Questions about the crash

The questions raised in this newspaper’s exclusive report ‘A321 crash points to bigger problems’ on Thursday raises many serious questions that need answering. For instance, what kind of retirement policies should airlines have? How effective is the government-run industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), in carrying out the responsibilities assigned to it, especially with reference to airline and flight safety and pilot fitness.

Let’s begin with the flight itinerary which meant that from Karachi to Islamabad the plane would then go to Manchester, via Istanbul. The pilot, whose age has been a particular talking point, was, if one goes by the transcript released by the government of his last contact with air traffic control (ATC) at Islamabad airport, not heeding the directives given to him by the control tower. Of course, this can be seen from the other side and it could be asked that what was air traffic control doing in letting aircraft fly at such low altitudes (several eyewitnesses have attested to that, including a passenger on a PIA flight that landed 20 minutes before the Airblue plane crashed) and go off course from its prescribed path.

The pilot had already retired from PIA upon reaching the retirement age and had then been hired by privately-run Airblue. Whether he should or should not have been employed again is a matter of debate given that the retirement age is sometimes 65 depending on the airline. However, it has been reported that the pilot in question had been admitted to a hospital some months ago for symptoms associated with ailments related to old age. This needs to be verified and if it is true then CAA must explain why it did not stop the airline from allowing the pilot with such a medical history to fly one of its planes.

Moving on to the airline itself, the private carrier currently flies to the UAE, Oman and the UK.  This newspaper’s report would suggest that the airline has been in some financial difficulty because it is using spare parts from two grounded aircraft to keep its other four planes in the air. Again, what would the CAA have to say on this matter? Is it accepted as routine practice by airlines to do this, rather than buy spares parts from manufacturers? Cannibalisation may be permissible in an emergency or if supply of a certain spare part will take an inordinate amount of time but for an airline to do so as part of established business practice may well be tantamount to playing with the lives of passengers.

As for the CAA, there are several questions, some of which have been raised in the past as well. For instance, any investigation into a plane crash is carried out by the Authority but clearly there is a conflict of interest in this because the CAA operates all airports and navigational facilities in the country. And it would be in its interest to hide any wrongdoing at air traffic’s end since by doing so it would be covering its own inefficiency. That explains why no inquiry report into a plane crash conducted by the CAA has ever been made public. There is also the issue of non-civilian personnel posted in the CAA — usually retired PAF officers or serving officials on deputation. This may not be such a good thing given that the authority’s primary role is to regulate the flow of civilian air traffic and hence having personnel with experience in commercial aviation would make more sense. Also, as the report pointed out, the CAA’s flight standards division is staffed in most cases by pilots associated with PIA and there too a conflict of interest arises because they are in effect judging themselves. After all, one cannot forget the fact that it wasn’t too long ago that the European Union, citing operational safety concerns, partially banned aircraft registered in Pakistan from flying to its cities.

We would recommend a complete overhaul of the CAA to ensure that the existing conflicts of interest do not happen. Furthermore, an independent body should be created to carry out all inquiries into aviation accidents, such as it happens in the US with the National Transportation Safety Board and not the Federal Aviation Administration – which regulates all airlines – carrying out any investigation.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 30^th, 2010.