Prosecutions over aircraft crash

Press, 15 February 1986, Page 4

Prosecutions over aircraft crash

It was fortunate that there were not three or four fatalities instead of just one in an aircraft crash at Hokitika in October, 1984, after a skydiving mishap, said Mr B. M. Stanaway in the District Court yesterday. He was appearing for the Civil Aviation Division of the Ministry of Transport in prosecution of both a skydiver whose reserve parachute inadvertently opened and tangled in the aircraft’s tailplane, causing the pilot to lose control, and of Southern Sky Supplies Ltd, Christchurch, which organised the events at Hokitika Airport. The pilot, John Douglas Slocombe, of Hokitika, was killed when the Fletcher topdressing aircraft, which carried four Christchurch skydivers who were to have made a simultaneous jump to the airport, crashed.

David Gavin McLeod, the skydiver whose parachute prematurely opened, suffered injuries when he struck the aircraft’s tail but he and the other three skydivers parachuted to safety. Mr McLeod, who was alleged by the Civil Aviation Division to have been the drop-zone safety officer for the skydiving activities, and the air company were each prosecuted on a charge of committing a breach of a Civil Aviation regulation by conducting parachute descents contrary to conditions specified by the Director of Civil Aviation. The charge specified the alleged breach as being

that the descents were not made in accordance with the company’s operations manual and Civil Aviation information sheet AB9.

Evidence heard yesterday was that Mr Slocombe was not wearing a parachute, although he had been advised of this requirement.

The division contended that the aircraft was not suitable for skydiving displays, and that although the main responsibility for the flight rested with the pilot, the drop-zone safety officer and the company also had a responsibility to ensure compliance with the safety requirements.

Mr G. D. Horne appeared for Mr McLeod and Mr R. B. Leete for Southern Sky Supplies. The charges were denied.

After the completion of defence evidence, and counsel’s final submissions yesterday, Judge Paterson reserved decision.

Prosecution evidence, and the defence opening, had been heard at court sittings late last year, and the case had been adjourned to yesterday for the completion of evidence.

Defence submissions yesterday were that the division had failed to establish any breach by Mr McLeod or the company. On the evidence, the primary person responsible for the accident was the pilot and as he could not be charged the prosecution had passed the blame down the line to the company, and to the person it alleged to have been the drop-zone safety

officer. In defence evidence heard yesterday, an inspector of air accidents, David Gardiner Graham, said he investigated the Hokitika crash. He interviewed Mr McLeod, who ■ gave witness to understand that Mr Morian Campbell acted as the drop-zone safety officer on the ground, while Mr McLeod was on the flight. He said it seemed logical that when Mr McLeod was jumping, somebody else would take his position as drop-zone safety officer. Mr Graham said the question of suitability of aircraft for parachute operations was not dei fined, to his knowledge, in •any specific document in New Zealand or in geni eral aviation documents of other countries. He said his investigations showed that the pilot had been offered a para- < chute. Simulated jumps had been practised on the ground, before the aircraft took off. The final responsibility in any flight was the ! pilot’s from the moment every person got into the aircraft until after the scheduled jump. i Mr Graham said that at the time of the accident the requirment that pilots on skydiving flights must wear parachutes had been in force for “a year, if not longer.” It had been a fairly recent requirement. Cross-examined by Mr Stanaway, Mr Graham agreed he was a somewhat reluctant witness. His role was as an investigating officer, and not to apportion blame or responsibility. The drop-zone safety officer had an obligation to ensure that a pilot knew of the requirement to wear a parachute. Ultimately, it would be the pilot’s decision whether that was complied with. Asked whether the topdressing aircraft, carrying three parachutists in the hopper/ was a suitable aircraft for skydiving, Mr Graham said he found it difficult to answer that specifically. . ;• He agreed that there was a very high requirement and obligation for senior office-holders to ensure compliance with safety aspects in skydiving activities. .< He also accepted that although the main responsibility for the flight was with the pilot, there was a collateral responsibility on the drop-zone safety officer and the company to ensure compliance with safety requirements. Morian Alva Campbell, ' a Post Office senior technician, said he had been a member of the Canterbury Skydiving Club since 1964 and had made 1723 parachute jumps. He had never seen a list published of suitable aircraft for skydiving. The qeustion of aircraft safety was for the pilot’s experience. Mr Campbell said he < had arrived at the airport shortly before the flight. He asked the pilot what parachute he would be

wearing and was told he was not wearing one because it would restrict his movements. The pilot was offered a slim parachute, and told that it was mandatory to wear one, before witness went to the target area. At that stage his own designation was senior officer at the drop-zone, Mr Campbell said.

He said he would have no qualms about “exiting” from a hopper for a parachute descent.

Cross-examined, he said Mr McLeod had not given written or oral delegation to him of drop-zone safety officer during Mr McLeod’s intended flight. He had not thought of himself as the drop-zone safety officer, just as the senior officer accepting responsibility. Mr Home submitted that the charges should be dismissed. He said the ultimate responsibility lay with the pilot; he had been offered a parachute and it was reasonable that the parachutists took the matter no further. It was reasonable to proceed on the basis that the pilot bore the ultimate responsibility.

He submitted that Mr McLeod was not the dropzone safety officer at the relevant time. He could not be so, when airborne. Mr McLeod should not be singled out from the four parachutists who participated on the claim that he was the drop-zone safety officer.

Mr Leete submitted that because the person with primary responsibility, the pilot, could not be prosecuted, the blame had been passed down to the company and to the person alleged to have been the drop-zone safety officer. He contended that the prosecution had failed in its case against them. - Mr Stanaway said the aircraft clearly was not suitable for skydiving. One parachutist was carried in the cockpit and three in the hopper.

It was not only unsuitable. for normal jumping practice but obviously created a real risk in an emergency, as was the case_ with this accident.

“It is very fortunate that we are not dealing with three or four fatalities, not just one,” Mr Stanaway said. The organisers should have declined to accept an obviously unsuitable aircraft and, further, to have declined to jump unless the pilot wore a parachute. More court news on Page 7