Flying in the face of truth?

Seven weeks after a check pilot of Jet Airways, travelling as a passenger on board 9W 332, pulled out a circuit breaker in clear violation of safety, the directorate general of civil aviation has taken disciplinary action.
The statement of Jet criticising the report in TOI has another significant claim: that the flight had a safe approach and landing. The landing may have been safe but, based on the action of the DGCA (that of derostering the commander and the co-pilot of that flight pending investigation), it is clear that the approach was anything but safe.
In the incident, not only did the check pilot interfere with the safe conduct of the flight, he also displayed a complete lack of technical knowledge when he deactivated the No 1 Radio Altimeter CB. The pilot did not lose just the autopilot and the flight director, the aircraft also lost its protective enhanced ground proximity warning system (EGPWS) and predictive windshear alert system (PWS). This protection becomes active when the aircraft is below 2,500 feet above ground. Safety studies have established that CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) and ALAs (approach and landing accidents) account for a very large portion of aircraft hull losses. Windshear on approach is another danger that aircraft face while approaching to land. Preventive and predictive safety enhancement equipment like EGPWS and PWS were introduced to make flights safer.
The question that the DGCA and the airline need to answer is the long gap between the event and corrective action. The action carried out by the pilot was prohibited. The airline should introspect on the failure to initiate immediate disciplinary action when the matter came to light in its own internal data monitoring. Only then can it claim that passenger safety is paramount.
04/12/09 Capt A Ranganathan/Times of India

To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline

Categories: Jet Airways Dec 2009, Safety Dec 2009