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

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, what we must be clear on, I recall the discussions between the Board and the Airline Pilots Association and the Engineers, but, you know, the invitation was addressed to all and sundry who may have had evidence, hard evidence to consider by this Board to come forward and to submit the evidence.  Now, I can't recall any evidence that was submitted by the Airline Pilots Association in writing and was subjected to cross-examination.  Mr Rene van Zyl will most definitely be in a better position to give you a complete breakdown of the discussions that took place between the DCA and the Airline Pilots Association.

UNKNOWN: With respect, I'm saying that the flight engineers only had access to the tape at a very late stage.  They then had to go back and do an expert analysis because they realised, immediately after listening to it, that there was a different interpretation at stake here.  I am talking about representations made to the Board once the enquiry had started.  Can you recall such an incident, and I have been told a number of times, I think Ms Patta has been told a number of times, that you were present in Judge Margo's chambers.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's get first things first, are we talking about the Flight Engineers Association or the Airline Pilots Association, because I think Mr van Rensburg is responding to this as though he was responding to both of them.  I think all your line of questioning has been on the Flight Engineers Association, let's deal with that first and all the queries that she is raising in regard thereto.

MR VAN RENSBURG: I'm not very clear on the Flight Engineers Association.  I remember the Airline Pilots Association, but you must please accept that the investigator in charge in terms of annex. 13 and the Aviation Act is a Board of Enquiry.  It's not for me as an individual or any other person so conduct an investigation into an accident like that, that's why a Board of Enquiry has been appointed, and if any person would then come forward with evidence that could assist the Board of Enquiry, the investigator in charge, to get to the cause of the accident with hard evidence that is submitted to cross-examination and tested, and that would have been refused, then I would have regarded this as an irregularity, but I'm not aware of anything like that, that evidence was submitted and that they were declined or that they haven't been given access.  That, I would suggest, that you talk to Mr Rene van Zyl and see whether there was anything of that sort.

UNKNOWN: I want to speak to you, because what I have been told is, that at this meeting there was a man called Jimmy Mittins of the Flight Engineers Association and other members, Peter de Beer, the Vice-President Ray Scott and a guy called Judge Bedar,  on the other side was Margo, Rene van Zyl, Mitchell and the attorney Van Rensburg.   The FEA felt ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall a meeting of that nature?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Yes, I recall a meeting.  We had many meetings in the chambers of Judge Margo, especially when people came forward to look at what they have and what they want to put forward.  I remember a meeting, but the detail of the thing, that I'm very vague on, I mean, I can tell you, anything is possible there, I can't recall what was the subject matter of discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you put a specific allegation, Ms Terreblanche.

UNKNOWN: The Flight Engineers Association felt,
"We wanted to carry on and at the very least, make a number of recommendations of which the most important was the disaster check list ...(intervention)

MR VAN RENSBURG: Of which the most important was?

UNKNOWN: The disaster check list, but that's not what I want to get at.
"We were summoned to the Chambers by Judge Margo because the CDR came in at a late stage and we wanted to make a submission."
Which they have made in written form and was placed before you the day or so before.  They were told that it was late, first of all, and that therefor they must withdraw it.  As I understand it, Judge Margo at a stage left the room and Mr Mitten was told, he claims and Mr Scott, they were told by you that the country cannot afford this enquiry into a two stage theory that they advanced on the basis of the full CVR, and that they should therefor withdraw.  This could cost the country and a large amount of money was mentioned.

MR VAN RENSBURG: That I can't recall, with respect, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the large amount, Ms Terreblanche?

UNKNOWN: Something like R400 000.

MR VAN RENSBURG: No, I can assure you, that type of remark would most definitely not have come from me.  The question of costs of the investigation, you know, this was quite a costly situation with all the stuff that we had to remove from the ocean bed, 4 1/2  kilometres down, would have been rather from Mr Rene van Zyl who was involved in the budget of the thing, I had absolutely nothing to do with the budget or the financial situation of the investigation, that was - if I have to give any evidence on that matter, I will just be swimming because I had no information whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just put the proposition in the manner in which I have understood to be put to previous witnesses here.  The proposition is that Judge Margo in your presence and in the presence of the other people that have been mentioned, discouraged these people from making the sort of enquiry that they wanted to make, on the basis that it would cost the country a considerable amount of money, that it was not in the national interest, that in fact, they had to consider, not at that meeting but at another, the security of their jobs and their family.  Now, I think what we are seeking to find out is whether a conversation of that nature, which in terms amounts to an intimidation of witnesses, whether a conversation of that nature ever took place, either at the meeting that she has mentioned, but at any other meeting at which you were present?

MR VAN RENSBURG: Mr Chairman, I recall meetings with the Flight Engineers Association and the Airline Pilots Association, but most definitely not any form of intimidation, because we had the approach to this whole thing, whatever information could be brought forward to throw light on a possible cause of this accident, must be considered, but in the same breath I must also say to you, when you do an investigation like this, you have many people from the general public who are looking for some sensational disclosure, and then they come forward with pure allegations and Judge Margo, as a Judge of the Supreme Court with his experience assessing witnesses, he would just ask one or two questions and see whether there's any substance in what this person is coming forward with.  And if there is not substance, then he would be very firm to say, sorry, you are not raising anything here of any importance.   Whether this was the case with the Airline Engineers Association, I can't say, I can't recall anything to that extent, and in the least, it would be against his nature to repudiate anything coming from that body, because it must be seen as an expert body, the Flight Engineers are experts in their field, if they ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: My emphasis is on something much more serious, this information seeks to say Judge Margo actively dissuaded information which might have been material from being placed before the Commission on the basis that it was not in the national interest, it would cost the country a great deal of money, there was even a suggestion that words in the form of, they would play into the hands of the ANC, were used.