@sharpie
It appears that my thoughts in post 24 may be close to being correct that the accident is more of pilot induced rather than an aircraft fault.
We may never learn the truth a la 'the land of smiles'!
thanks for the update. so zest air put all the liability onto the poor crew!
in your post 24
http://www.pprune.org/4644931-post24.html you've said:
Why just charge the crew?
Why before doing so or even contemplating such an action fully investigate the whole operator set-up.? Why shoot the messenger?
i underwrite this without any hesitation. did the philippine caa do a safety audit on zest air and when was the last one? did they pass or did they find reasons that zest air should not operate?
would certainly begin looking at the training of all pilots; ground as well as flight training. Was it adequate, are the crew trained in CRM, how many check rides do they perform into 'short' airstrips, who teaches them such 'low' approachs that nessesitate road closures to permit landings, are they operating outside of the aircraft's performance envelope. Have a very good look at the operator's culture; look at the senior flight management; the company financial strength. Investigate fully all aspects of the operation before 'shooting the pilots'.
i've spoken to a crew of lao airlines with whom zest air seems to have some type of cooperation in both technical and operational aspects. i was surprissed to learn that the crews were only trained on a c class simulator and never underwent a full emergency training.
this might be also one of the secondary causes to blame in this crash landing. according to the lao crew the pilot follow strict military discipline and there is no crm or culture in the cockpit: i am in command and you do what i tell you and don't object to my action.
As you should be well aware of, an accident may not be the result of just hitting a runway; it could be the result of many factors, poor airmanship, inadequate training, company pressure,peer pressure , poor CRM, crew status, or a host of other factors in place well prior to an accident, all coming together as the 'Swiss Cheese' example. Result. an accident.
i underwrite this also 100%. the lao guys told me that zest air is training their people without proper sylabulus and training aids. its like: okay guys you know how to fly and that's what you gonna do here with the ma60. fly it and land it and be punctual and save fuel.
the objections of the vp ops are not being listened to. he is left alone and has to scramble to get things organized. poor g!
the management only worries on how to earn money but not about safety standards, training and proper aircraft planning. according to the lao crew their are take-offs which are overloaded by as much as 5% from manila because zest air has to accomodate pax and cargo. more than often the reduced payload on to in caticlan is exceeded and papers are made looking good.
I hope that RP authorities can and do complete a thorough investigation into this accident in light of many other undershoots or over-runs in the past few years. There appears to be deficiencies in basic flying standards.
Happy safe flying!
in thailand you have one2go, the philippines has zest air. money talks in investigations and the result is being properly discussed and adjusted before its release. this is also the reason why the islands will maintain the banana island status with faa in the cat 2.
i've just seen an interesting article about this status here:
http://philippineairspace.**********...ntil-2010.html
The Philippines may have to wait until next year for its aviation rating to be upgraded to category 1 status as the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) has yet to complete the FAA’s safety compliance checklist to qualify for an upgrade. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) was also reviewing the progress of the Philippines as it sent its own men last January to evaluate its technical capability.
any result from easa already? are you guys in the island being downgraded to blacklist status?
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) found in November 2007 that the Philippines failed on six out of the seven components of the FAA’s aviation audit which encompasses international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
These are:
1. primary aviation legislation,
2. specific operating regulations,
3. technical guidance,
4. qualified technical personnel, licensing and certification,
5. continued surveillance obligations and
6. resolution of aviation safety issues.
my fair guess: none of the points above has been addressed properly so faa and easa can sign off on it.
Among specific details being questioned by the FAA are:
1. the pencil marks on airmen licensure tests,
2. poor record keeping due to the absence of librarians,
3. no updated handbooks or master copies for handbooks on airworthiness, aircraft, and pilot inspection, and
4. lack of personnel training.
money makes the philippines go and also the aviators there.
FAA found it in compliance with ICAO standards. However, after a reassessment in 2005 deficiencies were noted, particularly the promised amended and consolidated legislation on Civil Aviation. The current law, Republic Act 776, which was enacted on 20 June 1952, otherwise termed as the Civil Aeronautics Law of the Philippines, was no longer found to be adequate to support the growing complexity of world aviation safety regulations, and the Philippine government was made aware of it after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York.
The Philippines came out fine in 2002 because it promised the FAA that the Civil Aviation Authority legislation was coming out soon as it was already submitted in Congress for its approval.
promisses in the islands seem to be as good as the guy who is promissing it.
is this senator arroyo a relative - as usual in the islands - of the president?
Despite the presence of ICAO foreign technical consultants, CAAP is bent on hiring personnel with standards lower than what would be required for one to be a qualified inspector.
right dude, hiring guys who need to line their pockets!
James Hooker, former chief of the ICAO flight safety consultancy panel for the Philippines, wrote in a document dated April 8, 2008 that CAAP people had been dismissive of ICAO recommendations and questioned the United Nations agency’s authority to propose ways on how the agency might overcome the downgrade. ICAO consultants working with the CAAP for months have become “very, very frustrated” with how the country’s officials have been handling the problem. CAAP has yet to fulfill the technical requirements in areas where the FAA found it remiss, and that many of the FAA requirements were still on the to-do list. “They are doing it little by little. We don’t understand anymore if they want an upgrade or they want to remain in Category 2 forever.”
After that statement, the Philippine government sought his replacement and he was relieved by Peter Weiss who now works together with 4 other consultants.
It remains to be seen whether the ICAO, FAA, and now EASA will allow such attitude on compliance and whether it will remain to be engaged with the civil aviation authority in the Philippines as they review the situation to qualify the Philippines for a Category 1 rating.
philippines the republic of bananas and good aviation officials. zest air showed again that they were able to get away with hurting people without being blamed for but it was a "simple pilot's error".
and these simple pilots error might cost the life of people but nobody seems to care over there!