AKIF KHALID
ROLL NO: 12135
Awais Anwar
ROLL NO: 12131
Case*1
Indian Airlines Flight 814
Some details of flight 814
Indian Airlines Flight 814
Date
Type
Hijacking
Site
Passengers
178
Crew
15
Injuries
17
Fatalities
1 (Rupin Katyal)
Survivors
192
Aircraft type
Airbus A300
Operator
Indian Airlines
Registration
VT-EDW
Flight origin
Destination
Hijacking
Indian Airlines Flight 814 (call sign IC-814) was an Indian Airlines
Airbus A300 en route from Tribhuvan International Airport
(Kathmandu, Nepal) to Indira Gandhi International Airport (Delhi,
India) when it was hijacked by five Pakistani nationals[1] on 24
December 1999. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a Pakistan-based terrorist
group, was held responsible for the hijacking.
The aircraft was hijacked by armed gunmen shortly after it
entered Indian airspace at about 17:30 hours IST. After touching
down in Amritsar, Lahore and Dubai, the hijackers forced the
aircraft to land in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The hijackers released
27 of 176 passengers in Dubai but fatally stabbed one and
wounded several others.
India's lack of recognition of the Taliban-regime in Afghanistan
complicated negotiations between Indian authorities and the
hijackers. Taliban moved its well-armed fighters near the hijacked
aircraft in an attempt to prevent Indian special forces from
storming the aircraft. The hijacking lasted for seven days and
ended after India released three Islamic militants Mushtaq
Ahmed Zargar, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (who was later
arrested for the murder of Daniel Pearl) and Maulana Masood
Azhar (who later founded Jaish-e-Mohammed).
Indian and U.S. intelligence agencies reported of credible links
between the hijackers, the al-Qaida and the Taliban. The five
hijackers and the three released militants were provided a safe
passage by the Taliban. The dubious role played by the Taliban
was widely condemned and led to further deterioration of
relations between India and the Taliban
The identities of the hijackers according to the Indian
Government were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Release of militants
The hijackers initially demanded the release of 35 Islamic
militants in Indian jails and US$200 million in cash but Indian
negotiators succeeded in persuading the hijackers in reducing
their demand to the release of three prisoners. These were:
INVESTIGATION
The case was investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) which charged 10 people out of which seven including the
five hijackers were still absconding and are in Pakistan. On 5 Feb
2008, a special anti hijacking Patiala House Court sentenced all
three convicts namely Abdul Latif, Yusuf Nepali and Dilip Kumar
Bhujel to life imprisonment. They were charged for helping the
hijackers in procuring fake passports and to take weapons on
board. However, CBI moved Punjab and Haryana High Court
demanding death penalty (instead of life imprisonment) to Abdul
Latif. The case is set to come up for regular hearing in high court
in September 2012. On 13 September 2012,the Jammu and
Kashmir Police arrested terror suspect Mehrajuddin Dand, who
allegedly provided logistical support for the hijacking of IC-814 in
1999. He allegedly provided travel papers to IC-814 hijackers
Similarly here I discuss another case of UNLAWFUL
INTERFERENCE
Case* 2
Illustration of 9V-TRF
Occurrence summary
Date
19 December 1997
Type
Site
Passengers
Crew
97
Injuries
Fatalities
Survivors
Aircraft type
Operator
Registration
Flight origin
Destination
104 (all)
0
Boeing 737-36N
SilkAir
9V-TRF
Soekarno-Hatta International Airport
Singapore Changi Airport
Flight History
The Boeing 737-300 operating as Flight MI 185 was the newest in
SilkAir's fleet, delivered to the airline on 14 February 1997, ten
months before the crash
Carrying 97 passengers and a crew of seven, the Boeing departed
Jakarta's Soekarno-Hatta International Airport's runway 25R at
15:37 local time (08:37 UTC) for a planned 80 minute flight to
Singapore Changi Airport, with the captain at the controls.
Generally fair weather was expected for the route, except for
some thunderstorms near Singkep Island, 120 km south of
Singapore.
The jetliner was cleared to climb to flight level 350 (35,000
feet/10,668 m above mean sea level), and to head directly to
Palembang At 15:47 the aircraft climbed through FL245 (24,500
feet/7,468 m). The crew then requested a clearance to proceed
directly to PARDI. At 15:53 the crew reported reaching its cruise
altitude of FL350 and was cleared to proceed directly to PARDI,
and to report abeam Palembang. At 16:05 the cockpit voice
recorder (CVR) ceased recording. According to the TV series
Mayday, Captain Tsu took the opportunity of dropping his
headphones to trip the circuit breaker. At 16:10 the controller
informed the flight that it was abeam Palembang. The controller
instructed the aircraft to maintain FL350 (35,000 feet/10,668 m)
and to contact Singapore Control upon reaching PARDI. First
Crash
Flight 185 remained level at FL350 (35,000 feet/10,668 m) until it
started a rapid and nearly vertical dive, as shown on Jakarta
radar, around 16:12:18. The aircraft broke up in flight, and its
debris crashed into the Musi River, near Palembang, Sumatra.
From the moment it dived to impact took less than 1 minute. The
plane was travelling faster than the speed of sound for a few
seconds before it broke up.
All 104 people on board, including the 41-year-old Singaporean
captain, Tsu Way Ming () and the 23-year-old co-pilot, New
Zealander Duncan Ward, died in the crash.
The aircraft broke into pieces before impact, with the debris
spread over several kilometres, though most of the wreckage was
concentrated in a single 60-metre (200 ft) by 80-metre (260 ft)
area at the river bottom. There was not a complete body, body
part or limb found, as the entire aircraft and passengers
disintegrated upon impact. Only six positive identifications were
later obtained from the few recovered human remains.
Among those killed in the crash was Singaporean model and
author Bonny Hicks.
Case*3
Accident:TAMEE190atQuitoonSep16th2011,
overranrunway
Ecuador's Accident Investigation Commission JIA have released
their final report in Spanish concluding the probable cause of the
accident was:
the crew's decision to continue the approach and landing without
actioning the relevant checklists (EMERGENCY AND ABNORMAL
Procedures), that were required for malfunctions of the slat/flap
systems by the Quick Reference Handbook, resulting in too long a
landing.
The aircraft and crew had been scheduled to fly the sectors LojaQuito-Cuenca-Quito that evening. There had been discussion
between the captain and dispatch, the captain argued that the
sector Quito-Cuenca-Quito should be flown by another crew
which was turned down.
vacated the runway. The crew reported they had the runway in
sight and were cleared to land on runway 35, winds were calm,
braking action average, after that transmission was
acknowledged the tower instructed the crew to turn on their
landing lights. The flight data recorder identified the main wheels
touched down 880 meters/2900 feet past the runway threshold,
overran the end of the runway, travelled past the runway end
safety area of 166 meters/540 feet, took down 6 of the 14 the
localizer antennas and broke through the aerodrome perimeter
wall knocking down 19 meters of the wall before coming to a stop
about 300 meters/1000 feet past the runway end.
The tower controller had watched the landing and pressed the
crash button immediately when the aircraft went past the runway
end. Emergency services responded and reached the aircraft 50
seconds after the aircraft came to a stop. The aircraft spilled fuel
from the wing tanks, emergency services therefore foamed the
aircraft. The occupants of the aircraft were evacuated via the 2L
and 2R slides. The forward left slide did not inflate and the safety
pin could not be removed, the forward right slide was blocked by
a housing wall although it had normally inflated. Slide 3R could
not be used due to obstacles.
6 crew and 5 passengers received minor injuries.
The aircraft received substantial damage including fracture of the
left and right main gear struts, displacement of the nose section
due to impact with the wall, the main wheel tyres received cuts
as result of impact with the wall.
In addition to the damage to 6 of 14 localizer antennas and
destruction of 19 meters of aerodrome perimeter wall the wall of
a house's living room below the final position of the aircraft was
damaged over a length of 9 meters.
The JIA stated that with landing flaps applied the landing distance
required would have been 880 meters at a Vref of 119 KIAS for
the present weight of the aircraft and environmental conditions.
CONCLUSION:
The JIA thus analysed that the crew did not work the relevant
checklists after encountering the slat failure, did not abort the
approach although the stabilized approach criteria were never
met, and applied brakes late and irregular thus preventing the
aircraft to stop within the shortest landing distance possible. The
crew was under significant discomfort and stress, especially the
captain following the argument with dispatch and the delay in
Loja, their performance was therefore impaired. The JIA stated:
"the human factor, including a good deal of time spent during
flight in conversation about these issues unrelated to the conduct
of the flight, was a dominant factor into the accident sequence
leading to loss of situational awareness and inappropriate
decision making".
A TAME Embraer ERJ-190, registration HC-CEZ performing flight
EQ-148 from Loja to Quito (Ecuador) with 97 passengers and 6
crew, landed on Quito's runway 35 in rain at around 19:00L
(00:00Z Sep 17th) but could not stop on the runway. The aircraft
went over soft ground, through the localizer antenna and came to
a stop at the airport perimeter wall about 275 meters/900 feet
past the runway end. 4 people received minor injuries, the
aircraft received substantial damage.