George’s Point of View
The latest in the Comorian aviation rumor mill is that sweet and gentle albeit elderly and perfectly innocent Yemenia Airbus 310 was shot down with a dastardly missile by the French Navy vessels performing maneuvers in the area of the accident a day before the plane crash. Nevermind that the plane was positively geriatric in plane years. Nevermind that it was already disallowed to fly in Europe. Nevermind that it was flying in weather so bad that rough winds had already fouled up the plane’s first pass at the runway.
One tends to doubt that the French Navy was performing maneuvers in the area in the kind of weather that doomed the landing of the Yemenia airbus. Maybe the “missile” was suspended in the air for a whole day while waiting for the Airbus. (Does the French Navy normally fire at Mitsamouli, Djomani, Ouemani or Ouela?)
Maybe if we focus our eyes on the French navy, no one will notice the state of Comorian aviation, airports, aviation safety measures and rescue procedures.
Similar Posts
A Question about Automated Flight-It’s all in the Touch
Back in the days, cars all had manual transmissions. Fast forward through technology and voila, automated transmissions. Like Airbuses and Boeings, the degree of automation—the amount of kick in the stick—affects how one drives. The steering sensitivity of the Aston Martin DB9 varies from the Ford Focus which varies from the Maserati GranTurismo, and on and on.
Is the car operating with a manual transmission, souped up power steering or somewhere in between? If you drive a car, you know the answer by feel. It is through touch, experience and handling that car that you learn how it stops and starts, how it corners, how it takes a hill, or if it is sputtering under pressure and why. The vehicle is unique. Your hands on operation informs you, deliberates with you, engages your senses as part of a machine so you know its paces–the height and depth and breadth it will reach. But even in a car you know backwards and forwards, if you’re on the road with the autopilot on, distant, not communinicating, letting the machine turn over on its own, when you take control again, it can take a measurable length of time for your response to kick in from passive to active. And that’s just braking on a highway.
I believe that stands true for a lot of our daily gizmos.
I believe this autopilot/manual distance between car and driver stands true for plane and pilot.
Take the infamous Air France Flight 447, when the Airbus A330 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean, lost in international waters, and eventually after Herculean effort, found. The ill-trained pilots lost track of what was going on, exacerbating what should have been a minor hiccup into disaster. We know there was an investigation, and hopefully it is still ongoing. I really hope it is ongoing because problems are ongoing. In July, an Air France Bordeaux to Paris flight in July nearly stalled. The near stall makes me wonder about Air France pilots, maybe all post eighties pilots. I’ll let pilots talk about the details of the stall, if they want to discuss it; but I am trying to focus on the bigger picture.
My pilots tell me that these days, their primary cockpit activity is monitoring instrumentation.
I would postulate that drivers drive hands-on, and so should pilots. Flying requires reflexes. Too much automation insulates the pilot from developing and practicing “pilotry”. We all know that sports stars become the best in their field because of the doctrine of practice practice practice makes perfect perfect perfect. But pilots do a lot of sitting back and monitoring when they could be practicing.
Are pilots losing touch? Is there a wholesale lack of connection between plane and pilot caused by automation?
I fear passive monitoring rather than active flying is guilty of dulling the reflexes which make a pilot a superstar. Are all pilots actually learning how to fly? or just how to monitor?
Is there a solution? You tell me.
Ethiopia Flight 409: The Questions Keep Coming

Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Alastair T. GardinerNewspaper reports talk about traces of black soot on the Auxiliary Power Unit. The APU is like your computer backup—similar in theory to the battery backup you may have at home hooked to your computer.
The APU is an auxiliary engine that provided electric power and air to the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 until the main engines began to run.
We ourselves haven’t seen soot, or proof of fire–but we haven’t seen much proof at all, since the report that we keep hearing whispers of has not been made public.
Some facts are known We know, for example, that…
—…the APU is located in the rudder section.
—…the weather was bad.
OLBA 250300Z 06004KT 030V090 5000 VCTS RA FEW020CB BKN026 10/06 Q1014 NOSIGWe have heard rumors which may or may not be unfounded:
—Statements made anonymously by Lebanese airport sources report that Captain Habtamu Benti, the pilot in command (PIC) of the Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737-800 encountered engine problems, perhaps a flame out, during takeoff, and requested permission to abort the flight and return to Beirut. He was given clearance to do so, but another aircraft, a Etihad Airlines flight from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates was in the process of landing and could have interfered with his emergency maneuvers. *But some information has been made public.
—The rudder found at the plane’s tail was reported to have been sent to France. *
—“One of the five cockpit voice recorders which has a damaged segment will be sent from France’s BEA to a Seattle-based company [Honeywell] to recover that lost segment.” *
So we have even more questions. Where, for example, are the statements of the witnesses? What has France said about the rudder? Has the APU been found, and if so, what is its condition?
Even if ATC sent pilot in to a storm, the pilot also has radar and should have seen the storm and refused the order to take off and/or the heading issued to him. Did his radar fail? Did the APU fail? It might well be that the pilot was misled by a radar system in the plane that was not operating correctly. Unlikely, but, possible. There are still a lot of possibilities we can not rule out. The captain had too many hours logged to take off in to a storm with a plane that he knew was not built to withstand the forces of a cell ahead of him.
Even if there is no immediate report available yet, we look forward to the promised release in March/July. (They say that data collection will continue until March 15 2011, in April the data will be verified/validated by Ethiopian and Lebanese authorities, officials of Boeing and the US National Transport Safety Board by May 30th, with a tentative public release date in July.) When more official information is released, it will help to rule out all gross speculation, so we can focus on possible culpable parties in the chain of events that caused this tragedy.
We shall see.

What: Ethiopian Airlines Boeing 737 en route from Beirut to Addis Ababa
Where: 2 miles west of the coastal village of Na’ameh.
When: Jan 25 2010
Who: 7 crew 83 passengers
Why: Shortly after taking off in stormy weather and heavy lightning, Lebanese ATC lost contact. The plane disappeared from radar 45 minutes after leaving Beirut. Witnesses on the coast saw the plane as it crashed into the sea. So far 9 bodies have been found by members of the Lebanese army .
Update
Initial reports of 7 survivors, became 9 bodies, and now the count has reached 21 bodies.
The site of the crash is 2 miles west of the coastal village of Na’ameh.
Fifty-four passengers were Lebanese, 22 Ethiopian, two were British and there were also Canadian, Russian, French, Iraqi and Syrian nationals.
A Cypriot police helicopter has joined the Lebanese army in the search for survivors, and two U.N. helicopters are on the scene.
Ethiopian Airlines is state owned, and has a standing order of 10 of Boeing’s Next-Generation 737-800s
—ET-409 Incident – 25 January, 2010
Ethiopian flight ET-409 was scheduled to operate from Beirut to Addis Ababa on January 25th lost contact with the Lebanese air controllers shortly after take off. The flight departed at 02:35 Lebanese time from Beirut International Airport.
Flight ET-409 carried 82 passenger plus 8 Ethiopian Crew members. Out of the total passengers 23 were Ethiopian, 51 Lebanese, 1 Turkish, 1 French, 2 British, 1 Russian, 1 Canadian, 1 Syrian, 1 Iraqi nationals.
Strobe flashesA Conceit of Accountability
George’s Point of View
Let me present you with a theoretical construct. Let me present you with a horse, and his rider. Let me introduce the horse, who at the beginning of this construct, is already dead. The horse in our fabrication, sadly, has already been ridden to death. And having fallen, the horse is reviled. His good reputation is being fouled, and he is no longer able to defend himself.
And here is the question I mean to ask you:
When you ride a horse to death, whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the horse, who has no choice but to do what he does? Is it the fault of the rider who drives the horse on? Any reasonable person would blame the rider, and rightly so. It is the rider who wields the crop, that drives the horse on when it would rest. The horse is just being a horse. Perhaps we might wonder why: why is the rider such a taskmaster? Is there some great cause involved? Is there some life or lives at stake? Is there a just cause that forces the rider to set such grueling standards?
But I am getting ahead of myself. Putting the cart before the horse, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Let me explain something unique about our horse. Our horse is not an ordinary horse; he is in a unique situation. He had a certain degree of choice. He had other options. He could, perhaps, have chosen to be a cow, or a rabbit. But his essential nature, his learning, his history, his hopes and dreams–they were the learning, history, hopes and dreams of a horse–a whole life lived to one pursuit of being a horse. This horse is a horse, I should say WAS a horse, because he wanted to be. So when he was asked to perform as a horse, he did. Even though the demands that were put on him were exhausting. Even though the scheduling was unreasonable. He was a horse working longer hours, with less rest than he needed, and he paid the price.
So let us turn back to the rider. Why did the rider push so hard? Why is it the horse’s fault for falling to exhaustion, and not the rider’s fault, for driving him to it?
In fact, look at the rider now—he’s back on another horse, riding this one just as hard. In fact, riding many horses, all driven to the same point of exhaustion. And there will be more horses falling, failing. It is inevitable.
So, why is this rider pushing so hard?
It always comes down to money. For the rider, having fewer horses is more cost effective. For the rider, horses are cheap. If one drops, who cares? There are many more where he came from. Why should the rider cater to the demands of the horse–so what if the horse would like shorter hours, better pay? If he wants to be a horse, he has to work like a horse, period.
In fact, the rider could sponsor many more pilots, I mean, horses, divide the work load so that the ratio of work to worker was a reasonable load. But that option is not in the picture.
I am guessing that you have figured out that I am not speaking about horses at all. I am speaking of fallen pilots. In fact, one pilot in particular, Zlatko Glusica, the Air India pilot who was in the cockpit of the Air India Express flight that crashed and killed 158 passengers. Reputations—his and that of his copilot—are being tarred, feathered and dragged through the mud. But the pilots were not alone in that fatal cockpit. There was a third seat, occupied by fatigue, and that third seat was put there by Air India policy.
Air Blue Flight 202 -Don’t forget the Families

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
- Air France | Airbus | Crash | Editorial
Notes on Air France Flight 447: Thoughts on the CVR Facts
So there you have it: the short version of the investigation’s reading of the Cockpit Voice recorder.
If you missed it, we have posted it here in this blog in it’s entirety:https://airflightdisaster.com/?p=17147
If you don’t like the visual rendition, you can click at the bottom for the .pdf.
The problems seem to begin at 2 h 08 min 07; then at 2 h 10 min 05 autopilot & auto thrust disengages. The pilots note that the speeds do not agree,( which means the speeds are incorrect, and it is an indication that pitot tubes are malfunctioning. Around this time, ACARS sent a PITOT error message, which was not mentioned in the CVR summary.) The PIC (captain) re-enters at 2 h 11 min 40 and it is all downhill from there.
As far as we can tell, everything in the cockpit voice recorder still indicates that the main cause for this crash is Thales defective pitot tubes which froze over and sent incorrect data back. How could anyone make correct decisions without knowing the speed at which the plane was traveling? How would the pilots have discerned when the incoming data was faulty and which of it—if any—was correct?
Based on the pilots’ response to the stall, we can also reiterate points made at the February 24 hearing, where Justice Zimmerman pointed out a lack of training for pilots on how to respond to a catastrophic failure. Shouldn’t pilots (and not just the PIC) be trained in this procedure to the point that the correct corrective response is second nature? The time to try to figure out how to respond is not during the catastrophe, with 228 lives hanging in the balance.
There does not appear to be an emergency procedure from the manufacturer. (This was also noted in the February hearing by Justice Zimmerman.)
It appears that the plane stalled, and that could not be corrected in time to prevent the catastrophe.
So now, all eyes will turn to the DVR, which will hopefully help decode what happened mechanically in the stall.
And I do have questions about the notation, which seems to imply that even if autopilot is not online, some (background?) processes continue to be determined by digital input, which may be faulty.
When the measured speeds are below 60 kt, the measured angle of attack values are considered invalid and are not taken into account by the systems. When they are below 30 kt, the speed values themselves are considered invalid. (Or I am misreading the data and the fact of unrecoverability is due to other system factors. It does appear that the Flight Control System is unwieldy or badly conceived.)It seems to me as a layman, that this is a fly-by-wire conundrum. If the plane is in crisis, but it is logically disregarding the correct input when it is beyond a “safe or logical” range, then how can it be corrected, if there are no manual controls? (Not to mention no emergency procedures to fall back on.)
- Continental | Editorial | Emergency | Guam | United Airlines
Guam Route Emergencies Reflecting Vigilance or Roulette?
After four emergency landings in Guam in the past couple of weeks, Continental/United made a statement to the press.
Actually, four emergency landings…that’s not that unusual, is it? Of course, they were all at the same airport, with the same airline. I’ve written here recently about shabby looking, poorly maintained commercial airlines. As frequently as I fly, I really do not want to worry about whether or not a plane is capable of staying in the air. I don’t want to worry about a crew with a crippling pecking order, or pilots who don’t know how to fly. I really don’t want to worry about a broken plane.
I am always pointing out the need for maintenance to keep a plane in peak running order. Maintenance is important; and also, the pilots tell me that it is crucial to keep an eye on safety directives, and concurrent events which may reveal crucial matters affecting entire fleets, such as operating parts nearing the end of their lifespan, faulty parts, etc…
So someone should maybe look closely at those flights, and see if there is some factor that applies. Better to have prevention now, beforehand, than have a disaster happen, and lawyers looking into it after it is too late. Have these Guam flights been problematic in the past? Why are there problems now?I might ask how necessary are those flights?
About those 4 landings, Koji Nagata Director of Corporate Communications said that:
“We treat any issue aboard our aircraft seriously and our pilots will not hesitate to declare an emergency, when the situation warrants, in ensuring landing priority and returning our passengers and crew safely to the ground as quickly as possible. Typically a declaration of an emergency is precautionary in nature, as was true with both cases in question, and the situations were effectively managed without incident.”Sure it would be great to never have emergencies. However. The time to handle an emergency IS BEFORE it turns tragic. Being able to handle emergencies is one safety skill at the top of the list of pilot skills, and one that can not be separated from the other skill that is becoming alarming among pilots (pilots who are losing the ability to fly due to automation.)
Sometimes factors are not clear. For example, it is true that in some recent tragic situations like the RusAir jet crash I talked about yesterday, there was a problem in the cockpit that prevented the crew from coping with the emergency. Bad flying? Primitive Airport? Insubordinate navigator and Inexperienced pilot? But it all came down to one conclusion: together or not, at that date and time, they were unable to cope with their emergency-bad weather, foggy landing, a plane that is a flying behemoth landing in a primitive airport, and they took down a whole plane full of people with them.
And as for the four emergency landings Continental/United experienced recently:
-the air speed indicator (PITOT tubes? like in AF447),
– -two landing gear situations
-and in the Guam flight CO-117, altitude equipment failure (another tube?)The landing gear situations could reflect bad tires, hydraulics, landing at too fast, or even runway conditions; altitude and airspeed problems could be anything on the system, from the tubes to the electronics. Only detailed examination will reveal if there is some common cause
The planes landed safely. An emergency landing, a precautionary landing (whatever they want to call it), they handled the emergencies proactively, and landed safely. It is a whole lot better than the alternative.
