Tweet
MAYBE IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO SAVE THE PLANE
Lragir.am
27 July 06
The cause of the crash of the Armenian plane announced officially is
supposed to put an end to three months of uncertainty and waiting,
when almost entire Armenia wanted to know what was the real cause of
the crash. The Interstate Aviation Committee announced that the cause
of the crash was the human factor, more exactly the insufficient
action of the crew. In other words, it was the fault of the pilot.
This is the conclusion of the task force, which conducted different
types of investigations, simulated the flight, deciphered the black
boxes, and so on. In other words, they did everything, because the
head of the IAC Tatyana Anodina announced two weeks ago in Yerevan
that they possess all the important facts to state the cause of the
crash "absolutely" definitely.
Therefore, it should be supposed that the fault of the pilot is the
cause of the crash. However, similarly it can be supposed that it was
not the real cause of the crash. The point is that there are no clear
and irrefutable facts about the fault of the pilot and the dishonesty
of the task force which carried out the investigation. The task force
says they possess all the necessary facts and data. But the public
did not see these facts, therefore they have the right to doubt that
the cause of the crash could be another factor than the human factor.
The point is that in order to trust the conclusion of the IAC the
public needs to become convinced that the crew could find a more
correct way out. And maybe it was impossible to save the plane, and
it appeared in a state when the actions of the pilot were formal and
merely "supported" his fault. In other words, either he had to do
something or not to do anything. Having two option, to be accused
posthumously of "doing wrongly" or not doing anything. After all,
was it the guilt of the pilot that the plane appeared in an extremely
difficult state? The answer to this question is very important,
in fact. Why did the pilot switch off the autopilot and conduct the
plane himself? Maybe the autopilot went out of order. By the way,
the Moskovski Komsomolets published information from an anonymous
source about the deciphering of the black boxes that the autopilot
went off, and the pilot had to conduct the plane himself.
In other words, the conclusion of the IAC is not reliable for the
public, and to say "we have grounds" does not mean it is true. It
is also possible that the IAC experts have grounds but of another
cause. And it is not known whether the cause stemming from these
grounds is published or whether the grounds of the published cause
are meant.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Lragir.am
27 July 06
The cause of the crash of the Armenian plane announced officially is
supposed to put an end to three months of uncertainty and waiting,
when almost entire Armenia wanted to know what was the real cause of
the crash. The Interstate Aviation Committee announced that the cause
of the crash was the human factor, more exactly the insufficient
action of the crew. In other words, it was the fault of the pilot.
This is the conclusion of the task force, which conducted different
types of investigations, simulated the flight, deciphered the black
boxes, and so on. In other words, they did everything, because the
head of the IAC Tatyana Anodina announced two weeks ago in Yerevan
that they possess all the important facts to state the cause of the
crash "absolutely" definitely.
Therefore, it should be supposed that the fault of the pilot is the
cause of the crash. However, similarly it can be supposed that it was
not the real cause of the crash. The point is that there are no clear
and irrefutable facts about the fault of the pilot and the dishonesty
of the task force which carried out the investigation. The task force
says they possess all the necessary facts and data. But the public
did not see these facts, therefore they have the right to doubt that
the cause of the crash could be another factor than the human factor.
The point is that in order to trust the conclusion of the IAC the
public needs to become convinced that the crew could find a more
correct way out. And maybe it was impossible to save the plane, and
it appeared in a state when the actions of the pilot were formal and
merely "supported" his fault. In other words, either he had to do
something or not to do anything. Having two option, to be accused
posthumously of "doing wrongly" or not doing anything. After all,
was it the guilt of the pilot that the plane appeared in an extremely
difficult state? The answer to this question is very important,
in fact. Why did the pilot switch off the autopilot and conduct the
plane himself? Maybe the autopilot went out of order. By the way,
the Moskovski Komsomolets published information from an anonymous
source about the deciphering of the black boxes that the autopilot
went off, and the pilot had to conduct the plane himself.
In other words, the conclusion of the IAC is not reliable for the
public, and to say "we have grounds" does not mean it is true. It
is also possible that the IAC experts have grounds but of another
cause. And it is not known whether the cause stemming from these
grounds is published or whether the grounds of the published cause
are meant.
HAKOB BADALYAN