Special Hearings — Helderberg Flight Special Hearing — 1998-06-01

DR KLATZOW: So here's a potentially vital piece of information which goes missing which has caused the airline untold trouble in the last 10 years, and you're aware of that trouble.  It resulted in the Judge expressing his displeasure at the hearing, you were the man in control of that tape, it got lost in inexplicably out of your control and Mr van der Veer says to you, tst, tst, tst, this is just not good enough.  Mr Mitchell, I have extreme difficulty in believing your version.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Alright, let's go back to the beginning of - that's exactly where I came in, Dr.  I said there was nothing on the tape in the beginning, hence the reason  for the unimportance of it.

DR KLATZOW: Did you listen to it?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No.

DR KLATZOW: How did you know there was nothing on it?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: There was nothing on the log.

DR KLATZOW: Did you listen to the tape, Mr Mitchell, answer my question?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I did answer, I said no.

DR KLATZOW: How could you then say that there was nothing on the tape?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Because there was nothing in the log.

DR KLATZOW: Well, that could have been that the communication on the tape was never written into the log.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: That's highly unlikely, Dr.

DR KLATZOW: It isn't highly unlikely, particularly ...(intervention)

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It is unlikely.

DR KLATZOW: Well, we'll deal with that in due course as well.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: So therefor I come back to my original premise, the premise is that if we knew there was evidence of the tape because of the log I can assure you that everything would have been done, exactly done, but because there was no HF communication, which I've explained to the Commissioner, there was nothing on the tape from the aircraft.  Hence the reason of the low priority of the tape.

DR KLATZOW: Right, there was nothing about the Helderberg on the tape, or there was nothing at all on the log?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, there was log and aeroplanes, other little aeroplanes.

DR KLATZOW: What else was on the log?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I can't tell you, I don't know.

DR KLATZOW: Was there information that an aircraft had lost an engine at Seoul I think it was?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I really can't remember, Dr.  If I look at the log, I'd tell you.

DR KLATZOW: Yes, so you say that the reason that you placed no store by the tape is that there was nothing on the log?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: With respect this aeroplane, yes.

DR KLATZOW: Right, at the Margo Enquiry, Mr Mitchell, there was a brouhaha about the missing tape, do you remember that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: There was extensive cross-examination of Mr Nadel.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: You remember that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: The conversation between the Judge, between the Prosecutor, Mr Nadel became quite nasty, do you remember that, where Mr Southwood accused Mr Nadel of lying.  It's in the record, he said, "You are making all of this up, aren't you?"  Do you remember that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You're reminding me of it, I read it, yes.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.  You were sitting in the audience when that was there, weren't you?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes.

DR KLATZOW: You heard the full conversation between the Judge and between everybody else.  Did you ever see fit to advise Mr Puckrin, who was acting for the legal advisors of SAA that you had been the last person and that you had locked it up in the safe, and to offer and explanation as to how that tape went missing?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Yes, ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: Did you ever tell Mr Puckrin that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm gonna think now whether ...(intervention)

DR KLATZOW: It's an important thing, it's not something that would escape your memory.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It can quite easily, it's 10 years ago.  The lawyers came down from Barlow, Lyde and London and were with Mr Puckrin and the lawyers and they - I know I was asked about the tape and Dr, I would rather not give you inaccurate information than half a story, I am sure that Cedric Puckrin knew about the tape and the process of the tape and that the tape had come from ZUR to be locked up to go to DCA and then go - I'm sure he knew that.

DR KLATZOW: Well then, if that is the case, Captain Mitchell, can you give me one explanation why he kept that vital piece of evidence from His Lordship, Mr Justice Margo?  Because that is a vital piece of evidence I want to put to you, and that was never raised.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: But you're exactly right, Dr, exactly right, because the Judge and the five pilots who were on that Commission knew quite clearly that there was nothing on that tape because there was no call from the aircraft.  Hence the reason the low priority of the tape.  I say again, it's a very low priority factor.

DR KLATZOW: With great respect to you, Mr Margo was there to evaluate the evidence, not to pre-judge it.  The word prejudice means to pre-judge,

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Right.

DR KLATZOW: And Mr Margo was there to hear whatever evidence there was, he expressed annoyance, Mr Mitchell, that the tape had gone missing.  Why do you think that he would express annoyance at the Commission for a tape which had no value?  Why would he say, I want to get to the bottom of this, who lost the tape?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It was not a good way of processing the process, I accept that.

DR KLATZOW: So he was expressing annoyance not at the loss of the tape, but at the slack administration?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I will accept that.

DR KLATZOW: Why did you never stand up at the Commission having heard the debate about the missing tape and say, I had that, I locked it in the safe, Judge, why don't you ask the next man where it went to.  Why did you never say that?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I come back again, that was passed on to Mr van der Veer, to Viv Lewis, to DCA to Rene van Zyl.  Rene van Zyl as the investigator asked that of me, and exactly what I said to him, and I presume as the investigator, that's exactly what he knew, and he's the investigator, Rene van Zyl never investigated, it was the DCA who investigated.

DR KLATZOW: Rene van Zyl made enquiries about that tape only three weeks after the accident.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Okay.

DR KLATZOW: That tape was taken out the night of the accident and placed in your hand, and by your evidence placed in a safe place.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I - can you tell me, I'm not sure whether it was that night, I'm not sure at all.

DR KLATZOW: It was that night.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Now how do we know that?

DR KLATZOW: Because Captain Deal told me he took it out and gave it to you and I can't imagine you walking around SAA with that under your arm or in your pocket for 24, 48 or 72 hours.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I accept - unfortunately Captain Deal can't answer you.

DR KLATZOW: Unfortunately he can't, but unfortunately I have a tape recording of him telling me that.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: That's wonderful, but the point about it, he can't corroborate it, and I don't know it was that night or the next morning or the following morning.

DR KLATZOW: If it was the next morning, does it make a difference?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It does.

DR KLATZOW: What is the difference?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: It's what you made, the difference.

DR KLATZOW: What is the difference?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You just said it now.

DR KLATZOW: The tape was in your hands, sorry the panel wishes to ask a question.

MR MAGADHLA: When was it, Mr Mitchell, that it was discovered that the tape had nothing on it, was it before it was locked up in that cupboard or was it when?