LAWYERS on both sides of the Helios debate yesterday agreed it would be difficult for the police to establish criminal responsibility for the crash.
Savvas Mamantopoulos, lawyer for some of the relatives of the 121 victims, said he was not hopeful and that he expected the outcome would leave the relatives “upset and bitter”.
Mamantopoulos was responding to statements made earlier by George Papaioannou, a lawyer for civil aviation workers, who told Radio Proto relatives were being appeased by the authorities because of their need to feel someone would be punished for their grief.
Papaioannou, a specialist in criminal law, told the Cyprus Mail yesterday that now that Air Accident Investigator Akrivos Tsolakis’ report had said human error by the captain and copilot were directly responsible for the crash, it would be difficult to prove criminal responsibility.
Deficiencies at Helios and the Civil Aviations Authority, while “latent causes” of the crash, did not contribute directly to the accident, Tsolakis` report concluded.
“In accordance with the report of Mr Tsolakis, it seems that the air crash is due to human error and that’s why all the other matters about the loopholes in the civil aviation department or about Helios and so on are irrelevant to the cause of the air crash,” Papaioannou said.
“The relatives are not being told the truth. It seems the impression being given to the relatives is that the crash is due to loopholes in the civil aviation or due to the problems with the particular aircraft. This, I believe, is not true, because I saw the report and it seems it’s a human error. If this is true, I cannot anticipate any serious criminal liability.”
Papaioannou said he believed the only recourse for the relatives was through the civil courts. “In view of the findings of this report, I don’t anticipate it will be easy for the Attorney-general to file serious criminal indictments against anyone.
“Criminal proceedings against whom? No one survived this air crash,” he said.
“According to the report, responsibility lies with the captain and copilot and not anyone on the ground,” Papaioannou said.
“Politicians, and I’m sorry to say this, always want to say what people like to hear. Unfortunately, they are not ready to tell the truth and that’s my personal opinion.”
Relatives’ lawyer Mamantopoulos said his clients wanted criminal cases to be filed.
But, he added, “in my opinion, it’s going to be very difficult to establish a criminal case against any persons, due to the fact the line between negligence and criminal responsibility is very close.
“All the politicians are going to keep saying they will try to bring all the responsible persons to justice, but it’s going to be very hard to prove.”
Mamantopoulos said there was a big difference between criminal negligence, and “human error” negligence or severe negligence.
“Criminal justice is an entirely different thing and I think the relatives are going to be very bitter and upset.
“Of course, if the police find out it was a criminal negligence… but I’m not very hopeful.”
Mamantopoulos is one of the lawyers involved in the case that some relatives are bringing against Boeing over the issue of the plane’s alarm, which it appears confused the Helios crew.
The same aural warning is used on Boeing 737s to signify two different situations; takeoff configuration and cabin altitude.
Mamantopoulos said that instead of playing the blame game in Cyprus and looking for scapegoats not directly responsible for the crash, “we have to concentrate on the responsibility of the manufacturing company Boeing because it was a product liability,” he said. “This is the basis of our case.”
In his report, Tsolakis cited the captain and copilot’s failure to identify the warnings as a direct factor in the crash.
He also listed as a latent cause, the “ineffectiveness and inadequacy of measures taken by the manufacturer in response to previous pressurisation incidents in the particular type of aircraft, both with regard to modifications to aircraft systems as well as to guidance to the crews.”
The use of the same aural warning to signify two different situations was not consistent with good Human Factors principles, the report said.
It also said that over the past several years, numerous incidents had been reported involving confusion between the Takeoff Configuration Warning and Cabin Altitude Warning on the Boeing 737, and NASA’s ASRS office had alerted the manufacturer and the aviation industry.
Tsolakis said a number of remedial actions had been taken by the manufacturer since 2000, but the measures taken had been inadequate and ineffective in preventing further incidents and accidents.
On June 22, 2006, the US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) issued an airworthiness directive applicable to all Boeing 737s, which became effective on July 7 the same year, nearly a year after the Helios crash.
This required revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) within 60 days to advise the flight crew of improved procedures for pre-flight setup of the cabin pressurisation system, as well as improved procedures for interpreting and responding to the cabin altitude/configuration warning horn.
