Steeped in Blood (26 page)

During my investigation, I came across an attorney of the Supreme Court by the name of Andrew Kenneth Miller. He was consulted by two clients, Sally Baker and Gina Hart, who wanted to provide certain information regarding the
Helderberg
accident. Miller gave a sworn statement on 20 April 1995, in which he repeated what they had told him. At the time, his clients did not want their names mentioned. In the first statement, which is quite damning, his client states that she was at an aviation conference, where
she met Renée van Zyl, who was then the head of the Directorate of Civil Aviation.

[Van Zyl] stated that, to his knowledge, approximately 2–3 hours after take-off from Taipei a fire occurred in the front right hand pallet of the
Helderberg
. The crew, using fire extinguishers and other available equipment, managed to put out the fire. This fire had apparently melted cabling encased in metal situated along the inside of the body of the aircraft. One of the things that was mentioned was that there was a collapse in communication between the cockpit, cabin crew and fire fighting crew, presumably due to the destruction of the cables. I vaguely recall it being said that the decision was made to bring the plane close to home as opposed to landing it elsewhere … It was said that a second fire broke out during the aircraft’s descent into Mauritius and this time the equipment on board had all been utilised and was therefore rendered useless … I also remember hearing that the captain of the plane was not happy about carrying certain items listed (under other names) on the cargo manifest and, at some stage before the plane went down, he stated that he ‘had told them this would happen’. I cannot remember clearly from whom I heard this but am totally sure that I heard it on or around the time of the conference. It was also stated to myself and a colleague that the fire was caused by rocket fuel at the front of the holding compartment of the plane.

In the second statement, Miller’s client says that she met Captain Eddie Bourhill, chairman of the ‘Committee for the Safe Carriage of Dangerous Goods’ – the South African Air Safety Council (SAASCO) – in April 1990, during discussions regarding an aviation conference.

Captain Bourhill expressed concern and indignation at reports that the cause of the
Helderberg
fire and subsequent explosion was due to fireworks being carried in the hold … [H]e said that the captain of the
Helderberg
, having noticed certain strange items on the manifest in Taipei, investigated the nature of these items and discovered that they contained rocket fuel but had been listed under code names. Knowing the aircraft was a combi, he registered a complaint and refused to take off with this cargo. Apparently SAA moved very quickly and obtained instructions from as high as President PW Botha and General Magnus Malan. These instructions threatened the captain with instant dismissal without pension if he did not fly the plane. Since this was to have been his last or second to last flight before retirement, he obviously felt he had no choice but to comply. I was also told that the reason for the tapes from the aircraft to Plaisance Airport as the plane was coming down were not available for inspection was because the captain could quite clearly be heard to say ‘I told them this would happen’.

These statements point in one direction – the total opposite to the official version of events: that there were two fires on board SAA Flight 295.

The Flying Coffin

I saw a city filled with lust and shame, Where men, like wolves, slunk through the grim half-light; And sudden, in the midst of it, there came One who spoke boldly for the cause of Right.

–
JOHN MCCRAE, CANADIAN POET

What substance could the
Helderberg
have been carrying that would have resulted in such a tragedy? Rocket fuel was mentioned a number of times. My theory is that the substance that had caused
the
Helderberg
crash was ammonium perchlorate – or possibly one of the other perchlorates – the main component of rocket fuel. A number of clues lead to this conclusion.

At the time, South Africa was fighting a bloody war in Angola. Our air force used ageing Mirages, which were struggling against the Russian MiG 23s being flown by the Angolans. We needed faster rockets to be effective. One of the problems was with the fuel we used: it didn’t make our rockets fly fast enough. So we needed a new fuel.

Because South Africa was in the throes of sanctions and arms embargoes, Armscor had perfected the art of replicating weapons and ammunition. One has only to look at the R1 rifle to see that it is a replica of the Belgian FN, just as the Z88 pistol is a replica of the Beretta – so much so that the weapons’ parts can be interchanged with ease. It was all-out war in South Africa, so no rules applied.

Ammonium perchlorate is an extremely dangerous chemical. It contains chlorine combined with oxygen and, because it has its own oxygen, it does not need an external source of oxygen to ignite and burn, as most other chemicals do. It can therefore ignite on its own, and it is able to burn under water. Ammonium perchlorate can be used to make rocket fuel or explosives, acting as a base material for these compounds. It also contains many other components that enhance its performance. Replicating this cocktail would take time; Armscor needed a sample to analyse and test before attempting to manufacture it themselves.

The state of the wreckage provided vital clues as to the cause of the fire on the
Helderberg
. It is important to understand that the aeroplane was a Combi: the front half of the middle deck was where the passengers were seated; the back half was where the cargo was stored. The pilots and Business Class passengers were seated above the Economy Class passengers. The fire took place in the front, right-hand pallet of the aircraft, and was so hot that it burnt the outside of the aircraft. A piece of wreckage retrieved
from the area of that pallet showed this clearly. At that high altitude, the
Helderberg
would have been flying at temperatures of around 240 ºC. It is possible to calculate the rate of heat transfer from the inside of the aircraft to the outside by looking at the damage to the aeroplane’s skin and taking into account the airflow, the outside temperature and the speed of the aircraft.

This could not have been a diffusion-flame fire. In an ordinary diffusion-flame fire, such as that of a candle, there is a blue region inside the flame and an orangey incandescent glow in its outer area. The chemical reaction takes place where these two regions meet. Oxygen needed to sustain the flame comes from outside and meets the fuel being vaporised at that boundary. The flame temperature is limited by the rate at which oxygen can diffuse from the outside to the reaction zone. The temperature of the average diffusion fire is limited to burning at just under 1 000 ºC, and will very seldom go beyond that. For instance, you rarely find copper melted in a fire, as it needs heat of over 1 000 ºC to melt. If copper
has
melted in a fire, it is a clear indication that something more is at play.

In the case of the
Helderberg
, the damage to the skin of the aircraft showed that the temperature of the fire had been well in excess of a diffusion-flame fire. There had to have been something like ammonium perchlorate burning inside, as there was obviously an additional source of oxygen, and, as mentioned, ammonium perchlorate has its own built-in oxygen.

An interesting question is why the substance would have ignited. A chemical compound like ammonium perchlorate will ignite spontaneously if it is agitated enough. The
Helderberg
was late in departing from Taipei, and I believe it encountered a subtropical storm. The turbulence would have been enough to cause the spontaneous combustion of a substance like ammonium perchlorate.

If Uys knew about the cargo he was carrying (and this may not have been the first time he had carried such cargo), one would think his wife would have had some comments to make on this.
A puzzling event took place in this regard. Out of the blue, a reporter from Durban, Paul Kirk, contacted me, saying that he had an affidavit from Johanna Uys, the wife of the pilot, which had been sent to him. Kirk was calling from a public telephone and seemed nervous, saying that he had been sent an affidavit by the security police. He read the affidavit to me over the phone, and then later sent it to me. I immediately doubted the validity of this document – it was suspicious, as it was written in English, and it was also intensely contentious.

Johanna Uys stated that Dawie had called her previously just before leaving Taipei and had told her that he was being forced to carry an extremely dangerous substance containing ammonia. He had been told that if he did not fly the aircraft, he would lose his pension money. Once Johanna was aware of the crash, she threatened to talk about the phone call and was told she would lose her pension if she mentioned it. She decided to keep quiet. She was also apparently told by the security police that she would be ‘taken care of for life’ if she kept quiet.

I saw this ‘statement’ as being part of a strategy or game to put me, and others, off the scent. Some people will go to any lengths to discredit you in an investigation. You will be given some accurate information, and some that is pure rubbish. If you swallow it all hook, line and sinker, they can later nail you on the inaccuracies of your findings. I recognised this affidavit as such. Johanna Uys would never have written an affidavit in English and, on top of this, the contents were doubtful.

Johanna Uys
did
actually make a statement to a more trustworthy source, in Afrikaans, her home language. She spoke to Torrie Pretorius, chief prosecutor for the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). She had felt that there were issues being debated on which she had to comment. Pretorius made notes of the discussion, which he shared with me, and which appear in translation below:

I am the widow of Captain Dawie Uys who was the pilot of the fated
Helderberg
aircraft that crashed into the Indian Ocean on 28 November 1987.

This is the first statement that I am making with regards to the death of my husband, the passengers and crew of the
Helderberg
. I have not made a statement to any officially regarding the
Helderberg
prior to this.

I have also not made any statements to the media. My attorney, Mr Willem Bester, has taken care of all my affairs.

I was questioned on 8 August 1997 by Dr Pretorius and Superintendent Venter regarding my husband’s habits and his career.

I was an air hostess in the employ of SAA from …. to …. [
sic.
] I flew on numerous domestic and international flights with my deceased husband.

He took his work seriously. He was a careful and experienced pilot. I recall him being unhappy a few years prior to the accident about the cargo he was carrying together with passengers on a flight from London. I am not sure about his exact words, but I recall him saying that he was not happy transporting ammunition on the same flight as passengers. He also said that he was so unhappy about this that he posted a copy of the cargo manifest to his own address in South Africa.

He apparently received an instruction from the station commander to fly the aircraft, despite his misgivings. He received the copy of the manifest later at his home address. He sat for a long time one evening in his study with the manifest.

It should be possible to trace this incident, as a written copy of the report of such an incident should be filed at the Ops Room. Captain Dok Malan headed up the Ops Room at that stage. Another person who can be contacted regarding
this is Mr Jan Lategan who currently lives in Smithfield. This was not the only time that he was unhappy about the cargo. The Ops Room is a small building just beneath the Holiday Inn hotel. It is a kind of control room where airplane information is dispatched from. It is not part of the main building.

Jan Lategan went to see someone who has allegedly been set up on a farm in the Cape. This person apparently had something to do with the disappearance of tapes.

After the Margo Enquiry [
sic
], a certain Piet Taljaard, presumably the chairman of the pilots association, tried to make contact with me. I avoided him because I was not happy with SAA.

I have also tried to trace my deceased husband’s logbook which contains detail on all his flights, but I have not had any success.

There was also a senior pilot, a Jimmy Hippert, who was involved in the investigation on behalf of the airline. Just before he was due to testify, he was transferred or sent away to Air Singapore.

I am aware of the contents of this statement and understand the contents.

I have no objection to taking the prescribed oath.

I regard the oath as binding on my conscience.

This made more sense. Clearly Dawie Uys had flown these dangerous missions before, and had voiced his misgivings.

After having her statement typed up, Torrie Pretorius returned it to Johanna Uys, but she refused to sign it, saying that it was not an accurate reflection of what she had said. This is very strange behaviour, to put it mildly. Torrie Pretorius swore blind that he had simply recorded what she had told him. She then demanded financial guarantees before she would sign the statement. I have
evidence of this: on 27 March 1991, I tape-recorded and made notes from the investigator Mark Whale. The advocate in charge of the special investigation, John Welsh, was in contact with Whale and Johanna Uys’s lawyers when she stated that she wanted financial guarantees.

What did Johanna Uys mean by ‘financial guarantees’? The only financial link that she had to SAA was her husband’s pension fund, to which she would have been entitled, as he had died. However, if she was to be paid some kind of money in exchange for her silence, this would have been illegal –
contra bonos mores
– a contract based on immoral considerations.

It defies logic that Johanna Uys would deny making the statement to Torrie Pretorius. He was a senior legal professional and had no interest in fabricating a false affidavit. He had his notes from the interview and a witness to confirm what Uys had said.