Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-03

CHAIRPERSON: Are you considering that it could have been said?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, no, no, for sure, I just can't say with any conviction of my mind that that it's been said.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, if it was said, would you agree that it was the most irresponsible statement to come from a Judge?

MR VAN RENSBURG: I agree with that, but I must tell you I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that you don't recall it, but you are considering the possibility that those who say it actually was said may be correct, and if it is so, ...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Then it would have been irregular and not acceptable to me at least.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Terreblanche?

UNKNOWN: Mr van Rensburg, you recall the meeting, but you don't recall the report that was handed in at the meeting by the Flight Engineers Association?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I don't recall that.  You must really ask the Department what happened about that report, because I know and I remember that meetings took place, but what they've handed up or what they wanted to hand up, I have no record of because it's not part of the record that we've handed in, it was never submitted as evidence, whatever the reason was, I can't say.

MS PATTA: It's interesting that it wasn't submitted as evidence, it's a detailed report which goes into a detailed analysis of the cockpit voice recording, the whole cockpit voice recording which was not submitted in to the Margo Commission of Enquiry, only the last two minutes were, the whole cockpit voice recording by the way which does not contain any foul language, the only strong language is actually in the bit that was submitted to the court itself, that's when the swearing actually starts, but prior to that they talk about dinner and the lousy SAA food.

CHAIRPERSON: And women.

MS PATTA: I battle to see what's so problematic about that, but what's important about the whole cockpit voice recording is that it makes reference to dinner having been served shortly after take-off and if you go through the Flight Engineer's report, they basically assert that a fire broke out shortly after take-off and they go into a detailed technical analysis of it.  It's not a political thing, it's a very conservative analysis of a cockpit voice recording which could have helped your Enquiry, and I find it remarkable, (a) that you don't remember this report, which was very useful and very explanatory, and that you don't remember it and that you actually then later had legal communications with the Flight Engineers Association that you yourself drew up in which you referred to this report.

MR VAN RENSBURG: You must just keep in mind, many of the communications in writing which I did, I did on direct instruction of the Board of Enquiry and in some cases I was not even present at that particular time.  I remember the letters that we've written, this on that's just been given to me here addressed to the Chairman of the South African Airways Flight Engineers Association, I mean, that was done on instruction of the Board of Enquiry.

MS PATTA: So you remember that letter?

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I can't say with any certainty, I know see it and I can confirm that this is a letter that I most definitely sent off to the Chairman of the South African Airways Flight Engineers Association, but I can't recall the detail or the contents of it.  If I can go through it I can tell you, but this is a letter that I've written for sure.

MS PATTA: Mr Chair, can we give him two minutes to read through it?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van Rensburg, can you read your own letter.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, Mr Chairman, I recall this letter, and as I've said here we are directed by the Chairman of the Board of Enquiry to write to you as follows, and I know that this letter was settled by the entire Board of Enquiry before I sent it off on our letterhead, and there was some arguments about Captain Dawie Uys' file and his licence ratings and I know that DCA was also involved in that, and they refuted certain of the allegations made by the Flight Engineers and they had record available to say some of the stuff that they submitted was not true and then negotiations took place with a view to see whether they could be accommodated and I know that their recommendation, the recommendations made by the Flight Engineers have been incorporated in the report to the extent that Judge Margo has indicated.  But that's all I remember of this thing, the detail behind this I can't give you any further information.

MS PATTA: Well maybe I'll just remind you, the detail behind this is it refers to this report that you can't remember ever having been brought before Judge Margo in his chambers, a detailed report which goes into a two fire theory on the Helderberg plane.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Which was withdrawn eventually.

MS PATTA: Which was withdraw eventually and there was legal - in fact so concerned were you about this report that you actually had to write a letter to the Flight Engineers Association saying that they were going to withdraw their report, and just putting it on record.  The Flight Engineers Association then sent a letter back through their lawyers to you to say that,
"We are instructed that our client stands by its letter to the Helderberg Disaster Commission.  Our client does not wish to respond to each allegation made in your letter and from the attitude reflected in the letter our client sees no purpose in doing so.  This should not be construed as an admission of the accuracy or correctness of your letter and our client reserves its right to respond to the allegations at a later stage, should it become necessary."
Putting it on record that they actually disagreed with your interpretation of events.  We don't need to go into the letters, but the point is that we actually even have legal communication about the Flight Engineers Association report, which amazingly, you can't remember, and I would put it to you that this report could have really helped solve a lot of the mysteries of the Helderberg, and when put off with the fact that a meeting was held in Judge Margo's chambers and a meeting was held in Judge Margo's home, which Captain de Beer was flown from London for as your letter states that he was flown out from London, and Captain Mickey Mitchell was instructed to bring him back from London, when you put that together with that and the evidence from the Flight Engineers Association that they were forced to withdraw their report for the two wrong reasons, fear and finance, we have a suppression of evidence here, that could have helped shed light on the Helderberg.

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, no, I don't think I would agree with a suppression of evidence, we have said here that this correspondence will form part of the records of the Board, copies of this letter was sent to the DCA, was sent to Mr Viv Lewis of the South African Airways, and was sent to Captain Mitchell as Director of Flight Operations, South African Airways.  So, the matter was still open after this, that if they would have come forward with anything material to submit as evidence to the Board, they could have done so.  I don't think I can agree with the statement that that was a suppression of evidence, I'll have to see much more before I can just concur with a statement like that.