Liabilities 'Bound to Arise' in Lohatla Accident [Sapa, 2008-02-27]

Publication: Sapa Issued: Parliament Date: 2008-02-27 Reporter: Sapa

Liabilities 'Bound to Arise' in Lohatla Accident

Publication	Sapa DEFENCE-LOHATLA
Issued	Parliament
Reporter	Sapa
Date	2008-02-27

There were bound to be legal liabilities arising from the Lohatla military accident in which nine soldiers were killed, Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota said in Parliament on Wednesday.

"That is an area that the lawyers... are looking at, even the insurance companies are looking at. There are bound to arise liabilities here... our legal people are on top of the situation," he said in reply to questions from MPs.

The accident was caused by a "spring pin", which kept the gun focused, in the Swiss-made 35mm Oerlikon MK-5 breaking, causing it to swing to one side while firing. Despite this having happened in other countries the manufacturer failed to warn South Africa of the possibility.

"Nothing was mentioned in the manual of the need to check the spring pin."

The gun malfunctioned at the Lohatla training centre in the Northern Cape on October 12 last year. Fifteen soldiers were injured.

Lekota said the full report did not suggest there was any human error in overlooking the mechanism that kept the gun focused.

He said the manufacturers had been part of the "failure review board" that investigated the accident.

With acknowledgement to Sapa.

An "interface (pin) between the hand/motor actuator selector lever" and a ""spring pin, which kept the gun focused" do not sound to me to be the same thing.

The former clearly controls the selection of the manual and automatic modes of the gun while the latter "keeps the gun focused".

As I pointed out previously, changing from manual mode to automatic mode should not in itself cause the gun to fire and even if it did, this should still be firing into the air and to the front and not to the side and towards to ground.

So now the MoD has picked up this implausibility and changed the description of the failure to one where the gun "loses focus" (i.e. looses aim to the front and up). This is quite a different explanation.

In any case if the gun "lost focus", then the end stops should prevent it from slewing around to the side and firing to the side.

It would seem clear that the end stops were not in place.

This would be consistent with my theory that the accident was mainly caused by human error and negligence.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

Media Statement by the Minister of Defence, Mr Mosiuoa Lekota on the findings and recommendations of a Board of Inquiry on the Lohatla accident.

Date of Release : 25 January 2007

1.      Introduction

Firstly, I would like to reiterate the Government's sincere condolences to all the families of our deceased members who passed away following the accident of 12 October 2007 during an Air Defence Artillery Live Firing Exercise at the Lohatla Training Centre.

Secondly, I would like to register the Department of Defence's appreciation to the people of our country who provided whatever support they could to the South African National Defence Force, the families of the deceased and of those who were injured.

1.1    As we all know, on 12 October 2007, a tragic accident occurred during an Air Defence Artillery Live Firing Exercise at the Lohatla Combat Training Centre. On this day, gun number 124, a 35mm MK 5 Anti-Aircraft, uncontrollably rotated to the left and fired without operator control. This resulted in the loss of lives of nine members of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) with 13 seriously injured and two slightly.

2.                Actions taken in the aftermath of the accident

Subsequent to the incident, apart from the emergency response, the following actions were taken.

2.1           A South African Police Service (SAPS) investigation was conducted.

2.2    Armscor personnel and other independent engineers and scientists were called in to conduct the technical investigation.
2.3    A Board of Inquiry led by Major General Johan Jooste (Retired), was convened by the Chief of the South African Army on 14October 2007.

4.      Findings

4.1           The Board found that, a mechanical failure occurred on gun (124) when the interface between the hand/motor actuator selector lever and the traverse gearbox broke during engagement. This was caused by a pin that sheared and disengaged the control mechanism rendering the gun uncontrollable when it was fired.

4.2    The technical Committee made a finding that, a pin failure has occurred on a MK 5 gun in another country and that the Original Equipment Manufacture (OEM) did not communicate this failure to the Republic of South Africa (RSA) prior to the Lohatla accident on 12 October 2007. The OEM has also not communicated any preventative or corrective maintenance tasks to prevent the pin failure from occurring or to correct the failure once it has occurred. The OEM has further not communicated hardware changes to safety drill or user drills to the RSA.

4.3     The Board also found that out of the 48 guns in the SA Army fleet, ten (10) were found to have sheared pins.

5.      Recommendations

Since the failure of the pin was found on ten (10) of 48-gun fleet with occurrence over an undetermined period of time the guns were decommissioned pending the outcome of the Board of Inquiry. Now that the Board of Inquiry is finalised, the Board has recommended that the fleet must undergo an appropriate technical inspection to confirm the full scope of the defects. Once this is finalised, the fleet may be released for prescribed maintenance and only thereafter be used for purpose of training without live ammunition.

As a way forward the Board has recommended the following:

5.1    The redesign of the weapon system to ensure greater robustness and safer handling based on Engineering Change Proposals from thorough technical assessment.

5.2    An Operation Test and Evaluation to re-qualify the guns for acceptance by the SA Army.

5.3    An updated product management intervention, through a thorough maintenance programme be conducted.

Conclusion

Whilst the leadership of the South African National Defence Force adhere to the Law and all relevant regulations to ensure that our members operate in a safe environment, we do however accept that, soldiering is a dangerous vocation. It is amongst others, within this context the country regard members of the SANDF as special citizens of our country.

I thank you all.

With acknowledgements to Sapa.