Serengeti Balloon Safaris Failed Civil case

With two Independent Expert Witness Reports

there's a lot to get through.

Investigating the validity of SBS's Certificate of Air Worthiness?

On July 7 2011, I received a similar e-mail from Simon Burn Solicitors/David MaGill. Since that time, numerous letters have passed back and forth, each along similar threatening lines.

2011 Cheltenham lawyer "For the benefit of clarity our clients have only had three accidents not six as you state and is untrue.

Rather bizarrely; lawyer states that their clients have  an enviable safety record and have not lied about it.

During Cross-examination Bristol Crown Court 2017 & 2018 Pascoe and MacKinnon confessed that SBS had  suffered six accidents. These consisted of three nonfatal accidents yet causing substantial injury each necessitating helicopter evacuation as well as three fatal accidents taking the lives of five in total.

If only relating to their latest accident of September 2010, eight survivors were seriously injured, Injuries consisted of broken backs.  it has been reported to me that two passengers shall remain in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, I don't see anything to be proud of.

In September its a fatal balloon crash  now the want $500 000 comp from me.

There is a demand for compensation that I must pay to SBS, compensation amount to be agreed.This is for apparently  for damaging their company. This demand  is in addition to the $500,000 demanded by Tony Pascoe via the Nepalese authorities.

   Interestingly, come September 20th, 2012 Avon and Somerset police officers Louise Catlin accompanied by Daniel Wilson arrived at York Police staion(Seven hours of police questioning) under the impression that I had demanded $500,000 from SBS. Now  how did that happen ?

SBS wants a letter of apology

The most absurd  demand is that I write a letter of apology to both directors. With boundless hypocrisy David McGill  also demands that I write an open court statement; stating that all that  I have said is untrue. Surely Mr McGill that would be perjury?

Let's not ignore David McGill any longer

David Magill addressing me:  "you state that my client’s balloons fly with unsafe levels of fuel, which is untrue". end

Perhaps I should send this misinformed individual  two Independent Expert Witness Reports; each  report clarifies that his clients balloons were approximately 43% below the minimum requirements, crucially they didn't have the mandatory reserve fuel which in my opinion was a contributing factor to September 2010 Fatal crash.

Where was this  grossly   misinformed individual getting his information from ???? I wonder if  somebody was......... How's Should I say ...... Purposely and deceptively economical with the truth ?

(J)  You claim that our client's deflation system on its balloons is not sufficient is false. All SBS balloons are fitted with factory-fitted  standard deflation devices, including the one deflation system you believe is appropriate. ***The balloons all have airworthiness certificates.

*** Two independent expert witness reports (British & Australian) Substantiate that given that SBS Procured illegally modified burners from a UK manufacturer would invalidate  5 of 6 Airworthy Certificates. It would be illegal to operate such passenger  balloons configured in such a way. It is my understanding that the very balloon involved in the fatal accident of September 2010 would've been illegal.

Sorry Mr McGill I must interrupt once more:-

Re Airworthiness certificate,  Mr Magill so did both Malaysia Airlines, and  French Concorde)

One of six balloons had the appropriate deflation system, Pascoe  had a habit of always referring to factory fitted deflation system. Perhaps this was  in the attempt to camouflage the  existence of the lesser deflation system, not  to fit RDS saves the  company approximately £1700 for each balloon, Which begs the question; How much is a passengers life worth.

Attempting to feed the horses at the wrong end \\

I am very surprised, although by now, you may have also  noticed that David McGilll is attempting to feed the horses at the wrong end. Remember that the Titanic was certified as seaworthy, even to the point of claiming it to be unsinkable.  Moving closer to the here and now, Malaysia Airlines MH 370 & MH 317  also possessed an airworthy certificate. If the truth be known, most aircraft that have crashed, including the one owned by   Serengeti Balloon Safaris, also had a current airworthiness certificate, OR DID THEY ?, I suspect; this may require further investigation,

We now need to turn our attention to, two Independent Expert Witness Reports A & B

UK Independent Expert Witness Report (A)   State the following:-

9.4  C of A Failure

It is my understanding that a burner with either a faulty or missing pressure gauge would amount to a C of A (discussed in Chapter 6) failure and require maintenance before being able to be used.

11.1.3 Rapid Deflation System (RDS)

The purpose of the RDS is as the name suggests, to be able to deflate the envelope rapidly on landing. There are a number of reasons for wishing to deflate the balloon quickly. This may be to land in landing places that otherwise would be too small for the wind conditions when using other types of deflation system. Or it may be to reduce the time that the balloon is dragged along the ground in windy conditions. Deflating quickly in the latter example may be particularly desirable to reduce the exposure of the occupants to being shaken about by bumpy ground conditions.

Australian Independent Expert Witness Report

Chapter 2.

This Chapter describes the requirement for pressure gauges to be fitted to hot air balloon burners.

The analysis for the requirement to install fuel pressure gauges on balloon burners is covered perfectly in the Evans Report (pages 23 to 28).

Opinion:

I have never encountered a set of burners without pressure gauges. They are mandatory equipment in every Type-Certified Balloon. A balloon burner without pressure gauges, or with malfunctioning pressure gauges, is legally un-airworthy in every jurisdiction.

I believe that a pilot would be criminally liable, as would the Balloon Operator if an accident ensued from knowingly operating a hot air balloon without functioning burner pressure gauges.

It is also highly unlikely that a manufacturer would supply a burner without pressure gauges. In that event the manufacturer could become liable if an accident was partly attributable to the absence of pressure gauges.

RDS (Rapid deflation system)

On August 12, 2016 I called Mr. Phil Kavanagh the CEO of Kavanagh Balloons and asked him just how many of the hundred or so balloons that he had manufactured over the past ten years had he sold without rapid deflation systems.

He answered “none”.

Then he said, “That’s not quite true. We have just sold an 84,000 cubic foot balloon to Japan with the standard Parachute Vent, which is being mostly used for tethering.”

I asked Mr. Kavanagh if he had considered asking the Japanese purchaser of the 84,000 cubic foot balloon to sign a disclaimer with regard to his requesting that an RDS not be fitted to that balloon.

Mr. Kavanagh said, “I will contact my Lawyer and get advice.”

I then asked Mr. Kavanagh if an RDS was a Type Certified CASA requirement in Kavanagh built balloons.

He answered, “No, it’s an oversight, but it would be a brave Commercial Operator who ordered a balloon without an RDS.”

Opinion:

Commercial hot air balloon operators now have wide a choice of Rapid Deflation Systems. It is a matter of which System to chose for the Operational conditions rather than choosing no System.

Although not mandated in all jurisdictions (perhaps a CASA/CAA oversight, as Kavanagh suggests) I do not believe that any Commercial Operator anywhere in the World would chose not to install an RDS of some description in its Commercial Passenger Balloons, particularly in balloons of capacity exceeding 120,000 cubic feet.

 "Sorry, Mr Magill,  you were  saying

"Furthermore, the current consensus amongst our client’s pilots is that they prefer standard parachutes on the Balloons rather than “FDS, as you recommend. They believe there is no need for FDS in the Serengeti, and they have asked our clients to consider asking the Manufacturer for two new balloons to retrofit parachutes in place of the factory-fitted FTS. End of quote

So this ensured that  those pilots kept their jobs, then?

Given that both  reports indicates a scenario of Void  C of A/certificate of airworthiness, I am of the opinion that  it’s likely that this would raise some  awkward questions surrounding the validity of SBS's insurance, which has already  paid out compensation.  In such an event, I wonder if the insurance company could or would   sue the operator and claim back compensation already paid out?  What a minefield.  

Although I knew the answer to alleviate all doubt that some might have I made an enquiry to the UK civil aviation authority Excerpt below

UK CAA Says:-

A C of A is only valid if the aircraft continues to comply with the applicable type design and continued airworthiness requirements [Part 21.A.181].

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information.

UK CAA. END

From: David Magill <david.magill@simonburn.com>

Date: 1 July 2011 17:08:58 GMT+01:00

To: nigel.pogmore

Subject: Our Client: Serengeti Balloon Safaris

PDF was enclosed

Regards

Simon Burn Solicitors

123 Promenade

Cheltenham-based

GL50 1NW

DX: 7404 CHELTENHAM

www.simonburn.com

Tel: +44(0)1242 228 444

Fax: +44(0)1242 516 888

SRA No. 517893

Solicitors’ dirty tactics

So what we have here is the classic tried &  tested solicitors’ dirty tactics. The tactic of sending threatening letters at the close of business on a Friday has been around for years; however, not content with this schoolboy tactic, Mr McGill’  has got another trick up his sleeve.

From: David Magill <david.magill@simonburn.com>

Date: 1 July 2011 17:10:05 GMT+01:00

To: nigel.pogmore

Subject: Recall: Our Client: Serengeti Balloon Safaris

David Magill would like to recall the message, "Our Client: Serengeti Balloon Safaris”.

: Having thought about this long & hard for the last 67 seconds, David Magill wants to Recall.

No end to hypocrisy as  SBS Solicitors Demands that I commit perjury

Well, okay, what do we have? Let's not forget that before Simon Burn Solicitors/David Magill got involved, SBS had already placed some rather malicious charges against me in Nepal. The vast difference in charges is as different as the location. In Nepal, there are charges of blackmail, apparently to the tune of £75,000, the very same figure  I placed on my evidential footage; this was to protect from further malicious activity surrounding copyright. Given that these blackmail charges are now conspicuous by their absence, it seems to indicate that SBS has had a sudden change of heart, yet in full knowledge no blackmail ever took place.

Whilst I see evidence that SBS is still demanding/threatening to procure compensation from me, once more, unlike Nepal, there is no mention of  their previous demand of $500,000, that's right, $500,000. Here in the UK, this is now  referred to "as an amount to be agreed upon"!! All this sounds like another attempt to intimidate me, into silence.

This brings into question whether the directors of SBS, the very same individuals/SBS who have had more than their fair share of fatal accidents (three to date), have any right to remain hidden from public scrutiny surrounding such serious matters as passenger safety, I think not.