Suspicions still linger on over tragic death of BBP leader Yazıcıoğlu

The new leader of the Grand Unity Party (BBP), Mustafa Destici, raises more questions with regard to the ongoing investigation into the crash and vows to be unrelenting in his efforts to find out those who are responsible for mistakes during the search and rescue operation after the chopper went down. In an exclusive interview with Sunday’s Zaman, Destici explained the whole mystery surrounding BBP founder Yazıcıoğlu’s death. His inquiries raised more questions than answers, but he says the BBP is determined to find the truth no matter what.

The continuous pressure paid off when a parliamentary commission of inquiry and the State Inspection Board (DDK) drafted reports on the accident, the Prime Ministry’s Inspection Board commenced an administrative investigation and the Kahramanmaraş prosecutor launched a legal investigation.

Destici is happy that Turks across the board showed their love for BBP leader Yazıcıoğlu following his death. With the backing of public support, he is seeking answers to many questions, including but not limited to why the emergency locator transmitter (ELT) failed to send signals or radar did not detect the disappearance of a helicopter that carried a VIP customer. The conflicting reports, especially in the initial stages, showed there was a colossal failure of interagency cooperation that delayed the finding of the crash site. The police and the gendarmerie did not file a request with the Telecommunications Directorate (TİB) to track the cell phone signals emanating from passengers.

The BBP leader states that it is simply not acceptable to have the crash site found after 46 hours passed from the time of the accident by villagers. With all the assets available to the Turkish army and police, the crash should have been spotted in a fairly short period of time, he says. In the initial report, there were too many inconsistencies, Destici also added. “Now the case is in the hands of the courts, and we will wait for the judges’ decision,” he emphasized.

Unsatisfied with the board findings, the BBP even brought in its own experts after securing a promise of cooperation from the board that investigates aircraft accidents. But after a German expert flew in to Turkey to make his own investigation, the board came up with a great deal of red tape, preventing him from investigating. “The German expert asked where the ELT device was, and they [the board members] said, ‘We were here before, so we took it’.”

What bothered you most, and what has pleased you since Yazıcıoğlu’s death?

There has been a process of misinformation after the helicopter accident. It was extremely sad that our party leader died. We took it calmly, as do most people who believe in destiny, but the ongoing misinformation has been really disturbing. What made us happy was that the Turkish people showed their love for our leader. The sincerity of the support from the public also made it possible for us to get to the current stage.

initial misinformation suggested that Yazıcıoğlu had survived the accident?

Actually there is more. The helicopter fell at 15.03, but nobody heard anything up to 15.30, when journalist İsmail Güneş called 112 emergency services.

As soon as it went off the radar the relevant authorities should have noticed that something was wrong out there?

Absolutely! Civilian aviation radars should detect when a chopper carrying a VIP passenger falls. The emergency locator transmitter (ELT) device should send signals. However, neither the radars nor the ELT detected or notified anyone of the accident.

It was argued that the antenna was broken?

The initial statement by the Ministry of Transportation suggested that the ELT device would have sent a signal if there had been one. Then it was said that the antenna was broken. In the third statement, it was argued that it sent a signal in the wrong direction because of the displacement of the antenna. No signal came out of the ELT. So what should be done in such a case? TİB should have tried to detect the location of the accident by tracking any of the 10 cell phones being carried by the passengers on the helicopter. The police or the gendarmerie simply had to lodge a request. However, they did not do this. TİB did not act by itself. Interestingly, a gendarmerie officer in Yozgat, acting on his own personally called a colleague at TİB and requested assistance in trying to detect the site. An initial site scan was performed over an area of 30 square kilometers. The scan results were communicated to police units in Maraş. The search was then narrowed to an area of 2 square kilometers.

Isn’t an area of 2 square kilometers a reasonable size for a search?

To be sure of it, I asked a friend of mine in Maraş, who received the information on this area during the work of the parliamentary commission, how he communicated this information to his superiors. I wanted to know whether the transmission of information was plain or in detail. The response of this friend is in parliamentary documents. He said the relevant area was pointed out on the map.

Despite the area of the accident being detected early on, it was villagers, not the authorities, who reached to the helicopter after 46 hours. What does this mean?

It is not easy to describe this. The General Staff was asked about what area had been searched over this period of 46 hours. Responses indicated that the two-square-kilometer area had been searched but noted that it was fairly difficult to perform a scan in that area. The search and recovery squads did not do their job; the relevant institutions and bodies were not there. When they were asked why, they said they did not have the necessary equipment and staff.

Were all these uncovered later, or did the crisis management unit know this from the start?

Some of it was noticed at the beginning. Two crisis management bodies were set up, one in Ankara and the other in Maraş. The deputy chairs were also divided; one group headed to Maraş and the other stayed in Ankara to maintain contact with the crisis management desks. Instant information was delivered from the crisis management desk on the number of helicopters, security officers and gendarmerie units participating in the search activities. We shared the incoming information with the team in Maraş. They said, “There is no such thing.” The issue was communicated to the prime minister. Upon review, it became evident that some of the helicopters had not even departed, while others were not working. And the gendarmerie did not do any site searches at all.

So the crisis management desk was misinformed?

I am not sure whether this was the intent, but it was the case. The prime minister and the interior minister noticed the mistakes in the search and recovery. Information that Yazıcıoğlu survived spread quickly. However, the last two hours before dark were important. The villagers could have reached the site during this time. They returned when they heard this news. These important hours were wasted by misinformation.

Was it not an official explanation that Yazıcıoğlu survived the accident?

This was a statement by the [Kayseri] governor. The governor made some conflicting statements at the time. He said he received the information from the gendarmerie; then he clarified that it had not been confirmed by the police. I personally asked him at the time and he said: “I received it from the police chief. I shared it with the public when I was told it was confirmed.” Interestingly, the [Kahramanmaraş] Police Department sent information to 10 surrounding cities indicating that Yazıcıoğlu was alive. But the governor and the police department didn’t know anything about it.

What is your take on all this?

I see this as something that makes us all sad and suspicious. The court will make the final judgment on these suspicions. Look, the helicopter fell at noon on Wednesday. It was found on Friday, 46 hours after the accident, by villagers.

I suppose you talked to the people who arrived at the scene first?

They called me when they found the wreckage. We talked over the phone. The first thing they said was this: “We see the bodies of two people. We do not see Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu or İsmail Güneş here.” The search team got there after the villagers. Interestingly, the team collected the villagers’ phones; the SIM cards were taken out and any images were erased. This was done on purpose.

How does the search team explain that?

They said they did this to make sure that the images would not be used for different purposes. But shouldn’t the prosecutor have them as evidence? When we first looked into who did this [erased the images], we were told that a military officer was responsible for it. However, he told us that the guards erased the images. The prosecutor will investigate this matter as well.

In your opinion, are the initial images important for resolving the case?

Yes, they are. They are pieces of evidence that the prosecutor should have at his disposal for the investigation.

Was the official report on the accident satisfactory?

There were real problems and examples of negligence out there. The board that investigates aircraft accidents makes a distinction between major and minor accidents. Accidents that result in fatalities are generally considered major. This was considered a minor accident despite six casualties. So, instead of a nine-member investigation commission, a three-member commission was set up.

So was it investigated as a minor accident?

Let us just say that a large accident commission was not set up. The nine-member commission has to include a chair, a vice chair, a meteorologist and experts like pilots. Three out of the nine members have to be appointed by the flight safety commission; the members have to have extensive experience. Instead of a nine-member body, a three-member commission was set up and none of them were appointed by the flight safety commission.

Did you talk to these three people?

I did when they attended the parliamentary commission hearing. There is another interesting detail. Those guys said, “We do not have a license, but we investigate accidents in Turkey.” No one took the reports of this ineffective body seriously, and no one was satisfied with them.

Is there any other flaw in the report?

The report is inherently flawed when the body producing it is unlicensed. For instance, this body, discussing the cause of the accident, said that the pilot might have been distracted because he was using a cell phone or that there might have been extra passengers in the helicopter. However, the same helicopter traveled from Sivas with the same passengers. Wouldn’t trouble have arisen sooner if the cause was an extra passenger? Secondly, the pilot made a phone call to the checkpoint 10 minutes before the accident. He was asked whether he had taken off, and he responded in the affirmative. The tower wished him a good flight, and 10 minutes later, he crashed. Did the distraction [of the phone call] have its impact 10 minutes later? They also say the cause might have been vertigo. The experts, however, invalidate this option as well. The board makes some other assessments. They name 70 flaws that may have contributed to the accident. But it is said that the flight could have been safe despite these flaws. In other words, it says, “There are a lot of flaws, but none of them could have caused the accident.”

I suppose the wreck of the helicopter was entrusted to that board?

Yes, they have charge of it under the law. In other words, they have custody of it. From the very beginning, we wanted to contribute to the investigation with experts. The board was not obligated to allow us to do so. We wanted to call in an expert from Germany, and asked them to accompany him to the accident site. They agreed, so we made the arrangements. We called them when the expert arrived, and said, “Let’s go.” At first, they did not want to go: We called the prime minister, the problem was solved, and we went to the site. When we got there, we noticed that they had been there before. The German expert asked where the ELT device was, and they said, “We were here before, so we took it.”

And then they did not honor the arrangement. Like I said, they didn’t have to, but they broke their promise. Upon our return from the crash site, they were supposed to work together with the expert, but they said: “We can’t meet with you. We are going to Egypt and won’t be here for a week.” We called the prime minister again and the problem was solved. We decided to work together. However, the protection of the wreckage is the responsibility of the accident investigation board; it was supposed to protect the wreck.

Were the GPS devices lost before the investigation committee started its work?

That is a separate question. There were three GPS devices in the helicopter. One is present and the other two, which contain important information, are lost.

Who took those devices and why? Were they lost as a result of a simple theft? Were they stolen by gendarmerie or other officials? Nobody knows.

Those devices are seen in the photographs taken on March 29. They are also present in the photographs taken on the 30th.

The council, which promised that we would go there together, did not keep its promise and went there on March 29, when the devices were still there. The wreckage was under their legal responsibility, and it should have been protected by security forces.

GPS devices were lost, but an expert friend of ours said, “I saw the devices on the table of the Accident Investigation Council for Civil Aviation.”

The loss of the GPS devices is a total mystery.

There were claims that planes were flying over the region.

Following such claims, the State Audit Institution (DDK) asked for information from the Air Forces. After the completion of the DDK report, the Air Forces Command gave a belated response and said a plane passed 74 kilometers away from the site of the accident. Then, the General Staff said it was 24 kilometers.

Due to this conflicting information, we have become suspicious about other radar reports.

Initially, it was said that military radar was down for four minutes when the accident took place, but later it was said that the radar was working, but there was a problem with data transmission.

Aren’t all these suspicions and contradictions exhausting?

They are very much exhausting not only for people who are sensitive about this issue but also for our state and the public.

From the very beginning, we acted with common sense and tried to remain within the boundaries of the law. We were not misled by provocations. We insistently wanted the elimination of the suspicions. We want the establishment of a commission in Parliament, the DDK to take action and a specially authorized prosecutor to investigate the accident.

Our esteemed president, prime minister and party leaders who have a group in Parliament and party group deputy chairmen have given us much support for the removal of the suspicions.

So, you have prepared the evidence to enable the start of a very serious court case in terms of its consequences?

Regardless of what the outcome of the trial might be, the result is important. Turkey will witness a very important trial, and it will take the burden off the public’s conscience.

We are not trying to start a blood feud. If the accident was the result of negligence and security flaws, then the trial will make sure that those who are responsible are removed, so that something like this will not happen again.

We want the incident to be illuminated and to restore the honor of the state, which was buried under the snow for 46 hours with the bodies of those in the helicopter. It is important for us that the public doesn’t convict the state in its conscience. We also want to eliminate the mentality that “shady powers can eliminate whomever they want.” Now the public thinks Yazıcıoğlu was assassinated. Eşref Bitlis was killed the same way; they made it look like an accident. This applies to Adnan Kahveci and Turgut Özal, too; people do not believe that their deaths were caused by accidents, nor do they think their deaths were a coincidence.

This damages the public’s sense of community because it implies that if you are on the side of the law, the motherland and the supremacy of law, then that’s how you will end up. Can’t we have normal accidents? Even if there is a coincidental accident, they try to use those to send messages. The doubts should be addressed, the helicopter crash eliminated. If it was the result of negligence, then that should come out, or if it was the result of an assassination plot, that should come out. We want this to be called what it is and our nation to leave this exhausting process behind.