MH370: Should Zahari and Fariq be investigated? — Rama Ramanathan

MARCH 19 — Should Captain Zahari Ahmad Shah and First Officer Fariq Abd. Hamid, the Captain and First Officer of MH370 be considered suspects and investigated?

Many Malaysians answer “NO!” They say Zahari’s passion for justice and compassion towards others should exempt him from suspicion and investigation.

As for Fariq, well he’s young and is probably being investigated since it’s been alleged that in December 2011, contrary to airline policy, he had two female passengers with him in the cockpit of a flight from Phuket to Kuala Lumpur.

Many say “forgive lah.”

Investigation is about finding root causes, preventing mishaps, becoming better. In the case of MH370, it includes finding the plane.

In his autobiography “Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters,” Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who in January 2009 safely landed an Airbus 320 on the Hudson River with no loss of life, says he carefully read every air crash investigation so he could learn and be a better pilot.

Every pilot knows he could be the subject of an investigation. I’m a data guy. So, let me tell you 7 things one Air Crash Investigation Report says about 2 pilots who died in a cargo plane which crashed while they were landing it.

The report complies with the standards and recommended practices in ICAO Annexe 13: Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation. The following is found in a section titled “Working Conditions of PIC (Pilot in Charge) and FO (First Officer) up to the Accident.

Commuting method and time. Both travelled thousands of miles from their homes to work. “It could not be determined” how the PIC commuted to work. The FO came on a jump seat in the cockpit of a cargo plane which made one stop en route. There is no evidence that they didn’t comply with applicable regulations and policies. No reason for concern.

Adequacy of rest between flights. The report lists the departure and destination airports and departure and arrival times of each of the flights they flew in the 72 hours prior to the accident. For each flight it reports the “flight duty hours” and the “flight time.” It also reports the layover time. It even lists periods of “no documented activity” for each of them. There is no evidence that they didn’t comply with applicable regulations and policies. It mentions that one of them received a phone call from a relative during the 72-hour period; it notes that the relative said he sounded normal. No reason for concern.

Medical history. It describes their medical histories. The PIC had taken 4 months leave for medical treatment; when he returned to work 2 months before the accident he submitted a medical certificate stating that he had made a full recovery. His “aviation medical examination” authorised his use of medication for 2 named medical conditions. The FO had an ankle bone fracture 14 years earlier and knee surgery 7 years earlier. No reason for concern.

Physical condition. 2 captains and a line check airman had flown with them recently. They made no remarks about fatigue; they didn’t complain of back pain or knee pain. They had no sleep disorders. There is anecdotal evidence that they planned to sleep early, to get adequate rest before they reported for duty. The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) recorded the FO telling the PIC to make some noise if it got too quiet, and the PIC agreeing. No reason for concern.

Medicines used. Sleeping medicines, pain killers, long-term anti-anxiety medicines, anti-inflammatory medicines and fever medicines were found among the men’s personal effects. No reason for concern.

Blood and urine analysis (autopsy). The PIC’s blood and urine contained traces of Lidocaine which may have been administered by rescuers, and three other drugs. All findings are consistent with applicable country regulations and their airline’s own guidelines. (It notes that certain medicines are allowed to be used only if the pilot waits “at least 5 dosing intervals of the medication before operating the aircraft). No reason for concern.

Training status. The report lists the training they had been scheduled to attend, and whether they showed up. It notes that they had both passed the required proficiency checks and were not overdue for any checks. No reason for concern.

Other crash investigation reports I have reviewed include the same data about the pilots.

Now, you tell me. Do the professionals who wrote the air crash investigation rules think Captain Zahari and First Officer Fariq of MH370 should be investigated?

The aircraft manufacturer and its suppliers have a lot to lose if it is found that equipment is somehow the root cause of the disaster. Boeing shareholders tremble at every mention of a Boeing Airworthiness Directive proposed by the US Federal Aviation Administration on 12 June 2013. It was a proposal to take more seriously reports of cracks in the skin of the fuselages of a number of aircraft.

I’ve led many investigations, though none in the airline industry. I know self-protection instincts are present in every Crisis Management and Investigation team.

I hear the whispers: “It can’t be the aircraft!” “It can’t be ground control!” “It can’t be the air force radar.” “It’s not that we’re protecting a former Defence Minister.”

If the pilots are not ruled out, vested interests will keep insinuating it could be the pilots. Therefore, treat everything and everyone as a suspect.

Consider this. The report on Zahari may include his stellar scores on his state-of-the-art DIY flight simulator; or, it may indicate some nuance about DIY simulators which no one has appreciated to-date. Isn’t either result a good thing?

Incidentally, it would be a good thing if Zahari had actually attempted simulated landings on “tough” airfields in the Indian Ocean: he worked extra hard at being a good pilot.

*Rama Ramanathan blogs at write2rest.blogspot.com.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.