Margalah Plane was hijacked

[MastanKhan]

THIS... THIS.... ^^^^

This is the critical portion. A circling approach in bad weather can be unbelievably challenging, especially when it gets sprung on you once you are well into the approach to the original runway. It is amazingly difficult, when the weather is down, to execute this properly.

In hindsight, he probably should have executed a missed approach to the original runway, which is designed to get the aircraft above any threatening terrain; then, either hold and wait for the weather to get better, or divert. Diverting would probably be a better choice.

Hi,

That is what the retd. Air Marshall is asserting---the man was fasting against regulations---a drop in glucose impaired his judgement at the critical time---he made a bad decision---or, in his impaired condition---didnot make a decision in due time.

I know second hand the effects of drop in glucose level----my uncle---not a pilot---got told by doctors to control his sugar intake---he was a doctor himself---mis-diagnosed the directives and cut down on sugar intake---when he went into the final comma---we found out later that he was having continuous mini commas---very short passing outs---that came from his driver, who told us that he would just pass out for short periods of time.

Over here we are not talking about passing out---but slowing reaction time and impaired judgement----it was only an hour or an hour and half flight time---end of the day---.

In this case---the black box can only tell so much---you can't check his glucose level now---it is all going to be presumptive---the aircraft didnot have any problems----a pretty new aircraft---with all the bells and whistles in working condition---.

If the captain was fasting---then he is the culprit---.

Chogy---I am reading that airlines are looking into giving more charge to the co-pilot in decision making---allowing co-pilots to react sooner rather than later---calling on the captain earlier than waiting till the last moment---any truth to that.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Originally Posted by MastanKhan
"Chogy---I am reading that airlines are looking into giving more charge to the co-pilot in decision making---allowing co-pilots to react sooner rather than later---calling on the captain earlier than waiting till the last moment---any truth to that. "


Sorry to intrude in the conversation, MK:
The point that you have raised is very valid. Both Aviation and Maritime fields have recognised this factor for quite a long time. And sought to address it by Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) and Bridge Team Management (BTM) training.
In simple terms, one of the major tools is inter-personal communication to enhance "Situational Awareness". Where the Pilot/ Co-Pilot and Captain/ First Officer dovetail and complement each other for command/control tasks. One critical component is "challenge and response" which actually translates as the subordinate/assistant being able to effectively bring critical information to the attention of the Superior in the most direct/assertive manner. Crews have to be (and are trained) for this. Yet in investigation of numerous accidents (from CVRs and VDRs) have borne out that this lacuna still exists and may have been at least a proximate cause of an accident/incident.

Just to share.
Rgds
Popeye

 

[MastanKhan]

Originally Posted by MastanKhan
"Chogy---I am reading that airlines are looking into giving more charge to the co-pilot in decision making---allowing co-pilots to react sooner rather than later---calling on the captain earlier than waiting till the last moment---any truth to that. "


Sorry to intrude in the conversation, MK:
The point that you have raised is very valid. Both Aviation and Maritime fields have recognised this factor for quite a long time. And sought to address it by Cockpit Resource Management (CRM) and Bridge Team Management (BTM) training.
In simple terms, one of the major tools is inter-personal communication to enhance "Situational Awareness". Where the Pilot/ Co-Pilot and Captain/ First Officer dovetail and complement each other for command/control tasks. One critical component is "challenge and response" which actually translates as the subordinate/assistant being able to effectively bring critical information to the attention of the Superior in the most direct/assertive manner. Crews have to be (and are trained) for this. Yet in investigation of numerous accidents (from CVRs and VDRs) have borne out that this lacuna still exists and may have been at least a proximate cause of an accident/incident.

Just to share.
Rgds
Popeye

Hi,

Thank you very much for showing up. I personally believe that in any accident where there is a team of operators involved---a junior operator waits till the last moment to say something to warn the team leader and at times it is too late---this I am talking about , mostly in civilian cases.

There is always a fear of retribution in the minds of the juniors---the capt would keep a grudge for the rest of his life for making him look bad in front of others---the captains colleagues---who would be on the panel of analysts and who don't want to be harsh with the captain would be creating problems for the junior officer for making the captain look bad---retribution---fear of job termination---fear of no promotion---a new baby---kids education---are so many things that would keep a junior officer keep his mouth shut till the last moment---.

Damned if you do it and damned if you don't.

 

[Chogy]

Much of what you refer to depends upon the experience (and temperment) of the parties involved. American Airlines had an accident in Little Rock, USA, when the Captain (who was a Chief Pilot; a boss-type) decided to land in stormy conditions, and the brand-new co-pilot was probably too intimidated to object.

Part of our annual training includes elements of what Popeye mentioned, up to and including intervening on the flight controls. The bad old days of "Gear up, shut up" are long gone.

 

[Mughal-Prince]

You are saying they were going to hit the plane with Kahuta nuclear plant......Just like 9/11.....Blackwater and US soldiers might be brave and kickass soldiers....But they committing suicide attack..... Impossible....

Thats what I was thinking ... It seems they don't even know how to create a story out of something
... Thats what I was thinking since I read this thread ... in addition Sir, they are blackwater the contractors (mercineries), and people join it to earn handsome amount of money, by doing suisidal operation they won't get any, infact they already have better life ... stupid conspiracy theory ...

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Thanks for your response MK;
What you speak about is undoubtedly true. And not necessarily in the civilian field, but the military field as well. The difference being that the military sphere gets to cover it up for various reasons, the civilian sphere gets exposed more easily; not least because of attendant casualties.
There are some other reasons for this kind of phenomenon which goes a little beyond hierarchical set-up. The relative personality differences between the individuals concerned is one. Multi-cultural differences between members of a multi-national crew is another. And then there is insufficient/deficient verbal communication skills- especially if the crew members are utilising a working language which is not native to them.

About the first- I’ve heard a tape recording where a person (superior) says brusquely “who’s in charge here”; luckily it related to a near-miss incident. His psychological profile gave some more insights.

Then there are some cultures where the hierarchical is set is considered to be sacrosanct; this is hardly conducive to constructive engagement. One recent accident that we studied had the players who had been brought up in a totalitarian (behind the erstwhile iron-curtain) regime. The analysis showed (not surprisingly) that an atmosphere suitable to enhancing “situational awareness” in that team was non-existent. While the team seemed to be suitably equipped to tackle “standard” situations using a “Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)” template; in a “non-standard” scenario they could not (and would not) operate constructively or cohesively.

BTW, about SOPs I have a personal view that they can be both constructed and disseminated in a way that they change character from “Standard Operating Procedures” to “Standard Operating Principles”. Would appreciate some counter-views, esp from Chogy.

About “verbal communication” issues; there is at least one incident that comes to mind- the fatal MAC (mid air collision) over Charkhi Dadri in India between a Kazakh freighter and a Saudi air-liner leading to huge loss of life. The ATC instructions about maintaining a certain altitude was misunderstood.
In the maritime field; there was an incident where a large container ship allided with the pier of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay bridge in 2007. A simple piece of information regarding the “center of the span of the bridge” was understood to be “center of the bridge”.

What I’ve sought to outline above are only “contributory causes” i.e. some links in the “error chain”.
Obviously that is not the whole picture.
Regards.

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

‘Airblue cockpit had a third person’


By Imran Ali Teepu
Saturday, 28 Aug, 2010

The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route.

: A team investigating the crash of the ill-fated Airblue jetliner on July 28 in Islamabad has detected the possible presence of a third person in the cockpit. Under normal circumstances, a cockpit is not supposed to have anyone other than the pilot and the co-pilot.
“The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner,” a source close to the investigation told Dawn on condition of anonymity.

The voice has been extracted from the Cockpit Voice Recorder, according to the source, and the investigators were looking into various possibilities and aspects.

The CVR, which is part of the ‘Black Box’, is a flight recorder used to document the audio environment in the cockpit of an aircraft. In order to record and document the audio environment, microphones are installed in the pilots’ headsets and in the roof of the cockpit.

The source said that the data of communication between the control tower and the pilot were available with the investigators. Dawn has also learnt that the pilot and control tower communicated with each other for two minutes and 25 seconds.

Two teams are currently investigating the air crash in which 152 people were killed. One of them is headed by Air Commodore Khawaja Abdul Majeed, president of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Safety Investigation Board. It is focussing on human factors, possibility of technical fault and weather conditions.

The second team, headed by Federal Investigation Agency Director General Zafarullah Khan, has been assigned the task of investigating the possibility of ‘sabotage’.

The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route. “The late pilot was very experienced and professional with thousands of flying hours under his belt; hence the fact that the plane strayed five nautical miles from the original route is also a cause for concern for investigators,” he said. The source said that six investigators were yet to hold a joint meeting.

When asked if there was a third voice in the audio recording of the cockpit, CAA director general Air Commodore (retd) Junaid Amin told Dawn: “I am not aware of the presence of a third person in the cockpit… you cannot judge from the audio whether there was a third person….”


No fault in Airblue aircraft



An analysis of the Black Box of the ill-fated Airblue aircraft which crashed on July 28 has revealed that it had no technical fault at the time of the accident.
In intimation to A-320 operators across the world, Airbus said there was no need to update the procedures or make fresh recommendations after the ED 202 crash because all flight systems were working normally before the aircraft slammed into the fog-covered mountains.

All 152 passengers on board were killed.

The advisory was based on a preliminary analysis of flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder by Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses.

A final outcome of the investigation may take months, but preliminary investigations have set the direction for the probe.

According to aviation experts, the Airbus communication implies that technical malfunctioning has been effectively ruled out as the cause of the incident and it is up to the investigation team constituted by the Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the crash occurred because of pilot error, bad weather, control tower fault or any other factor.

The cockpit voice recording readouts have also revealed that the pilots belatedly realised that they were flying into terrain. The first officer of the flight was heard screaming “Sir, pull up, pull up” moments before the crash.

This revelation has been supported by the findings of local investigators which show that before hitting the mountains the aircraft had climbed from 2,600 feet to 3,100 feet. The aircraft was circling for Runway 12, where it was to attempt visual landing.



Sources privy to the investigations believe the pilot got panicked after realising that he was flying into the terrain and had turned the autopilot ‘heading bug’ to the left at more than 180 degrees.



The aircraft, experts say, takes the shortest possible route in such situation and instead of turning left moved towards right.

Why did the aircraft go so close to the hills? Several explanations are being dished out, but the most commonly heard of in the aviation circles say that the pilot while circling for Runway 12 was on Flight Management Computer, but instead of following the prescribed route he had probably created a ‘visual circuit using place bearing distance waypoints’ that put him in the wrong place.

Insertion of place bearing distance waypoints is strictly prohibited by aircraft manufacturers because the Airbus FMC does not have a ‘fix page’ capability, wherein a defined distance can be superimposed on the existing route.



The standard instructions are that any route that is not supported by a ground navigational aid should not be used.

DAWN.COM | Front Page | ?Airblue cockpit had a third person?

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

Now what????

This time it is the favourite source of Pakistani burgurs DAWN.COM

 

[Patriot]

Now what????

This time it is the favourite source of Pakistani burgurs DAWN.COM

yeah man we agree with you it's a evil conspiracy by evil yahoodis to kill pious muslims

 

[Chogy]

All commercial transports have a third and sometimes a fourth seat. Most often they are not used. Occasionally, another crewmember with cockpit credentials may ride the jumpseat; it is done as a professional courtesy. But I suspect this "third person in the cockpit" is going to be a premature phantom. Instead of "Sir, Pull up, Pull up!" you'd have "WHO THE *** ARE YOU? GET OUT OF THE COCKPIT!" etc.

I cannot overemphasize how easily such a maneuver can be screwed up, and at certain airports with rising terrain, if circling approach procedures (ground track, climb) are not followed precisely, then disaster can occur.

At our airline, we discourage circling approaches, and take them only when the weather is better than minimums. There is an approach into San Jose, Costa Rica, that includes an ILS to 07, circle to land 25, basically a teardrop, with rising terrain in 3 quadrants. When the weather is down, it is genuinely frightening to execute, and the ground track and methodology are briefed 3 times (at least) enroute to San Jose if we anticipate this maneuver.

If the accident was caused by the aircraft turning in the shortest direction to the setting of the heading bug (the wrong way), then the crew would have needed to intervene immediately to correct the ground track. The apparent problem was, neither noticed until the jet was headed well into the terrain. Even then, a full-powered terrain "escape" maneuver will almost always save the aircraft.

Controlled flight into terrain accidents have been around since the beginning, and they will unfortunately be with us forever. Thankfully, automation and systems have greatly reduced this sort of accident.

 

[GUNNER]

Now what????

This time it is the favourite source of Pakistani burgurs DAWN.COM

The presence of a third person in the cockpit does not necessarily has to be a conspiracy theory. Right now, it's unconfirmed. Even if there was one, we do not know who this person is and for what purpose he is there. He could be part of the crew who went up to check what was going on.

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

Mystery over presence of third person in crashed Pak Airblue jet's cockpit

Islamabad, Aug.28 : Investigations have revealed the possibility of presence of a third person inside the cockpit of the Airblue jet which crashed in the Margala hills on July 28 killing all 152 people on board.






According to sources close to the investigation team probing the fatal air crash, voices apart from those of the pilot and the co-pilot have been detected by investigators from the recordings of the Cockpit Voice Recorder
(CVR)

"The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner," The Dawn quoted sources, as saying.

The CVR, which is part of the 'Black Box', is a flight recorder used to document the audio environment in the cockpit of an aircraft.

The cockpit voice recordings have also revealed that the pilots were slow to respond after they realised that the aircraft was flying into the terrain.

"Sir, pull up, pull up," the first officer of the flight is heard screaming moments before the crash.

It is worth mentioning here that a team headed by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general Zafarullah Khan is investigating the possibility of 'sabotage' in the worst air disaster of the country.

However, Civil Aviation Authority director general Air Commodore (retired) Junaid Amin refused to give any detail regarding reports presence of any third person in the cockpit of the ill-fated aircraft.

"I am not aware of the presence of a third person in the cockpit... you cannot judge from the audio whether there was a third person," Amin said.

Meanwhile, investigators have ruled out any technical snag in the aircraft at the time of the crash following a detailed study of the Black Box recordings.

The final investigation report may take months to come out.


--ANI
Mystery over presence of third person in crashed Pak Airblue jet's cockpit [newkerala.com, 30197]

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

Mystery over presence of 3rd person in crashed Pak Airblue jet`s cockpit!

"The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner"

Quotes from Zee News - News, photos, topics, and quotes

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

‘airblue Cockpit Had A Third Person’

‘Airblue cockpit had a third person’

By Imran Ali Teepu
Saturday, 28 Aug, 2010


ISLAMABAD: A team investigating the crash of the ill-fated Airblue jetliner on July 28 in Islamabad has detected the possible presence of a third person in the cockpit. Under normal circumstances, a cockpit is not supposed to have anyone other than the pilot and the co-pilot.

“The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner,” a source close to the investigation told Dawn on condition of anonymity.

The voice has been extracted from the Cockpit Voice Recorder, according to the source, and the investigators were looking into various possibilities and aspects.

The CVR, which is part of the ‘Black Box’, is a flight recorder used to document the audio environment in the cockpit of an aircraft. In order to record and document the audio environment, microphones are installed in the pilots’ headsets and in the roof of the cockpit.

The source said that the data of communication between the control tower and the pilot were available with the investigators. Dawn has also learnt that the pilot and control tower communicated with each other for two minutes and 25 seconds.

Two teams are currently investigating the air crash in which 152 people were killed. One of them is headed by Air Commodore Khawaja Abdul Majeed, president of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Safety Investigation Board. It is focussing on human factors, possibility of technical fault and weather conditions.

The second team, headed by Federal Investigation Agency Director General Zafarullah Khan, has been assigned the task of investigating the possibility of ‘sabotage’.

The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route. “The late pilot was very experienced and professional with thousands of flying hours under his belt; hence the fact that the plane strayed five nautical miles from the original route is also a cause for concern for investigators,” he said. The source said that six investigators were yet to hold a joint meeting.

When asked if there was a third voice in the audio recording of the cockpit, CAA director general Air Commodore (retd) Junaid Amin told Dawn: “I am not aware of the presence of a third person in the cockpit… you cannot judge from the audio whether there was a third person….”



No fault in Airblue aircraft



An analysis of the Black Box of the ill-fated Airblue aircraft which crashed on July 28 has revealed that it had no technical fault at the time of the accident.

In intimation to A-320 operators across the world, Airbus said there was no need to update the procedures or make fresh recommendations after the ED 202 crash because all flight systems were working normally before the aircraft slammed into the fog-covered mountains.

All 152 passengers on board were killed.

The advisory was based on a preliminary analysis of flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder by Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses.

A final outcome of the investigation may take months, but preliminary investigations have set the direction for the probe.

According to aviation experts, the Airbus communication implies that technical malfunctioning has been effectively ruled out as the cause of the incident and it is up to the investigation team constituted by the Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the crash occurred because of pilot error, bad weather, control tower fault or any other factor.

The cockpit voice recording readouts have also revealed that the pilots belatedly realised that they were flying into terrain. The first officer of the flight was heard screaming “Sir, pull up, pull up” moments before the crash.

This revelation has been supported by the findings of local investigators which show that before hitting the mountains the aircraft had climbed from 2,600 feet to 3,100 feet. The aircraft was circling for Runway 12, where it was to attempt visual landing.



Sources privy to the investigations believe the pilot got panicked after realising that he was flying into the terrain and had turned the autopilot ‘heading bug’ to the left at more than 180 degrees.



The aircraft, experts say, takes the shortest possible route in such situation and instead of turning left moved towards right.

Why did the aircraft go so close to the hills? Several explanations are being dished out, but the most commonly heard of in the aviation circles say that the pilot while circling for Runway 12 was on Flight Management Computer, but instead of following the prescribed route he had probably created a ‘visual circuit using place bearing distance waypoints’ that put him in the wrong place.

Insertion of place bearing distance waypoints is strictly prohibited by aircraft manufacturers because the Airbus FMC does not have a ‘fix page’ capability, wherein a defined distance can be superimposed on the existing route.



The standard instructions are that any route that is not supported by a ground navigational aid should not be used.



Pakistani Defence Forum > ‘airblue Cockpit Had A Third Person’

 

[SnIPeR Xr]

Mystery over presence of third person in crashed Pak Airblue jet's cockpit

Investigations have revealed the possibility of presence of a third person inside the cockpit of the Airblue jet which crashed in the Margala hills on July 28 killing all 152 people on board.

According to sources close to the investigation team probing the fatal air crash, voices apart from those of the pilot and the co-pilot have been detected by investigators from the recordings of the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR)

"The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner," The Dawn quoted sources, as saying.

The CVR, which is part of the 'Black Box', is a flight recorder used to document the audio environment in the cockpit of an aircraft.

The cockpit voice recordings have also revealed that the pilots were slow to respond after they realised that the aircraft was flying into the terrain.

"Sir, pull up, pull up," the first officer of the flight is heard screaming moments before the crash.

It is worth mentioning here that a team headed by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) director general Zafarullah Khan is investigating the possibility of 'sabotage' in the worst air disaster of the country.

However, Civil Aviation Authority director general Air Commodore (retired) Junaid Amin refused to give any detail regarding reports presence of any third person in the cockpit of the ill-fated aircraft.

"I am not aware of the presence of a third person in the cockpit... you cannot judge from the audio whether there was a third person," Amin said.

Meanwhile, investigators have ruled out any technical snag in the aircraft at the time of the crash following a detailed study of the Black Box recordings.

The final investigation report may take months to come out. (ANI)
Mystery over presence of third person in crashed Pak Airblue jet's cockpit