Helios Crash
Cyprus Mail Tuesday 24 FebruaryHelios trial set to open old wounds
By Elias Hazou
But will justice actually be served?
A HIGH-PROFILE trial opens in Nicosia on Thursday, when the five parties accused in the Helios case are due to appear in court to enter a plea on charges of manslaughter and reckless endangerment leading to the deaths of 121 people.
The state prosecution’s case essentially rests on their ability to prove that the two aviators – Captain Hans-Jurgen Merten and co-pilot Pambos Charalambous – were incompetent and that, consequently, it is the airline’s fault for employing them and allowing them to fly.
It has been more than four years since a Boeing 737-300 jet operated by Helios Airways out of Larnaca smashed into hilly terrain 40km outside Athens after running out of fuel. All 121 people on board were killed, making this the worst aviation disaster in Cypriot history.
The precise indictments are known only to the parties concerned: the state prosecution and Helios’ defence team. It is known, however, that the two chief charges, which apply to all five of the accused, are manslaughter and “causing death through a reckless, careless and dangerous act.”
The five accused are: Andreas Drakos, chief executive officer of Helios; Demetris Pantazis, general manager; Giorgos Kikidis, operations manager; Ianko Stoimenov, chief pilot; and Helios Airways as a legal entity.
But legal circles are already pointing out that the prosecution’s approach is flimsy at best. Under Cyprus law, manslaughter is defined as “causing death through an illegal act” – begging the question of what constitutes an illegal act where flying planes is concerned.
There’s also a great deal of speculation that manslaughter may have been thrown in as a peace pill because, unlike negligence, this offence must be tried in a criminal court.
Since the burden of proof is on the prosecution, all the defence needs to do is demonstrate that the two pilots were in fact competent.
It’s a process that’s sure to turn ugly for the relatives of the deceased airmen. The prosecution will argue that Captain Captain Hans-Jurgen Merten had “difficulties in communicating” and that his co-pilot Pambos Charalambous was not proficient in carrying out pre-flight and take-off checklists. Moreover, Merten is said to have missed an alarm systems test two months before the crash.
But the now-defunct airline dismisses the negligence charge and insists that both pilots were fit to fly.
Helios acknowledges that Pambos Charalambous was found to “experience difficulties coping under pressure,” but says it did take corrective action in this regard, by rejecting Charalambous’ application for promotion to the rank of captain.
“The airline feels it is not to blame for anything. We maintain that the accident was down to a manufacturing fault on the specific model of plane,” said Christos Neocleous, a lawyer for Helios.
The fact-finding probe had primarily blamed the two pilots, but also cited the shortcomings within the airline as well as Civil Aviation as latent, or underlying, reasons for the crash.
The report by Air Accident Investigator Akrivos Tsolakis found that the airflow valve was set at a 14-degree angle from the manual position, allowing for partial pressurisation. For this type of Boeing, it should have been set on auto before takeoff.
According to the report, on the night before the accident, ground crew had reset the switch to manual, but on the fateful day the pilots apparently omitted to conduct the pre-flight checks.
The problem was compounded in the air, when the pilots misread an alarm for a takeoff configuration glitch, because the sound emitted for that is identical to the one for a decompression problem.
Helios say the problem with the alarms – which has been documented by several other airlines – is the manufacturer’s fault. They point out also that, in the wake of the Cypriot accident, the United States’ Federal Aviation Administration has instructed Boeing to take corrective steps.
Having mistaken the alarm for a false takeoff configuration warning – which could not be the case, as the plane was already airborne – the aviators were troubleshooting in the wrong direction, while all the time the plane steadily depressurised, leading to the onset of hypoxia.
The investigation in Cyprus has taken quite a different path from that in Greece (the actual site of the accident), where a preliminary judicial investigation found five people were liable to manslaughter charges. They have not been officially indicted.
According to reports, three of the five persons are the same as in Cyprus: Pantazis, Kikidis and Stoimenov. Under EU law, they cannot be charged or tried on the same offence in two different EU countries. The other two persons are Helios’ chief operating officer Bryan Field and engineer Alan Irwin.
Irwin was the last engineer to inspect the aircraft on the night before the flight. According to the charge sheet filed with an Athens court, the pressurisation checks conducted by Irwin were “imperfect, unorthodox and non-compliant with the relevant maintenance manual…”
Elsewhere, the same document states that the engineer “…in a completely irresponsible manner did not follow the proper [control] procedures, but rather improvised.” It goes on to say that the entries recorded in the maintenance logbook were “vague, incomplete and contradictory.”
Though the trial in Cyprus is scheduled for Thursday, it is more than likely that the District Court will adjourn to examine the file in order to decide whether the case should be referred directly to a criminal court.
Nicolas Yiasoumi, a spokesman for the victims’ relatives, told the Mail that come Thursday, the families and friends of the deceased would be at court.
“We are concerned [with the trial]… but let’s wait and see,” he said.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
Last edited by Paphian; 24th Feb 2009 at 08:43.
Reason: repartition of date