The fact that the plane crashed into a row of houses raises the fundamental dangers of highrise buildings near the airport
There are two important factors in flying. Ponderable and imponderable. The man and machine interface constitutes the ponderable factor while the weather and unforeseen scenarios on the flight path are imponderable. If an aircraft crashes it would be categorised either as an avoidable or an unavoidable accident by the investigators. So, how does one categorise the Karachi air crash of May 22? Avoidable or unavoidable? To do so, one has to re-construct the Lahore-Karachi PIA flight 8303.
Manufactured and sold to China Southern Airlines in 2004, the Airbus-a320-214 was acquired by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in 2014. With a maximum take-off weight of 77 tonnes, the Lahore-Karachi flight certainly couldn’t have had a full load as it was carrying just 100 people instead of the usual 140. Covering a distance of 1,050 kilometres approximately in 90 minutes certainly wouldn’t be a big deal for an aircraft like this, particularly on a clear day.
Nevertheless, things obviously didn’t go as planned and the plane crashed one kilometre from the Karachi runway. So what went wrong? Man or machine? Let’s see the machine first. According to Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, the Airbus-a320-214 is a time-tested sturdy craft, being the “first subsonic commercial aircraft to have composites for major primary structures and a centralised maintenance system.” Also, being equipped to fly-by-wire (FBW), “The system incorporates flight envelope protection features to a degree that cannot be achieved with conventional mechanical control systems. Its computers will not allow the aircraft’s structural and aerodynamic limitations to be exceeded by the pilot.”
Though slightly technical, the above description would give the readers some idea pertaining to the failproof system of Airbus-a320 flying control, which is the main instrument in the hands of the pilot, for a safe landing. No doubt the flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) will be the most crucial instruments that will help decipher the last minutes of the aircraft leading up to the accident. Yet, certain things are clear. First, the aircraft was airworthy. Second, the pilot was competent to fly. Third, the craft, after take-off from Lahore, retracted its undercarriage without any glitch. Fourth, no emergency message (so far) appears to have been reported anywhere en route. Then what happened while descending?
Why did the pilot suddenly call out Mayday (international call for urgent assistance) at the last minute so near the ground? Why didn’t the undercarriage of the aircraft open? Was the rate of descent and the speed of approach mismatched owing to a faulty gauge or faulty reading? Was there any catastrophic attack on the cockpit crew by someone? Was it hit by something like a US-made Stinger, shoulder-fired air-to-surface missile, the type of which the Afghan Taliban used against slow and low flying aircraft of the Soviets and then against the US Air Force?
The main cause for concern is the way the distressed craft could not be controlled during the last few minutes, at a low height and slow speed, while aligned with the landing instrument. It has been reported that three unusual things happened. The pilot of the crashed aircraft allegedly ignored three warnings from the Air Traffic Controllers (ATC) about the plane’s speed and altitude before the landing and assured the ATC that he was satisfied and would “handle the situation.” Later, the undercarriage didn’t open and the engine malfunctioned.
The first point to ponder is why did the pilot ignore the ATC’s three warnings on speed and altitude? Was he overconfident of his aircraft or his flying skills? Second, were the glitches reported later related? If the undercarriage is retracted on take-off from Lahore but doesn’t open before touch-down at Karachi, it could be owing to lack of proper maintenance on the ground. If so, human error led to the mishap. However, if the engine malfunctions after a 90-minute flight, just before landing, again it raises the same question. Why now? Why not before, while on cruising height, or take off, or at a higher altitude, before its descent?
No doubt the Karachi crash probe result will take time to come out. No doubt the world will be keen to study and take note of the findings to avoid the recurrence of such air disasters in the future. But the stark reality is: A qualified pilot, flying an airworthy aircraft, on a hot but clear day, crashed on the outskirts of the landing strip, thereby killing 100 plus passengers and destroying several homes. Instead of the runway, the plane ran over the roofs of human dwellings. In a way, it was an avoidable landing. In another way, the aircraft behaviour at the last minute is puzzling. Only time will tell who is to blame for the crash, the man or the machine?
However, the fact that the plane crashed into a row of houses serves as a grim reminder-cum-warning to all as it raises the fundamental dangers of highrise buildings near the airport. India, too, has faced this problem, from time to time. India does have laws against such real estate development. But are laws being followed in letter and in spirit? Is it time to look afresh at our aviation and aviation-related development laws around airports? Now is as good a time as any.
(The writer is the author of China in India)
