Airblue flight ED 202 crashed into the hills of Islamabad last year on July 28 and on the occasion of its first anniversary, the families bereaved by its death toll of 152 gathered at the crash site to pray and dwell on the government’s effort to get to the bottom of the tragic mishap. As in the case of all such accidents, the people deserve to know what caused the plane to crash. The statements aired by TV channels by affected families expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of the affair.
A section of the affectees who received compensation were not happy with the amount; others wanted to know why the investigation report into the mishap had not been made public by the government despite receiving it in March this year. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is in charge of the investigation, thinks that there was no bar on Islamabad to release the report. The report submitted by the CAA in March is now reportedly with the ministry of defence (the authority’s parent ministry), but it was with the CAA for a year, which means that there is an institutional hesitation about revealing all the facts for public consumption.
The CAA, keen to assure the affectees that it had done its job, says that “all aspects of the incident have been analysed” but does not say what the report considers responsible for the crash: Pilot error or a technical malfunction. It is clear that despite its right to reveal this information, the government is waiting for some answers about the manufacture and design of the plane from the companies — located in France, Germany and the US — from whom the plane had been purchased. It is curious that the CAA still claims the government could release the report. It must know that without the view of international experts from these leading companies, the report can be termed ‘interim’ and not complete.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation, of which the CAA is a member, says “that the state conducting the investigation should release the final report in the shortest possible time and, if possible, within 12 months of the incident”. Hence there must be important reasons why the government doesn’t want to jump the gun without first being fortified by the international professional view of the crash.
The plane was an Airbus A321, belonging to Airblue, which one could say is Pakistan’s second biggest airline after PIA, itself in considerable financial trouble. The report on the crash must consider the business side of the case if too excessive an alarm is created over it. Means of transport in Pakistan are shrinking after the near-death of the railways. Removal of public trust from the airlines will simply complicate the situation. According to an Airblue handout, the crashed plane was manufactured in 2000 and bought in 2006 — which is quite normal — had flown 34,000 flight hours and apparently hit by lightning while flying over Turkey, but cleared to fly thereafter. The Islamabad loss was the company’s first crash and second write-off, the first one following a ground mishap.
There are two aspects to the situation. One is that all steps should be taken to ensure that the mishap is examined threadbare and the operator made aware that his business is under strict scrutiny demanding failsafe observance of safety regulations. The other is the satisfaction provided to the bereaved families of those who lost their lives in the accident. The company must, for the sake of its own business, take great care of the affectees. It is quite possible that after it acquits itself with distinction in this case, its business may actually improve because of a better level of public trust. It should devote itself more diligently to maintaining its contact with the families of the dead. It will not cost much but it will redound to the advantage of the company. The government’s attitude is not punitive towards the company, and that is the right course. The future of air travel in Pakistan is in the private sector and a good beginning must be made now.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 30th, 2011.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Since long the dilemma of the air crushing has been persisting, disclosesing the diverse logic which are either un matching or compelling to condemn the flights of such companies. It is not the first crash of the air blue which snatched the lives of 152 passengers falling into the Margalla Hills but last year the plan of the same company had taken the lives of above hundred passengers. why such problems repeat. What CAA is doing. If their machinery is gone old and technology is poor than why are they permitted to fly either in the country as the domestic flights or going abroad as an international flights. How further such incidents will take place to empty the lapses of the mothers?
Zakir Hussain Samo Knowledge Centre Larkana
This is a very fine Editorial comment.
It is unprecedented for an interim report to be prepared which must include the full output from the "black boxes" without coming out with a PROBABLE CAUSE of the accident. If that is the case, the CAA has blazed a new path in accident investigation! They should either be given an award for their originality or fired en-mass.
I suggest the latter.
The only consolation in this sordid and callous drama is that it should put paid to all the conspiracy theories -- missiles, highjack, suicide, unidentified voices in the cockpit, and so on. Even on ET, a person suggesting that it was a missile strike got 49 "Likes". A more sober and plausible scenario put forth by a former Air Force pilot got 2. I probably got none.
What is wrong with us?
This asking for comments from the aircraft and engine manufacturer is a fig-leaf. They are accredited representatives to the investigation and could not have taken a full year to give their comments which still seem to be pending.
This is, tragically, a case of human error. Of course, as always, there were many contributory factors that caused it: fatigue, fasting, weather, inappropriate crew-pairing, a loss of situational awareness, spatial disorientation, over-confidence and complacency, poor coordination between radar and the tower, disregard of computer-generated audible warnings of proximity to terrain/high ground and disregard of standard operating procedures when you must be visual at all times when you are circling to land on the opposite runway 12 at Islamabad.