away and pump it up again"  I said. We found the regulator Set Screw on the compressor, and wound it right in and left it chugging away on the side of the concrete apron, while I went back and commenced the ground Transit Check co mbined with my normal pre-flight walk-around check. After 45 minutes when the first rivet on the tank started to hiss alarmingly, the ground engineer thought that was the best we were going to get, so he hastily towed it over and plugged it in. We had previously discussed the wisdom of  starting an inboard engine first, because of the shorter pipe run from the air tank to the starter valve. We had just enough air and pressure to get N°3 engine started. Using compressed air now being supplied by N°3 engine we were then able to cross-bleed start N°4 engine, to get the hot stuff as far outboard as possible from the fuelling equipment, and then we shut down N°3. No w I had AC electricity and after half an hour I had refuelled the ship. The last thing required, was to do a water sample drain check from the bottom of the eight wing tanks. Not a simple task as it turned out as this was probably the largest single uplift of fuel that 'Alice' had ever had from their underground tanks. The first several drain samples were full of brown festoony stuff from the bottom of the underground tank. It wasn't an encouraging sight, as clean fuel was essential to avoid an in-flight engine failure. I insisted that we wait until all this stuff had settled to the bottom of the tanks and the drains ran pure. Two and a half  hours after arriving at 'Alice' we departed, and I will admit to slightly holding my breath during take-off and initial climb hoping that a great hush wasn't going to come from one or more of the engines. Needless to say Air New Zealand never planned another flight through 'Alice'.

Alice Springs Airport. Runway 12-30. Runway 30 (Heading 300°) threshold is at bottom left of the photo.

th

7 July 1968. Singapore - Darwin. ZK-NZC. Flight TE227. Flight time 4:25. Captain 'Nobby' Clarke. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Re-Fuel stop in Darwin This was the return journey after yesterday's interesting day at Alice. We had kept the aircraft overnight in Singapore and departed Paya Lebar at the normal time of 7:15 a.m. The refueller's strike was still on in New South Wales, so we were flight planned to make a Darwin refuelling stop, to ensure that the aircraft had enough fuel to transit Sydney en-route to Auckland, without the need for fuel uplift. Darwin was an Australian Air Force Base which civil aircraft had limited access to. As Qantas was a regular user as an en-route refuel stop, they had licensed ground people stationed there. There wasn't any Border Control (Customs etc.), set up in Darwin so the passengers were not permitted off the aeroplane. One passenger of Greek descent was actually a Darwin resident and wanted to get off. There are no scheduled International flights terminating in Darwin so people travelling from Singapore or other overseas ports must fly to Sydney, Brisbane or Melbourne, and complete customs and immigration formalities there, then catch a domestic service back to Darwin. (No Customs clearance required for domestic arrivals in Darwin) . Try as he might, no one was going to let him get off. ‘Nobby' was keen to make this a quick turn-around, as it is uncomfortable for passengers in a parked DC-8. As I said before the DC-8 did not have an Auxiliary Power Unit to supply electricity and an air supply to operate the aircraft's air-conditioning system, when the engines are shutdown. We did have a Qantas ground electrical supply plugged in, and a mobile petrol driven air-conditioning cart plugged into the air-conditioning system. One airconditioning cart was not sufficient with a load of heat producing humans in an aluminium tube, parked in the tropical sun on a baking hot tarmac, with the main entry doors open. Aircraft can be refuelled with passengers on board, only if strict safety rules are followed. These included the requirement to have the doors open and the passenger stairs in place at the doors, with a Cabin Attendant on duty at each door, in case it was necessary to get everyone off in a hurry. So 'Nobby' was right in his request to get the turnaround done as quickly as was safely possible.

The turnaround activity concerned mainly the Flight Engineer, who was required to do the routine external walkaround check, liaise with the refuellers and ground engineers, and in general race around in the hot outside environment, whilst the rest of the crew sat in the flight deck performing their pre-flight duties. I had returned to the cockpit briefly in the final stages and 'Nobby' asked if I was done. I replied that all I had left to do was the fuel tank  water drain check. This entailed returning to the tarmac at a point by the left main undercarriage, where the ground engineer would have lined up the bottles of fuel, which he had drained from the bottom of each tank after refuelling. A water sensitive paste would be applied to the end of a screwdriver and stirred around in each of these bottles. If  water was present in the fuel then the green paste would change colour (purple). As I approached the area, my attention was suddenly caught by a flash of sunlight reflecting off a series of drips coming out of the left main undercarriage wheel well. I drew this to the attention of the ground engineer, who like me, knew that it could have been fuel leaking from a cracked fuel line or tank leak, or from some other source. He climbed up on the wheels and reached up into the wheel well and quickly determined that it was hydraulic fluid, coming from a relief valve in the undercarriage extension - retraction system. He said to me "Nip up to the flight deck  and pressurise the hydraulic system, using the Standby Electric Hydraulic Pump" . As I entered the flight deck 'Nobby' reached for the Engine Start checklist and said "All set Gary?” “Ah no. Not  quite. Got a bit of a Hydraulic problem. Be back in a minute"  I said as I switched on the pump and disappeared out the door again. When I arrived back at the scene, the pool of hydraulic fluid forming on the tarmac was rapidly growing bigger and the fluid was literally pouring out of a crack in the body of the relief valve . "Quick! Get up there and turn the bloody pump off"  said the ground engineer urgently. “All set Gary?"  said 'Nobby' hopefully, but the look  on his face revealed that he was somewhat resigned. It transpired that the relief valve had cracked as we lowered the undercarriage to land at Darwin, and the leak had gone unnoticed when the engines had been shut down and the system was no longer pressurised. All our aeroplanes carry flight spare boxes, with a selection of items known to sometime cause problems, but not the part that we needed. The DC-8 only had one main Hydraulic System and this one was leaking. We were cast.

The passengers were removed to hotels around Darwin, and by the time we were ready to leave for the town, most of the hotels were full. We were finally accommodated in a small hotel, two to a room. I shared with Bill Hoffman, an Auckland based Captain who was on this journey as a relief pilot. Arrangements were subsequently made to have our southbound Hong Kong service that night, call in to Darwin with spares borrowed from Japan Airlines stocks held in Hong Kong, and also to collect our stranded passengers. This was duly done at around 2 a.m. while we were sleeping, and mysteriously one passenger was unaccounted for. Greek, I think they said he was. Another problem that we had was a consignment of live tropical fish in the forward hold. This was a very regular cargo carried out of Singapore. The fish were carried in sealed plastic bags of water, stacked in apple carton sized cardboard boxes, on a specially designed and heated pallet. Each plastic bag had the air space above the water filled with pure oxygen. This was enough to last for something like 24 hours. The consignment was worth from memory $6,000. Quite a lot of money in 1968. It now looked like the little fishes were doomed. To the rescue came a tropical fish lover, and office employee of Qantas. He took the entire consignment to his home and fed them and changed their water and even recharged their oxygen supply. When the importer finally received his consignment, he was more than happy to get approximately half his fish floating the right way up. He later expressed his gratitude to the helpful chap, as we did prior to departure. The problems kept on compounding when it was found that the 'spares' from Hong Kong were the wrong ones. Auckland did not have these in stock, so an urgent request was sent off to the Douglas Plant in Long Beach California. These were sent down on the first available flight out of Los Angeles, then to Sydney and on-loaded to a T.A.A. flight to Darwin. They arrived in Darwin in t he middle of the next afternoon. When you have departed Sydney for a twelve hour stopover in Singapore, all that is carried in the suitcase is the toilet bag, a short sleeved shirt, a pair of shorts, jandals, a change of undies and a clean uniform shirt for the return  journey. After a while, in the tropical heat and humidity of Darwin, even the local dogs were crossing to the other side of the street. The replacement of the offending Hydraulic System parts only took about an hour, and by late afternoon we were ready to depart with an empty aeroplane. The next problem for us was the aircraft had to be back in Auckland, so we flew a direct Darwin - Auckland flight arriving there about one in the morning. Middle of the night, in July, in the middle of winter. Suitcase containing one pair of used undies, a soggy short sleeved summer shirt, some crumpled shorts, and a toilet bag. No home to go to, so we were put up in the International hotel in Auckland. Couldn't appear in the dining room in the aforementioned tropical kit for breakfast, and we received a few strange glances as we rode back to Sydney as Qantas passengers in our crumpled uniforms. New Zealand Customs took a lenient view of the circumstances surrounding our return to the country within the specified period, in relation to our importing a new car at the end of the basing. The next time I passed through Darwin which was just over a year later, Gus the Qantas ground engineer, who later became one of their Flight Engineers said “The Aussie Air Force wasn't too happy with you fellas after that Hydraulic  problem you had" . When I enquired why, he told me that the tarmac area that the hydraulic fluid had spilled on had to be dug up and replaced. The fluid had completely eaten into the bituminous surface and ruined it. It had apparently been resurfaced at great cost in the weeks before our debacle, and now had to be redone again. The area was roped off for about a month, dug up and the base course replaced and compacted, and then res ealed.

st

In-flight fuel loss episodes 21 July 1968 to 22

nd

September 1968. ZK-NZC.

The following account details the mystery of fuel being lost overboard during a series of ten sectors which I operated in ZK-NZC during a two month period. A mystery, first because the cause was unknown and had never happened before on anyone else’s DC -8 anywhere in the world, and secondly because it appeared to only happen when I was the operating Flight Engineer.

 Note to the reader: The technical description which follows is necessary to make sense of the mysterious event  described later. Please bear with it.

A brief description of the DC-8 fuel tank system follows. All nine tanks are situated in the wing structure. Where the wing structure passes through the aircraft body, a Centre Wing Tank (CWT) is situated. There are eight other tanks, four in each wing. The wing shape changes as it moves outboard from the wing root, i.e. gets narrower and thinner, so each tank gets smaller and is a different shape. The CWT is the largest by far, about ¼ of the nine tank total. Each of the four engines requires an equal share of the available fuel from the nine different sized tanks. Each engine has a Main tank feeding the engine directly. The CWT supplies all 4 Main tanks as fuel is burned off, keeping them full until the CWT is empty. Next in the fuel-management sequence, each engine keeps feeding directly from its Main tank and then when the Main tank quantity reduces to about 7000lbs the Alternate tank beside each Main empties automatically into the Main. The N° 1 and N°4 Alternate tanks are the outermost and volumetrically smallest tanks in each wing. By using a system of pumps and valves operated by switches and levers at the Flight Engineers station, an equal amount of fuel can be supplied to each engine from the nine different sized tanks. The system allows for fuel balancing should the load either side of the aircraft centreline become uneven for example on longhaul flights if an engine on one side of the aeroplane uses slightly more fuel per hour resulting in cross-ship fuel load imbalance. If for some reason an engine is shutdown in flight, then of course it no longer draws fuel from its Main tank and that side of the aircraft progressively becomes heavier. By using the pump and lever system the Engineer is able to transfer fuel from any tank to any engine or from any tank to any other tank. In the three engine case, he is then able

to make all the remaining fuel available to the operating engines and at the same time keep the aircraft in balance. As the fuel is burnt off, an air space forms in the top of the tanks and this air space is vented to atmosphere via a Vent System. The 4 inch (10cm) diameter piped vent system inter-connects all tanks to two common outlets and is designed to prevent excessive positive or negative pressure in the tanks. As the aircraft climbs or descends atmospheric pressure changes so the vent system performs the function of ensuring air pressure in the tank is equal to the outside pressure at all times.

Flight Engineer’s fuel panel. The levers with X are Cross -Feed selectors. Round knob levers select fuel feed source to engine, either from its Main tank, its Alternate tank, or Cross-Feed from any other tank. Gauges in horizontal line with the levers indicate fuel pressure. Fuel pump switches are positioned below and marked A (Alternate) M (Main) AX (Auxillary). Fuel tank quantity gauges below pump switches. Squares near pump switches are warning lights. Rotary switches (with white line) operate valves to cross-feed fuel and to dump fuel in an emergency. Toggle switches between rotary switches permit refuelling from FE Station.

At times air outflows from the tank, during rapid climb or refuelling for example, and with that comes flammable fuel vapours. For this reason the vent system outlets are out near the wing tip on the underside of the wing, outboard of and outside of the N°1 and N°4 Alternate fuel tanks. See picture below and diagram on previous page

A DC-8 wing. The tank vent system overboard outlet is about here, but situated on the underside about halfway between the front and the back of the wing. The red arrow is also pointing at the left aileron trailing edge. The black blob under the wing is the rear end of Number One engine, and the black strip on the top is the start of the engine pylon from which the engine is suspended.

What follows is a description of the mysterious series of fuel-loss sectors. The foregoing fuel system description will be helpful in understanding the phenomenon.

DC-8-52 ZK-NZC the aircraft in which I had the series of mysterious fuel loss flights. NZC seen here under construction at the Douglas Aircraft Company plant Long Beach California 1965. st

21 July 1968. Sydney - Hong Kong. . ZK-NZC. Mid-morning departure. Flight TE221. Flight time 9:10. Captain Jack Curtis. F/E Gary Sommerville

The first experience of the phenomenon was on this sector and I have recorded it my log book simply as fuel venting overboard from N°1 and N°4 Alternate tanks . (Fuel somehow entering the Vent pipes and exiting via the overboard outlets near the wingtip)

The indications were: Both outer (N°1 and N°4) “Alternate Tank Quantity Low” amber warning lights illuminating on my fuel panel, followed shortly after by a cabin crew member appearing on the flight deck saying that some passengers were enquiring about the large white vapour trails they were seeing behind the wing tips.

Note: Outboard Alternate tank - full quantity: 9,752 lbs. Outer Main tank - full quantity: 20,250 lbs. There was a fuel system Operating Limitation that stated “T he quantity in an Outboard Alternate Tank should not  be allowed to become more than 500 lbs. below full, when there is more than 7,450 lbs. of fuel in its associated   Main Tank” . A bit of a mouth full but what it meant was, if too much fuel weight was in an outer Main Tank (N°1

Main or N°4 Main) and not enough counter-balancing weight existed further out in the associated Alternate tank, then the outer end of the wing would bend upwards. A heavy laden aircraft especially with the dead weight in the aircraft body of a full Centre Wing Tank, (27,410 lbs.) exhibits significant wing bending which can be reduced by keeping a specified fuel quantity as far outboard as possible for as long as possible while the inboard weight of the aircraft slowly reduces, which is achieved by all four engines burning Centre Wing Tank fuel. Centre Wing Tank is

always used up first by feeding it to all 4 engines simultaneously. If the imbalance between the Outer Main and its Alternate was allowed to progress significantly beyond the stated 500 lbs. then the wing tip could get to the stage where it would start to flutter. When wing tip flutter starts it can become increasingly violent and in extreme cases can cause the wing to break up. The N°1 and  N°4 ‘Alternate Tank Quantity Low’ warning light system was therefore installed to draw the Flight Engineers attention to this trend very early in its development so corrective action could be taken. When either of  these two lights illuminated it would involve the Flight Engineer using the ability of the system to transfer fuel from the Centre Wing Tank or Main tank into the Alternate tank to refill it and keep it full, until normal fuel usage by the engine reduced the Main tank quantity to below the 7,450 lb. figure. The probable pre-conceived cause of this imbalance occurring was a leaky fuel transfer valve from Alternate to the Main. Because of the wing dihedral (sloping up from the wing root) the Alternate tanks are higher than the mains allowing under normal conditions gravity assisted transfer from Alternate to Main when the transfer valve was selected open. What disturbed me about this first encounter was it had occurred simultaneously with both outer Alternate Tanks. Hardly likely that both transfer valves would develop a leak at precisely the same moment. Had both valves failed simultaneously the fuel would have simply drained into their Main tanks  –  not into the Vent system and from there overboard . Had to be something more to it. I took the appropriate action and topped up both Alternate tanks and eventually the venting stopped. A report was entered in the aircraft's Maintenance Log. We have on any aircraft type, an Emergency and Abnormal checklist which gives procedures and guidelines to handle any situation that may develop. These checklists and procedures have evolved over time. They come into being by years of prior experience, not just with this particular Type of aircraft, but with all previous Types. You know that if it's in the checklist, then somewhere sometime in the past, this abnormality has happened to someone. These experiences are reported back to the aircraft, engine, or component manufacturer who design and prove corrective procedures. The procedures then have to be approved by the Regulatory Authorities (Federal. Aviation.  Administration. e.g.) , and then the procedures are passed on to all operators of the equipment. These procedures are constantly being updated and improved upon. Fortunately for us different manufactures pass safety related issues Unfortunately for me and my fellow crew members there between them for the mutual benefit of all travellers. was no specific procedure laid down for the situation we were experiencing in which fuel venting occurred from  both sides, and at the same time. My report and  the Captain’s report were sent on to Auckland.

rd

3 August 1968. Sydney - Singapore. ZK-NZC. Flight 227. Flight Time 8: 41. DC-8 Fleet Captain Ian Gemmell. (Auckland based). F/E Gary Sommerville.

We had departed Sydney in the morning and had established in Cruise. 20 minutes later N° 4 'Alternate Quantity Low' light illuminated. Cabin Crew reports vapour trail. Prior to this occurrence the pilots felt a very high frequency 'buzz' vibration through the control column. This time I went back and had a look. There was a solid flow of fuel about 4 inches in diameter pouring past the outboard end of the aileron and remaining a solid stream until it reached about 2 feet behind the wing, where it expanded rapidly into an atomised sheet about 3 or 4 feet in height, which sailed rearwards and out of sight. Quite, quite spectacular, and worrying. Corrective action was taken to keep the Alternate tank full and shortly after the venting stopped. Where the solid stream of fuel passed under the trailing edge of the aileron I could see the fuel 'lapping' up around the edge. This must be what was causing the high frequency buzz in the pilot’s control column. An entry stating the known facts was entered in the maintenance Log Book and the Captains Flight Report. Illustrated is a fuel dump in progress from a different type of aircraft but the appearance is strikingly similar to the fuel venting phenomenon we were experiencing.

th

4 August 1968. Singapore - Sydney. ZK-NZC. Flight TE228. Flight Time 7:09. DC-8 Fleet Captain Ian Gemmell. F/E Gary Sommerville.

During our overnight stay in Singapore the problem was discussed at length over a couple of beers in the Tangle Inn Pub in Tanglin Road. The term 'Siphon ing’ came up and it was theorised that some unknown force was causing fuel to be siphoned out of the Alternate Tank or tanks via the Tank Vent System. We resolved that on the return journey to Sydney we would carry out some tests we had devised. If in fact fuel was being siphoned from the Alternate Tank, then maybe if we momentarily ran the engine directly from the Alternate Tank itself, and got the big suck  from the engine from the bottom of the tank, then perhaps we could break the siphon lock at the top of the tank. We departed at 7:15 the next morning and, ----- nothing happened. The significant difference between this flight and yesterday's flight was the flight time difference of more than 1½ hours. This is normal, due to the prevailing winds being westerlies, making progress to Singapore slow, and the return journey downwind, faster. This 1½ hour difference meant that the required fuel load was significantly less than that required westbound, therefore fuel was not required to be carried in the Centre Wing Tank. This factor was to take on major importance later but at this time we were unaware of it. Ian Gemmell being a senior pilot from the front office in Auckland said he would make enquiries on his return to Auckland. th

ZK-NZC.

7 August 1968. Sydney - Hong Kong. Flight TE 221. Flight Time 9:25. Captain Jack Curtis. F/E Gary Sommerville.

This time just N° 4 Alternate in the right hand wing started siphoning about half way up the climb and continued for 30 minutes in cruise. This time we knew it was starting when the pilots felt the high frequency buzz in the controls. This was followed by the fuel quantity gauge reading for N° 4 Alternate tank, decreasing and at 500 lbs. below the full mark, the amber 'N°4 Alternate Quantity Low' light coming on. This time I attempted to carry out the  procedures discussed in Singapore’s Tangle Inn and tried various tank to engine combinations to try and break the siphon lock. Nothing seemed to work. This time the siphoning just kept right on going where in the previous cases it had stopped by itself after a comparatively short time. Nothing - but nothing I did this time stopped the continuing fuel loss. It was a brilliantly fine day over the Outback of Australia and we must have made a wonderful sight for anyone down there who happened to look up at this aeroplane high in the cloudless sky, with a thick pur e white trail coming from the right hand wing tip. I'm allowed to lose a maximum of 500 lbs. of fuel from the Alternate when the Main has more than 7,450 lbs. in it. When the deficit in the Alternate reached 3,000 lbs. with the Main not far from full, (a lot more than 7,450), I was extremely concerned and went back into the passenger cabin for another look. In the bright sunlight I could see the outboard 10 or 15 feet of the right wing was bent up significantly compared with the left wing. I went back to report my findings to Jack who was equally concerned. At last the siphoning petered out of its own accord, but not until the Alternate tank deficit reached 3,500 lbs. It was with great care that I went about restoring the quantity in the Alternate, by transferring fuel from other tanks across the ship and in the process rectifying the lateral imbalance caused by the large fuel weight loss from the right hand side. I did not want to start the venting process again by filling the tank too fast --- but at the same time I wanted to get the bend out of the wing. Jack had foreseen the possibility of losing fuel when he knew at Flight Despatch that today's aircraft was going to be ZK-NZC, so had added extra fuel for 'Mum and the Kids'. A wise precaution otherwise we were going to have to make an unscheduled stop in Darwin. Another Maintenance Log report was entered, plus a detailed report in Jack's 'Captain's Flight Report' which ends up on the desk of someone important in Flight Operations Auckland. Our return flight from Hong Kong four days later was in a different aircraft. Return flights were always down wind and via Brisbane so the Hong Kong-Brisbane sector required a smaller fuel load i.e. little or no CWT fuel.

th

ZK-NZC.

Flight TE221.

18 August 1968. Sydney - Hong Kong. Flight Time 9:28. Captain Nevill 'Nobby' Clarke.

F/E Gary Sommerville.

This time the siphoning from N°4 Alternate started half way up the climb -- stopped -- and then recommenced in cruise for a short time. 1,430 lbs. lost. Same initial symptoms. High frequency aileron buzz, Alternate tank quantity dropping, amber warning light on. Getting used to it now, but still need the worry beads. This time I felt I should write a letter to Jim Robertson, the Chief Flight Engineer. My letter was placed in the aircraft's mail box which gets unloaded next time back in Auckland. Our flight out of Hong Kong on 22 nd August was in a different aircraft, which was delayed 24 hours by a Typhoon, which is quite another story and appears later. st

31 August 1968. Sydney - Singapore. ZK-NZC. Flight TE 227. Flight Time 8:08. Captain Ian Gemmell. Captain Jack Curtis. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Jack Curtis's Captain's Flight Report and my letter to Jim Robertson seemed to have borne fruit and this flight has been specially arranged. The same aircraft, the same Captain, the same route. Our First Officer was Sydney based Noel McGuire. Auckland based DC-8 Fleet Captain Ian Gemmell from the 4 th August journey was on board to conduct further investigation. In addition Auckland based Training Flight Engineer Bob Shea was sent along (as Bob was to say later) “--- to go see what this young bloke Sommerville is doing wrong”. Now usually when you have something to prove and the important people show up for your demonstration, nothing happens. To my great delight  just after take-off out of Sydney, 'Buzz buzz' in the aileron controls, quantity dropping and Yippee! Both 'Alternate Quantity Low' lights come on, and we commence tossing fuel out both sides. Bob Shea goes back to take a look and comes back wide eyed and says “Gee it really does happen, and I've just taken a photo of i t". "Well what am I doing wrong Bob?"  I asked. "Absolutely nothing as far as I can see ", said Bob. So we went through the old routine to restore the Alternate tank quantities, and eventually the siphon stopped of its own accord. On approach to land at Singapore, the left Main Landing Gear 'Unsafe' red light came on during landing gear extension. We recycled the gear 3 times before we got a satisfactory 'Three Green' result. Had nothing to do with fuel siphoning. Just another thing to keep me on my toes when being observed by the hierarchy. That night in the Tangle Inn a serious discussion took place on the subject of siphoning, and it was decided that we would take a maximum fuel load out of Singapore in the morning, all tanks full, and we would experiment with various tankengine combinations to try and uncover the cause and hopefully come up with a recommended fix. I recall remarking that we never seemed to siphon flying southbound, for reasons that I couldn't explain, so I said not to expect anything much to happen tomorrow. How wrong I was! st

1 September1968. Singapore - Singapore. ZK-NZC. Flight TE228. Flight Time 1:26. Captain Ian Gemmell. Captain Jack Curtis. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Our departure from Singapore was at the scheduled time of 7:15.a.m.The weather follows a predictable pattern in Singapore, situated ½ a degree north of the equator and the last 14 hours had followed the usual routine. Every afternoon at about 3 p.m. the large Cumuli Nimbus clouds (CB's), called Sumatras build up in the high humidity, drift across the Island of Singapore and one is treated to the most spectacular thunder and lightning displays. This has the effect of cooling the place down and making the air crystal clear, and the evenings are always pleasant. Our scheduled Singapore arrival time from Sydney on the inbound leg was always after the Sumatra's' had done their daily display. Once the sun gets up in the morning and starts heating the surrounding terrain and air again, the CB building process starts all over again.

The following morning the aircraft is refuelled as requested and we have fuel in the Centre Wing tank for this southbound sector, something that we did not usually require. Nice sunny clear still morning, and the CB's are just starting to build as we roll down the runway at Paya Lebar. Jack Curtis is in the Captain's seat, Noel McGuire is in the right hand co-pilot's seat, I'm in the Flight Engineer's seat, Ian Gemmell is in the Observer's seat just behind Jack Curtis and to my immediate left, with Bob Shea in the Navigator's seat behind Ian. Not long after becoming airborne and contrary to expectations we start to siphon fuel from both sides. Bob gets out his piece of paper with the list of suggested routines for me to perform and we get on with the task. Fifteen minutes later as Ian Gemmell's gaze is taking a wander around my panel, he glanced up to the top right hand corner and saw the Main Hydraulic System 'Quantity Low' light come on. I had missed it because my gaze is concentrated downwards on the fuel system. Ian remarks to Bob that he had better forget about the fuel system right now because we are losing Hydraulics. Hydraulics are the Primary power source for all the flying control surfaces -- and the DC8 had only one hydraulic system. "Shit! You're losing Hydraulics"  Bob shot at me urgently tapping me on the shoulder. I

look up into the top right hand corner in time to see the Hydraulic Quantity gauge needle hit Empty. There is an immediate ‘Recall Action’ to be carried out by the Flight Engineer in this event (Recall: Without reference to a written checklist), after calling out the correct Emergency statement . "Captain we are losing Hydraulics". The Captain is then required to disconnect the auto-pilot if it is engaged, and hold on to the controls. On his command "Manual Reversion"  I am to use a set of levers to change the Flying Control System over to the Manual Reversion system. The aircraft can now be hand flown safely without Hydraulic assist, but requires a lot of muscle. So I call out “Captain we are losing Hydraulics" . Jack remembering that Ian Gemmell is the senior Captain and is officially listed as the pilot in command disconnects the autopilot and says out of the corner of his mouth to Ian "We're losing Hydraulics". The word has quickly done a complete circle around the cockpit starting with Ian, passing on to Bob, to me, to Jack and ending up back with Ian (by-passing co-pilot   Noel), and still no official word directing me to take the appropriate action. Considering the urgency of the situation, I took the correct actions announcing it as I did so. We cannot fly on to Sydney in this condition so we have to request a Dump Area from Singapore Air Traffic Control, and go off and dump fuel to get us down to the maximum landing weight. An aircraft cannot land at take-off weights because of the extra stresses on the structure as the descending aircraft thumps on to the runway. The two yellow knobs side by side at the quadrant centre are the manual Aileron and Rudder reversion levers.

International law requires fuel to be dumped at an altitude not below 6,000 feet, where possible over international waters and dumping must be carried out in a straight line so as not to fly back through the atomised fuel and risk igniting it with the engine hot exhausts. All this takes considerable time and if there were observers on the ground they would have been puzzled to see vaporised fluid streaming from the vent system outlets, the fuel dump chutes, and the bottom of engine N°3 engine. Jack did a marvellous job of flying our manual brick throughout the process and skilfully flew as straight a course as possible between the building thunderheads, any one of which had the potential to ignite our atomised fuel vapour trail.  Note: the flame propagation rate of atomised kerosene is 167 knots so we always dump in excess of 200 knots ensuring we would always fly away from the flames!! There were a number of checklists and procedures to complete to get our wounded bird back on the ground, including the Fuel Dump carried out by the Flight Engineer. The fuel dump of 

75,000 lbs. (11,000 US gallons) was protracted because we had deliberately filled all tanks to capacity to trouble-shoot the siphoning problem and had on board several tons of fuel over and above the journey’s requirements. Then we needed to manually unlock and lower the normally hydraulically operated Landing Gear, and get some degree of  Landing Flaps out. We also have to advise passengers and liaise with the Cabin Crew to prepare (just in case) for an abnormal landing. After landing Bob Shea enquired if I was OK and my reply was “Just like a Simulator check Bob –  only real”. The truth was I was wound up like a clock spring and was mighty pleased to be back on terra firma. The aircraft’s Hydraulic System has two pumps, one on each inboard engine. The Right Hand Pump driven by N°3 engine had suffered a pressure output line failure. It had blown right out of the side of the pump casing under the systems 3,000 pounds per square inch pressure, and very quickly drained the entire fluid supply overboard. The system reservoir holds just 10.5 US gallons, about one full typical garden watering can, so it went overboard very quickly with a fully open pipe end. nd

2 September1968. Singapore - Sydney. ZK-NZC. Flight TE228. Flight Time 7:23. Captain Ian Gemmell. Captain Jack Curtis. F/E Gary Sommerville.

After a 24 hour delay in which the Hydraulic System problems were resolved we departed again at 7:15 a.m. with full fuel tanks once more and right on cue both Alternate tanks started siphoning and we carried out the planned procedures, none of which had any effect -- and the siphoning stopped of its own accord. Ian and Bob went on to Auckland with the news that there really was something wrong with the aircraft, but they couldn't explain what it was, or why it only appeared to happen when young Sommerville was in the seat. On landing approach to Sydney the Left Main Landing Gear 'Unsafe' red light came on again and several recycles did not produce a 'Green'. Bob Shea went back and established by means of the backup Visual Peg that the undercarriage was indeed locked down. th

8 September 1968. Sydney - Hong Kong. ZK-NZE. Flight TE221. Flight Time 9:17. C aptain Doug Keesing. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Now this was a bit of a mystery or perhaps a red herring or maybe because Doug Keesing was on board but I have recorded that for a very brief period we experienced siphoning from both sides. The problem was the aircraft was ZK-NZE not ZK-NZC. st

21 September 1968. Sydney - Singapore. ZK-NZC. Flight TE227. Flight Time 8:08. Captain Roger Dalziell. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Now we were getting somewhere. The Company had obviously been in urgent communication with the Douglas Aircraft Company because on this flight there were three Douglas Fuel System experts, with long rolled up fuel system diagrams and an array of manuals. We managed to put on a very convincing siphoning display from both sides for them during the climb and initial cruise to which they reacted with satisfying dismay. At the end of the eight hour flight they had nothing to offer in the way of a reason or a fix. They did say however they had uncovered one or two reports in the past of ‘momentary’ siphoning from other operators when the aircraft was levelled out abruptly after climb, causing fuel in the tanks to slosh into the vent system. Now I’m not saying, am I? --- That the Chief Pilot on the previous sector in ZK-NZE would be aggressive in handling the aircraft. No not me  – I’m a very  junior Flight Engineer and wouldn’t dare -- but didn’t he have 4 engines momentarily flame out after a levelling off  bunt on the delivery flight of our first jet? --- or was that just a rumour? I did have a discussion with the Douglas experts about wing tip flutter though. The ‘book’ indicated the possibility of wing tip flutter should the outer  Alternate quantity get below 500 lbs. from full with more than 7,450 lbs. in the associated Main and I expressed my dismay and concern on the day on which I had lost 3,500lbs from the Alternate with an almost full Main Tank. The Douglas guys assured me a huge safety factor had been built into the procedure to satisfy the F.A.A. (Federal Aviation  Administration) and a stage could be reached where the Alternate tank was empty with a full Main Tank and you may get flutter in moderate turbulence. That did make me feel a whole lot better. Wish I had known that in the beginning.

nd

22 September 1968. Singapore - Sydney. ZK-NZC. Flight TE228. Flight Time 7:25. Captain Roger Dalziell. F/E Gary Sommerville.

The return journey with the Douglas Reps on board. Again we departed with fuel in all 9 tanks, and again we put on a siphoning display from both sides. The Douglas guys were completely flummoxed by the problem and went off  shaking their heads, but promising to find the cause and the remedy.

The Answer It wasn't the Douglas Company that found the cause. Some weeks later when ZK-NZC was in the Auckland Maintenance hangar for a fairly big check, a keen young apprentice made a discovery. When the passenger cabin floor was removed from over the top of the Centre Wing Tank, he noticed the large access / inspection panel on the top of the tank did not look quite right. The rubber seal around the panel was poking out along one edge and wasn't sealing properly. It transpired that when the aircraft was being pressurised during climb, cabin pressurisation was entering the Centre Wing Tank which sits in the pressurised area of the fuselage, putting a head of pressure on the fuel in that tank, and forcing it out through the vent system. As the fuel passed the last tank in the inter-connected venting system, the outer Alternate tank, it drew (siphoned) fuel from that tank and dumped it overboard. This could only happen when a significant fuel load was carried in the Centre Wing Tank. It’s worth noting here that the DC-8 was the first aircraft type the Company operated with a fuel tank in a pressurised area, and at this point in the Company’s expansion, a tank not often used on the wider network, which may explain why it was not a suspect earlier in the investigation. In hindsight now I can see why I lost 3,500 lbs. on 7 th August 1968. As I said at the time, Captain Jack Curtis mindful of the siphoning problem with this aircraft had added a considerable amount of extra fuel “For Mum and the kids” and with full wing tanks, all this extra fuel was placed in the Centre Wing Tank, thereby providing a continuous prolonged supply of fuel to the vent system, and a prolonged siphon from the Outboard Alternate. The route structure in these early days of the DC-8 era meant the only sectors requiring significant quantities of fuel in the Centre Wing Tank were the ones we operated out of Sydney to Singapore or Hong Kong. The west bound sectors to Singapore into the prevailing wind required fuel in the Centre Wing tank, the eastbound do wnwind sectors did not. The longer non-stop flights from Sydney to Hong Kong required Centre Wing fuel. The return flights did not as a revenue stop was made at Brisbane and sometimes operational requirement stops at Manila or Darwin, where fuel was loaded in the wing tanks only. It was sheer co-incidence that the times in this two month period in which I operated westbound sectors with Centre Wing fuel --- the aircraft was ZK-NZC. The other 4 Sydney based Flight Engineers did the same sectors but flew in one of the other three DC-8s which made up the fleet at that time. In 1982 ZK-NZC cn45752 went on to the US register as N42920 with Howard Golden. Re-registered CFCRN with CAEA/Crown Air February 1989. Re-registered N42920 FBAir February 1990. Stored Miami May 1990. Leased to Faucett Peru November 1990. FBAir again April 1992. Seized by US Drug enforcement Agency for drug running December 1994. Re-registered PP- TPC January 1997. Converted to a -54F Freighter. TCB Transportes Charter do Brazil. Footnote:

rd

ZK-NZC pushing back at Wellington 23 December 1981

2012 Footnote: ZK-NZC is the only one of our eight DC-8s not yet scrapped. In the year it was built humankind had

not entered space so no earth orbiting satellites existed. Computing was in its infancy and the internet had yet to be invented. ZK-NZC ended its illustrious flying career as a freighter, registration PP-TPC named ‘Daniel’ and now stands in a derelict state in South America. Now with the Internet and Google Earth available to the masses, ZKNZC can be viewed by going to (Fly to) ‘Manaus Eduardo Gomes Airport Brazil’. Just to the left of the terminal building hard standing is a storage area with a stretched DC-8, two B-737s and in the middle, P P-TPC i.e. ZK-NZC. Wouldn’t it be nice to see this icon repatriated to NZ and placed on a plinth at Auckland International Airport. An item for the ‘bucket list’.

nd

22 August 1968. Hong Kong-Manila-Brisbane-Sydney. ZK-NZE. Flight TE222. Flight time 10:12. Captain Nevill Clarke. F/E Gary Sommerville.

Typhoon 'Shirley'. Typhoon! From Chinese: Tai fung, Great Wind. Hurricane. A new experience for me. Hong Kong lies within the Latitudes that spawn Typhoons. The Typhoon season runs roughly from May to October. Hong Kong in the past had been battered by Typhoons and there had usually been widespread damage and loss of life. Typhoons form in the seas around the Philippines and move across the South China Sea towards the Mainland. Where they make land fall is subject to many variables. They often are a long way north of Hong Kong, but not 'Shirley'. 'Shirley' was heading

straight for Hong Kong. We had arrived in Hong Kong on the 18 th of August, four days earlier, and 'Shirley' was just an unnamed deep depression north of Manila. For some time Hong Kong had been working on a Civil Defence strategy to reduce damage to property and loss of  life when Typhoons struck. It was based around a ten point warning system which would come into effect when a Tropical Depression was centred within 350 miles of Hong Kong. At 350 miles Warning One would be posted. The warning would be in the form of radio broadcasts, TV broadcasts, or a balloon hoisted on poles around the harbour and the 'Shanty Towns'. As the Depression deepened a new Warning Number would be posted. As it moved closer and wound itself up into Typhoon Status, the next warning would be posted and so on. There were clearly defined actions that the public were required to take as each Warning was hoisted. Typhoons (Hurricanes) develop intense winds within themselves as they whirl around, and the whole thing can cover an area several hundred miles across. The whirling mass however moves across the landscape at about 11 to 15 nautical miles per hour, and therefore would take up to 48 hours to cover the 350 miles. If the Typhoon changes direction as they often do, and starts to move away from the Colony (Hong Kong), or loses intensity, then the Warning number would be downgraded. As the Warning numbers start to climb above 5 the citizens of the hillside Shanty Towns (which abounded on Victoria Island  in the 1960s) would be moved to safer more solid shelters, Churches, Government buildings etc. Merchant shipping would seek shelter in harbours. Citizens would be required to secure loose articles that could fly about. The whole business was complicated but very well ordered. This was to be the first test of the new system , so the media was full of it. The media also recalled past Typhoons

and reminded everyone of the calamities that befell them, and I must confess to an increasing nervousness as 'Shirley' moved closer and grew in strength. It didn't help when they started reporting that 'Shirley' was shaping up to be one of the biggest on record. One headline said that the last time, back in the year yonk, that a Typhoon of this strength hit Hong Kong, so many millions of dollars of damage was caused, and in excess of two thousand lives were lost !. "Oh great" I thought. "My first Hurricane and it's probably going to kill me". When balloon 8 went up on the morning of 'Shirley's' impending arrival, I left the hotel to buy in some supplies of  bottled water, food and a candle, as recommended. The wind was up, the rain was lashing and the narrow congested streets were semi-dark and full of hurrying people, clanking trams, diesel buses, trucks and taxis. My worries were increased by the fact that this was our scheduled departure night, and 'Shirley' was due to call about midnight, about four hours after our scheduled departure. Not only was our take-off towards the high granite hills to the west going to be 'fun', but we were going to have to turn south and fly through 'Shirley' as we crossed the South China Sea. When I re-entered the Hilton hotel at around 10 a.m. clutching my supplies, I rode the elevator to my floor. As I exited the elevator I was confronted by the rest of the crew members hastily assembling their suitcases outside their rooms, ready for collection by the Bell Boys. "Hey what's going on?"  I enquired of Ron Ingledew the Chief Purser. "Balloon 9's just gone up and the Ferries will stop running in an hour, so we have to move to the Imperial Hotel on Kowloon side so we can get to the airport tonight". I moved swiftly to my room and threw everything into my suitcase,

and raced into the corridor to find everyone had departed. I hurriedly took the elevator down to the lobby and made it to the transport as the last bags were being loaded. As I entered the bus I was confronted by a sea of strained faces. As I learned later, an approaching Typhoon drives the surface of the sea before it (the storm surge), and pushes the water into the confines of Hong Kong harbour and the harbour level rises six feet or more, and if it that occurs at high tide, it renders the Ferry loading ramps unusable. As we crossed the harbour to Kowloon in the driving rain and low cloud scurrying by, we could see there was an increased array of shipping anchored all about. All except the British Navy who's orders were always to put to sea when a Typhoon threatened, and to ride out the tempest on the high seas. I guess they had their reasons. As it was when the storm abated next day, two Merchant ships had broken their anchor chains and had been driven backwards onto the foreshore of Stonecutters Island. It was with mixed relief that I learned that our aircraft had been delayed in Sydney for 24 hours because of the approach of 'Shirley'. The Imperial Hotel on Nathan road is just a few hundred metres from the harbours edge. My room was on the 10th floor facing east, the direction of 'Shirley's ' approach. By early afternoon the rain was horizontal and the wind was fierce. The window of my room facing east was a square affair, about three feet by three feet, double glazed, with an air gap of approximately 5 inches between the layers. I had been standing back  from the window for some time watching the approach of the storm, when all of a sudden the bottom seal around the outside pane blew inwards, into the air gap. Water quickly poured in, and a few seconds later the inner pane seal burst inwards at the top, and water cascaded down on to the carpeted floor. This was accompanied by a high pitched

screeching as the wind tore through the gaps, and the water was now spraying into the room in a coarse mist. I got straight on the phone to reception, and in no time people arrived to take remedial action, and I was transferred to another room on the opposite side of the hotel overlooking Nathan Road. Things were starting to get a little scary for the uninitiated so I headed down to the bar on the first floor at about 6 p.m. The rest of the guys were already there, no doubt also feeling the need for a glass or two of 'courage'. The reported winds at this time were 140 knots at Waglan Island, off the south-east corner of Hong Kong Island. (161 m.p.h. or 260 k.p.h.) fairly close to the eye of the storm, which was predicted to pass directly over the Colony at 9 p.m. Just a few hundred metres up Nathan Road and on the opposite side, was a large concreted acreage that was used as some kind of Military compound. These days it is fully landscaped and called Kowloon Park. This area is about two metres higher than the road surface and the water pouring off this concreted area, made a spectacular waterfall onto Nathan Road. The road slopes downhill to the harbour and in no time became a swift flowing torrent, with all kinds of flotsam and jetsam being carried along with it. We were viewing all this from the first floor, behind the floor to ceiling thick glass wall, which separated us from the outside. Almost on the stroke of nine the eye of the storm appeared directly overhead, and suddenly the raging wind ceased, the rain stopped and we ventured outside, glasses in hand, and looked up into t he clear night sky above us, where the stars were twinkling. The white wall of roiling cloud that formed the boundary of the eye was clearly visible. After a few minutes the torrent in Nathan Road was reduced to a trickle. This apparent serenity lasted for perhaps half an hour, and just as suddenly as it had ceased, the winds and the rain returned with a roar as the other side of the eye came upon us. The winds were blowing in the opposite direction now, so a lot of the flotsam that earlier went that-away, came back, heading this-a-way. The Nathan Road torrent returned and we retired back to the safety and comfort of our watering hole. Eventually I retired for the night and managed to get some sleep. The rains had moderated in the morning and the winds were declining. The Television was heralding the complete success of the new 10 point warning system, in use for the very first time, and reported minimal property damage, and most importantly, No loss of Life ! I went for a walk in the local area later in the day and there were tree branches and loose rubbish strewn everywhere. The only expensive kind of damage I saw was one of the numerous neon signs had crashed down on the top of  someone's expensive Jaguar, taking the roof down to the top of the seats. Typhoon 'Shirley' was a big one, and in July 1997, 29 years after the event, when I did my last Hong Kong visit prior to writing this, the record of it was still being displayed on the wall of the Mariner's Club. The Mariner's Club on the corner of Middle Road and Minden Row in Kowloon, has a barometric device which uses a rotating drum to trace the barometric pressure onto a graphed paper. Typhoon 'Shirley' still ranks in the top three if not the top itself, for achieving the lowest recorded barometric pressure ever recorded in Hong Kong. That evening when we arrived at the airport the wind was still very gusty, and the approaches were being made 'around the houses', from the west. 'Spike Jones' and his crew had landed the Air New Zealand flight just before our arrival at the airport and had taxied into the gate. Not long after I am conducting my external walk-around check, when a Japan Airlines stretched DC-8 came into land. A gust of wind hit it as it was flaring, and it heeled over and whacked an outboard engine on the ground. The pilot's reaction to correct the situation resulted in the aircraft going too far the other way, and hit the o utboard engine on the other side on the ground. This convoluted effort to get the aircraft firmly on the ground ate up quite a bit of  runway before the wheel brakes could be applied. This necessitated maximum braking to get the aircraft to stop before it could run off the end of the runway and plop into Hong Kong harbour, something that had been done before and since. Tyres burst, brakes became overheated and brake fires ensued when the aircraft finally came to stop near the harbours edge. A momentary pause, ---- then all the doors opened, the Emergency Escape Slides appeared, and the passengers all came tumbling out in a hurry. A similar Japan Airlines stretched DC-8 taxiing to the terminal at Kai Tak. Behind the tail the runway can be seen where the ill-fated aircraft came to a halt on the night after Typhoon Shirley’s visit.

Well that was it for the next 2½ hours. The runway was blocked, and would remain blocked until the passengers were rounded up and accounted for and attended to etc. Then the task of jacking up the aircraft commenced to replace all eight main wheels and tyres, so it could be towed clear of the runway. This really put a cat amongst the pigeons for incoming aircraft and there were more than usual as so many in the last 24 hours had delayed their departures for Hong Kong because of 'Shirley'. All incoming aircraft had to be diverted somewhere else. Mainly Manila on the other side of the South China Sea or Kaohsiung and Taipei on the Island of  Taiwan. This meant that quite a number of aircraft were going to be stretched for fuel. All good Airlines always carry fuel to go from the departure airfield to the destination airfield, overshoot there, fly to the designated Alternate airfield, overshoot there and enter a holding pattern for 30 minutes and then land at the Alternate, and still have 30 minutes of fuel left. It seems that Air Cambodge (Cambodia) arriving with their Boeing 727, did not have this kind of fuel policy and could not reach any of these Alternate airfields. Because this was an extreme emergency, permission was sought from and granted by China, for the aircraft to continue on the short distance to Canton (Guangzhou) in Mainland China. There were lessons to be learnt here and we duly took notice. Operating to an airfield which was reasonably remote from suitable alternate airfields, as Hong Kong was, required special care and planning. Oh there were plenty of  airfields nearby in China, but in this time period Communist China was a closed shop to Western countries. In addition Hong Kong was a single runway airport, and when that runway became unusable, that was it. Allowances had to be made for the runway closing at any time, e ven on the best of days weather- wise. Granted in the majority of  cases the reason for airfield closures is because the weather is bad. In the two year period I operated to Hong Kong from Sydney, Hong Kong's runway was blocked on ten occasions. A burst tire or something like that which resulted in a closure of maybe just a few minutes. None of these occurrences happened on the day, or near the arrival time of  Air New Zealand services, but it could have happened. This night, our aircraft had landed before the Japan Airline incident, the one that closed the field for a significant length of time. In these early DC-8 days the Alternate aerodromes we carried fuel for were first Manila, that is fuel to fly to Hong Kong, not be able to land and then fly back to Manila. Secondly we would ensure that we had enough fuel on board to fly to Kaohsiung in the south of  Taiwan if both Hong Kong and Manila were closed. In later years China thawed its relationship with a small number of countries and allowed them to nominate Canton (Guangzhou) as their first Alternate. We were one of the few granted this privilege. It meant that we could carry less fuel on these journeys and still satisfy all the legal requirements. To carry an extra five tons of fuel which is not used, would cost an extra ton of fuel burn-off, to carry that extra weight over a long distance. In my experience I have only heard of o ne occasion when Air New Zealand initiated a diversion to Guangzhou. This was a DC-10 captained by Alan Potts, with one of the Flight Engineers being my friend Dave Macpherson. Guangzhou (Canton) is not far away from Hong Kong, over a range of mountains to the west, and I often wondered about the wisdom of nominating Canton as an Alternate, as the weather was most probably going to be the same as Hong Kong because of the close proxi mity. On this foul night ‘Pottsy’ elected to overshoot Kai Tak runway due to poor visibility, and as his fuel situation did not allow holding and a second go at Hong Kong, he elected to divert to Guangzhou. The approach to Hong Kong was turbulent and when it became apparent they were not going to see the runway, Pottsy called for Dave to give him Go-Around Power. This requires the Engineer to grasp a hand full of  throttles and lean quite a long way forward when pushing the throttles fully forward. Just as Dave was at full stretch the aircraft took an appreciable gust that jolted Dave in such a way that his back went out. Now in agony and kind of  stuck in this crouched position as the aircraft is bucking its way up the climb profile, Dave manages to handle his duties. When it is safe to do so he is lifted out of his seat, and replaced with the other Engineer. ‘Pottsy’ sets course for Guangzhou, and is thumping and crashing his way over the mountain range in cloud and driving rain, wondering if he has made the right decision. This hasn't been done before, and no-one over there has any ground handling experience of DC-10's. Where will the passengers be accommodated etc. etc. About half way there to ‘Pottsy’ great relief Hong Kong calls and says, "You can come back now, as we have had an improvement in the weather". Getting back to 'Shirley'. This was my first, and to this date, my only ground level experience of a Typhoon. I was to have a few more in-flight encounters with Hurricanes / Typhoons before my flying career was o ver.