Afghan government: US troops held responsible for KAM AIR crash

[rainbow4321]

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=3f68df63416f44be&cat=187cf2a69985adcf

KABUL, February 08 (Online): A source close to the Afghan government has held United States troops responsible for crash of a passenger plane. Talking to Radio Tehran on condition of anonymity told that the KAM AIR, which was on its way from Herat to Kabul did not land at Kabul airport due to bad weather.

The pilot of the plane wanted to land at Bagram airbase where the US forces have been stationed; however, the US troops did not allow the plane to land.

The source further told that the staff of the plane had informed the US troops at Bagram airbase that it could remain in air for only fifteen minutes. That is why necessary for the plane to land but the US forces did not allow it which caused its crash. Consequently 104 passengers were killed on board the plane.


According to a report of VoA on Monday, Hamid Karzai, Afghan president has assured the relatives of the victims that a probe committee has been constituted to get the reason behind the terrible incident that killed 104 persons on board the plane. United Nations has also welcomed the formation of the committee by the Afghan government.

[anarchy1999]

1. Who was on board this plane? Find that out and then we'll know why

it went down. Tin foil hats needed for exploration into this "accident".

[frankieT]

2. US just don't give a sh*t about "untermenschen" lives

That's the only reason. If they need to kill someone they won't use such distorted means as denying help to an airliner.
in worst-case scenario they will hand a couple of thousand bucks to families and that's all.
that's how it works in US OCCUPIED COUNTRIES.

[atreides1]

17. Not all were Afghans

There are reports that there were 6 Americans, 3 Italians, and an Iranian as well.

[donsu]

21. agree - who was on the plane?

nt

[rainbow4321]

27. "U.N. staff are banned from using Kam Air"

http://www.japantoday.com/e/tools/print.asp?content=news&id=326853

However, there have been concerns about the safety of its planes as well as those of state-owned Ariana Airlines, as well as the approach through the mountains that ring Kabul. The airport only recently installed an electronic landing system and still relies on the main U.S. base at Bagram, to the north, for radar.

U.N. staff are banned from using Kam Air or Ariana. However, a spokeswoman confirmed Saturday that an Italian architect working for the world body was on board. Italian authorities said another Italian civilian and a navy captain were among the 96 passengers.

Beth Lee, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said it believed six Americans were on board. She declined to give details. Management Sciences for Health, a nonprofit group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, has already confirmed three of its staff took the plane.

Nine Turkish passengers, as well as the eight crew — six Russians and two Afghans — were also believed dead. Qasemi said there were passengers from "at least five" foreign countries, suggesting that the expatriate total could rise.

[frictionlessO]

3. this cant be true....

Im flabbergasted if it is, the kind of decision to tell a passenger jet negative on an emergency landing request when you know they're gonna crash in 15 minutes is... I am at a loss for words if thats true.

I am going to wait for something more offical to come out before I get mad.

[Rose Siding]

6. Likewise.

I don't want to give much weight to an anonymous source on Fox News and I'm even less familiar with Tehran radio's bias.

BUT...I really hope someone with some media juice is on this story. There were reports early on that the base had been contacted by the plane. Would a US base in Afghanistan allow an unfamiliar plane to land? Sending it on would be unthinkably heartless but how afraid are they of being attacked by air?

[frictionlessO]

14. yep, thats where I'm at about this...

I wonder if we'll get corroboration from another source or outlet?

[jmcgowanjm]

9. you're not going to get anything more official

You will soon be routed to Conspiracy Planet
for having these ambivalent emotions.

The New York Post, in its story of September 22, 1996,
reported,
Law-enforcement sources said the hardest evidence
gathered so far overwhelmingly suggests a surface-to-
air missile...

The FBI interviewed 154 "credible" witnesses --
including scientists, schoolteachers, Army personnel
and business executives -- who described seeing a
missile heading through the sky just before TWA 800
exploded.

"Some of these people are extremely, extremely credible," a
top federal official said

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html

[frictionlessO]

15. Well that may be true, but one can always hope! lol... n/t

[rainbow4321]

10. I know, I know...not an everyday kind of news source

Odd, unfamiliar news source but I found it while news surfing and thought even if there is NO truth to it, the thought that someone out there in that part of the world is spouting it will only add to our crappy reputation and hostility towards the US, etc...

[frictionlessO]

16. I wasnt hacking on your post. Just the story itself...

If nothing else it is interesting to note for the reasons you stated.
Thanks for finding it.

[atreides1]

18. This Is It

When has the US military ever taken responsibility. Remember when they dropped bombs on a wedding, and reported that AAA was being used. Then they couldn't come up with the AAA gun.

Remember whne they attacked a house that they said was being used by Taliban supporters, turns out they killed 6 children. But the US military never admitted to making a mistake.

So if you want to wait for an "official" statement, don't be too surprised when they deny the allegation, and blame it on pilot error,
or a mechanical mishap.

[natrat]

22. how can anything surprise you w/ the * admin.---seriously

[leesa]

4. I'm sure Karzai will get right on it.

[Alpharetta]

5. Was it "Fun"?

U.S. Marine general last week said killing in Afghanistan was "fun".

Some days, I bet it's like freaking Disneyland over there.

[Eloriel]

28. Aw, damn

Now you've gone and made me cry.

The pitiful but true thing is that that callous, brutish, sociopathic lack of concern for life that you allude to is precisely the kind of thinking that accompanies a decision like this (if true and I personally do not doubt it). It's the kind of attitude that is required for war, as well, the dehumanization of others, especially "the enemy." Humans can't kill people they have respect for -- only those who are "less than," subhuman, demonic (demonized), perhaps animal-like (rats, vermin, etc.). If you call your "enemy" raghead then anyone who fits that profile unfortunately is tainted as well, no matter who they are.

So who cares if a plane full of ragheads from a pathetic little airline company has an emergency? Let 'em land somewhere else. Let 'em die.

[jmcgowanjm]

7. Exactly what I thought. What better airport could there

be than Bagram.

US fucks up again. It takes a lot of hard work
but I think our current hierarchy is
up to the job.

[hector459]

8. Major cover up will be in the works.

You know this makes sense. The US has control of most all of the airports in Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly they have bases at which to land US military planes. this sounds very plausible. I hope the international (IM) gets on this because the US MSM will virtually ignore this.

[CoffeeCat]

11. Liberators?

How can we possibly define ourselves as "liberators"--when we have control of their airports?

If the U.S. solely decides who can/can't land at the Afghan airports--it sure doesn't sound like the country is free to me.

We had elections, they have new leaders--but a foreign country determines who lands at the airports?

Gee, if Afghanistan controlled our airports, I seriously doubt that I would feel freedom ringing in my ears.

Farce.

[hector459]

12. Does this story have legs yet? Any word out of the WH or Pentagon?

It seems very plausible.

[jmcgowanjm]

13. Just put this in the pile over there, would you?

Name of pile-projectcensored.

And while you're headed that way, could you take
this one?

Later in the same day, the attack was described as the result
of 'human error' involving a failed test by an Israeli
weapons manufacturer in the area. It was made clear -
some might say too clear - that although the failed test
took place on an IDF firing range and was by a
weapons company closely associated with the IDF, the IDF
had nothing to do with it.
Obviously, the IDF attempted to disrupt the summit, or
even provide a reason to call it off, by faking a rocket attack
by Hezbollah. It wasn't a coincidence that the Israeli
Defense Minister announced the possibility of an attack in
the morning, and a faked attack occurred in the afternoon. This
is the usual Israeli terrorist bullshit.

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/

[rainbow4321]

26. Conflicting blurbs..including Bagram telling pilot: talk to Kabul airport

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12146390-2,00.html

The airliner did however contact the US-led coalition airbase at Bagram, near Kabul, according to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), the NATO-led peacekeeping detachment in Afghanistan.

"Bagram instructed them to talk to Kabul airport because they were expected to land there and that was at 3:18 pm Thursday," ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Commander Ken MacKillop said.

"Then they went missing."


http://www.southbendtribune.com/breakingnews/posts/2470.html


Turkey's Prime Ministry said Friday that nine Turks were aboard, and six of them were from a Turkish road contractor called Gulsan-Cukurova, which is working on a U.S.-funded road project in the west, company manager Kurtulus Ergin said.

In Rome, the Italian Defense Ministry said one of the passengers was Capt. Bruno Vianini, who was assigned to a military-sponsored reconstruction project.

Transport Minister Enayatullah Qasemi said the pilot last contacted the Kabul control tower at about 3 p.m. Thursday to ask for a weather update and was cleared for landing by Bagram Air Base, the U.S. military base north of Kabul with overall responsibility for Afghan airspace. Moments later it disappeared from radar screens, a few miles east of the city.


http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6910281/

The U.S. military sought Monday to quash speculation that the plane had been refused permission to land at the U.S. base at Bagram, north of the capital.

"It was never the intent, they were never denied," Maj. Clay Berardi, a U.S. Marine Corps pilot, said at a news conference. "Up unto the point that this aircraft impacted to ground, they were on a normal approach." The Afghan government says U.S. experts will help it investigate the crash, along with representatives of the other foreign victims.

Afghan officials say air traffic controllers lost contact with the plane just after it was given permission to land. But the airline believes it turned away from Kabul toward Pakistan in search of an alternative air strip before it hit the mountain

[DemoTex]

19. All the captain had to do was declare an emergency.

In an emergency the captain has the internationally accepted right to land the aircraft at any suitable airport. A low-fuel status in bad weather in mountainous terrain is a nightmare scenario that haunts the dreams of most airline pilots. But that dream is always assuaged by the knowledge that the military is always there to help.* If authorities at Bagram turned away a commercial airliner with 15-minutes of fuel on board (whether or not the captain declared an emergency .. emergency is inferred when fuel is that low), then somebody should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

*On edit: If I remember correctly, the military saved John Travollta's ass a few years ago when his ratty old Gulfstream-2 lost all power and communications during bad weather on the east coast. His instructor/co-pilot followed military jet fighters (that were scrambled to the striken G-2) to a safe landing at Washington, DC.

[rfkrfk]

30. there is a deadly game, being played here

happens all the time
Pilot is in some distress, but does not declare
an emergency.
Reason, pilot must fill out paperwork, will likely lose job,
if he declares an emergency,
then, pilot tells some story about his condition.
Guy on the ground has heard every excuse a hundred times.
....
likely dialog...
air traffic control dude: "are you declaring an emergency"?
pilot: "low fuel"
atc:"are you declaring an emergency"?
pilot: "low fuel"
atc:"are you declaring an emergency"?
pilot: "low fuel"
atc:"are you declaring an emergency"?
pilot: "low fuel"
atc:"are you declaring an emergency"?
pilot: "low fuel"
atc: clearance refused, let me know if you declare an emergency.
....
pilot, worried about his job, goes somewhere else.
The pilot needs to worry about saving face.

[DemoTex]

33. You are absolutely correct, RFKRFK.

In fact, in the US you can get a modicum of preferential handling by air traffic control by declaring "critical fuel" without declaring an "emergency." However, controllers should not have to pry the E-word from the captain's mouth (it is like getting Bu$h to admit to a mistake) before recognizing the situation for what it is. An aircraft with 15 minutes of fuel on board, in a snowstorm, in mountainous terrain is in dire peril, no matter what a pilot might call it.

Let's roll the tapes from Afghan ATC and the Bagram tower and the CVR, if it is recovered. I'll bet that even if the word "emergency" is not used, anyone listening to the audio tapes of the drama of that afternoon will know exactly what was going on and what the consequences would be within about 900 seconds. As an ALPA aviation accident investigator I have listened to many CVR and ATC tapes and I know that unequivocal sound of pure, raw fear.

[gulfcoastliberal]

20. If I was the pilot, I would've landed there anyway!

Beats crashing! I really cannot believe this story as yet. Any pilot knows landing at a military installation (except maybe Area 51) is ok if you have no other option but a fiery death.

[DemoTex]

24. If you cannot see the field you cannot land. But I agree with you.

I would have tuned in the ILS. If I had indications of a good signal I would have announced my intentions on 121.5 mHz (emergency frequency), flown the ILS to the airport (even if the visibility was below minimums), and landed. Sometimes it is better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

[donsu]

23. another bushgang war crime to add to the list

hey, they do what they want. whose to stop them?

[DemoTex]

25. If this story is true .. manslaughter charges should be sought.

Manslaughter charges against US military officials have a much higher chance of succeeding than war-crimes charges. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that this could only be construed as a war-crime or crime-of-war if US military officials turned this aircraft away and gave the war as the reason.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Sad state of affairs that I tend to believe this story is true and that

there will be an attempt at cover up.
I have seen it in a couple of other places as well.
The attitude described by earlier poster, Eloriel, of teaching our soldiers to think of the "enemy" (including civilians, women, children)that we went to "Liberate" as less than human tends to make this sort of "accident" more likely.
And when they demonstrate the same attitude towards our soldiers, we are OUTRAGED!!!
It is so very tragic, and this is why we are losing respect all over the world. We have stopped doing anything to earn it.

[bin.dare]

31. airline has reputation for cutting corners, even on fuel ...

... "United Nations officials say the companies operate on a shoestring, and it is widely feared that they cut corners on safety, maintenance and even fuel. Afghan reporters asked Mr. Qasimi on Friday if the plane was carrying enough fuel to divert to an airport in Peshawar, in neighboring Pakistan. The minister said he did not know, but earlier the deputy interior minister, Shah Mahmoud Miakhel, told Reuters, "It did not have so much fuel to enable it to fly.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/05/international/asia/05afghan.html

[DemoTex]

32. How they got into a low fuel condition is link in the chain of errors.

If the flight was dispatched with insufficient fuel vis-a-vis the weather, then the dispatchers join the captain and, perhaps, the US military (if they indeed refused the Kam flight permission to land at Bagram airbase) in sharing culpability. If low-fuel dispatches were part of the corporate culture, then the CEO (and VP-ops, VP-flying, CFO, etc) join in culpability.

[bin.dare]

34. the bad weather was probably identical at Kabul and Bagram ...

... (they are only about 15 miles apart) so if they couldn't land at one they couldn't land at the other.

my hunch is that they gambled on not needing more fuel and lost.

[DemoTex]

35. An airplane with 900 seconds of fuel must land.

..if they couldn't land at one they couldn't land at the other.


Weather is no longer a factor. Very little else is. Use either airport, but - for gods-sake! - use an airport. Not a mountainside. If the airports are equally suitable, use the absolute closest. The captain should state intentions and proceed. Shoot the ILS. When you get to "minimums" don't even think about a go-around. Keep it on the glide-slope and localizer. If you don't have auto-land (Cat-3), fly the son-of-a-bitch onto the runway. A controlled crash on or next to a runway is always a better option than powerless (flame-out) flight into a mountainside. This is not a new concept. The world's mountains are dotted with smoking holes from similar poor decisions.