Family members of four aviators killed in an army helicopter crash during a training exercise have lodged a class action against the Commonwealth and helicopter manufacturer Airbus.
Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Phillip Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs died during Exercise Talisman Sabre on July 28, 2023 when their MRH90 Taipan helicopter plunged into the waters off Hamilton Island, off the Queensland coast.
Captain Lyon was piloting the helicopter while flying in a four-chopper formation, before rolling the aircraft to the right and diverting it from a potential collision with another aircraft, which had the call sign Bushman 82.
An investigation by the Defence Flight Safety Bureau (DFSB) investigation ultimately concluded spatial disorientation was the primary cause of the crash by Captain Lyon and his co-pilot, Lieutenant Nugent.
Proceedings against both the Commonwealth and Airbus have been lodged in the NSW registry of the Federal Court.
Caitland Lyon, the widow of Captain Lyon, is listed as the lead applicant.
Airbus has been contacted for comment.
A spokesperson told the ABC the company’s thoughts were with the families of the victims but declined to comment further on legal proceedings.
In a statement, Defence said they were currently considering the claim.
“As the matter is subject to legal proceedings, it would not be appropriate to comment further,” a spokesperson said.
No defences have been filed yet.
The ABC reports the class action is expected to allege reasonable care was not taken in relation to the safety of the Taipan aircraft’s systems and configuration, as well as the planning and authorisation of the mission and the fatigue and workload experienced by the aviators, among other areas.
The crash led to the entire Taipan fleet being retired early and prompted an independent investigation by the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
A separate Senate probe by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is also examining the airworthiness assessments of the MRH-90 and equipment, Army Aviation’s compliance with regulations, the investigation findings and whether a decision not to prosecute any matters arising from the incident was appropriate.