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

VERNON NADEL: I'm not able to speculate why he did or why he didn't.

DR KLATZOW: But let's examine it Mr Nadel.  You're ducking the question.  Captain Uys had a standing instruction.  That instruction is clear.  If you have a fire, put it out and then go down.  We know he didn't do that and we know that there is a great likelihood that the first occurred six hours or so earlier than the Margo Commission would have us believe?

VERNON NADEL: If that's what you say yes.

DR KLATZOW: And you've agreed with that logic?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Now, can you think of a reason why he didn't go down and follow the eminently sensible regulations which all pilots know about and all pilots would adhere to because there is nothing that is feared more than a fire in the air?

VERNON NADEL: Well I couldn't give an explanation.  I don't believe he wouldn't have done that.

DR KLATZOW: That he wouldn't have done what?

VERNON NADEL: Gone down.

DR KLATZOW: But he didn't go down.

VERNON NADEL: That was obvious.

DR KLATZOW: Correct.  He went down in flames outside of Mauritius.

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Which means that if the argument that there was an earlier fire was correct, he did not go down.  He did not follow those eminently sensible instructions and go down.

VERNON NADEL: That is if there was a fire beforehand, then obviously he didn't.

DR KLATZOW: And we've been through that logic and you find it logical?

VERNON NADEL: Well there's a lot of speculation once again.

DR KLATZOW: No no I've given you no speculation.  I've told you certain facts.  And those facts are not speculation.  Those facts are that there's a discussion about dinner.  That the tape recording has a certain period which it tape records and that it stopped functioning as a result of the fire.  There's none of that that's speculation.

VERNON NADEL: I haven't heard a clear copy of the cockpit voice recorder so I cannot say.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel, you're ducking the question.  Margo accepted the official recording means whatever Margo accepted and Margo accepted that there was a discussion about dinner prior to the failure of that tape recorder.  Are you going to deny that there was a discussion about dinner?

VERNON NADEL: If that's what the tape said then no I won't deny it.  What I'm trying to say is.  The discussion about the dinner could have been dinner at home the next day.

DR KLATZOW: No, it clearly wasn't dinner at home the next day.  It was to do with the dinner served in the cockpit.  Would you like to read it?  You've read that now.

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Are you in any doubt that a discussion about dinner being served in the cockpit was recorded?

VERNON NADEL: No, I have no doubt.

DR KLATZOW: Right.  Now that must mean and there is no other explanation.  I want to put it to you that that tape recorder must have recorded that outside Taipei when dinner was served and ceased functioning shortly thereafter?

VERNON NADEL: It's possible yes.

DR KLATZOW: Well if it is only possible give me another possibility.

VERNON NADEL: No, depending on what time dinner was served out of Taipei whether it was  the normal time or slightly later I don't know but it is possible.

DR KLATZOW: Even if it was slightly later?

CHAIRPERSON: I think what the proposition has been or the perusing that has been made was that we must logically accept that whatever the time period was after the aircraft had departed from Taipei, whether it was an hour or two hours or even three hours, that recording, if it is a recording of dinner being served must be an indication that it was done closer to the time that the aircraft  left Taipei than closer to the time that the aircraft was about to descend on Mauritius.

VERNON NADEL: I accept that.

DR KLATZOW: Now, can you think of a single reason why Mr Uys, having put out the fire would not go downstairs and check that his aircraft was indeed safe and indeed check that he was not going to have a tragedy such as the one which unfolded outside Mauritius?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: There's no reason is there?

VERNON NADEL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Yet he didn't do that?

VERNON NADEL: It appears not.

DR KLATZOW: Now, under those circumstances, do you not think that it is reasonable that he would have called up ZUR, or tried to call up ZUR?

VERNON NADEL: He probably would have tried yes.

DR KLATZOW: And he would have kept trying with the contingencies of the operation that he was dealing with but clearly it was, the aircraft was serviceable enough for him to make it from wherever he was at that time to just outside, one hundred and something nautical miles outside Mauritius, there would have been some opportunity for him to raise ZUR?

VERNON NADEL: If the communications were possible, yes.

DR KLATZOW: And it is the sort of thing that he would have told ZUR?

VERNON NADEL: Definitely.  If he had got through to ZUR, he would have told ZUR that he had a problem and he needed to speak to somebody.

DR KLATZOW: And it is not far fetched that he would have made every effort to get through to ZUR?

VERNON NADEL: Absolutely.  Not far fetched.

DR KLATZOW: Now what you are postulating is that for over three quarters of the flight of that aircraft the communications were so bad that no possibility existed that he could raise ZUR.  Is that not far fetched?

VERNON NADEL: No.  It's not far fetched, it has happened before.

DR KLATZOW: How often has that happened before?

VERNON NADEL: I would say many times.

DR KLATZOW: Was it a common occurrence?

VERNON NADEL: Not common, but not uncommon either.

DR KLATZOW: Now could you give me an explanation as to why Mr Du Toit says that it was a very uncommon experience, particularly on that sector?

VERNON NADEL: I cannot speak on behalf of Mr Du Toit, no.

DR KLATZOW: Do you think he's lying?

VERNON NADEL: I don't say he's lying but I cannot speak on his behalf.

DR KLATZOW: I'm not asking you, I asking you to think of a reason why he should say that to me?

VERNON NADEL: As I said, it's not common, but it's not uncommon either.  So depending on the percentages, this could unfortunately have been one of the uncommon times when it didn't work.

DR KLATZOW: Mr Nadel if it's not common, it's common.  So if it is not common then it must be uncommon?

VERNON NADEL: Correct.

DR KLATZOW: Now please.  Make up your mind, one way or the other.  Is it common or uncommon?

VERNON NADEL: It's not uncommon that communications sometimes don't get through.

DR KLATZOW: So in other words it's common?

VERNON NADEL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: Give me a reasonable explanation why Mr Du Toit would want to come and lie to the Commission and say that it is in fact a very uncommon occurrence?

VERNON NADEL: I don't know.

DR KLATZOW: He gets nothing out of saying that.

VERNON NADEL: I don't know.

DR KLATZOW: You're aware that Margo found a number of things.  Number 1, that Margo found that there was a proper procedure to be followed if there was no call.

VERNON NADEL: I believe there was speculation that there was a so-called standing orders, but there was no such a thing.

DR KLATZOW: Well Margo in fact, if you look at Margo, Margo found that there was indeed a procedure to be followed?

VERNON NADEL: It was mentioned at the hearing, yes.

DR KLATZOW: It was more than mentioned.  That's what Margo established, that you had to do certain things?

VERNON NADEL: I don't believe that there is a standing order, no.

DR KLATZOW: Well is there or isn't there?

VERNON NADEL: No.

DR KLATZOW: Would you bear with me one moment Mr Commissioner, could we just take a three minute break while I find the relevant quotes?

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.  We'll adjourn for five minutes.  Could we also take the time to make copies of the document that Mr Nadel was using.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Klatzow?