Abbas Ali wrote:According to an eye witness statement that I saw on TV, the aircraft was not on fire when it made first contact with the ground. It caught fire after making contact with the ground and then after hitting rising ground it jumped into the air and exploded.
Abbas
Why do planes have to crash in front of so informed and educated witnesses. Some aviation expert was on TV after Airblue crash saying,"never trust the witnesses to investigate an air crash".
Made contact with ground, caught fire and then after hitting rising ground it jumped into the air and exploded. Is that possible ? Or maybe that is not a plane, it is a rubber ball which jumped back into the air ? It's fuselage would have broken on first imapact and shattered across. How did it jump into the air ? I want that witness to describe this in detail.
Once you have tasted flight, you will ever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward - Leonardo Da Vinci
faisal-777 wrote:
Some aviation expert was on TV after Airblue crash saying,"never trust the witnesses to investigate an air crash".
witness account is always a key part of investigation. it is investigator's job to determine if the statement is solid and can be used to conclude the case.
There was no major fire at the crash site so all such witness accounts are baseless. TV footage after the crash clearly shows the lack of inferno. Even most of the bodies were recovered intact and had no signs of burns. It looks like a case of micro burst combined with faulty equipment, careless pilots and criminal negligence of air-traffic controllers and most importantly the CAA. The report will blame the pilot alone as has happened in the past.
Let's hope the victims families take some legal action and demand full inquiry otherwise the matter will be brushed under the carpet as usual.
It is also possible there was not enough fuel left in the plane thus there was no inferno. Abbas also pointed towards this in an early post. This adds another point in favor of the victims' families if they want to pursue legal action.
newflyer wrote:...........and criminal negligence of air-traffic controllers...........
Seems a bit too harsh. Safe conduct of flight in general including avoiding weather is a pilot's primary responsibility.
Not harsh from the victims' families point of view though. I know a couple of people who were directly affected by the tragedy. They are holding the atc responsible as well.
The ATCs around the world play a key role in ensuring safe landings and takeoffs. The weather was pretty bad but the controllers had cleared the plane for landing. The crash also points towards faulty weather equipment installed at the airport if the controllers actually had no idea that the weather was bad (although the thunderstorm was visible to naked eye as well).
Newflyer
My sympathies with the victims' families, nonetheless, the pilot has a better picture of the weather as compared to ATC. The ATC just has a aerodrome weather report he/she gets from met and simply reads it out to aircrew if requested, including presence of thunderstorms in the vicinity. ATC has no weather radar. Windsheer or microburst (if that indeed was the culprit) is a very localised phenomenon lasting few minites. Without a windsheer detection system around the airfield (as is the case with chaklala) ATC has no means to warn the pilots of presence of one.
Even if we hypothetically accept WS or MB to be the cause, the ATC has no role to play. The airfield ATIS is avialble to pilots, thier wx radar shows them the weather in front and CB/thunderstorm if any, plus they have the additional advantage of thier vintage to make the best decision about weather. Moreover i doubt B732 have predictive windsheer capability in the onboard wx radar. Under these circumstances, it is the pilot(s) alone to make an analytical judgement of flying through, around or under a thunder cell.
Also mention that these facilities are not available with Pakistani ATCs as the global standards are completely different. Windshear/Microburst detection was deemed mandatory in the US after the Flight 191 crash in 1985. Such systems are also at work at many other countries.
As for the Bhoja equipment, I highly doubt it had even basic weather radar in functioning condition let alone the dopplers that can detect MB. The CAA's role come to the fore if that was really the case.
P.S. My friends, who are preparing a legal action against the culprits, have included the ATC in the list of the defendants. I've advised them to add a clause regarding the installation of windshear/MB detection at Islamabad airport for the good of future passengers. Two fatal crashes in less than two years should not be treated lightly.
Also mention that these facilities are not available with Pakistani ATCs as the global standards are completely different. Windshear/Microburst detection was deemed mandatory in the US after the Flight 191 crash in 1985. Such systems are also at work at many other countries.
Newflyer, I appreciate your concerns, but the question is, was it mendatory at chaklala at the time of accident. Sad but unfortunate fact is that it was not and one cannot hold someone responsible for something which was not mandated in the first place, regardless of the rules in the US and other countries
Also mention that these facilities are not available with Pakistani ATCs as the global standards are completely different. Windshear/Microburst detection was deemed mandatory in the US after the Flight 191 crash in 1985. Such systems are also at work at many other countries.
Newflyer, I appreciate your concerns, but the question is, was it mendatory at chaklala at the time of accident. Sad but unfortunate fact is that it was not and one cannot hold someone responsible for something which was not mandated in the first place, regardless of the rules in the US and other countries
Well you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. The families hold the ATC responsible and they have included them in the litigation that will soon be filed with the court.
Also, some good may come out of this. And there is no comparison with the West either. Courts in even a country like us (India) ordered the installation of collision avoidance systems in all aircraft and that too 16 years ago after the Charkhi-Dadri incident. The court can and should issue necessary orders to bring the CAA and the ATC to task.
newflyer wrote: The families hold the ATC responsible and they have included them in the litigation that will soon be filed with the court.
That is typical of Pakistan. FIR main jis ka chahe naam likha dain. But purely from technical point of view, there was no 'criminal negligence' on part of ATC under the given circumstances.
No doubt you have the right to differ and I respect that.
In investigation report, pilot and bad weather have been blamed for Bhoja Air crash, according to Express News channel.
I hope this report also gets posted on official website of Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Here's 'The Express Tribune' news report.
Investigation report blames pilot for Bhoja Air crash
Published: July 2, 2012
Initial investigations have revealed that the pilot of the Bhoja Air 737-200 aircraft – which crashed near Islamabad in April killing all 127 people onboard – was responsible for the crash, Express News reported on Monday.
According to the investigation report, the co-pilot of the plane kept telling pilot Noorullah Afridi to “go round†and “pullâ€ÂÂ, but the pilot tried landing the plane even in bad weather.
The pilot knew about the bad weather condition before the plane took off from Karachi and even saw it on the radar around 50 miles away from Islamabad, said sources.
The pilot was also given multiple warnings by the Air Control Tower regarding the weather.
As the pilot tried to land the plane, it got caught in a “downdraft†and crashed within 30-40 seconds. The plane caught fire after it crashed, added sources.
The report added that the aircraft had no technical faults.
