Adjudication No. 441 (June 1990) [1990] APC 13

ADJUDICATION No. 441 (June 1990)

A Brisbane Sunday Mail story on the pilot of a charter jet which crashed with the loss of 11 lives is the subject of a complaint by the Australian Senate to the Press Council.

The story, a limited profile of the pilot, Stan Lindgren, who died with his passengers in the twin-jet Cessna Citation, was part of an extensive coverage of the crash on 13 May 1990.

The headline was "Crash pilot 'gung ho'", and the story presented a picture of a pilot who was inclined to push his plane to the limit and who allegedly had been reported for ignoring flight procedures and endangering lives.

The story quoted an unnamed industry source as saying that no one was surprised at the tragedy.

However, a man described as a PNG Civil Aviation check-in officer was named. Augustine Teddy was quoted as saying that local pilots had filed incident reports on Lindgren, and that they were glad he had left the area.

Later in the story the Lindgren family was quoted as saying that Lindgren achieved a double-A rating as a flying instructor and had captained DC-3 and F-27 planes with East West Airlines. The story also credited Lindgren with breaking a solo record for light aircraft between San Francisco and Brisbane.

In a resolution passed on May 15, the Senate deplored and condemned "the insensitivity of the Sunday Mail... for its reflections on the pilot... prior to any investigation (of the crash) being carried out". The Senate considered that the story could only add to the distress of the families concerned.

In considering the complaint, the Press Council had regard for two issues--the public interest served by the story, and the timing of the publication.

On the first of these, the Council believes that there was a clear public interest in the report on the pilot's reputation. The crash claimed 10 lives other than his own, and thereby touched many north Queensland communities and families.

In its defence, the Sunday Mail sought to justify the story by linking it to public concern about air safety in a climate of aviation deregulation. The paper also pointed to known difficult flying conditions and terrain around Cans.

The paper pointed out that it did not say the pilot was, in fact, the cause of the crash, although it would be difficult not to draw this inference from the article.

On the timing of the story, two days after the crash, the Council acknowledges that it would be unreasonable to delay it until the completion of the official detailed inquiry, but it agrees that the publication of such a prompt and critical account of Lindgren's flying activities would have heightened the grief of already distressed families.

Nevertheless, the crash was of great public interest, and the grief of the families near total. The performance and character of the pilot in his duties will inevitably be the subject of close inquiry in the future, again no doubt to the distress of the families.

The Council cannot agree with the Senate in its condemnation of the Sunday Mail; the crash and its cause remain a matter of high public interest.