DC10 crew families sue U.S. Navy

Press, 10 March 1982, Page 1

DC10 crew families sue U.S. Navy

PA Auckland The families of 17 crew members killed in the DCIO crash on Mount Erebus in November, 1979. each claim $1 million from the United States Navy. The claims cite negligent, careless, and reckless acts and omissions by Navy personnel and employees, including air traffic’ controllers, at McMurdo Base. The . claims are being handled by an Auckland barrister, Mr Roger MacLaren, who has briefed the Washington firm of Speiser. Krause, and Madole to present the cases. The United States Navy still has about three months in which to decide whether

to settle the claims, or oppose them in a Federal Court. If it decides to oppose them — and there is a belief among American lawyers that it will — a wide area of speculation and rumour will be opened up to probing by lawyers. Nobody can say for certain if the . American controllers noticed the DCIO on their radar screen as it circled north of Ross Island, passing between the gap of Mount Erebus and Mount Bird. One thing almost certain is that if the radar was set to the correct mode, the fluorescent speck of the airliner

would have shown up for about 30. seconds. If it was noticed by the controller, there would have been ample time to tell the crew of their position — which would have alerted them to the danger they were flying into. Mr Justice Mahon, in his report,-said he believed the aircraft was observed on the screen bv the radar operator. However, because of the heading of the machine, and the stated intention of the crew of flying north (and away) from Ross Island, the operator could not be blamed for taking no action.

Judge Mahon was never able to interview the radar operator, or the radio operator, on duty on the ice airfield on the day of the crash. The United States Navy allowed a number of “specified” personnel to be interviewed, and only in the presence of Navy lawyers. The whereabouts of the two operators remains obscure. The case for the crew members therefore looks like depending on proof that the aircraft was sighted on radar, and that its position should have been recognised as potentially dangerous.

The response of the United States Navy so far has been positive. It called for full files on the crew members named in the claims, including earning capacities, and family commitments. Wider questions that a court case could develop are noteworthy. They include the delicate question of future Antarctic claims (if not of territory, of exploitative rights), the traditional responsibilities of controllers, and the possibility of irregularities. The question of possible liability of United States servicemen is complex, and this case, if it eventuates, could become a test case. In Washington, the barrister briefed for the job is one of the “heavyweights” of aviation law, Mr Donald Madole. Mr Madole, a former Navy pilot, has served on both the American civil aviation regulatory authorities, the F.A.A. and the C.A.8., and the International Civil Aviation Organisation’s meetings at which international rules were drawn up on accident investigation.