Eye trial: There was no warrant for aerial surveillance, expert who wrote opinion on deadly fire testified

Her chain of tragic mistakes that led to the tragedy in Mati he began to describe to the Three-member Misdemeanor Court the aggrieved party Dimitris Liotsos who the day after the deadly fire had received an order from the Prosecutor’s Office to investigate the circumstances that led to the destruction of July 23, 2018.

Analyzing and narrating the events minute by minute, the expert of the Prosecutor’s Office unfolded in court a series of omissions, a chain of mistakes that one after the other became the fatal domino that hit Mati.

Mr. Liotsos, after delivering his findings, had complained that the then chief of the Fire Department had pressured him and then threatened him in order not to assign responsibility for the hundred dead and instead to write “five little things: the winds, the fuel, anarchic, arbitrary construction…”.

For the first time today in public, the Fire Department officer began to present to the court his findings on which the Prosecutor’s Office’s investigation into the causes of the national tragedy was based. Several citizens who wanted to hear the officer’s testimony had rushed to the room, while the cold was particularly intense today as the room does not have heating.

Carrying a laptop and using the screen in the room to display documents and photos, the Fire Department officer gave an account of how the fire in Eastern Attica became one of the deadliest in the world. Analyzing and recounting the events minute by minute, the expert unfolded a series of omissions, a chain of mistakes that one after the other became the fatal domino that struck the Eye
Mr. Liotsos, after listening speechless for an hour and a half to the president reading his conclusions, regarding the fire in Mati and also the fire in Kineta that had occurred earlier that day, began his testimony by describing what did not happen before the fire broke out fire and those that did not happen when it broke out.
According to the epipyragogue, the march to hell began one day before the fire broke out, so they did not take place from Single Operations Coordination Center (ESCE) the foreseen actions for the meteorological conditions that formed a degree of danger 4.

“ESKE did not give a timely order for aerial surveillance of Attica” said the expert and also emphasized that “What was not done that day, nor the day before, was the relocation of aircraft, neither in Attica, nor in the other regions of the country. When we have a level of danger 4, our forces and the preparedness. In Attica we had a risk level of 4. The fact that aircraft were not re-parked contributed to the spread of the fire. Timely re-parking at suitable airports must be taken care of.”

Mr. Liotsos was asked by the president to explain if the “repositioning” refers to the refueling of the boats and he replied that it refers to their movement to airports that will not be affected by the winds, so that they are ready. “Canard-type aircraft must be diverted to other airports in order not to be affected by winds,” he stressed.

-Chairman: Why were they landing at Elefsina airport for fuel?

Witness: When there is a forecast for winds, we know that some aircraft will have difficulty, ESKE is contacted and aircraft are repositioned. These have been happening since the previous day. They didn’t happen here.

According to Mr. Liotsos, a crucial measure that was not taken by ESKE was the aerial surveillance of Attica.

“ESKE did not carry out aerial surveillance of Attica. Depending on the degree of danger, we judge what procedure we will follow. When there is danger 4, canards can be raised in order to carry out surveillance and land at any airport. There was a canard in Pikermi. With the use of surveillance and direct fire from this aircraft, we have a good chance of immediately suppressing the fire,” pointed out the officer, who provoked comments when, continuing the testimony, he said that the “aerial surveillance” was ultimately carried out by “a private aviation club which he didn’t detect smoke” he said. In fact, a victim’s advocate addressed the prosecutor and told him “Air club? Even the duvars laugh”.

The witness explained that on July 23 the ESKE did not send a request for aerial surveillance until 8am as it should be and that the request was sent at 09:59, resulting in the calls being accepted by a private air club whose aircraft cannot fire. He also said that ESKE’s request concerned Attica

-Chairman: For how many aircraft?

Witness: One was available. The request was delayed and accepted by the private airline. The request, since it was not sent on time, could not proceed, as it required three hours of aircraft availability. The private jet club accepted the request. At 14:04 the first aircraft took off. The aircraft did not detect smoke. At 16:46 he performed an aerial flight again. It is not indicated in the logbook that a flight was made from the airport.
-President: Who decides where the greatest risk is? E.g. if it is a forest area?

Witness: Of course. There were not so strong winds in the early hours of the day, the gusts were increased, not the winds. Winds at Kineta were six to seven Beaufort. The removal took place immediately.

Referring to the fire that broke out at 4:41 p.m. on the disputed day in Dau Pentelis, after the one in Geraneia, Mr. Liotsos said that for the first critical minutes “it burned undisturbed” and while “at 4:45 p.m., ESKE was informed by a coordinating officer from a helicopter that it is visible from Markopoulos. The first firefighting vehicle arrived at 17.04. By 17.15, 8 water vehicles, 3 auxiliary and 6 voluntary, had arrived and started extinguishing the fire, while only one helicopter was assisting.”

According to the witness, who cited evidence from conversations between Fire Department officers, “at 16:55 it seems that the ESKE knew the course of the fire and its danger and that it was close to houses. There is no doubt that everyone knew,” said Mr. Liotsos.

According to the arsonist, “At 16:59 the fire, due to the fact that aerial vehicles are not operating, split into two fronts: one towards Kallitechnoupoli and the other towards Neo Voutza. At 17:10, the first aerial vehicle (Erickson) arrives at the fire. It is the only aircraft until 6:20 p.m. and cannot contribute to fighting the fire.”

The prosecutor also said:

“The pilot of the only aerial vehicle, at 17.15 calls for reinforcements and the operator tells him that the operation may be difficult due to the residential area. He requests reinforcement from below, meaning ground means. At 17.30 the helicopter operator informs ESKE that the fire in the area of ​​Neo Voutza and that it is entering houses.

At 17.30, fifty minutes after the fire was announced, the fire is close to houses and threatens them, and only one aerial vehicle is operating. If they had sent three aerial vehicles, the fire might have been controlled and by giving the order to evacuate the settlements, it would be possible that we would not have mourned so many victims.”

The Officer relied on evidence from the recorded conversations, logbooks and calls made on the day in question. The fact that the witness was reading from his notes caused reactions from the defense of the accused who asked the court not to allow the witness to read texts “that we don’t know who wrote them”.

-Witness: They are evidence in the case file

The defendants’ advocates emphasized that it creates issues of invalidity for the witness to refer to elements of the case file after he has completed his work, while the president asked the Officer not to read his notes. The testimony of Mr. Liotsos will continue on Thursday, February 16.