*Two American billionaire tourists and pilot killed in crash * The two pilots not qualified to fly the plane *The two had allegedly failed the recommended regular safety trainings- CAAB *CAAB discovered that all MBA pilots had allegedly performed below CAAB safety standards
The Gipps-Aero GA-8 Airvan - registration A2-MBE- belonging to Major Blue Air (MBA) that crashed late last month at Eaton and Sons farm near Ghanzi killing the pilot and two American billionaire tourists, was an accident in waiting.
The damning information has been revealed by the Chief Executive Officer of Civil Aviation Authority (CAAB), Dr. Bao Mosinyi in his affidavit defending the Authority’s decision to suspend MBA‘s Air Operation Certificate (AOC) pending finalisation of CAAB’s investigation.
MBA has challenged the Authority’s decision to suspend its AOC in an application filed before the Lobatse High Court, which was scheduled before Justice Rainer Busang this week Thursday.
Mosinyi states that upon carrying its mandatory inspection of the accident, CAAB discovered that the two pilots had failed the recommended regular safety trainings. Furthermore, when the MBA’s training files for all the pilots were requisitioned, upon assessment of the files, “the Authority discovered that all the pilots had performed below CAAB’s safety performance standard”.
The common areas where all MBA pilots did not perform satisfactorily were on limited landing spacing, Simulated land, Take-off breaching, Approach to landing; Normal landing, Navigation in route procedures and Approach to landing procedures.
MBA Director, Arjinder Pal Singh filed an urgent application seeking the court to revise the Authority decision to suspend his Airline Operation Certificate
Mosinyi states that on Thursday 29 June 2023, the MBA’s aircraft, Gipps-Aero GA-8 Airvan, A2-MBE, was destroyed when it crashed into a building during take-off from an airstrip at Eaton and Sons farm, near Ghanzi, Botswana. One
pilot was seriously injured, but the other pilot and two American billionaire tourists who were passengers on the aircraft, died.
Following the tragic accident, on Monday 3 July 2023, the CAAB grounded all Gipps-Aero GA-8 aircraft because a similar flight had crashed earlier that month.
The decision to ground the aircraft was followed by a request for maintenance reports for the aircraft types in Botswana. This was done to establish if the aircraft had manufacturer defects and determine the aircraft’s airworthiness.
Having established that the aircraft grounded were not faulty, on the 4 July 2023 the CAAB lifted the aircraft suspension and narrowed down the investigations to the MBA operations to determine whether they were compliant with their regulatory obligations, and whether any non-compliance may have had a bearing on the accident.
The Authority sent some of its technical team to MBA office in Maun. CAAB officials met with MBA Operations Manager Gabedi Mosupukwa who was informed about the purpose of the meeting and that in the event the MBA was found to be non-compliant with its obligations their operations may be suspended.
During the inspection, CAAB requested for the training files of pilots involved in the accident. Upon discovery that the two pilots had failed the recommended regular safety trainings, the MBA’s training files for all the pilots were requisitioned. Upon assessment of the files, the Authority discovered that all the pilots had performed below CAAB’s safety performance standard.
Subsequent to examination of training results, CAAB’s representatives sought the MBA’s training manual. Upon its assessment it was found out that the manual had missing pages, particularly the 2020 amendments to the manual.
MBA’s Operations Manager was requested to provide the missing pages of the manual on site - where it was required to be. The Operations Manager stated that they do not have access to the amendments.
“This is a clear contravention of Regulation 16 which requires that MBA keep the complete manual records available to staff all the time for purposes of ensuring the pilot’s compliance to the expected aviation standards”.
At the time of inspection, CAAB further noted that contrary to Regulations 18 as read with Schedule 3 of the Civil Aviation (Air Operator Certification and Administration) the Quality Manager and Maintenance Manager who were required to be represented at MBA’s place of operation at all times were not available
Mosinyi states that on the last day of the inspection, on 8 July 2023, the Authority’s technical team went to the site of the accident. There they measured the runway and established that it was approximately 1.2km long. The pilots who attempted take-off tried to do so after covering 284 meters of the runway, instead of utilising the entire runway to prepare the flight for take-off.
The runway indicates tyre marks stretching 85 meters. It is evident that the other pilot (who was occupying the co-pilot’s seat) was not qualified to fly the GA-8 aircraft. However, it appeared that during the take-off run, he applied brakes while the pilot-in-command had applied maximum power for take-off.
This appears to have caused prolonged rotation of the aircraft and contributed to the accident. Additionally, flight programme plans and MBA’s records indicate that there were numerous instances where the MBA engaged two pilots to operate a single engine aircraft without approved Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”). The Applicant only has approved SOPS for flying with one pilot.
Mosinyi states that an eyewitness confirmed that the two pilots argued before the incident, prior to the untimely demise of the other pilot. The pilot in command indicated that the take-off would have been successful had the co-pilot pilot on the right hand seat not applied brakes and in response the co-pilot indicated that the plane was not going to make it because he took off early without utilising the entire or a significant portion of the runway space.
Following the inspection, the Authority suspended the MBA’s Air Operator Certificate on the 13th July 2023, pending completion of the full investigation on all the circumstances of the accident by the Authority and the Department of Transport and Works Directorate of Accident Investigations.
Mosinyi said that the Authority’s preliminary investigation was limited to the narrow issue of whether the MBA’s non-compliance with its regulatory obligations may have contributed to the accident.
Further that MBA responded on the same day, requesting that the suspension be lifted so that it is able to meet its obligations to its clients. On the 14 July 2023, the MBA’s, principal shareholder, accounting officer together with sales manager met with the Authority and complained that the suspension would prevent their business from making money during peak season and would open the MBA to litigation from the American families of the deceased, for the
wrongful death of their loved ones.
Mosinyi has attached the minutes of the meetings to court as evidence. On the same day, 14 July 2023, after the meeting and having considered his oral representations and written representations in terms of MBA’s letter dated 13 July 2023, the MBA’s proposal was rejected and the suspension remained in place.
In opposing the urgency of the application, Mosinyi argues that it is a preliminary requirement that a party seeking an urgent interdict must demonstrate he does not have substantive redress in due course. He argues that MBA has failed to demonstrate that it does not have substantive redress in due course.
“Its complaint is that it will suffer loss of business, and reputational damage”. He says MBA’s loss is purely financial and it is able to claim damages in due course, if at all there has been any wrong committed against it.
Furthermore, MBA has an alternative remedy available to it, which would be to comply with the safety conditions that have been communicated. “It is unclear why MBA prefers to rush to court rather than availing itself of the remedy of
complying with the safety conditions that have been communicated to it”.
Mosinyi argues that CAAB has power to investigate any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, either resulting in accident or not, the Authority exercised this right.
He said the power to investigate accidents does not vest exclusively in the Department of Transport and Works. CAAB has authority to investigate accidents, particularly where those involved are air operators licensed by it, and there is an issue in respect of whether the licensed operator’s non-compliance is putting passengers and the public at risk.
Furthermore, the Authority bears overall responsibility to ensure aviation safety and preserve human life, thus CAAB has duly exercised its rights in suspending the Applicant pending compliance with the safety rules as set out in the Act.
The suspension has been imposed to protect human life, it is not intended to punish the Applicant in fact the Applicant has been advised of the safety conditions it can meet and ensure that the suspension is lifted. The suspension was therefore an appropriate and reasonable exercise of statutory authority.
Mosinyi said that CAAB was concerned with the possibility of further loss of life or injuries, it had to act swiftly.
“It could not, in the face of clear non-compliance which was established following a process which involved the MBA, given the threat of loss of lives, go through another process of allowing further representations before acting”.
The damning information has been revealed by the Chief Executive Officer of Civil Aviation Authority (CAAB), Dr. Bao Mosinyi in his affidavit defending the Authority’s decision to suspend MBA‘s Air Operation Certificate (AOC) pending finalisation of CAAB’s investigation.
MBA has challenged the Authority’s decision to suspend its AOC in an application filed before the Lobatse High Court, which was scheduled before Justice Rainer Busang this week Thursday.
Mosinyi states that upon carrying its mandatory inspection of the accident, CAAB discovered that the two pilots had failed the recommended regular safety trainings. Furthermore, when the MBA’s training files for all the pilots were requisitioned, upon assessment of the files, “the Authority discovered that all the pilots had performed below CAAB’s safety performance standard”.
The common areas where all MBA pilots did not perform satisfactorily were on limited landing spacing, Simulated land, Take-off breaching, Approach to landing; Normal landing, Navigation in route procedures and Approach to landing procedures.
MBA Director, Arjinder Pal Singh filed an urgent application seeking the court to revise the Authority decision to suspend his Airline Operation Certificate
Mosinyi states that on Thursday 29 June 2023, the MBA’s aircraft, Gipps-Aero GA-8 Airvan, A2-MBE, was destroyed when it crashed into a building during take-off from an airstrip at Eaton and Sons farm, near Ghanzi, Botswana. One
pilot was seriously injured, but the other pilot and two American billionaire tourists who were passengers on the aircraft, died.
Following the tragic accident, on Monday 3 July 2023, the CAAB grounded all Gipps-Aero GA-8 aircraft because a similar flight had crashed earlier that month.
The decision to ground the aircraft was followed by a request for maintenance reports for the aircraft types in Botswana. This was done to establish if the aircraft had manufacturer defects and determine the aircraft’s airworthiness.
Having established that the aircraft grounded were not faulty, on the 4 July 2023 the CAAB lifted the aircraft suspension and narrowed down the investigations to the MBA operations to determine whether they were compliant with their regulatory obligations, and whether any non-compliance may have had a bearing on the accident.
The Authority sent some of its technical team to MBA office in Maun. CAAB officials met with MBA Operations Manager Gabedi Mosupukwa who was informed about the purpose of the meeting and that in the event the MBA was found to be non-compliant with its obligations their operations may be suspended.
During the inspection, CAAB requested for the training files of pilots involved in the accident. Upon discovery that the two pilots had failed the recommended regular safety trainings, the MBA’s training files for all the pilots were requisitioned. Upon assessment of the files, the Authority discovered that all the pilots had performed below CAAB’s safety performance standard.
Subsequent to examination of training results, CAAB’s representatives sought the MBA’s training manual. Upon its assessment it was found out that the manual had missing pages, particularly the 2020 amendments to the manual.
MBA’s Operations Manager was requested to provide the missing pages of the manual on site - where it was required to be. The Operations Manager stated that they do not have access to the amendments.
“This is a clear contravention of Regulation 16 which requires that MBA keep the complete manual records available to staff all the time for purposes of ensuring the pilot’s compliance to the expected aviation standards”.
At the time of inspection, CAAB further noted that contrary to Regulations 18 as read with Schedule 3 of the Civil Aviation (Air Operator Certification and Administration) the Quality Manager and Maintenance Manager who were required to be represented at MBA’s place of operation at all times were not available
Mosinyi states that on the last day of the inspection, on 8 July 2023, the Authority’s technical team went to the site of the accident. There they measured the runway and established that it was approximately 1.2km long. The pilots who attempted take-off tried to do so after covering 284 meters of the runway, instead of utilising the entire runway to prepare the flight for take-off.
The runway indicates tyre marks stretching 85 meters. It is evident that the other pilot (who was occupying the co-pilot’s seat) was not qualified to fly the GA-8 aircraft. However, it appeared that during the take-off run, he applied brakes while the pilot-in-command had applied maximum power for take-off.
This appears to have caused prolonged rotation of the aircraft and contributed to the accident. Additionally, flight programme plans and MBA’s records indicate that there were numerous instances where the MBA engaged two pilots to operate a single engine aircraft without approved Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”). The Applicant only has approved SOPS for flying with one pilot.
Mosinyi states that an eyewitness confirmed that the two pilots argued before the incident, prior to the untimely demise of the other pilot. The pilot in command indicated that the take-off would have been successful had the co-pilot pilot on the right hand seat not applied brakes and in response the co-pilot indicated that the plane was not going to make it because he took off early without utilising the entire or a significant portion of the runway space.
Following the inspection, the Authority suspended the MBA’s Air Operator Certificate on the 13th July 2023, pending completion of the full investigation on all the circumstances of the accident by the Authority and the Department of Transport and Works Directorate of Accident Investigations.
Mosinyi said that the Authority’s preliminary investigation was limited to the narrow issue of whether the MBA’s non-compliance with its regulatory obligations may have contributed to the accident.
Further that MBA responded on the same day, requesting that the suspension be lifted so that it is able to meet its obligations to its clients. On the 14 July 2023, the MBA’s, principal shareholder, accounting officer together with sales manager met with the Authority and complained that the suspension would prevent their business from making money during peak season and would open the MBA to litigation from the American families of the deceased, for the
wrongful death of their loved ones.
Mosinyi has attached the minutes of the meetings to court as evidence. On the same day, 14 July 2023, after the meeting and having considered his oral representations and written representations in terms of MBA’s letter dated 13 July 2023, the MBA’s proposal was rejected and the suspension remained in place.
In opposing the urgency of the application, Mosinyi argues that it is a preliminary requirement that a party seeking an urgent interdict must demonstrate he does not have substantive redress in due course. He argues that MBA has failed to demonstrate that it does not have substantive redress in due course.
“Its complaint is that it will suffer loss of business, and reputational damage”. He says MBA’s loss is purely financial and it is able to claim damages in due course, if at all there has been any wrong committed against it.
Furthermore, MBA has an alternative remedy available to it, which would be to comply with the safety conditions that have been communicated. “It is unclear why MBA prefers to rush to court rather than availing itself of the remedy of
complying with the safety conditions that have been communicated to it”.
Mosinyi argues that CAAB has power to investigate any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act, either resulting in accident or not, the Authority exercised this right.
He said the power to investigate accidents does not vest exclusively in the Department of Transport and Works. CAAB has authority to investigate accidents, particularly where those involved are air operators licensed by it, and there is an issue in respect of whether the licensed operator’s non-compliance is putting passengers and the public at risk.
Furthermore, the Authority bears overall responsibility to ensure aviation safety and preserve human life, thus CAAB has duly exercised its rights in suspending the Applicant pending compliance with the safety rules as set out in the Act.
The suspension has been imposed to protect human life, it is not intended to punish the Applicant in fact the Applicant has been advised of the safety conditions it can meet and ensure that the suspension is lifted. The suspension was therefore an appropriate and reasonable exercise of statutory authority.
Mosinyi said that CAAB was concerned with the possibility of further loss of life or injuries, it had to act swiftly.
“It could not, in the face of clear non-compliance which was established following a process which involved the MBA, given the threat of loss of lives, go through another process of allowing further representations before acting”.
