The assessment that Fire department “rested” and did not ensure that there was continuous aerial surveillance on the fire in Eastern Attica, the judicial expert expressed Dimitris Liotsios.

The witness, during today’s ninth day of his testimony, answered questions from the defense of the accused former Fire Department chief Sotiris Terzoudis that focused on the issue of the aerial means that were made available.

As the expert has testified, since the day before the fatal fire ESKE’s request to the General Air Staff for aerial surveillance of Attica had not been sent in time in view of the weather conditions and the danger due to strong winds. So on July 23, 2018, surveillance was finally done by order of the GEA of an aeroclub aircraft that flew twice after noon and before the fire broke out at Dow. As the witness said today, the Fire Department rested and did not send a new request in order to attempt the PZL, which was available for this reason, which could convey an image of the situation.

Defense counsel: Where does it follow that pezetel could make the business loaded?

Witness: I repeat to you that this will be chosen by ESKE. Since we have a fire in Kineta, at that time a loaded aircraft would be better as an operational means.

Advocate: I ask you if it was intended?

Witness: The aircraft may or may not be loaded. It says so in the operational planning of the Fire Department.

During the examination of the judicial expert, there was tension with the advocate of Mr. Terzoudis regarding the entries in the diary, of the movements of the aerial vehicles.

Advocate: Is the route of Flame 1 (fire brigade helicopter) recorded?

Witness: Did he know ESKE?

Advocate: Is there a possibility that ESKE knew that there was a fault before?

Witness: I am not familiar. Blame me Mr. President if you find that I am saying something inaccurate.

Chairman: I don’t blame anyone.

Advocate: Was there a fire near the motor oil?

Witness: Has been. It started at 16:06 from Panorama area of ​​Agioi Theodoros. At 16:26 ground forces had gone, ten vehicles, civilians were evacuated. When exactly it ended I don’t have a chance at the moment.

Advocate: What did you realize that Mr. Lambris (accused – aerial coordinator at the time of Flame 1) reported at 5 o’clock? Did you contact Mr. Terzoudis?

Witnesss: It does not appear.

Advocate: Who did he talk to?

Witness: With the deputy chief. For Mr. Lambris to leave the scene means that there was no great danger.

Chairman: Where was the particular helicopter operating? Save the motor oil to put it simply?

Witness: He also made some throws in the motor oil. Mr Lambris says the fire was in good condition.

Chairman: So there was no need for him to be there?

Witness: I will not say this because there was no need. I’ll just say that some aerial vehicles that were in the air at the time had to be sent to Dow.

Earlier the witness was asked if the chief is aware of the briefings and press releases of the Fire Department and he replied: “Does a press release go out without the leadership knowing? Without the approval of physical leadership nothing comes of it. It is not possible for anything to come out of the Fire Department without the approval of the chief.”

The trial continues.