Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-02

DR KLATZOW: No but you see, the deeper you go into this the more problems you're going to have Mr Nadel because it was close enough for Mr Dick to come and have a conversation with you about something which was irrelevant according to your evidence anyway.  He sidled over during a tea break according to your previous evidence and said well I can't raise them and you said well that's not a problem, just leave it there.
 Now that whole conversation I want to put to you never occurred.  Because if it did occur the subsequent behaviour of Mr Dick at the enquiry is utterly inexplicable and we're left with the uncomfortable proposition that in this mess we have only one person telling the truth and that is you.  And we've examined the propositions that you've put in some detail today and you have not provided a satisfactory answer to any of the germane questions which have been put to you.

VERNON NADEL: I'm sorry you feel that way.  As I mentioned earlier on I'm quite clear in my conscience that I'm not aware of any conversation between Captain Uys and anybody telling us of a problem.  If that conversation took place and I could have been out of the office and it had gone through to Mr Dick I'm quite sure Mr Dick would have told me that this is a problem, they have a massive problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow I don't think you are likely to get any further concessions from Mr Nadel.  He has given us what he considers to be his best recollection and I would suggest that we perhaps should move on if there are other new aspects that you would like to explore.

DR KLATZOW: Thank you Mr Chairman.  I have in fact reached the end of my questions.  Thank you very much.

VERNON NADEL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MS TERREBLANCHE: I would just like to ask one or two.  To the best of your recollection, can you remember even though you say that it was quite unique for Jan Smuts to have a ZUR facility and were there any other such facilities in South Africa.  For instance at the military?

VERNON NADEL: There could well have been at the military.  It's possible.  I'm not a military expert so I don't know.

MS TERREBLANCHE: I understand that today there is a Denel Control Tower at the airport?

VERNON NADEL: I think Denel is part of the old Atlas aircraft manufacturing company.  It's possible, I don't know.  I'm not aware of it.

MS TERREBLANCHE: But wouldn't you have known as a radio expert whether those signals would maybe interfere or whether you would communicate with each other or?

VERNON NADEL: Well firstly I'm not a radio expert, not at all.  But it's unlikely that frequencies could interfere unless there's a blocking of a frequency and I'm not sure how that happens.

MS TERREBLANCHE: But were you aware of being in communication with any other nearby control tower?

VERNON NADEL: No.  We're not a control tower as I mentioned earlier on.  South African Airways had this facility purely as a means of communicating with the aircraft.  It's never been a legal requirement for an airline to have this facility because air traffic control centres are there to control the aircraft.  The aircraft have to call at compulsory reporting points throughout to the various countries' air traffic control centres.
 And I am also convinced there, if there was a problem, the aircraft would have communicated to an air traffic control centre saying we do have a problem.

MS TERREBLANCHE: But would they have communicated with another one?

VERNON NADEL: With another air traffic control centre?

MS TERREBLANCHE: Were there any other ones, if they couldn't get hold of you, would there have been an alternative for them?

VERNON NADEL: Well air traffic control centres are civil aviation control centres, it's compulsory to call them.  They control the actual flow of airlines in the skies.  It's not compulsory to have called us.  As I mentioned I think there were nine, what they call flight information regions.  There are nine areas that are controlled by different countries air traffic control centres and it's compulsory for any aircraft flying across these regions to make contact with those flight information regions.

MS TERREBLANCHE: But apart from that, if they had called somebody else when they were in trouble, would you have expected that other tower or radio station or whatever it was to call you?

VERNON NADEL: Well I believe if it was a, excuse me but I'm not an expert either, but if they have a problem whichever country is involved I would imagine would try and contact not necessarily South African Airways in house radio station but at least an air traffic control facility in South Africa.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Then I just want to have one last question.  A Mr Van Der Veer, when you had a problem earlier that day with a seized engine, did he ever come in earlier in the day, that you were aware of?

VERNON NADEL: No.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Dr Klatzow has one more.

DR KLATZOW: Sorry, one last question.  Had there been contraband material, material of war which caused that plane to catch alight, it would be extremely unlikely I want to put it to you that the pilot would have phoned one of the air traffic controllers along the route and said we've got a fire problem because to do that would have been to invite all kinds of questions internationally which SAA could not afford.
 So I just want to put it to you, for your comment, that it would have been extremely unlikely for them to contact anybody else at that stage but ZUR.  They wouldn't have phoned up Bombay flight control and said we've got ammonium perchlorate aboard, can we come and land.  And they wouldn't have gone there to land which is why they flew on to disaster.

VERNON NADEL: That is your comment, I cannot comment on that.  I would like to say that's speculation I don't know.

DR KLATZOW: Can you see any obvious flaw or even subtle flaw in the argument?

VERNON NADEL: You know, once again, I'm not an expert in military matters or what is carried on board aircraft or whatnot, I'm purely in the airline industry for the love of aviation and for what the airline is there for, albeit any other airline.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is sought to be obtained from you is, given those times and I mean Bombay, I do not consider that South African Airways flew to Bombay or to India or to any of these places and you were told earlier on about how one of the reasons the ZUR was being used was because you were flying around the bulge by which I understand you were not landing anywhere in Africa.

VERNON NADEL: Except Cape Verde Islands.

CHAIRPERSON: Except Cape Verde Islands, yes.  Now I think what the question seems to establish is whether or not you consider there would have been a likelihood for Uys to have, one, and I'll speed the question here, to have considered landing in Bombay given the times or to have been given permission by the South African authorities had he asked for one to land at Bombay.  What are your thoughts around these issues, given the times.

VERNON NADEL: Well obviously as you quite rightly say, given the time, India was not very friendly with the South African Government at all.  I would like to go back to what I said earlier on is I think if you're burning you should at least think about the people on board and say well I'm going to land in any case, the consequences we can try and sort out later.  That is my view.
 And then I'd also like to maybe go on and say, as was mentioned earlier on, the fire could have started two hours out of Taipei.  Wouldn't it have been more logical for the aircraft to turn around and go back to Taipei than to fly many more hours through the night knowing full well that they can't land anywhere else if the problem re-occurred.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to follow that up with the situation in Taipei?