NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Special/ Wg Cdr (retd) R V Parasnis

Is airline safety a myth in India?

It was a fine morning. The weather was good with an occasional drizzle. The visibility was good. It was about 0730 hours, the best time of the day to fly, for at this time there is no turbulence in the air and the aeroplane flies smoothly like a swan gracefully floating on the calm surface of a blue lake. Alliance Air flight CD-7412 coming in from Calcutta had approached Patna airfield at this divine time. The aircraft appeared to be fine and an experienced pilot, Captain Sohan Pal, was at the controls. The aircraft was a Boeing 737, a proven airplane, being flown by practically every major airline across the globe.

Without any incident, the beautiful Boeing came on 'finals', both the pilots on alert and full of concentration as a matter of second nature for the forthcoming landing, only seconds away. The aircraft, however, inexplicably descended too low, hit a neem tree and crashed into some residential buildings bursting into an inferno of flames.

Confounding and preposterous is my description of this accident. Fifty-six people dead, five are still battling for life and a sleek man-made flying bird turned into ashes without explanation! Whatever happened must not have given the pilot a ghost of a chance to save his aircraft. Pilot error at that stage of the flight and that too when all appeared to be going well, is unthinkable. For that matter, the chances of mechanical failure at that stage of flight are also remote. A control-surface malfunction or a bird-strike directly on the engine with resultant fire and loss of power or perhaps some freak turbulence is all one can think of as possible causes, under compulsion.

Air crashes and the media

Everytime an air crash occurs, the media focuses all its attention on it. A tremendous effort is seen to be made to get some skeletons roll out of the cupboard, many a controversy gets created and finally everything dies down when the media's attention focuses on the next sensation. The unsafe condition of the Indian skies remain unchanged and to the contrary, additional complications often get introduced into the situation because of media meddling. The last may have to be accepted as part of occupational risk, but is this all the role our media should play on the subject of air travel safety?

Air travel is the most important mode of transport in the present age. Given the choice, only air travel will be preferred by one and all. In practice, all decision-makers, be they government officials or business tycoons, travel only by air and so does the media. In every crash, therefore, we lose important and useful people, whose loss is irreparable. Surely, aviation safety deserves in depth and constant attention, not just the peripheral treatment we give it in our country, permitting full game play to the politicians, bureaucrats, vested interests et al!

Sensationalism having been established in recent times as its guiding force by the media and trivia as its major goal, the Fourth Estate is fast losing its status as the watch dog of democracy, while just the opposite is required.

The Kandahar hijacking saw the television media in the worst light. They were perceived to be responsible for whipping up tensions by encouraging and overplaying the reactions of the relatives of the hostages and practically forcing the government's hand.

Similarly, while dealing with the present air crash, they are seen to use the 'interrogation' and 'cross-examination' technique to make the experts give comments favourable to the anchorperson's pre-conceived ideas. It's a very dangerous thing to do on matters concerning a highly specialised field such as aviation, worse, a field which is inseparably linked to a very high risk factor.

Also, always short of time and sometimes taking advantage of it, anchorpersons cut short the expert's comments, which might not have been commensurate with their way of thinking, were inconvenient, or where the expert was taking time to build up the point. Without doubt the time constraint must eventually rule the roost, but a little preparation or discussion beforehand would bring out superior results, which are almost always compromised in favour of spontaneity/candidness.

That is perhaps tolerable considering the circumstances, but sadly it also often happens on account of a casual attitude, over-confidence and impatience. That ought to be avoided as far as possible, because having spent so much time and money in bringing the expert to the studios, it is futile if the audience were to be deprived of the point the expert was trying to put across.

There are reports of the relatives of the deceased being upset with the media for their persistent and monotonous inquiries. The pilots' relatives feel deeply hurt about the inquiries/remarks casting aspersions on the ability and professionalism of the deceased even before the cause of the crash is known.

That tragic example from England will suffice to prove my point, wherein a pilot who was incorrectly blamed for the accident became so depressed on account of the criticism in the print and the electronic media that he committed suicide. But his wife took up cudgels, carried out intense investigations and proved in the court of law that the accident was not the result of a pilot error, but a technical flaw hitherto unknown to occur, thus proving the unfair persecution of her innocent husband. But alas, the poor man was beyond help.

Similarly, the airport authorities, the air traffic controllers, the airlines, their ground engineers and even the manufacturers of the aircraft get irked at the premature blame apportioned on their product/performance.

Patience is what the media in general and the television media in particular, lack. If not all, at least a part of the sensationalism value must be sacrificed in the interests of genuine concern for those involved in the tragedy. That irresistible urge to arrive at the result of an investigation within the confines of a television studio even before the official inquiry has commenced its work must be avoided at all costs.

Accident investigation

The tendency to always find someone to blame during an accident investigation has given rise to extremely evil practices in the government departments of aviation as well as in the entire aviation industry. They are:

a. Hide the true cause.

b. Blame someone else.

c. Save one's skin (as different from self-defence).

d. Protectionism

e.Compulsion to find a scapegoat to let the heat dissipate and divert the public attention

Indeed, an air accident investigation can be said to be a raging battle between the forces wanting to keep the facts under wraps and apportion blame on a convenient scapegoat (generally the pilot who is no more alive to defend himself) to satisfy the aggrieved parties crying for someone's blood, as against those wanting to defend themselves or to protect people/organisations/interests/reputations, as also those 'die-hards, who wish to arrive at the truth, come what may. It is in this last role that the public would like to see the media making its efforts relentlessly.

The aim should always be to aid and promote or even provoke investigations to find out what went wrong and why, rather than who went wrong and how to punish him. Total negligence, over speeding, indiscipline, deliberate mistakes etc can rarely be found to be the causes for air accidents. Hence, severe punitive actions are rarely warranted.

I am not advocating the elimination of punishment for the blameworthy, but only for a change towards a more constructive attitude, because only then can we get rid of, or at least suppress sufficiently, the self-destructive tendencies enumerated above.

Also, within reasonable limits the aviation industry must be permitted its share of the human error component, of which, undoubtedly the pilots would claim a large share. That has just got to be accepted. After all, the pilot is the main executive in all aviation activities. The share of his errors is, therefore, bound to be the highest among the aviators. Also, he can't get away with his errors unlike others, whose errors may go un-noticed, or can be kept hidden. Technicians' errors get covered under the blanket term 'technical failure'; pilot error is always a pilot error. Whosoever may make the mistake, it is he who always ends up paying for it, mostly with his life.

Surely, having achieved professionalism, a pilot has no ambitions to commit suicide and in the bargain kill hundreds of passengers, whose lives depend on him! It is a high-risk profession with practically no margin for error at crucial times and a pilot is but human.

Part II: The DGCA's role

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature