As Robert’s Family we think that we know him best & here are some points we
wish to put forward. Thank you all for your comments and assistance in this terrible time as it has helped us to see what you feel.
We know he was no ANGEL (but is now), and would have put himself and
machine to the test, sometime near the limit, but he was not an idiot.
The senior base pilot tag was as to be in charge of the new pilot and act
as ICUS, to show him the ropes and make sure he could navigate visually and using
instruments, and NOT having to rely upon the GPS.
What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of
the crash was "mechanical failure”. This was changed to "pilot error” upon
our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news
broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying. It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in
the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.
Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns
expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.
What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.
The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined. CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.
The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves. It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this.
The decision of ATSB and CASA not to investigate the accident is regretted, but fortunately due to a push from us ALL fatal accidents are now investigated, and the family is involved. If ATSB had been involved and assisted the police, the right questions and answers may have been available earlier. Police are experts at car crashes not aircraft. In saying that though, Sgt Burness did an excellent job. We had no contact with a police officer, CASA or the ATSB relating the accident. We took it upon ourselves to make written contact to the ATSB with no luck in receiving a response. When we then tried to obtain a copy of the ATSB report on the accident we were denied a copy as we weren’t even listed on there “interested parties” list. The fact is the ATSB did not realise we existed, they didn’t realise Robert actually had a family. Trying to gather any information from CASA or ATSB proved difficult. They wanted to charge us $15000 for the privilege under the Freedom of Information Act.
Evidence was given at the inquest and at times witnesses tended to not remember, or be unsure and vague on specific points but certain and positive about selective items. The workings of the stall warning device and its serviceability etc took up a lot of the time during the inquest. Are you aware that one of the pilots had played a trick on the pilot a few days before the accident where he placed a rock under the reed in the stall warning and when the pilot starts the aircraft the stall warning goes off and the pilot then has to get out and fix it. Big Joke! He is now a Chief Pilot. So what happens in Arnhem Land stays in Arnhem Land. He must have forgotten about this theory momentarily? Similar time was spent on the conversation between the pilots prior to Robert taking off in BBI. It was an important point, but the witnesses were not totally sure of the conversation.
Hours were spent on the angle and rate of climb/ascent. Some of the witness statements were not cross examined but their evidence was relied upon in the outcome. It was clear though from witnesses that were cross examined that what that had reported initially in their statement and what they indicated in the court room were not the same thing.
One aspect the family thought strange was the fact there was no fire after impact, giving rise to the amount of fuel on board. The previous pilot of BBI was unable to recall his movements on the day of the accident (where he had flown, when and how much fuel loaded). The only information available was a piece of paper with some
blurred figures he saw after two years. Apparently there was blood on the paper and “someone” had tried to wipe it off? The amount of fuel and its displacement could not be accurately determined.
The aircraft wreckage was sold within weeks of the crash and any evidence was allowed to be removed from the wreckage. This hampered the investigation. The relevant parts were not able to be inspected until some months later or not at all. Any evidence to support any theory was unfortunately either destroyed or unavailable because of crash damage or no early professional inspections. We finally had a chance to meet with ATSB in October of 2001 where we discussed many points, and one of those being the use of parts from damaged aircraft for other aircraft. They were dismayed to learn that parts from BBI were used from the engine even after the impact suffered during the crash. They were advised this was the law and they allowed it to happen. Now however the wreckage is buried
and not reused. A comforting thought.
In reply to "bushy" and "gaunty", according to the maintenance release the aircraft engine had almost 10100 hrs whilst the prop had 900+. Your theory is that if these aircraft were looked after by the pilots they would last longer. So if the aircraft is subject to a lot of "antics" by young pilots who practice manoeuvres whilst just stooging around will not last as ones that haven’t done this type of flying. The flying done by present (at the time)pilots and previous pilots before them in BBI and other aircraft, similar to that admitted to in the inquest, could mean the service life of the aircraft was decreased. Those circumstances could have caused old BBI to get tired at the wrong time. Shortcuts on maintenance would not help. Young pilots should think about their actions when attempting this type of flying because it could be them or their mate on board next time. I fully understand the financial reasons and implications as to why aircraft of this age are being used. For with newer planes the costs are higher which leads to less profit and less jobs etc.
One final thing...Whilst trying to tie up loose ends we contacted the employer about Roberts final pay. Their answer was I‘m sorry we can’t do anything because "he hasn’t filled in his time sheet". They considered our efforts in obtaining information required to finalise bank accounts and superannuation etc as harassment and thus chose not to respond.
Thank You