THE HELIOS trial took a dramatic turn yesterday when the prosecution asked for the detention of one of the defendants for allegedly trying to influence witnesses in Britain.
Prosecutor Elena Zahariadou asked the court to detain Giorgos Kikidis, the operations manager at the time of the 2005 air crash, claiming he tried to influence a witness – a former Helios pilot.
A Scotland Yard officer told the court that when he contacted the pilot he had told him that he spoke on the phone with one of the defendants who was a close friend, and he did not wish to testify against him.
Police investigator Themis Arnaoutis also told the court that he had received a phone call from a second witness, another former Helios pilot from the UK who also refused to testify because, as he said, the prosecution was trying to convict the wrong people.
When Arnaoutis asked for clarification, the pilot said it would be a pity to convict him, without specifying whom he was talking about.
The court rejected the prosecution’s request, citing lack of evidence.
The court said it did not see any connection with the defendant, while the prosecution did not specify who contacted whom.
Earlier yesterday, an expert witness from the UK said the co-pilot of the Helios Boeing 737 that crashed in Greece on August 14, 2005 killing all 121 on board “was an accident waiting to happen.”
Captain David McCorquodale, Head of Flight Crew Standards of the UK Civil Aviation Authority said Pambos Charalambous’ standard was “poor.”
McCorquodale said after examining Charalambous’ file he saw that the Helios pilot found it difficult to pass his theoretical exams.
The number of attempts he made to pass the exams was high and above average according to statistics, McCorquodale told the court.
“That is why I concluded that his training was below average,” the British expert said.
He added that during his career he never met a professional pilot who had such a low success rate.
McCorquodale subsequently submitted to the court, statistics supporting his view that “this pilot was below average.”
The court heard that in 1997 Charalambous passed his theoretical exams on his seventh attempt.
The statistics submitted to court showed that 92.5 per cent – around 9,300 — of 10,000 pilots who took the exam – by September, 2010 — succeeded by their third attempt while 267 passed by their sixth.
“My opinion is that the pilot was of a poor standard and there were signs in the company’s (Helios) documents, which indicate doubts regarding his psychological ability to operate the aircraft under pressure,” McCorquodale said. “The combination of his theoretical knowledge, his technical and practical operation, and his psychological ability to operate under stress and pressure” shows “that this pilot was an accident waiting to happen.”
Defence lawyer Polis Poliviou disputed the statistics, noting that they extended to September of this year and not until 1997, when Charalambous passed the exams.
Asked if he agreed that Charalambous met the criteria to fly in 2005, McCorquodale said he did.
The other defendants in the trial are Andreas Drakos, chairman of the board of Helios, Demetris Pantazis, chief executive officer, Ianko Stoimenov, (former) chief pilot and Helios Airways as a legal entity.
They face charges of manslaughter and of causing the death of 119 people through a reckless act.
Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. All defendants have pleaded not guilty.
They are on trial for “employing, and continuing to employ, unfit and inadequate pilots”.
