Tweet
WHY SUGGESTIONS ON PLANE CRASH CHANGED?
Lragir.am
10 July 06
The results of investigation into the crash of the Armenian plane
on May 3 in Sochi were said to be officially published July 10. In
the meantime, the Russian media have been reporting unofficial data
recorded by the black boxes. The Russian media, in fact, assumed
a rather interesting role in the period that followed the crash,
regularly publishing information about the search, investigation and
deciphering of the black boxes. The publication of data of the black
boxes several days before the investigation would end perfectly fit
into the role of the Russian media. It is notable, however, that on
July 6 the Moskovski Komsomolets, in fact, countered to the version
consistently stressed by the Russian media that the cause of the crash
was the human factor. The publication of the MK shifted the focus
onto the technical problems of the plane. This is a rather important
fact, considering that the newspaper's conclusions are based on the
opinions of Russian experts. The same experts, who upheld the human
factor since the crash till the publication of July 6.
The reason for this change in the opinion of experts, in other words
the Russian standpoint, could be the deciphering of the black box
data, which show that there was a problem with the autopilot. A
scrutiny of the publication of the MK reveals, however, that this
information actually supports the probability of the human factor.
The point is that if we believe what the newspaper writes, after the
autopilot failed the captain took up conducting of the plane. Hence,
the captain was responsible for the actions and developments that
followed. Moreover, the newspaper writes that at some point the second
pilot started conducting the plane as well. The plane received two
opposite commands from the first and second pilots. So it becomes
evident that the crew disagreed in an emergency. The newspaper puts
this fact unambiguously, independent from its reason.
Hence, in fact, the human factor is stressed, which was unable to
tackle technical problems with the plane. However, is it possible
that the Russian experts cannot realize this in trying to present the
information as technical problems of the plane. Either they cannot
understand it or they do understand but they pursue some other aim.
The second is closer to the reality. The point is that the Russian
side, which has taken over monopoly on information on the crash,
suddenly starts referring to the French side, and even stats that
the French failed to provide some data for reasons that are not clear.
In addition, it is mentioned that without this information it is
impossible to find out the real cause of the crash. In other words,
the Russians are apparently trying to redirect responsibility for the
investigation towards France. Therefore the necessity to neutralize the
version based on the human factor occurs, highlighting the technical
factor. It is rather difficult to tell the reason for this shift of
the vector of investigation. It is interesting, however, that this
shift occurred when the president of Armenia was visiting Iran.
At first sight this has nothing to do with the investigation into
the crash. However, a scrutiny of the chronology of "non-official
reporting" in the media reveals that it overlaps with the visits of
the Armenian leadership. And the Iranian visit was notable in the
sense that the core issue of the visit was the engagement of Russia
in the project of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. France seems to
have no relation to this and it may not have any. But the version
of technical problems of the plane enables the continuity of the
investigation. As soon as the human factor is confirmed, everything
will end. Whereas the technical factor gives rise to the necessity of
a new investigation: why did the machine break down, who is supposed
to guarantee the technical security of the plane, was it the fault of
the producer of wrong maintenance? These questions provide a large
space for investigation. In other words, the question remains up in
the air, and the families of victims are sure not to learn the real
cause of the plane for a long time. It is not clear yet, however,
whether they have started to wonder about the cause, for when the
minister of defense returned from Sochi, he said the relatives of the
victims may not be interested in the cause, for their concern is to
find the bodies of their relatives.
Judging by the investigation, apparently nobody wants to know the cause
of the crash. Maybe they already know or maybe they do not want to
know. It is also possible that they do not manage. The investigation
of the plane was underway when the second plane crashed, taking 120
lives, another Airbus, the plane of Siberia Airlines. By the way,
this company used to be the shareholder of Armavia for a long time.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Lragir.am
10 July 06
The results of investigation into the crash of the Armenian plane
on May 3 in Sochi were said to be officially published July 10. In
the meantime, the Russian media have been reporting unofficial data
recorded by the black boxes. The Russian media, in fact, assumed
a rather interesting role in the period that followed the crash,
regularly publishing information about the search, investigation and
deciphering of the black boxes. The publication of data of the black
boxes several days before the investigation would end perfectly fit
into the role of the Russian media. It is notable, however, that on
July 6 the Moskovski Komsomolets, in fact, countered to the version
consistently stressed by the Russian media that the cause of the crash
was the human factor. The publication of the MK shifted the focus
onto the technical problems of the plane. This is a rather important
fact, considering that the newspaper's conclusions are based on the
opinions of Russian experts. The same experts, who upheld the human
factor since the crash till the publication of July 6.
The reason for this change in the opinion of experts, in other words
the Russian standpoint, could be the deciphering of the black box
data, which show that there was a problem with the autopilot. A
scrutiny of the publication of the MK reveals, however, that this
information actually supports the probability of the human factor.
The point is that if we believe what the newspaper writes, after the
autopilot failed the captain took up conducting of the plane. Hence,
the captain was responsible for the actions and developments that
followed. Moreover, the newspaper writes that at some point the second
pilot started conducting the plane as well. The plane received two
opposite commands from the first and second pilots. So it becomes
evident that the crew disagreed in an emergency. The newspaper puts
this fact unambiguously, independent from its reason.
Hence, in fact, the human factor is stressed, which was unable to
tackle technical problems with the plane. However, is it possible
that the Russian experts cannot realize this in trying to present the
information as technical problems of the plane. Either they cannot
understand it or they do understand but they pursue some other aim.
The second is closer to the reality. The point is that the Russian
side, which has taken over monopoly on information on the crash,
suddenly starts referring to the French side, and even stats that
the French failed to provide some data for reasons that are not clear.
In addition, it is mentioned that without this information it is
impossible to find out the real cause of the crash. In other words,
the Russians are apparently trying to redirect responsibility for the
investigation towards France. Therefore the necessity to neutralize the
version based on the human factor occurs, highlighting the technical
factor. It is rather difficult to tell the reason for this shift of
the vector of investigation. It is interesting, however, that this
shift occurred when the president of Armenia was visiting Iran.
At first sight this has nothing to do with the investigation into
the crash. However, a scrutiny of the chronology of "non-official
reporting" in the media reveals that it overlaps with the visits of
the Armenian leadership. And the Iranian visit was notable in the
sense that the core issue of the visit was the engagement of Russia
in the project of the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. France seems to
have no relation to this and it may not have any. But the version
of technical problems of the plane enables the continuity of the
investigation. As soon as the human factor is confirmed, everything
will end. Whereas the technical factor gives rise to the necessity of
a new investigation: why did the machine break down, who is supposed
to guarantee the technical security of the plane, was it the fault of
the producer of wrong maintenance? These questions provide a large
space for investigation. In other words, the question remains up in
the air, and the families of victims are sure not to learn the real
cause of the plane for a long time. It is not clear yet, however,
whether they have started to wonder about the cause, for when the
minister of defense returned from Sochi, he said the relatives of the
victims may not be interested in the cause, for their concern is to
find the bodies of their relatives.
Judging by the investigation, apparently nobody wants to know the cause
of the crash. Maybe they already know or maybe they do not want to
know. It is also possible that they do not manage. The investigation
of the plane was underway when the second plane crashed, taking 120
lives, another Airbus, the plane of Siberia Airlines. By the way,
this company used to be the shareholder of Armavia for a long time.
HAKOB BADALYAN