The Central Administrative Board of the Civil Aviation of Armenia (CABCAA) has presented a package of remarks on the text of the project of final conclusion of the Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) on the investigation of the causes of the crash of A-320 airbus of Armavia company over the Black Sea on May 3. The document is composed of three parts: significant, editorial and principal remarks. Among significant remarks is a note that the meteorological radar of Sochi airport did not detect dangerous meteorological conditions due to unknown reasons. The CABCAA suggests to analyze the data of the radar of the plane and the parameter flight recorder and to discover the causes of pilot’s words. The next remark refers to the IAC definition that “by means of objective control Armavia company does not analyze flights of A-320 crews, which would allow comprehensively assessing their professional training.” The CABCAA suggests withdrawing that item, as “objective control means are not aimed at evaluation of professional training of crews.”
The CABCAA also suggests withdrawing the following paragraph, “Analysis of the conversation in the cockpit from 9.44 p.m. to 9.45 p.m. shows that the situation in the cockpit is aggravating. Crewmembers, especially the captain, are trying to land the plane exactly in the Sochi airport. The further conversation between the pilots evidences that the crew do not with to bother the dispatcher once more over not getting a forecast on not favorable weather conditions from the latter.” Besides, the CABCAA suggests omitting the latter part of the sentence, “ or was in a stressed psycho-emotional state due to the demand to land in Sochi.” Besides, according to the CABCAA, specifying the degree of the capacity for work of equipment and systems of the destination airport by the crew before arrival to the airport is not an evidence of not full exploration of the air navigation information in the airport of landing.
The next remark by the CABCAA refers to IAC definition that “the dispatcher reported about landing in compliance with his working method after getting in touch with the crew.” The CABCAA noted that in fact actions of the dispatcher are evaluated from the point of view of the order of getting in touch, but not control of the altitude of the plane after making a second lap before walling into water. Thus, the CABCAA suggests to estimate the dispatcher’s activities within that period of the flight by adding a phrase, “however, he did not directly influence the outcome of the flight.” Besides, the CABCAA suggests adding the next sentence, “the meteorological and air navigation provision of the flight was not always in line with the requirements of the normative documents in effect.” Among principal remarks the CABCAA notes that the probability for the captain of the plane to lose capability was not considered. The CABCAA suggests adding this version to the text of the conclusion, reports IA Regnum.
