Save articles for later
Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.
The Melbourne courtroom is more than 15,000km away from the crash site, but that hasn’t stopped the families of those who died in a Swedish skydiving tragedy from taking legal action against the plane’s Australian manufacturer.
Three years ago, a plane carrying eight skydivers crashed about half an hour after taking off from Umea airport in eastern Sweden, killing all on board including the pilot. It was Sweden’s worst air accident in 30 years.
A GippsAero Airvan plane crashed in Sweden in 2019, killing all nine on board.Credit: EPA/ERIK ABEL
The plane was a single-engine GA8 Airvan, built by GippsAero in 2012 at the Latrobe Regional Airport in Gippsland near Morwell. The model is popular with skydiving charter companies across the world.
On July 14, 2019, eight skydivers were preparing to jump from an Airvan at 13,600 feet when the plane entered an aerodynamic stall followed by a roll and sudden change in direction to its left.
According to an investigation conducted by Swedish authorities, the plane then descended at a dive angle of 45 degrees and began to break up in the sky, as the wing and tail separated from the rest of the plane.
“Mystery behind air crash” is the headline on Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet the day after the crash.Credit:
From an altitude of 2000 metres, the report found that the plane fell almost vertically. The doomed craft had a descent velocity of around 60 metres per second before crashing in a forested area on an island in the Umea River.
“The fact that no one was able to get out and save themselves using their parachute was probably due to the g-forces and the rotations that occurred,” the report said.
“All those on board remained in the aeroplane and died immediately upon impact.”
The report said that the pilot had limited experience of both normal flight and parachute operations. There were no technical faults discovered in the plane that could have contributed to the crash.
The families of six of the victims are taking action in the Victorian Supreme Court alleging negligence against GippsAero Pty Ltd, the manufacturers of the plane, and GA8 Airvan Pty Ltd, the company that certified its airworthiness.
There are 20 plaintiffs based in Sweden and the United States claiming damages, including loss of income. The six victims represented in the action were aged between 26 and 45 years old when they were killed.
The families allege that the defendants did not include critical information in an operating manual supplied with the aircraft at the time of purchase and failed to ensure it was suitable for parachuting operations.
One of their arguments is that the manual lacked instructions on how to maintain the plane’s centre of gravity while people were moving in the plane.
At the time of the crash, the Airvan was owned by a Swedish company called Skydive Umea AB, which has since gone into liquidation, and was being used by the Umea Parachute Club, a non-profit association.
A Gippsaero GA8 Airvan taking off with the (since-demolished) Hazelwood power plant in the background.Credit: Joe Armao
The companies being sued had sought to have the legal action dismissed, arguing that Victoria Supreme Court was the wrong location to hold the case as the crash occurred in Sweden.
Among their submissions is that many of the witnesses were Swedish and might not be able to speak English, so there was an expense associated with translating their evidence.
The families’ lawyers argued that the alleged wrongful conduct – the design, manufacture and sale of the aircraft and its manual – took place in Victoria and that it was correct for them to file legal action in Australia.
Despite the potential complexity of conducting a trial in Victoria with the plaintiffs based in Sweden, the Supreme Court ruled in May that the case would proceed.
A picture of the wreckage of the 2019 Umea plane crash included in the Swedish investigation report.Credit:
“I note that it was chosen by the foreign plaintiffs who have appropriately engaged the jurisdiction of the court against local defendants,” judge John Dixon said in his ruling.
“The plaintiffs appear content to litigate in an English-speaking court in Australia and are not vexed by all that this will entail.”
The lawyer representing the families declined to comment, as did those acting for the companies that manufactured the plane.
The defendants have yet to file a defence.
The next court date is yet to be fixed.
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter here.
Most Viewed in National
From our partners
Source: Read Full Article
