Plane’s brake system was not functional

(Trinidad Guardian) A pre­lim­i­nary re­port has shown that the brak­ing sys­tem on the Caribbean Airlines Limited’s (CAL) ATR air­craft was not func­tion­al at the time the air­craft col­lid­ed with a wall at Pi­ar­co Airport on Wednes­day, Fi­nance Min­is­ter Colm Im­bert said on Friday.

And he was al­so un­able to say if the per­son steer­ing the air­craft from the air­port ramp to a hangar when the in­ci­dent oc­curred at 11.15 pm, was cer­ti­fied to do so.

Im­bert gave the ex­pla­na­tions in Par­lia­ment, re­spond­ing to Op­po­si­tion queries on the ac­ci­dent. He stressed it was not a “crash” as the Op­po­si­tion called it.

CAL has said the air­craft was be­ing tax­ied from the ramp to an air­craft hangar when the in­ci­dent happened. The air­craft was not in ac­tive ser­vice and there were no pas­sen­gers or crew aboard. It was with­drawn from ser­vice and a probe start­ed.

On Friday, Im­bert said, “Pre­lim­i­nary re­ports in­di­cate the brak­ing sys­tem wasn’t func­tion­al at the time. How­ev­er, these are just pre­lim­i­nary re­ports and it would be ir­re­spon­si­ble to spec­u­late on the ac­tu­al cause of the ac­ci­dent un­til all in­ves­ti­ga­tions are com­plete. I’m sure (in­ves­ti­ga­tions) will be done in the short­est pos­si­ble time.”

UNC MP Fazal Karim asked if it was nor­mal for an en­gi­neer to taxi an air­craft at that hour of the night – 11.15 pm.

Im­bert replied, “I can­not an­swer that in any pre­cise de­tail, how­ev­er, I can say the par­tic­u­lar in­di­vid­ual who was taxi­ing the air­craft was trained to do so by ATR at its head­quar­ters in France. This is the informa­tion giv­en to me by CAL. As to whether that par­tic­u­lar in­di­vid­ual was cer­ti­fied to taxi at that partic­u­lar time of night, I can­not say, but I’ll cer­tain­ly find out.”

He said CAL is do­ing its own in­ves­ti­ga­tion and the Civ­il Avi­a­tion Au­thor­i­ty is do­ing an in­de­pen­dent probe al­so to de­ter­mine the root cause of the ac­ci­dent.

Im­bert added, “I’d think CAL would most cer­tain­ly con­sult the air­craft’s man­u­fac­tur­ers to get their view on what caused the ac­ci­dent and what should be done to re­turn it to ser­vice­able state.”

He said all CAL air­craft were ful­ly in­sured and the ma­jor­i­ty of the cost of re­pairs—to re­turn it to serviceable state—will be cov­ered by this, save for de­ductibles on typ­i­cal in­sur­ance pol­i­cies of this kind.

On Thurs­day, Im­bert said a pre­lim­i­nary es­ti­mate of the re­pair cost was about US$1 million.

On Fri­day, CAL stat­ed the cost is be­ing as­sessed and this will be cov­ered by CAL’s in­sur­ance.

CAL, in a re­lease, stat­ed the air­craft had been us­ing its own pow­er and was be­ing op­er­at­ed by a li­censed air­craft en­gi­neer. CAL added that a pre­lim­i­nary re­port in­di­cat­ed that as soon as the air­craft be­gan to taxi, the air­craft en­gi­neer no­ticed that the hy­draulic sys­tem was not ac­ti­vat­ed.

“The re­sult was that the nose wheel steer­ing and brak­ing sys­tem wasn’t avail­able. Con­se­quent­ly the front sec­tion of the air­craft’s fuse­lage came in­to con­tact with the wall of the ter­mi­nal build­ing,” the state­ment said.

CAL said pri­or to the in­ci­dent, it was in dis­cus­sions with a po­ten­tial lessor to ob­tain a wet lease to supple­ment its fleet us­ing a sim­i­lar air­craft type. Once the arrange­ment is com­plete, the wet lease will op­erate from April 8 to Sep­tem­ber 30, which will cov­er the busy East­er and Au­gust va­ca­tion pe­ri­od.