Editorial»
Crash course
AUG 25 -
The monsoon has traditionally been the most dangerous time of the year for flights in Nepal. Before tragedy visited the Agni Air aircraft on Tuesday, killing all 14 passengers and crew members on board, the last major accident also took place at the height of the monsoon in 2008 when a Yeti Airlines aircraft crashed in Lukla killing 18 persons. The twin crashes of Pakistan International Airlines and Thai Airlines in 1992 within the period of 59 days also happened at the peak of the monsoon. The mountainous terrain in Nepal can be difficult to navigate for pilots at the best of times. When visibility is low owing to incessant rainfall or dense fog, it is ill advised to take to the skies.
This is what makes Tuesday’s crash all the more troubling. Following the crash, many meteorologists connected with the aviation sector have expressed their surprise that the German-built Dornier turboprop plane was allowed to take to the air at all. The weather in Lukla, the plane’s final destination, had been horrid for the past 10 days, with all but a single flight to the high-altitude destination in the Everest region cancelled. This prompts the question: Why was the aircraft allowed to fly when the situation in Lukla had not improved? There have also been reports of faults in the plane’s generator, which the pilot reportedly relayed to the Kathmandu-based air traffic controller moments before the crash. Why were the faults not discovered before takeoff and if they were, why were they not fixed or the aircraft grounded?
There is a perception among the masses that commercial airliners sometimes compromise safety under commercial pressures. Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations, aircraft are only supposed to fly for a fixed number of hours, above which their ‘airworthiness’ decreases and ‘fatigue’ sets in. What this means is that it gets progressively difficult to keep aircraft in proper flight conditions as the number of clocked hours surpasses the ICAO’s set limit. In Nepal, it is the Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal’s (CAAN) Airworthiness Department that is tasked with determining an aircraft’s fitness. But in the last few years it has become increasingly clear that there are loopholes in CAAN’s monitoring and testing mechanism as many planes reportedly given a green light have had to make unscheduled landings after unexpected problems crept into their systems.
In relation to the Tuesday crash, aviation experts suspect that the cause might be attributed to a mechanical malfunction rather than human error as the crash took place not amid the rugged, mountainous terrains as is the case with many aircraft crashes in Nepal but in the middle of the plains of Makawanpur district. Of course, it is too early to make a definitive comment on the reason behind the crash. The government has set up a five-member investigation team which will submit its report in 65 days. But past experience suggests that the recommendations of such teams are seldom implemented. Soon after the news of the crash stops making headlines, the aviation industry has generally returned to business as usual. In the history of aviation in Nepal, it is hard to recall even a single punishment being dealt for compromising aircraft safety.
We believe that there should be a fine balance between commercial interests and passenger safety. But there should be little doubt which comes first: nothing can justify putting the lives of people in harm’s way. We hope the latest crash and the resulting deaths are not reduced to statistics. In light of the poor safety record of our domestic airlines, Makawanpur should be a wake-up call.
Posted on: 2010-08-26 08:27
Headlines
Advertisements
