Crash report

So, finally it has been announced that the tragic plane crash in Karachi last month was most probably not the result of a technical fault, rather there is a greater possibility that it was caused due to human errors. The ill-fated Pakistan International Airlines passenger flight PK8303 had crashed on May 23 in close proximity to Jinnah Terminal. It was just seconds away from its landing when it fell on a densely-populated residential area in Karachi’s Model Colony, carrying 99 people including eight crew members. Only two persons survived the crash. The preliminary report which has been made public points to gross negligence of both the cockpit crew and the air control tower. Though the report does not rule out any malfunctioning and mechanical or technical fault, it says there was minimal chance of a technical failure. The aircraft was most likely in good condition as highlighted by the preliminary report. A high-level meeting has considered the report and as yet no serious questions have been raised. The plane was making a second attempt to land when its engines gave in. Apparently the engines had sustained serious damage while the plane scratched the runway in the first attempt that was aborted at the last moment.

Surprisingly, both the cockpit crew and the control tower have been blamed for repeatedly making mistakes, as the black box has not indicated the possibility of any technical fault in the plane. The problem seems to have occurred during the first landing when the altitude and the speed of the aircraft were both exceeding the recommended limit. The control tower should not have allowed the plane to attempt landing with these violations; but then, the air traffic control office was also negligent of its duty as it failed to provide the control tower with the radio frequency. It is puzzling that on one side the report is almost conclusively trying to underplay the possibility of technical fault, and on the other side it also says that the pilot

did not inform the control tower about jamming of the landing gear. Then the report claims that it was a wrong decision to attempt a second landing.

Another blunder highlighted by the report is the inability of the concerned airport staff to thoroughly look for the fragments of the engine that lay on the runway for 12 hours and could have caused damage to other aircraft that were allowed to land. Even after the crash the same air traffic control officials who should have been relieved immediately according to the SOPs, continued to perform their duties. That all may be part of the report but before jumping to any conclusion we must stress that it is a preliminary report that can hardly be considered final. Second, making any definitive assertions about the technical soundness of the plane before the final report is inadvisable. Third, we must ask what measures have been taken to avoid such errors that result in huge loss of innocent lives. Finally, there are questions about what punishments, if any, have been given to those responsible for such negligence. We do hear about the reports but we seldom get to know about the lessons we have learned and who among the responsible people have been punished.