Commission holds cockpit crew, others responsible for Bhoja aircraft crash
September 27, 2014
KARACHI: A two-member judicial commission set up on the directive of Islamabad High Court to probe and fix the responsibility on Bhoja Air plane crash near Islamabad two years ago in which 121 passengers and six crew members lost their lives has submitted its report in the learned court and fixed the responsibility of the crash on cockpit crew members, the Civil Aviation Authority and the management of Bhoja Air.
Surprisingly the commission did not recommend any punishment to those responsible, nor did it point out how much compensation should be given to the relatives of the deceased.The commission also agreed with the statement of Farooq Bhoja, the then chairman of Bhoja Air, that he was only 20 percent partner and had nothing to do with the financial and operational matters.
According to documents received by The News, the judgment comprises 138 pages. The head of the commission was Justice (retd) Ghulam Rabbani and the technical member was Air Vice Marshal (retd) Faaiz Amir. The commission was formed after eight different relatives of the deceased passengers had filed a writ petition no. 2574/2012 in the Islamabad High Court to ascertain the responsibility and payment of reasonable compensation.
The commission focused on seven points: 1) whether issuance of license to Bhoja Air was in accordance with the requirements of law having required infrastructure and aircraft; 2) whether the cockpit crew of Bhoja Air Flight B-213 had requisite professional qualifications, experience and health to fly the aircraft; 3) whether the aircraft of Bhoja Air Flight B-213 had been grounded by the airline from which it was purchased, and what was its airworthiness history, mileage and maintenance record;4) what measures were taken by the authorities after the crash of the flight; 5) whether the Black Box of the flight after its recovery was kept by the Capital Development Authority for 24 hours, during which it was tampered with or not; 6) what was the result of inquiries conducted by different departments like the Civil Aviation Authority, the Capital Development Authority, Bhoja Airlines itself, the Pakistan Air Force, the manufacturers of the aircraft, the insurance companies etc.; 7) Responsibility of crash of the said flight to be pasted, and recommendations, safety measures and remedial steps to be taken to avoid any such incident in future may also be suggested.
In the report, firstly the statement of Farooq Bhoja was included which says that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between him and the Managing Director of the airline, Arshad Jalil. The latter managed to take hold of 80 percent shares and the rest remained with him. The MD agreed to pay the amount but later refused and forced him to remain unfunctional in administrative and financial matters. In this regard the commission analyzed different documents.
During the probe, an official of the Civil Aviation Authority appeared before the commission and presented some documents which were described as highly sensitive and confidential which after reading were kept in an envelop and sealed. The sealed envelop was also attached with the report and deposited with the Islamabad High Court.
The report further states that the Security Exchange Corporation of Pakistan submitted documents saying that despite the equity of the airline being negative and despite the airline being a defaulter of Rs36 million to the CAA, the Civil Aviation Authority renewed the licence of the airline and permitted operation. Also, after the crash the airline continued its operation with two airplanes for 37 days which was completely illegal as for any airline it should have no less than three aircraft for flight operation.
The report says that the cockpit crew, Captain Noorullah Khan Afridi and First Officer Jawed Ahmed Malik, had not been capable of flying Boeing 737-236-A, and despite knowing that the administration of the airline allowed them to take the aircraft to Islamabad which was the inaugural evening flight to Islamabad. Both failed to take correct measures to avoid the incident due to incapability.
The repot further states that the administration of Bhoja Air did not follow 80 to 90 percent of the international aviation rules. The airline continued their operation with another aircraft, a DC-932, without proper airworthiness certificate, thus putting thousands of lives in danger. The airline administration did not bother to provide training for the said aircraft, nor did the captain go for simulator training, and his training period was extended by the CAA. The management deliberately did not inform the cockpit crew about the weather conditions around Islamabad.
The report further adds that the CAA issued the Air Operator Certificate despite knowing the financial conditions of the airline. The captain of the airliner later knowing the weather conditions tried to land the aircraft on Runway No. 30, but he failed to take the right decisions in that circumstance. The First Officer also failed to take charge of the aircraft when he realized that the Captain had not been listening to his suggestions and not following the right procedures. As a First Officer he could have taken the control and flown around the airport until the weather was clear, or he should have taken the aircraft to another airport.
In the end the commission recommended that the CAA should undertake measures to mitigate threats by including in pilot training programmes the techniques to recognize, avoid and recover from along with windshear escape manoeuvres in simulator training; develop windshear forecasting techniques, create windshear exposure maps for the airports to know the risk factors.
They further recommended constitution of an independent committee to investigate into the causes of autopilot system malfunctions in the ill-fated aircraft and their contribution towards the accident; emphasized on training facilities; strictly review the procedures for the grant of extension in simulator training and clearly prescribe practicable terms and conditions for renewal/revalidation of all licences and certificates.
Surprisingly the commission did not recommend any punishment to those responsible, nor did it point out how much compensation should be given to the relatives of the deceased.The commission also agreed with the statement of Farooq Bhoja, the then chairman of Bhoja Air, that he was only 20 percent partner and had nothing to do with the financial and operational matters.
According to documents received by The News, the judgment comprises 138 pages. The head of the commission was Justice (retd) Ghulam Rabbani and the technical member was Air Vice Marshal (retd) Faaiz Amir. The commission was formed after eight different relatives of the deceased passengers had filed a writ petition no. 2574/2012 in the Islamabad High Court to ascertain the responsibility and payment of reasonable compensation.
The commission focused on seven points: 1) whether issuance of license to Bhoja Air was in accordance with the requirements of law having required infrastructure and aircraft; 2) whether the cockpit crew of Bhoja Air Flight B-213 had requisite professional qualifications, experience and health to fly the aircraft; 3) whether the aircraft of Bhoja Air Flight B-213 had been grounded by the airline from which it was purchased, and what was its airworthiness history, mileage and maintenance record;4) what measures were taken by the authorities after the crash of the flight; 5) whether the Black Box of the flight after its recovery was kept by the Capital Development Authority for 24 hours, during which it was tampered with or not; 6) what was the result of inquiries conducted by different departments like the Civil Aviation Authority, the Capital Development Authority, Bhoja Airlines itself, the Pakistan Air Force, the manufacturers of the aircraft, the insurance companies etc.; 7) Responsibility of crash of the said flight to be pasted, and recommendations, safety measures and remedial steps to be taken to avoid any such incident in future may also be suggested.
In the report, firstly the statement of Farooq Bhoja was included which says that a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between him and the Managing Director of the airline, Arshad Jalil. The latter managed to take hold of 80 percent shares and the rest remained with him. The MD agreed to pay the amount but later refused and forced him to remain unfunctional in administrative and financial matters. In this regard the commission analyzed different documents.
During the probe, an official of the Civil Aviation Authority appeared before the commission and presented some documents which were described as highly sensitive and confidential which after reading were kept in an envelop and sealed. The sealed envelop was also attached with the report and deposited with the Islamabad High Court.
The report further states that the Security Exchange Corporation of Pakistan submitted documents saying that despite the equity of the airline being negative and despite the airline being a defaulter of Rs36 million to the CAA, the Civil Aviation Authority renewed the licence of the airline and permitted operation. Also, after the crash the airline continued its operation with two airplanes for 37 days which was completely illegal as for any airline it should have no less than three aircraft for flight operation.
The report says that the cockpit crew, Captain Noorullah Khan Afridi and First Officer Jawed Ahmed Malik, had not been capable of flying Boeing 737-236-A, and despite knowing that the administration of the airline allowed them to take the aircraft to Islamabad which was the inaugural evening flight to Islamabad. Both failed to take correct measures to avoid the incident due to incapability.
The repot further states that the administration of Bhoja Air did not follow 80 to 90 percent of the international aviation rules. The airline continued their operation with another aircraft, a DC-932, without proper airworthiness certificate, thus putting thousands of lives in danger. The airline administration did not bother to provide training for the said aircraft, nor did the captain go for simulator training, and his training period was extended by the CAA. The management deliberately did not inform the cockpit crew about the weather conditions around Islamabad.
The report further adds that the CAA issued the Air Operator Certificate despite knowing the financial conditions of the airline. The captain of the airliner later knowing the weather conditions tried to land the aircraft on Runway No. 30, but he failed to take the right decisions in that circumstance. The First Officer also failed to take charge of the aircraft when he realized that the Captain had not been listening to his suggestions and not following the right procedures. As a First Officer he could have taken the control and flown around the airport until the weather was clear, or he should have taken the aircraft to another airport.
In the end the commission recommended that the CAA should undertake measures to mitigate threats by including in pilot training programmes the techniques to recognize, avoid and recover from along with windshear escape manoeuvres in simulator training; develop windshear forecasting techniques, create windshear exposure maps for the airports to know the risk factors.
They further recommended constitution of an independent committee to investigate into the causes of autopilot system malfunctions in the ill-fated aircraft and their contribution towards the accident; emphasized on training facilities; strictly review the procedures for the grant of extension in simulator training and clearly prescribe practicable terms and conditions for renewal/revalidation of all licences and certificates.
