What would YOU do?
What would YOU do?
Your aircraft suffers what was effectively a double engine failure at 200ft on take-off out of Sydney.
After weighing up all options and because of your training, you decide the only safe option is to ditch the aircraft.
All 25 souls onboard survive with one minor physical injury.
For a couple of days you are called a hero by the media.
You attend interviews by the investigating authorities but they do not want to listen to your version of events.
You were there - they weren't - but that makes no difference. They already have formed the conclusion (confirmed by a guest who was after one day asked to leave the investigation).
A few months prior to your accident, a Navajo tragically crashed at Young NSW killing all 7 onboard, instantly.
6 months after your accident, an Aero Commander crashes into the sea on its way to Lord Howe Island. 8 people tragically lost their lives there.
The Authority has been forced into a position (3 aircraft have fallen out of the sky) to act.
So, to appease the public they had to do something. They need a scapegoat, a fall guy. A guy who is not a member of a powerful union.
They suspend your pilot's licence some 9 weeks after the accident, because you decline to attend their counselling (which is your right).
You ask the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a Stay Decision - they refuse.
You go to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to complain about the way you've been treated only to find that the Authority has drafted the letter for the Commonwealth Ombudsman to send you.
No need to guess the contents of that letter.
You submit 2 grievance procedures against the Authority. Naturally, they have done no wrong (the police investigating the police).
You find that in the official report into the accident, (page 14), they state "Right engine—With the exception of the propeller governor, no pre-existing abnormalities were found."
Yet you receive an interesting package of documents from BASI in early 1997, containing numerous revealing facts.
• Of the 28 left engine spark plugs, once they were cleaned and even regapped, five did either not fire or were found to be electrically breaking down.
• Only twenty-five spark plugs were recovered from the right engine (which had been immersed in salt water for two months). They were also cleaned, re-gapped and then tested and of these eleven were considered unserviceable for the same reasons.
• Of the fifty-six spark plugs, only 26 were deemed to be of the approved type of plug.
A 100 hourly maintenance inspection was (supposedly) carried out about 4 hours prior to the accident. Even BASI expressed concern at the condition of the spark plugs considering the recent 100 hourly.
Geez, could that be a reason the right engine (which should have kept you airborne) was not producing rated power.
You ask the then Minister for Transport to intervene. - Nothing.
The weight issue. You witness BASI weighing the personal luggage dripping wet on a set of old analogue bathroom scales. When challenged over this, they reply, "we factor it".
When the aircraft was previously weighed in 1992, the conditions did not comply with CAA requirements for weighing aircraft, and the resulting figures from both weight records were identical—8158 kg.
Each of the three jack-point figures showed identical weight readings as well—what are the chances of this? Impossible!
The CAA never questioned this. So the ACTUAL weight of the aircraft will forever be in doubt.
Recently you again ask a different Minister for transport to investigate. Nothing new found.
After requesting, under the Freedom Of Information Act, details of the mechanical condition of the aircraft, you are denied access.
Reasons given,"secrecy" and "not in the public interest".
Since when is an accident investigation SECRET?
You apply for flying jobs, only to be told that "you have an adverse BASI report against you" or the CAA has lied about you to employer.
If they had published an accurate and truthful report (as required under ICAO Convention) then perhaps PH-DDA (with remarkably similar problems) would not have crashed tragically killing all 32 onboard.
After a further 4 years with the Office of Australian Information Commissioner, some documents were finally released.
You find that the maintenance on the aircraft was atrocious or even non-existent.
At the time of the ditching, both engines had exceeded their 1,000hr TBO.
Extensions had been sought, but NOT granted, so a few recent flights were totally illegal and unknown to you.
A DC-3 simulator ride in the Netherlands confirmed the belief.
The right engine power had to be retarded by some 30% to replicate the descent into Botany Bay.
You find out that someone has edited the control tower tape recording to make the you look bad and incompetent. (Pilot's push to talk switch stuck on).
Certain phrases had been deleted from the tape and the transcript. - Tampering with evidence?
Remember the spark plugs - they were also cleaned, re-gapped and then tested. - Tampering with evidence?
Since becoming aware of the tampering and coverups, you contact a few Senior Accident Investigators who appear on the international media to advise them what you've found.
As soon as you tell them, they "circle the wagons" and stop communicating. Why?
Armchair critics state "in poor taste" when you tell the truth about your treatment on social media.
Perhaps those armchair critics can offer alternative ways to right a wrong.
Naturally you were promoting your book as it's the only way you can expose the truth.
So, what would YOU do?
Just roll over and accept the defamation, humiliation and loss of professional pride and integrity, together with loss of employment in your chosen passionate vocation OR fight for your rights?
I make no apologies to say that I value pride, integrity and honesty. Therefore the fight for vindication continues.
Flame me if you want to, but unless you've walked in my shoes.....