by Paul Clough, Solicitor 

Some time in the distant past, a helicopter pilot was engaged in a mining survey in North Queensland. He worked for a company which had a charter AOC.

The pilot lived and worked with a major exploration company in the field. The pilot was engaged day to day in dismantling a survey drill rig, transporting it to another site and erecting it at the second and subsequent sites. The drilling aspect was subcontracted out from the major exploration company to a local drilling show.

There were three legal entities involved in the ultimate accident. The major exploration company the driller and his helpers and the aviation charter company. Obviously, the major company had many people in the field but was headed by a recent geological engineer graduate on his first field command. The drilling operator company was an adhoc affair. The older driller had two young offsiders aged 19 and 17 years respectively, with no experience of note. The helicopter pilot was alone on the site, was fully qualified but had limited exposure to drilling operations. He was acting as the charter aircraft company representative on site.

The first few transfers went to plan. The drill was assembled at the required positions, a core sample taken at the appropriate depth. The drill was then dismantled by the helicopter and taken in sling load lots to the new site, where it was assembled again somewhat like a Meccano set. The operation was conducted in the height of summer and the helicopter pilot decided to remove the doors of the helicopter for ventilation. The ventilation was too good. When the helicopter lifted into the hover, the cushions in the well of the seats started to fly around a bit. The pilot removed the cushions in the passenger area from the aircraft.
The helicopter pilot controlled the assembly by hand signals from the ground. He leant out of the open door of the helicopter to see just were each piece of drill fitted from and to the structure. The drilling offsiders did the donkey work on the ground bolting together the drill and also assembling and attaching the components onto the sling attached to the helicopter. There were photographs of this control and movement manoeuvre.
After about five trips, the system seemed a doddle. About four days had passed. Familiarity breeds contempt. On or about the fifth day, the pilot realized that his radios were tuned for New Guinea operations and needed changeover black boxes to communicate with local aeradio and control stations in the Commonwealth radio net. It was not clear how the pilot had got from Australian airports with different sets of radio frequencies to the site. Additionally, there was no direct air to air communication with the major exploration base camp from the helicopter. The pilot went to a cattle station nearby and telephoned his principal and requested changeover black boxes on the day of the accident.

Ultimately, the pilot agreed with the older drilling operator to lift some drill bits, large batteries and carry the older driller and the 19 year old offsider from the former site to the new site. To this end, the pilot removed the wire rope sling and placed it out on a rocky platform in front of the helicopter. The older offsider saw the wire rope sling and of his own volition decided that as it had been fitted to the helicopter hook on most other lift occasions, he should replace it at the helicopter hook again. The older offsider never consulted anyone about his brainwave.
The drill bits and batteries were loaded as was the older driller and the 19 year old offsider boarded the aircraft. Instead of sitting in the aluminium wells sans cushions where there were seat belts, the two passengers sat on the floor with the unrestrained drill bits and batteries.
You have guessed it. The helicopter lifted into the hover, commenced its takeoff and the wire rope sling snagged a heavy piece of the drilling rig. The pilot assumed that due to the heat of the day, the aircraft needed more power so he increased power. The sling was jammed fast. When the tension became too much the wire rope snapped and flew up into the rotating disc and severed part of a rotating main rotor blade. The helicopter was unbalanced and went into a sudden roll to one side. At the same time, the severed blade flew into the cockpit and cut the pilot in half. The helicopter impacted the ground some distance ahead and rolled on its side and thrashed itself to death. The older driller was fatally injured by the drill bits an batteries impacting on him. The younger offsider was alive but had foot and leg injuries.

Clearly, this was death by misadventure. The pilot was dead. The driller was dead and the offsider was in hospital with permanent injury to his legs. Enter the legal system. The State Government determined to hold an inquest. As it was a mining accident, it was not called a coroner’s inquest. It was called a mining warden’s court. Your correspondent was requested to represent the helicopter charter company.

Act 1 Scene 1 of the Legal Drama
What are the facts as we know them? Here is a legal check list to determine the pluses and minuses of the client’s case:

Was the pilot complying with flight time limitations?        
Apparently yes, nothing to say otherwise.
Was the pilot complying with flight time limitations?       
No way. He had exceeded both flight time and duty time limitations by a large margin. I had his log book and his rough timings for the last two weeks and he had exceeded the limitations.
Why was the aircraft not fitted with proper radios?  
The pilot had sneaked the aircraft into a major airport late at night and left before ATC came on duty in the morning. Not a good look.
Why were the cushions removed when pax were being carried?
Pure convenience and delay would have occurred to get the cushions from tents nearby when passengers were to be carried.
Why were the passengers not wearing seat belts?
In too much of a rush and no proper briefing.
Why were the drill bits and batteries not tied down?         
In too much of a rush and no proper briefing.
Were there any other problems for the charter operator?
Yes! The pilot had conducted a hot refuel that day being assisted by the geological engineer leader in that escapade.
Are there any incriminating photographs?
Yes. Lots.
The next lawyer’s question: “Do any of the other parties know the true situation?” We will only find that out at the hearing.

ACT 2 Scene 1. The Court Hearing
The bench was a five man bench. A magistrate assisted by two mining engineers and two Army helicopter pilots. The investigating officer from BASI was an ex-army fixed wing pilot. He gave evidence of the circumstances of the accident and the deaths.
The bar table was composed of a staff barrister from DPP assisting the bench, an old chap with coke bottle glasses and a severe tobacco habit representing mining unions; your correspondent, a barrister representing the dead driller’s company and family, a local solicitor representing the dead pilot, a hot shot lawyer representing the major exploration company, a local suburban solicitor representing both of two offsiders, one of whom was injured.
After a quick series of conversations before the hearing kicked off, it was obvious that the only people with any grasp of helicopter theory and practice were the two Army pilots on the bench and the investigator to a very limited degree and your correspondent.
To cut to the chase, the investigator had carried out a desk investigation. He had not visited the site, he had not researched the background of the pilot, not seen the log books, nor questioned any of the parties that were still alive. In short, he had done very little and had very little to tell the court. However, he did tender a series of enlarged photographs of the remains of the cockpit, which clearly showed the frequencies selected on the radios. The frequencies selected were certainly not local.
The only person at the bar table that focused on any of the five problems with the flight enumerated earlier was, unsurprisingly, the old chap with the coke bottle glasses and the severe tobacco problem. He asked each witness in turn, “can you explain why the pilot did not maintain communication with the local aeradio station and conduct a SAR watch?” His repetitive questioning caused mirth in the court except for your correspondent. Had he known the correct flight service or control frequency and linked it to the enlarged photographs the game may have been up. Instead of accepting him as a common sense interrogator, with the niceties and glibness of a lawyer, the court ignored his focused questioning.
No-one questioned the investigator as to the pilot’s flight and duty time limitations. No one questioned the removal of the cushions from the seating and how this contributed to the injuries of the offsider. No one questioned why the driller and the offsider were not wearing seat belts. No one questioned why the drill bits and batteries were not tied down. These five major defects in the performance of the operation seems to pass through to the keeper. Your correspondent avoided the hot refuel like the plague.

It must be understood that whilst your correspondent was aware of the causes of the accident, the deaths and, more importantly, the inculpating breaches of sensible aviation practice, your correspondent was engaged to save the charter company and not have it put at serious commercial risk. It follows that a diversion was created.

Clearly, something had to be done to divert the court from probing questions from the multitude at the bar table. On instructions, I started talking about the pilot’s capacity to view his hook and the load at the end of the sling, where his load was slung, his load at the end of the sling. Moveable mirrors were canvassed, Bowden cables to move the mirror were explored. The provision of a collective switch to move the mirror was proposed. Most of it was pure diversion. Surprisingly, most people at the bar table seemed to follow the Pied Piper up that dead alley. Ultimately, it transpired that a certain record book needed to be kept of the complete activities of the drill and mining expedition. It was not kept properly.

ACT 2 Scene 2

The finding was that the major exploration company was at fault in not exercising sufficient supervision of the pilot, the driller, the offsiders and the drilling operation and not keeping the required paperwork accurately. My client company was not mentioned in the report.

So, what are the lessons from an investigative legal proceeding of an aviation accident that does not rely on the adversary system?

Don’t expect the Court to understand aviation in all its shapes and makes;
Don’t expect the other people at the bar table to understand the fundamental path of aviation;
You can expect that the various parties represented by the people at the bar table will have a hidden agenda;
Common sense is not a long suit in such a hearing;
Expect a diversion whenever there is something to hide;
Public service bureaucracy involved will frequently leave a lot to be desired in the presentation of evidence.