Crash survivors sue Ansett for $3 million

By TONY STICKLEY

Ansett New Zealand is being sued for $3 million by survivors of the Dash-8 flight which smashed into a hill while trying to land at Palmerston North in June 1995.

Two passengers and one crew member died in the tragedy. Another passenger died a few days later.

Twelve of the 15 survivors who suffered serious injury in the crash are each suing the airline for $250,000 in exemplary damages.

Meanwhile, the police are to decide soon whether to prosecute the pilot, Garry Sotheran, who is fighting being made redundant by the company in its recent wave of cut-backs.

At a preliminary hearing in the High Court at Auckland yesterday, the survivors' lawyer, Julian Miles, QC, accused Ansett of "outrageous and flagrant disregard for passengers' safety."

But Ansett's lawyer, Nathan Gedye, said the company strenuously denied the claims.

Mr Miles told Justice Robertson that Ansett had failed in safety procedures, instructions and training of the pilots involved, and the pilots failed to follow standard aviation procedure.

The airline had also made a deliberate decision not to replace faulty landing gear, "presumably because $50,000 was seen as too expensive."

Mr Miles said Ansett had decided in an "arguably cynical way" that the cost outweighed the safety risk.

At the time the aircraft slammed into a hill, he said, the captain and co-pilot were "wrestling" to rectify an undercarriage failure instead of taking the plane up to a safe height to deal with the problem.

And instead of concentrating on flying the plane, said Mr Miles, the captain was helping the co-pilot lower the undercarriage.

Mr Miles, representing the plaintiffs with Paul Dale, said that the firm's two Dash-8 planes had suffered 14 undercarriage malfunctions between 1988 and 1995.

In August 1992, the manufacturer, de Havilland of Canada, had offered redesigned components to overcome the problems at a cut price of $55,430.

"Disregarding the obvious safety issues involved, Ansett chose to treat the matter as being one of low-grade maintenance and decided the remedy was not worth the cost," said Mr Miles.

It was not until December 1994 that Ansett ordered the parts, following up with a fax in February suggesting it was "urgent," said Mr Miles At the time of the crash, the plane had the new part fitted to one side of the undercarriage, but had not been able to obtain the new parts for the other side.

"The aircraft should not have continued in service in the light of information known to Ansett," said Mr Miles.

"If problems arose because of unavailability of parts, that was a consequence of Ansett's failure to take up the opportunity to fit the redesigned assembly in 1992."

Mr Gedye told the judge the plaintiffs' claim glossed over technical matters, and was a "simplistic regurgitation" of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission.

To defend itself, Ansett ought to be able to produce all relevant technical, professional and scientific evidence relating to its conduct.

This could be up to 400 main documents including dense technical reports, service bulletins, manuals and technical records.

"The defendant's conduct cannot be fairly understood or judged without this," said Mr Gedye.

Ansett had an impeccable history of compliance with mandatory requirements.

He said the 14 incidents needed to be explained and put in context.

After earlier bulletins from the manufacturer, Ansett believed its own measures had cured the problem.

It had gone through a long series of evaluations of the new modification kits.

Mr Gedye said the undercarriage did not cause the accident. It merely provided the circumstances which distracted the pilots.

The two pilots denied any negligence., he said.

Justice Robertson reserved his decision on whether the case should be heard before a jury or a judge sitting alone.