Aid worker charged over copter crash

[Sunfish]

My contempt for the leadership of the Australian Navy has reached a new low:

A MELBOURNE international aid worker has been charged with placing dangerous goods on the Royal Australian Navy Sea King helicopter that crashed in Sumatra in 2005, killing nine service personnel.

= Police raid aid worker's home
- Charged over butane cylinders
- Crash claimed nine lives

Australian Federal Police agents raided Francis John Tyler's Hawthorn East home yesterday morning in relation to the crash of the helicopter on the Indonesian island of Nias. The helicopter had been providing humanitarian aid after the Nias earthquake.

Tyler, 43, appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates Court charged with one count of carrying or placing butane gas cylinders on the helicopter.

Aid worker charged over helicopter crash (http://www.theage.com.au/national/aid-worker-charged-over-copter-crash-20081216-6zu6.html)

It's a bit cute applying civilian type dangerous goods regulations to an aircraft designed to carry all manner of explosive and pyrotechnic devices.

Not only did they screw up the engineering maintenance of the Sea King concerned, screw up a billion dollar contract for Kamen Seasprites, mess up an entire class of patrol boats, and kill sailors in the HMAS Westralia fire, now they do this to deflect criticism from their sorry backsides.

I visited an Australian Naval Vessel a while ago and I was not impressed by the standard of maintenance, in fact the vessel was now operationally unfit for it's role as a result.

For the record, the minute it was revealed that the Westralia had been fitted with flexible fuel lines, a marine engineer friend of mine went ballistic. The standard lines are double walled steel with a pressure gauge fitted to the cavity so that a fatigue failure of the inner line is instantly apparent, and it happens regularly because of the fuel injection pump pressure spikes. It is effing inconcievable that a Naval engineering officer didn't know this.

[Trojan1981]

The Aid worker may have been at fault for not declaring the DG, that may or may not have made any difference to the resulting loss of life.

The chain of events began with maintenence mistakes and with a poor maint. culture generally. Has anyone been charged for that? Knowing the ADF I bet they made scapegoats of the lowest ranking personnel involved instead of comprehensivley addressing a systemic problem.
The fact that an eng. who once poured a bucket of water down a Seaking turbine to shut it down was in a senoir/supervisory position in the squadron in 2005 speaks volumes.

[framer]

The fact that an eng. who once poured a bucket of water down a Seaking turbine to shut it down
that is so fantastic that I don't quite believe it. Can you back it up? What circumstances led to him/her wanting to do that?

[Trojan1981]

A friend of mine was killed in the accident so I followed events closely. I spoke to an ex NAPO engineer (also now dead, unfortunately) who was there at the time and he confirmed the story. I believe it occured in 1988.

There is evidence of this, and far more damning occurances attributed to the same person in the minutes and statements of the BoI. I was following it at the time and am not sure if they are still available online. I will search and get back to you.

I don't know if the statements are still there, but this is the site
Australian Government, Department of Defence (http://www.defence.gov.au/sea_king_boi/chapters.htm)

[neville_nobody]

What are the feds claiming? That he loaded butane into the helicopter then didn't declare this to the load master/cargo people? If he had declared what was in the boxes then I would assume he is off the hook as the onus is then on the Navy.

And since when has the DG regs applied to the military anyway? :hmm:

[Trojan1981]

Mil DG regs still apply and are very similar to civilian ones in terms of packaging, amounts that can be loaded and combinations of DG that may be carried.
The main exceptions are for SF operations where a waiver applies. At least thats how it was in the RAAF.
Usually with Helos, we would carry gas bottles underslung, so that they could be cut away in the event of an emergency.

[Vref+5]

Airlift Group used the IATA regulations (probably still do) for everyday operations. The Military DEOCL was used for military specific type cargo and weapons, pretty sure butane gas cylinders for camp stoves didn't come under the DEOCL.

Army deployments/re-deployments always came under close scutiny as the bags typically turned up hexamine tablets and these type of butane cylinders. Used to be a requirement to check 10% of the bags initially. If anything was found a 100% check was then required.

Yes military aircraft carry things that go bang. But they are a part of the operational requirement for that aircraft and the risk is assessed when the fitment is carrried out. Random people boarding aircraft with unknown DG places uncertainty on the aircraft just as it does on civilian aircraft, that's why we have the IATA and the regulations, DG in excepted quantities etc etc.

Bottom line. You couldn't just throw dangerous stuff on a military aircraft without permission, there were still regulations pertaining to DG. You break them you get charged. Simple. It might not have been the primary cause of the accident but if it was an intentional breach of the rules it has to be prosecuted.

[Unhinged]

but if it was an intentional breach of the rules it has to be prosecuted

Now there's a wonderfully black-and-white view of the world.

Why ?

[chimbu warrior]

Is not one of the duties of the loadmaster to supervise loading of cargo and baggage?

It is hard to believe that an experienced helicopter crew could overlook the loading of something as obvious as a gas bottle.

Additionally, if it was an evacuation-type situation after a natural disaster, the aid worker was probably working under some duress, and the monitoring of dangerous goods was hardly likely to have been part of his job description.

Although the inclusion of dangerous goods may have affected the outcome of the accident, it was not the trigger that caused the tragedy.

[RENURPP]

The military.

Tick the boxes, cover your arse.

Doesnt really matter whether they achieve their real goal as long as they appear to be.:yuk:

[wessex19]

SunfishI visited an Australian Naval Vessel a while ago and I was not impressed by the standard of maintenance, in fact the vessel was now operationally unfit for it's role as a result.

Which ship are you talking about?? Has it been decommisioned or what?? I have not heard that story of any ship being declared operationally unfit...

[neville_nobody]

I get the impression from what I read in the paper that the canisters were in boxes with other gear, they were not separated. So I would imagine that you could easily slip them on the aircraft so the issue is really who declared what if at all.

[Trojan1981]

It was, and probably still is a common occurance for undeclared DG to find its way onto Mil aircraft. Particularly in an operational environment and particularly with Army personnel.
Heximine and Zippo lighters are the usual items, sometimes small gas bottles. The 10% checks done by the RAAF air load teams usually turned up something but charges rarely resulted. Early on in East Timor pax and cargo were boarding helos without any checks at all and this may have been the case on Nias. Who then would the responsibility lie with?

Regardless, the RAN is wholey responsible for this accident occuring in the first place. The jet fuel on board at the time presented a far greater fire hazard than the gas cannisters. If they were not on board would the outcome have been any different?

[neville_nobody]

Here's what the expert reckons about the butane causing the explosion

It said it was the opinion of Dr Eric Mullen, a scientist, that an explosion five minutes after the crash was caused by the ignition of flammable vapours or gases, "most likely from a sudden release of fuel".

The report said Dr Mullen considered that the "source of the ignition could equally have been the butane canisters that were being carried on the aircraft or the lubricating fuel" from a ruptured oil tank.

[an-124]

it is like saying that the cause of a car crash was the person in the back seat not wearing a seatbelt.. crazy

[Spanner Turner]

mmmmmmmmm,

The Admiral says to Jnr Seaman,
( or for that matter, Federal Attorney General to Federal DPP )


"I see the horse has just bolted out of the paddock. Would you mind just ducking down and shutting the gate?"


:ugh:


.

[PLovett]

From what has been posted here I can only presume that the Commonwealth DPP has taken complete leave of his senses if he thinks that he will get a successful prosecution for the crash of the helicopter.:ugh:

How can a case be made that the cylinders, which may or may not have exploded on impact, the experts cannot say, be the cause of the helicopter crashing when the evidence is that maintenance, or the lack of it, was the cause.:suspect:

If on the other hand it is purely a breach of the DG regs then it may be more successful but somehow I think a good barrister will make mincemeat of the prosecution case. After all, what witnesses are left to say how the cylinders got on the helicopter? If the prosecution is going to be based on the aid workers admissions then under what conditions were those admission made and will they be admissible in court. Usually there are problems.

But why? What benefit is going to come out of such a prosecution? None that I can see for the community which is the test the DPP is supposed to apply.:(

The downside is that aid organisations are going to be very wary of working with the ADF in the future in such situations.:uhoh:

[Wally Mk2]

I would have thought that in a time of war (although not war in this case) & or times of urgent need some basic rules pertaining to DG's might be omitted with perhaps some common sense?
The military have a looooong history of stuff/cover ups (their as human as the rest of us) so this case shouldn't be too much of a surprise to most.

So basicly this man has been charged with placing DG's onboard an A/C, that's it right? Well as another has said, did this act cause the crash? There in lies the big problem.

One has to wonder what the real agender is here for the Military? Payouts perhaps?

Wmk2

[rjtjrt]

Quote "The downside is that aid organisations are going to be very wary of working with the ADF in the future in such situations."
In my experience there is no love lost between military and NGO's at all. NGO's in my experience frequently if not more often demand unrealistic things from military, act petulantly/unreasonably if their demands aren't acceeded to immediately, and regard military safety regs as ludicrous to apply in a civil disaster response.
I was not impressed by NGO's I came into contact with. No doubt some are good, probably especially ex military ones, but the commited aid worker who is "on a mission" to save the unfortunate can be a menace

[Di_Vosh]

One has to wonder what the real agender is here for the Military? Payouts perhaps?


But why? What benefit is going to come out of such a prosecution? None that I can see for the community which is the test the DPP is supposed to apply

Good questions, both!

Personally, I believe that the Navy are doing this because they copped so much bad publicity in this incident (not to mention Westralia, etc) that they will pursue ANY OPTION to "share the love". Even if only to shift one small piece of the blame.

The ADF is no longer a "blame" culture; it has become a "scapegoat" culture.

DIVOSH!

[currawong]

The charge is not for causing the crash.

The charge is for placing butane cylinders aboard an aircraft.

Regardless of the outcome, the act in of itself was illegal.

Had the aircraft not crashed, the crime would most likely never have come to light.

[Trojan1981]

I would like to know if any DG screening was conducted at all before the flight. The RAN is going to have a hard time prosecuting this if there was not.

I remember an Australian Army Major who was caught with a leaking Zippo lighter (in his top pocket) on an MI-8 in Timor. He could not be charged because no DG screening or instruction took place before boarding the flight. The offending item (zippo, not major) was simply ejected from the aircraft.

[somniferous]

From what I understand the problem with the cylinders (other than the crew not knowing they were there) is that more people survived the accident, but not the explosion.

A good friend was on that flight and he managed to get out of his seat - out of the 5 point harness but didn't make it to safety.

Regardless it was a tragedy that should never have happened.