Ethiopian: Crash investigation report is incomplete, biased

thiopian Airlines (ET) has refuted the Lebanese Ministry of Public Works and Transport final report into the ET flight 409 Boeing 737-800 crash, which occurred Jan. 25, 2010.

The carrier said the final report is incomplete, lacking evidence and is biased toward the Lebanese government assertion alleging the accident was caused by pilot error. ET claims the report contains “numerous” inaccuracies, as well as contradictions and hypothetical statements.

“We are not surprised that the investigation process in the last couple of years was used only to justify the speculation made publicly before the beginning of the investigation process,” ET CEO Tewolde Gebremariam said. “To this effect, the Ethiopian Civil Aviation Authority has appended its comments to the report and expressed its regrets and disagreement both in the investigation process and the final report.”

According to ET, the report downplays testimony from ATC officers and other airline pilots who witnessed a ball of fire on the aircraft while it was still in the air, and other items which may point towards an onboard explosion, including a loud noise before the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CFR) stopped recording at 1,300 ft.

The report acknowledges both these points: “The DFDR recording stopped … with the aircraft at 1,291[feet]. The last radar screen recording was … with the aircraft at 1,300 [feet]. The last CVR recording was a loud noise.” However, the report concludes that, “the probable causes of the accident were the flight crew’s mismanagement of the aircraft’s speed, altitude, headings and attitude through inconsistent flight control inputs resulting in a loss of control and their failure to abide by CRM principles of mutual support and calling deviations. The other contributory factors that could have lead to probable causes are the increased workload and stress levels that have most likely led to the captain’s reaching a situation of loss of situational awareness similar to a subtle incapacitation and the F/O failure to recognize it or to intervene accordingly.”

Gebremariam strongly refuted any allegations of pilot error: “The CVR and DFDR clearly show that the pilot was making appropriate inputs in an effort to control the aircraft. This contradicts the investigation assertion that the captain was under subtle incapacitation while he was making every effort to control the aircraft even under heavy gravity force. Moreover, both pilots were properly trained and qualified. The captain had over 20 years of experience with a total time of 10,233 hrs. and the crew pairing was in accordance with approved policy. The crew duty and rest time was in accordance with the regulation. Any characterization of our pilots contrary to the foregoing is pure fabrication that cannot stand any scrutiny.”