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

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't see any difference in the versions, I've got no versions.  I'm not here to lie, I'm here to assist and I want to do as best as I can and if I can't remember, I'm just very sorry, I just can't remember and I take note of the very important issue that the Commissioner said about why was I at Judge Margo's house.   Now I take note of that, that's very important.
 The other issue of talking to the flight engineers and so forth like that, I regularly spoke to flight engineers, that was my job, they came to me about feedback.  I regularly spoke to flight engineers on many, many issues, money, the whole lot and I don't remember this one as a specific one nor do I definitely not remember them being threatened and harassed and things like that, I really don't ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: I want to put it to you that that is a very convenient amnesia.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm very sorry Sir, as much as I'd like to try, I'd like to help you.  I want to know what happened as much as you do and believe me I have not, I would like to, I'm doing my best as I can to help you down the, I've help you down the load on three things today that I can remember quite clearly of the eating, the meal thing and ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: No, I want to get to the meal.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: And I'm clear about that and I'm correct, I know I am.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: And I'm also correct about the HF tape and so forth and on that basis, you put your whole discussion on this tape because you've had your basis, your basis wrong.

DR KLATZOW: No, no, my basis is not wrong and there is much, much more to the propositions that I'm putting to you than the facts that I've just put to you.  But about the tape recording regarding dinner, you have put to us and to this Commission a version about how you eat your meals in a highly idiosyncratic fashion.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sorry Sir, ...[indistinct] many, many, I ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: Can I finish my questions, we both can't talk at the same time.  May I finish my question?  You have attempted to explain to this Commission that everybody on SAA and the Pilot's Association and whoever, eat their meals at top of descent, when in fact the true issue is that the meal is primarily served shortly after takeoff and you have not been seen fit to accord proper recognition to the possibility that that tape recorder could have stopped functioning earlier in the day.  And I want to put it to you, there's a reason that you don't want to accept that version because the moment you accept that version, the entire Margo finding goes out of the window Captain Mitchell.  It would be untenable to Margo's finding, that a pilot of Captain Uys' standing experience would fly on from a fire which occurred outside Taipei, only to have it reoccur outside Mauritius.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I agree with that 100%, no pilot in South African Airways, and no pilot having had a fire like that would fly on, that's categoric.

DR KLATZOW: That's perfectly right.

CHAIRPERSON: Except that if you were to land in hostile territory, then there would be a problem for that pilot wouldn't it or certainly it would have been a problem for South African authorities?  For instance, you couldn't land in India or Bombay or anywhere else?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sir, when you're on fire you land anywhere Sir, believe me.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course there is the proposition that could be made, when you are ordered not to land anywhere but to fly on then you won't land anywhere.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: No, not at all.  A Captain is a Captain, he's not ordered, you don't tell Captains what to do.  Captains by the law of the land, will fly the aeroplane and they are in total command.  If he doesn't want to fly that he won't fly it, he is in command.  Nobody tells Captains what to do.

DR KLATZOW: I want to put to you a version Captain Mitchell, that Captain Uys had a fire, that he had fought the fire and probably got it out, that he had then asked, because the rule and regulations suggest that the moment you've got the fire out you land at the nearest suitable airfield  And I want to suggest that he radioed in for permission to do that and he was asked - listen to the proposition ...[intervention]

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm listening.

DR KLATZOW: Before you prejudge it.  He asked ZUR permission to land and landing under those conditions would invoke a search of his cargo and a full inquiry and SAA could not afford to have it's hold searched when it was carrying military contraband and that is the reason that Uys flew on.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sir, that's a reasonable proposition and I accept it as one of the possibilities but at the same time I know, I knew South African Airways pilots.  One, if you have a fire you are going to go and land, sorry, you are going to go and land, that's it, you ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: I don't want to interrupt you but I'm going to.  There are so many incidents of people having various types of fires and not doing that, that it makes a mockery of your statement, that's number one.  Number two, we are suggesting to you that there was a serious fire aboard that aircraft and that Uys did not land, and the one interpretation that you can put on the meal on the tape recorder, you are incredibly reluctant to accept.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: 100% I do not accept, I really do not accept this one.  There was no fire, the fire came later.

DR KLATZOW: How do you know that Captain Mitchell?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: They would have landed Doctor, they would have landed.

DR KLATZOW: They would have landed unless ...[intervention]

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: With a fire of that kind of quality.

DR KLATZOW: They would have landed unless they had thought they had it out and had been ordered to go on.  What do you think the results would have been if Bombay officials had searched the hold of that aircraft and found military ordinance aboard?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: You'd probably go to jail with the Captain.

DR KLATZOW: And what else do you think would have happened?   What do you think would have happened to
SAA?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Well, ...[intervention]

DR KLATZOW: This country stank in the eyes of the world, to ...[indistinct] a metaphor.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I was only thinking of the Captain, please not.

DR KLATZOW: Sorry?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I was only talking about, thinking about the Captain.

DR KLATZOW: I'm talking about SAA.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: There would have been problems.

DR KLATZOW: What sort of problems Captain?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I'm not a politician.

DR KLATZOW: But do you not think that it is highly likely that civilised countries would have said: "Who are these fools carrying military ordinance over our countries in civilian aircraft?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Sir, again I am not part of that process, I am not a politician, I am a pilot, I don't get involved in these kinds of issued, it's not my interest.

DR KLATZOW: Well I'm assuming you're a man or ordinary intelligence or possibly above ordinary intelligence.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Thank you.

DR KLATZOW: Captain Mitchell, what do you think would have happened to the passengers who learnt that they are about to enter, overseas passengers or for that matter any passengers because it would have been world news, do you think that passengers would have been queuing up to fly aboard SAA aircrafts that were carrying rocket fuel all over the place?

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: I don't know ...[indistinct] rocket fuel or anything.

DR KLATZOW: Just answer the question please.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: The passengers would have definitely been most unhappy with SAA.

DR KLATZOW: Yes.

MICHAEL PETER MITCHELL: Absolutely.