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

DR KLATZOW: Well Jimmy Deal who is unfortunately dead told me on a tape recording that he handed the tape to Mickey Mitchell and Gert Van Der Veer.

VERNON NADEL: If that's what he said then it must have happened like that, I don't know.

DR KLATZOW: And that would not be unlikely?

VERNON NADEL: Not unlikely no.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Mr Nadel you said you were very concerned about the speculation?

VERNON NADEL: Absolutely.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Until today.  You are aware that SAA had an in-house enquiry about the Helderberg about three years ago?

VERNON NADEL: I believe so yes.

MS TERREBLANCHE: So yes.  My question is, were you not invited?

VERNON NADEL: I wasn't invited.  I was called by the chief executive to answer one question which I answered honestly.  He asked me, was there anybody of higher authority in ZUR talking to the aircraft and I said no.

MS TERREBLANCHE: In addition to that, did anybody ever ask you whether there was a conversation with the Helderberg?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

MS TERREBLANCHE: Did they ask you again during the in-house enquiry?

VERNON NADEL: That was one of the questions that the chief executive asked me.  He said was there anybody and was there a conversation and I said no.  I was very adamant about that.

MS TERREBLANCHE: So you were not required to come to South Africa for that enquiry?

VERNON NADEL: It didn't appear to be no.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow?

DR KLATZOW: Did ZUR have the ability to patch through radio conversations with other senior members of SAA at the time.  If there'd been a problem could you have contacted Mr Van Der Veer and put him on the line?

VERNON NADEL: It could have happened yes.

DR KLATZOW: There was that facility?

VERNON NADEL: There was that facility yes.

DR KLATZOW: And did anybody outside of ZUR that night speak to the Helderberg?

VERNON NADEL: I'm not aware of that no.

DR KLATZOW: Now, let me give you a scenario.  You're aware that the cockpit voice recorder was recovered?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: You're aware that it was transcribed at great expense?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: And that it occupied approximately 30 minutes?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: You will also be aware that SAA serves meals at the beginnings of flights, not at the end of flights?

VERNON NADEL: I think each route is totally different, depending on the time of the day.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel, can you give me one flight where SAA supplies a meal to it's patrons as they're about to come in to land?

VERNON NADEL: Not as they're coming in to land but if it's at breakfast time, two hours out, possibly a little longer, a little less they get breakfast, sure.

DR KLATZOW: Yes but we're not talking about breakfast, we're talking about dinner?

VERNON NADEL: No no, that's unlikely.

DR KLATZOW: Now if there'd been a discussion on that cockpit voice recorder about dinner.  What would that imply?

VERNON NADEL: It would imply that dinner was being served or somebody was asking what is on the menu for the dinner.

DR KLATZOW: Well if it appears from that tape recording that dinner was served to the entire cockpit crew what would it imply?

VERNON NADEL: I'm not quite sure.

DR KLATZOW: Well it would imply that that cockpit voice recorder recorded that event at the time of dinner which would have been closer to the beginning of the flight rather than to Mauritius.

VERNON NADEL: It would probably imply that yes.

DR KLATZOW: Yes, it would imply that.  Could you give me a better explanation?

VERNON NADEL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Right.  We know that the cockpit voice recorder ceased to function because of the effects of fire?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: And therefore because it is a half hour recorded message which goes over itself and records only the last half hour, it means that that cockpit voice recorder ceased to function closer to Taipei than Mr Margo would have had us believe.

VERNON NADEL: I'm not an expert on technicalities so I'm really hesitant to answer questions about the cockpit voice recorder.

DR KLATZOW: But it stopped functioning as a result of fire.  You can accept that?

VERNON NADEL: That's what they've found, yes.

DR KLATZOW: And it recorded a conversation about dinner?

VERNON NADEL: I'm not sure about the conversation.

DR KLATZOW: The official record Mr Nadel is that it recorded a conversation about dinner.

VERNON NADEL: I'm not aware of that, no.

DR KLATZOW: Well I'm now making you aware of that.  And you've agreed with me that dinner would likely to be served closer to Taipei than to Mauritius?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: And therefore if the tape recorder recorded that dinner because it's a half hour recording, it must have ceased to function within a short period after, while dinner was being served, which is shortly after take off, rather than at top of descent?

VERNON NADEL: More than likely yes.

DR KLATZOW: Now, do you know what the standing instructions to pilots are if they have a fire on board?

VERNON NADEL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Well let me tell you that the instructions are that they are to put out the fire.  Don't mess around.  Put out the fire.  It makes sense?

VERNON NADEL: Absolutely.

DR KLATZOW: It then says, seek the nearest available airfield and land as soon as possible.  Does that make sense?

VERNON NADEL: Absolutely.

DR KLATZOW: If Uys had had a fire on board, is it not likely that he would have, at that stage, outside Taipei, two hours, three hours from Taipei, is it not likely that he would have sought to land that aircraft?

VERNON NADEL: Absolutely.

DR KLATZOW: Do you think he would have done that off his own bat?

VERNON NADEL: I would believe so yes.

DR KLATZOW: Despite the fact that if he had known that there was contraband cargo aboard, do you still think he would have done it off his own bat?

VERNON NADEL: I would believe so yes.

DR KLATZOW: So he would have  landed the aircraft and risked foreign countries who were hostile to South Africa searching the aircraft to find military contraband aboard.  Do you think he would have done that without contacting you?

VERNON NADEL: I would believe at any given time if you're in a situation that I believe he was in, I don't think you'd think about the consequences as far as landing.  You'd worry about that afterwards.

DR KLATZOW: So he would have landed willy nilly and placed the entire future of the airline in jeopardy because if that had become public knowledge to the authorities at Bombay or wherever these places were along the route it would have effectively have taken South Africa out of the skies.

VERNON NADEL: Possibly but you would have had a hundred odd people alive still.

DR KLATZOW: And you think Uys would have risked sinking South African Airways having thought that he had put the fire out, do you think he would have risked South African Airways merely to comply with a regulation?

VERNON NADEL: I think if he felt in his mind that the fire was out he would have continued.  But I think if he knew in his mind that the fire was uncontrollable he would have landed.

DR KLATZOW: No.  Let's get back to that and deal with that because I want to deal with your logic.  If there'd been a fire on board and we've looked at the logic as to why we believe there was a fire on board outside Taipei and you've agreed with that logic?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: If that fire had been extinguished.  The standing regulations require you to go down and examine the aircraft because it is possible that major structural could have been done to the aircraft by the fire?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: If Uys didn't do that, you're saying that it is quite easy on your mind that he would have done so without referral to higher authority?

VERNON NADEL: You mean that he continued?

DR KLATZOW: Yes.  No.  That he would go down, the regulations require him to go downstairs.  He didn't do that.  Why do you think he didn't do it?