Dissatisfied with the way the investigation is being handled, the family members are refusing to suffer in silence. They want transparency, and they want the investigation to continue. The family members have formed the Airblue Crash Victim’s Affectee Group, to give the 152 families the opportunity to join together and speak in one voice.
Federal agencies in the Washington, DC, area are OPEN under 2 hours DELAYED ARRIVAL and employees have the OPTION FOR UNSCHEDULED LEAVE OR UNSCHEDULED TELEWORK. Employees should plan to arrive for work no more than 2 hours later than they would normally arrive.
Some people woke today and remembered 152 passengers who crashed into a hillside in Pakistan. The plane was flown by Airblue and it was the last ride those 152 people would ever remember. For the last ten months, every morning the families wake and remember someone on that plane who is no longer here. Even though as of July 28, it will have been a year since the crash, to their families, time doesn’t matter so much. Justice does.
On July 28, Airbus sent out a press release regrettably confirming their year 2000 model Airbus A321 operated by Airblue operating a scheduled service, Flight ED 202, from Karachi to Islamabad crashed, killing all aboard. Airbus promised to provide full technical assistance to Pakistani authorities. Thanks for the concern and sympathy, but ask the families, where is their assistance?
We have not heard anything about Pilot Pervez Iqbal Chaudhry who was 61 years old, and suffering from diabetes and hypertension. Was he suffering fatigue if he had observed prayers of the holy day preceding the crash? We don’t know. His flight schedule has not been released.
The black box, was found July 31 of last year, and sent to the Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses pour la Sécurité de l’Aviation Civile, but the BEA (whose involvement is one of “observer” under 1944 Chicago Annex 13) has no page up for the crash. Ask the families, where is their assistance?
The NTSB (also observer) only has this statement: The investigation is being conducted by the Pakistan Safety & Investigation Board, Civil Aviation Authority. The NTSB appointed an Accredited Representative to assist the investigation under the provisions of ICAO Annex 13 as the Country of Manufacture and Design of the engines. Ask the families, where is their assistance?
The ball is in Pakistani court.
The Pakistani government announced compensation of Rs 500,000 ($5,847) to each family. (Pakistan is signatory to Hague Protocol and Montreal Convention of 1999, under which compensation could be as much as Rs12 million per victim.) The pending Carriage by Air Act 2010 offers minimum compensation of Rs500,000 for death and injury of domestic flight passengers. Airblue has replaced the plane and business is booming.
But not the families of the 152 victims. We still don’t know why it happened. We haven’t heard about families getting compensation. If this were an international flight, there would be an active treaty (Montreal Convention) outlining the guidelines. But in this domestic flight, the families still hanging in the wind, waiting for a report, and waiting for compensation. We know that to get adequate compensation, the families will have to fight it out in court. If you ask the families where their assistance is, they will tell you that there has been none. Should they have to petition the court for the most fundamental victim’s right—just to find out why the airline they trusted with their loved ones lives, the plane they trusted with their loved ones—crashed?
Link to our initial study, Airblue 202-?Pre-?Theory and Testing Hypothesis
For Immediate Release
Sept 20, 2007
SAO PAULO, Brazil-Brazil’s civil aviation regulator proposed restricting flights at the nation’s busiest airport on Thursday, hoping to improve safety at the site of the nation’s deadliest plane crash.
The rules proposed by the Civil Aviation Authority would restrict destinations to a 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) radius of the Congonhas airport and would bar connecting flights from the airport.
The Defense Ministry will now assess the report, and Defense Minister Nelson Jobim announced separately that authorities will decide within one month the precise location for construction of a third runway at Sao Paulo’s Guarulhos airport.
Guarulhos handled mostly international flights before the July 17 crash at Congonhas, but many domestic flights were transferred there after the crash, prompting officials to revive a long dormant plan for the extra runway.
As many as 5,000 families living near Guarulhos may have to be relocated to make way for the runway, depending on the location selected, Brazil’s Agencia Estado news service said.
The proposals grow out of a review of operations at Congonhas following the crash in which a TAM airliner ran off the runway and slammed into a building two months ago, killing 199 people.
Officials have not determined a cause, but many experts have said that Congonhas’ main runway is too short and that the airport _ Brazil’s busiest _ handles far too many flights.
The 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) limit would let airlines fly to key destinations such as Brasilia, Rio de Janeiro and cities in southern Brazil, but not to tourist destinations in the northeast.
TAM Linhas Aeras SA and Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes _ Brazil’s two largest airlines _ previously used Congonhas as a major hub, but are now reorganizing operations.
The regulators also proposed limiting the number of passengers aboard flights, and restricting takeoffs and landings to 33 per hour at Congonhas, cutting overall passenger capacity at the airport to 4,700 per hour from 5,100 per hour.
Jobim, whose ministry oversees Brazilian civil aviation, earlier announced plans to for an escape area at the end of the runway and limits on operations in wet conditions.
The 787: Dreamliner test flight suffered from extensive smoke, fire and structural damage originating in the P100′ electrical panel, a key component that distributes power from the left generator to power vital systems
The 777: United electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire. This was initially reported as smoke. Thus no reason for the FAA to go there. And the full narrative said only “electrical fire” but did not elucidate beyond “electrical fire” to explain the electrical panel set the nearby insulation blankets on fire.
The AAIB conclusions 4,5, and 6, were:
The three requirements for a fire: oxygen, ignition source and fuel.
From 2000 to 2008, over 22 ADs are directed at insulation blankets that burn. Before that, from 1988 to 2010, 8 FAA Tech Center reports and 2 FAA Safety Conference Papers are directed at electrical induced fires or the insulation blankets that give fuel to the fire.
When was the latest AD ?
2008-23-09. REMOVE PET (AN-26). Boeing Model 727-200s, 737-200s, 737-300s, and 737-400, 747s, 757s, 767s Series Airplanes.from the fuselage. Such insulation blankets could ignite and propagate a fire that is the result of electrical arcing or sparking.
DATES; Issued Oct 24, 2008 -effective Dec 15, 2008 – Comply by 2014. If you read the AD, you can note that the compliance date is actually set beyond the affected planes anticipated passenger service-life. Compliance is put off until the planes will likely be converted from passenger to cargo.
2002 FAA ASTRAC Conference Conclusions
Without being too critical or belaboring the obvious, I do have to say that the 2002 conclusions are overly obvious and simplistic. These same points will probably be as true in 2002 and 2011 as in 3011. Point by point? Consider this:
So here is the problem as it should possibly be stated:
-We need compliance now because people are on these planes now, not at some random future date. Pushing back solutions puts more people are at risk. We need feasible compliance that doesn’t put good companies out of business but still maintains the highest possible safety standards NOT the lowest possible cost. Putting off compliance over a combustible insulation blanket until 2014? Really? How is this safe?
-The lowest common denominator should not be lowest possible cost-to-the- industry. It should be the highest possible safety for the passenger. These things are not always mutually exclusive.
-If the root problem is less than ideal materials used across many manufacturer and model applications, then quit pussyfooting around.
If the boy is going to cry wolf, let it be for a real wolf. If the wolf is real, then act. If inadequate materials, composites, etc are the problem, then don’t point the finger and do nothing. Questionable materials have no place in an industry that lives under guidelines advocating and promoting safety over all.
Like Yoda said, “Do or do not. There is no try.”
Raise the standards.
A ruling by Kentucky Supreme Court regarding the Comair crash that killed 49 people in 2006 says that as part of the county government, Lexington’s Blue Grass Airport cannot be held accountable.
While not the primary factor, poor runway markings, bad signs, and lighting problems contributed to the accident. The crash is being blamed on decisions made by the pilots.
Since the crash, have markings, signs and lighting been improved? If so, then it would seem that any such revisions made to improve conditions stand as testament to acknowledge pre-existing problems.
The sovereign state can do no wrong?
What country are we in, anyway.
Vice President of Safety and Regulatory Compliance Paul Morell needs to be ousted for lack of leadership, and ignoring aviation safety concerns of US Airways pilots, according to the pilot reps of the US Airline Pilots Association. Seventeen points have been cited as examples of his dereliction and lapses in safety protocols.
An October pilot survey pointed out pilot concerns that:
Click to view the press release .pdf
