Airlines PNG Crash Kokoda 11 August 2009

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families and next of kin of those who tragically died in the Airlines PNG Flight 4684 Twin Otter Registered No P2-MCB on 11 August 2009 (the Kokoda Crash). Whilst the investigation into this crash will be long and difficult, I have an inclination that the investigation into the causes of the crash will include a careful review of the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) fitted to the aircraft.

The dynamics of an airline crash are often complex and many. In most crashes, there are a number of matters that, sometimes expedientialy, impact on each other that unfortunately ends in a crash of an airliner and the death of passengers and crew.

In the Kokoda crash, undoubtedly one such factor leading to the crash occurring will be the inclement weather at the time of the crash and the difficult terrain. Other factors will undoubtedly appear during the course of the investigation and the Coronial Inquiry that will take place.

It is important that people wait until the investigation is completed and the coroner has made his/her findings before participating in conjecture as to what were the cause/causes of this crash.

Unfortunately the Kokoda crash has very many similarities to the crash of Transair Metro 23 VH TFU on 7 May 2005 at Lockhart River in North Queensland (the Lockhart crash).

The Lockhart River and Kokoda crashes can be classified as what is known as a “controlled flight into terrain”. Both aircraft were attempting to land on airstrips adjacent to mountainous terrain. It would seem from the initial view of the crash site and comments made in relation to radio traffic between the pilot and air traffic control that there was no impending warning to the pilot of the Kokoda crash similar to what occurred in the Lockhart River crash.

As I have said previously, it is important that people be restrained in their views on causation. In that regard, no criticism should be aired in relation to the pilots experience or behavioral tendencies, the maintenance record of the aircraft nor to that effect that Papua New Guinea Civil Aviation compliance issues.

Unfortunately the compensation payable under the Papua New Guinea Warsaw Convention legislation is paltry to say the least. In Australia, this legislation allows for damages up to $AU500, 000.00 to be paid to dependents of those killed in an airline accident when the passengers were paying passengers.

In Papua New Guinea the compensation payable under that country's Warsaw Convention legislation is something like $AU20, 000.00.

In the Lockhart River crash, I am representing families of those deceased in an action in the United States against the manufacturer of the GPWS that was fitted to the Transair Metro 23. With my USA co-counsel Floyd Wisner we allege on behalf of our clients that amongst other things, the GPWS was faulty. In a number of cases that Floyd and I have prosecuted in recent times involving the GPWS, we have been able to ascertain that certain models of the GPWS were faulty and that in one case, the warning of advancing terrain which was supposed to be 21 seconds had narrowed to only 5 seconds giving the pilot no hope of being able to avoid a crash into surrounding mountainous terrain.

As stated, I will await the outcome of the Papua New Guinea Civil Aviation safety authority's investigation and the Coronial Inquiry into the accident before making any comment upon causation. All I can say at this point in time is that if the GPWS is in any way involved with the Kokoda crash then I would suggest that there be an international aviation investigation into these instruments.

I say this as the GPWS Systems are often seen by pilots as a “get out of jail” card and in many cases that I have come across this is definitely not the case. I sincerely hope it isn't the case here.

Patrick Nunan
27 August 2009