Widerøe Flight 933

Widerøe Flight 933, also known as the Mehamn Accident (

The accident occurred during a NATO military exercise, within a self-declared no-fly zone for allied military aircraft. An extensive search and rescue operation was carried out and the submerged wreck was found on 13 March. The aircraft and all but one of the deceased were retrieved. An official investigation was concluded on 20 July 1984.

A conspiracy theory later emerged after the accident investigation was concluded, claiming that the accident was caused by a mid-air collision with a Harrier jump jet of the British Royal Air Force. The theory is based on reports which emerged years or decades after the accident. The claims and renewed press interest resulted in three additional investigations, established in 1987, 1997, and 2002. All four investigations came to the same general conclusions and rejected a collision.

The accident aircraft was a 19-passenger de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter, registration LN-BNK.

Mehamn AFIS radioed Flight 933 at 13:35:52 but received no answer. After several attempts, Mehamn AFIS contacted Berlevåg AFIS and Kirkenes Airport, which also failed to make radio contact. A Widerøe aircraft en route from Honningsvåg to Mehamn also attempted to make contact. The Joint Rescue Coordination Centre of Northern Norway was informed of the situation at 13:41 and immediately coordinated a search and rescue operation.^[5] Three groups of the Norwegian Red Cross Search and Rescue Corps were dispatched and ten ships in the area volunteered to assist in the search. They were supplemented by two search and rescue vessels from the Norwegian Society for Sea Rescue (NSSR); the Royal Norwegian Navy diving vessel Draug; and the Norwegian Coast Guard vessel Horten.^[6]

Two RNoAF

The second explanation is based on the aircraft reaching a speed of at least 180 knots (210 mph; 330 km/h),[note 3] compared to the aircraft's ordinary cruise speed of 140 knots (160 mph; 260 km/h). This is possible under extreme wind conditions, given that the pilots had lost the use of the elevator. Simulations show that each gust of wind had a 0.5 percent possibility of the rudder breaking, and the last commission of inquiry found that it was likely that the aircraft could have been hit by at least ten such gusts. This alternative explains why the vertical stabilizer was found at such a distance from the aircraft.^[11]

NATO was carrying out the military exercise "Alloy Express" in

On the day of the accident, two Harriers flew on missions from Tromsø, named Red 1 and Red 2. The first was the two-seat Harrier

Breaching of the 24th meridian policy by military aircraft during exercises would be discovered by the control and reporting centers, which would order the aircraft to turn back. Any incidents would be logged at Control and Reporting Centre Sørreisa (CRC) and at the radar station tracking the aircraft.^[12] During an exercise three years later on 13 March 1985, two Sea Harriers from HMS Invincible, then anchored off Andøya, were recorded as being 150 kilometers (93 mi) inside the no-fly zone, comparatively close to the 1982 site of Invincible.^[16] This was the only incident that the parliamentary commission was able to verify. The commission's members carried out interviews with dozens of civilian and military air traffic controllers, pilots and boat skippers; none had ever observed foreign aircraft in the no-fly zone, although all had heard rumors of such activity. The commission concluded that alleged frequent breaches of the zone were the result of an urban legend.^[17]

The first investigation was carried out by a military commission, led by Lieutenant General Wilhelm Mohr and consisting of Captain Stein I. Eriksen, Police Inspector Liv Daae Gabrielsen, and pilot Hallvard Vikholt.^[5] The wreckage was salvaged by MS Hugo Trygvasson starting on 16 March. The pieces of wreckage were hoisted on board and stored before being freighted to a hangar at Bodø Airport, where the investigation was carried out. Lack of space on board the ship meant that the wreckage was stored in a heap and could have suffered damage during loading and transport.^[8] Some of the technical analyses of the aircraft's components were carried out by de Havilland Canada and by Transport Canada.^[18]

There was one eye-witness to the accident – Grete Mortensen, who was working outdoors at a kindergarten in Gamvik. Mortensen's comments were key to locating the aircraft after the crash. She stated that she heard a loud splash and informed the initial commission that "a while later" she saw a fighter jet in the area. The initial commission did not at the time ask for the time frame between her sightings of the two aircraft. In 1987 she specified that the fighter came about one to five minutes after the splash. The final commission stated that the later specification very well could have been influenced by the media reports. The last commission stated that the first commission's non-interest in following up on her comments was used by the media to raise doubt about the existence of a fighter in the area.^[19]

The first commission concluded that "vital parts of the vertical stabilizer had collapsed because of overload while still airborne ... making further control of the aircraft impossible".

A public debate about the cause of the accident arose after the report, in part because of sightings of fighter jets.[20] Such reports had been appearing in the media since shortly after the accident.^[24] Fremover reported in January 1987 that radar had observed an unidentified aircraft which was on a collision course with the Twin Otter.^[25] The issue escalated with the captain's brother, Widerøe's chief pilot John Hovring, stating that the crash must have occurred as a result of a collision with a fighter or missile. He further stated that General Mohr as an air force officer had a vested interest in covering up the real cause.^[26]

The government therefore appointed three new members to the commission on 6 February 1987 and ordered a new investigation of the accident. The new members were Appeal Judge Christian Borchsenius, Erik Øie of the

The commission carried out investigations of all traffic logs in the region, as well as interviews with several new people. It concluded in its report of 29 June 1988 that the existence of other aircraft in the area could be ruled out; and that no other airborne objects could have caused the accident. Beyond being more explicit in some technical aspects of the conclusions, the second commission agreed with the first.[20] Mohr received several threats, including some to his life.^[27]

The debate about the accident resurfaced in 1997. The captain's nephew presented new evidence from an anonymous air force officer, later identified as Per Garvin. Parliamentarian

On 19 November 2002 NRK's documentary series Brennpunkt broadcast the episode "Vanskelige vitner" ("Difficult Witnesses"). The program claimed it had new evidence regarding the accident, which conclusively showed that the Twin Otter had collided with a Harrier. It included an interview with former Lieutenant Colonel Per Garvin, in charge of CRC Sørreisa at the time. He claimed to have seen two Harriers fly into the no-fly zone on the day of the accident, combined with a comment that Harriers flying from Gamvik to Tromsø had been observed by witnesses all the way.^[16] The documentary's main researcher was former Widerøe pilot Ulf Larsstuvold, who had been a leading spokesperson favoring the Harrier theory.^[27]

This spurred a public debate about the incident; and subsequent debate in Parliament.

Per Garvin stated to the commission that he had observed aircraft in the no-fly zone on the day of the accident and had communicated with the station in Kautokeino which had also observed such aircraft. He stated that he had ordered his assistant to log the incident. Another operator gave evidence that he had observed Red 1 and Red 2 fly first from Tromsø to Setermoen and then northwards to Alta and Kautokeino, in the no-fly zone. No other employees at Sørreisa could recall any such incidents,^[35] and the logs showed that Garvin was not working on the day of the accident.^[36] Garvin never made any comments about Harriers during the 1980s and his statements between 1997 and 2003 changed from him airing a possibility to a certain fact.^[36]

An employee at Kautokeino claimed that he had observed allied aircraft in the no-fly zone on the day of the accident, but investigations showed that he was not working in Finnmark in March. Investigations of the logs at Kautokeino and Sørreisa showed no entries regarding any NATO air traffic.

Four witnesses claimed to have observed fighter jets in the accident area.[36] A fisherman stated that he saw a Twin Otter and a fighter jet at the same time in the area, but could not remember if it was before or after the accident, nor even if it was the same day. In case it was after the accident, he would have been observing two of the search aircraft.^[37] Some witnesses claimed to have seen a damaged Harrier at Bardufoss at the time of the accident. Some claimed the right wing was damaged, others the left wing or the belly. Some of the witnesses claimed there were remains of green paint on the aircraft. At the time of the accident, Widerøe did not have a dominant green paint scheme on its aircraft. The distance from Gamvik to Bardufoss is 430 kilometers (270 mi) and the Harrier would have to have flown out and back under radar coverage. A Harrier does not have sufficient fuel for such a round trip and the aircraft would have passed more than ten airports on the route from Gamvik to Bardufoss.^[27]

The report was published on 20 September 2005. It fully supported the findings of all three previous reports and found no evidence of an impact with a Harrier or any other aircraft. The conclusion was founded firstly in a full review of all logs and documentation and a full review of all technical analyses in the first reports. It concluded that all witnesses of fighter aircraft had made statements many years after the accident and that there was a high degree of uncertainty as to the time of their observations. Only the statement of Grete Mortensen could not be rejected, but the commission could not find that it showed any conclusive evidence either. The commission also found beyond doubt that no Harriers were airborne at the time of the accident. The commission also rejected that the captain's health had an influence on the crash and found that similar elevator control faults had occurred on other crashed Twin Otters.^[38]

Despite the findings in the report, NRK stated that it stood by the position that its program documented a Harrier incident.

The documentary's researcher Ulf Larsstuvold stated that he believed that Parliament was acting as part of the cover-up and that the commission had secretly been instructed to conceal any evidence in support of the Harrier theory.[42] Wera Dahle Jensen, who lost her husband in the accident, was the only next of kin to not have believed in the Harrier story. She stated after the final report that this had been an extra burden and that she had not been considered a party to the case. She was also concerned that the "fantastic stories" had put focus on aviation safety to the side, as Widerøe in later accidents also was found to not have a safety-minded culture.^[43]

Dagbladet journalist Kristoffer Egeberg commented that for the Harrier theory to be true, hundreds – if not a thousand – military-, police-, government- and civil aviation personnel would have to keep quiet. The sole purpose of a cover-up would be to protect a single British pilot and avoid the marginal discomfort of admitting that a NATO aircraft had flown in a self-imposed no-fly zone within Norwegian territory. The cover-up would have to be carried out over a period of two decades, also after the end of the Cold War. Both the manufacturer and the airline have accepted that the accident was caused by a mechanical failure. The Harrier theory is based on witnesses remembering intricate details up to two decades after the incident, which they had chosen to not inform the authorities or commission about during the initial investigation.^[27]

The cost of the parliamentary investigation was NOK 20 million. Parliament decided on 3 May 2006 to grant an

ex gratia payment to the next of kin for the extra burden of having a new commission look into the case. The government decided in October 2006 to grant between NOK 50,000 and NOK 200,000 per person, totaling NOK 8.75 million.^[44]

Notes

1. ^ Also called the vertical fin, the vertical stabilizer is part of the empennage or tail. The aircraft's rudder is mounted on the rear of the vertical stabilizer.
2. ^ Aircraft use feet as the unit of measure for altitude instead of meters
3. ^ Aircraft use knots (nautical miles per hour) as the unit of measure of airspeed

References

1. ^ ^{a b c} Parliament: 30
2. ^ Parliament: 36
3. ^ Jaklin: 287
4. ^ ^{a b} Parliament: 29
5. ^ ^{a b c} Parliament: 22
6. ^ ^{a b c d} Parliament: 31
7. ^ Furuly, Jan Gunnar (6 May 1996). "Ingen erstatning etter dykkebragd". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). p. 3.
8. ^ ^{a b} Parliament: 32
9. ^ Sørensen, Hermann K. (7 January 1983). "Millionerstatning". Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). p. 16.
10. ^ ^{a b} Parliament: 302
11. ^ ^{a b} Parliament: 303
12. ^ ^{a b c} Jaklin: 298
13. ^ Jaklin: 291
14. ^ ^{a b c d} Jaklin: 295
15. ^ ^{a b} Jaklin: 296
16. ^ ^{a b} Jaklin: 294
17. ^ Parliament: 332
18. ^ Parliament: 312
19. ^ Parliament: 310
20. ^ ^{a b c d e} Parliament: 23
21. ^ Parliament: 311
22. ^ Parliament: 328
23. ^ Parliament: 329
24. ^ Sørensen, Hermann K. (9 May 1983). "Ny leting etter flydeler". Verdens Gang (in Norwegian). p. 12.
25. ^ "Ny tvil om årsak til flyulykke" (in Norwegian). Norwegian News Agency. 9 January 1987.
26. ^ Kailhau, Lars (20 January 1987). "Flyver om Gamvikulykken: Havarikommisjonen på villspor". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). p. 14.
27. ^ ^{a b c d} Egeberg, Kristoffer (22 September 2005). "Den vanskelige ulykken". Dagbladet (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 4 December 2013. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
28. ^ Parliament: 326
29. ^ "Britisk jager innblandet i Mehamn-ulykken?" (in Norwegian). Norwegian News Agency. 13 February 1997.
30. ^ Parliament: 24
31. ^ Parliament: 25
32. ^ ^{a b} Parliament: 26
33. ^ Parliament: 27
34. ^ Parliament: 45
35. ^ Jaklin: 297
36. ^ ^{a b c} Parliament: 16
37. ^ Jaklin: 299
38. ^ Hammerfjeld, Jo R. (20 September 2005). "– Avviser kollisjon med jagerfly". Dagbladet (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 25 February 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
39. ^ Fjellheim, Skjalg (30 September 2005). "Mehamn-fiksjonen". Nordlys (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 24 February 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
40. ^ "Slakter dokumentar". Nordlys (in Norwegian). 20 September 2005. Archived from the original on 24 February 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
41. ^ Parliament: 327
42. Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. 10 March 2007. Archived
    from the original on 25 February 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
43. ^ Brox, Inge (22 September 2005). "Mehamn-enke stolte på Mohr". Nordlys (in Norwegian). Archived from the original on 24 February 2014. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
44. ^ "25 år siden Mehamn-ulykken" (in Norwegian). Ministry of Justice. 11 October 2006. Archived from the original on 21 October 2012. Retrieved 21 October 2012.

Bibliography

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Widerøe Flight 933.

• Jaklin, Asbjørn (2009). Isfront: Den kalde krigen i nord (in Norwegian). Oslo: Gyldendal.
  ISBN 978-82-05-37809-4
  .
• Parliament of Norway (20 September 2005). "Rapport til Stortingets presidentskap fra Stortingets granskningskommisjon for Mehamn-ulykken" (PDF) (in Norwegian). Archived
  (PDF) from the original on 19 January 2016. Retrieved 20 October 2012.