Category: Governance

September 2, 2015

By Andrei Lankov  

On September 3, the Chinese capital will witness a massive military parade. The parade will become the highest point of the lavish celebrations, commemorating the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in Asia.

Chinese diplomats worked hard to ensure that as many foreign dignitaries as possible would attend the celebrations. Admittedly, their success was limited: Most developed nations chose to send only low-level delegations to Beijing.

However, one feature on the list of attendees attracted much attention: while South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye will be in Beijing on that remarkable day, her North Korean counterpart, Supreme Leader and First Chairman Kim Jong-un will not show up and will send one of his emissaries instead.

At first glance, this picture looks strange – even bizarre. Both Park and Kim hail from powerful political families, and both of them are scions of former leaders.

However, in the days of the Second World War, 

Park’s father was a young officer in the Imperial Japanese Army, whose defeat is now being celebrated in Beijing. 

Kim’s grandfather was a brave guerrilla commander in the war, waging a campaign against Japan.

Fraternal communist nation

Furthermore, North Korea is still technically China’s ally, and – if official rhetoric is to be believed – a fraternal communist nation: one of few such nations to have survived to present day.

South Korea, on the other hand, is a liberal democracy and an ally of the United States. It even maintains some anti-communist legislation, which is widely ignored in practise.

However, there is nothing surprising about the presence of Park and the absence of her North Korean counterpart. Of course, a significant factor is Kim’s notorious aversion to summits, but there are deeper reasons behind his absence in the Beijing celebrations.

The historical legacies and ideological commitments are frequently invoked in East Asia when it is necessary to justify policies, but in practise, economic interests and geostrategic calculations reign supreme.

South Korea is a liberal democracy, but China is still its largest trade partner. In recent years, South Korea’s trade with China has exceeded its combined trade with Japan and the US, which are its second and third largest trade partners. The economy is what matters most in South Korea – and for the sake of the economy alone, Seoul works hard to improve relations with China.

It also helps that unlike many of China’s neighbours, South Korea does not have a tradition of wars and hostility with China and has no problem with its fast political ascent. Despite being a US ally, South Korea does not want to be sucked into Sino-American clashes over territorial claims and other issues, 

which mean little to the average South Korean.

Lastly, in Seoul, there are growing doubts about the US’ ability to remain the guarantor of South Korea’s security in the long run.

Nuanced attitude

China is looking at these changes in Seoul’s attitudes favourably. Unlike Japan, which is perceived in Beijing as the US’ “unsinkable air carrier”, the attitude towards South Korea is far more nuanced. Many Chinese analysts quietly hope that one day South Korea will completely drift away from the US.

On the other hand, the attitude towards North Korea in Beijing is remarkably harsh. Kim’s state is widely seen as a troublesome, irresponsible and capricious neighbour – always demanding aid and concessions while ignoring China’s vital interests.

The North Korean nuclear programme threatens the non-proliferation agreement, which China – like all other “legally accepted” nuclear powers – is eager to maintain.

The North Korean brinkmanship threatens not only the stability along the Chinese borders, but it also creates a pretext for the US to maintain and increase their military presence in the region.

The Chinese are driven mad by North Korea’s unwillingness to improve its economy through emulating Chinese market-oriented reforms.

In short, for the Chinese, North Korea is not attractive – unlike South Korea, with its sophisticated culture, huge market and willingness to make deals with Beijing.

Preferential trade conditions

However, these negative feelings are fully reciprocated in Pyongyang. North Korean leaders have always been eager to manipulate China in order to receive aid or preferential trade conditions, but they have never trusted their great neighbour. To an extent, this mistrust reflects a strong sense of nationalism that’s common in the North, but it also reflects the sad experience of occasional Chinese interventions.

Finally, the Chinese want a reforming and non-nuclear North Korea, and this is exactly the option Kim and his advisers see as completely unacceptable. Rightly so or not, they believe that such a North Korea that China dreams of will not survive for long without being overwhelmed by 

both internal and external threats.

In the past, China was interested in supporting North Korea as a buffer zone. Such ideas are still widespread among Chinese officials and analysts, but many now doubt whether such a buffer zone is as important as it once was – after all, South Korea is slowly but surely changing in ways that China can only approve of.

Thus, regardless of official rhetoric, and irrespective of which side the current leaders’ fathers and grandfathers fought for 75 years ago, the logic of the situation pushes South Korea towards better relations with China. But this same logic means that it makes more sense for North Korea to keep a certain distance from Beijing. 

Andrei Lankov is a professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University, Seoul. He is the author of “The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Read More

A group of Japanese lawmakers visit the Yasukuni Shrine after they paid respect to war deads during the annual spring festival in Tokyo, Japan, April 22, 2015. [Photo/IC]

Thanks to foreigners’ poor knowledge of what Yasukuni Shri…

Read More

ASIA-Pacific is vast, in terms of geography and population. It covers a total land area of 21 million square kilometres; has a population of 4.4 billion or 60 per cent of the world population; and GDP of more than US $40 trillion. The…

Read More

August 23, 2015

By Andrei Lankov  

Once again, the world media are busily telling their audience that “the heightened tensions in Korea are creating a risk of war”. And once again, these panicky reports are met with little – if any – interest by the vast majority of Korea watchers and, for that matter, the South Korean public.

This quietness has reasons: First, Koreans – and Korea experts, too – have seen similar developments many times. Second, there are valid reasons to be certain that the tensions have no chance to escalate. Both sides are seriously afraid of war, and rightly so.

At first glance

, the recent events look like a textbook case of escalation. First, a landmine exploded in the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ), which divides the two Korean states. South Korean soldiers were maimed, and the South Korean military claimed that the mine had been stealthily installed by the North Koreans. In retaliation, the South’s military switched on massive loudspeakers, which had been silent since 2004, and began to broadcast propaganda across the DMZ, targeting the North Korean military personnel.

Outraged, the North Koreans shelled the loudspeakers, killing nobody. Then, South Korean cannons shot back. Finally, the exchange of fire was followed by an exchange of bellicose statements and diplomatic gestures, and North Koreans gave an ultimatum – demanding the loudspeakers be switched off.

Not so aggressive this time

All these events might appear dangerous to foreigners, but this is not the case with Koreans who witness similar incidents occurring every few years. In 2010, North Koreans torpedoed a South Korean warship, the South Korean government retaliated with a ban on nearly all trade with – and aid to – their northern neighbour. Angry exchanges continued for a while, culminating in North Korean artillery shelling a South Korean island, killing some civilians.

Even the rhetoric hasn’t been particularly aggressive this time: North Korea declared merely a “semi-state of war”. Back in 2013, the North Koreans said their country was already at war, and the actual fighting would start within days, and the evacuation of diplomatic personnel from Pyongyang was officially proposed. Predictably, this proposal was ignored by foreign diplomats who understood that this was just another episode of a never-ending diplomatic/military soap opera.

Indeed, it is clear by now that neither side wants war, since neither side has much to gain from it. The combination of geography and politics has long ago made a new Korean War a lose-lose option for both sides.

For the North Koreans, there are very little chances to win a war. Among military analysts, including those from countries close to North Korea, there exists a near consensus about the prospects of such a confrontation: the North would certainly lose, and very soon. Its military is armed with antiquated weapons, and it is poorly trained and badly run. Even the five or 10 low-yield nuclear devices the North Korean army possesses will not make much difference to the final outcome – even if somehow delivered to the intended targets (a big “if”, given the absence of delivery systems in North Korea).

Lose-lose scenario

Even though North Korea cannot win a war, it can still inflict damage on the South. Its nuclear devices may not be powerful enough to incapacitate the South Korean military, but they can kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Even without the use of nuclear weapons, in the first hours of a full-scale confrontation, North Korea can destroy a significant part of Seoul.

The vast metropolitan (or Greater Seoul) area, where nearly half of all South Koreans live, is located right on the DMZ, within shooting range of North Korean artillery. Even if the heavily fortified positions of North Korean guns and missile launchers are destroyed soon, the artillery barrage would kill a large number of people and irreversibly damage the vulnerable city. Furthermore, the military advance into the North is not going to be easy nor bloodless.

In other words, South Korea would probably win a full-scale war, but it would emerge as a state with a heavily damaged economy. It would also face the nearly impossible burden of developing the conquered North, one of Asia’s poorest countries.

So, the situation is an impasse, and this has long been understood by both sides. Hence, relations between the two Korean states have been reminiscent of a ballet: there are times when both sides engage in diplomatic and economic cooperation, and there are times when both sides make moves calculated to look tough, but take care to ensure that nothing really dangerous happens.

It is not clear whether it was the North Koreans who installed the landmine whose detonation started the current confrontation. But the North Korean government had recently taken a confrontational approach to the South – largely because South Korea has stubbornly refused to make economic concessions to the North.

The South’s military reacted in a predictable way: the last few years they have pledged to be tough. The propaganda loudspeakers were turned on, and it was time for the North Koreans to demonstrate their toughness by shelling the loudspeakers. The next and final step so far was a South Korean artillery counter-strike.

What will happen next? If the experience of earlier confrontations is any indication, we cannot rule out another round or two of violence, accompanied by outbursts of bellicose rhetoric and mutual accusations, followed by the slow defusion of tensions.

Alternatively, and more likely, the violent phase of the usual diplomatic ballet is already over, so the defusion will start in the next few days. Of course, the defusion stage will be accompanied by mutual accusations and face-saving threats, but this is how such games have been played in the past and are likely to be played again and again in the foreseeable future.

Andrei Lankov is professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University, Seoul. He is the author of “The Real North Korea: Life and Politics in the Failed Stalinist Utopia”.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Read More

Q: What are your remarks about the recently-concluded Parliamentary election?A: I am delighted that good governance, rule of law, transparency and democracy have triumphed. This election has reinforced the message that Sri Lanka is no…

Read More

“America’s Top High Schools” and High Schools”Beating the Odds” Announced in Annual List

Read More

August 19, 2015

By Bill Gertz  

North Korea has developed an elaborate underground missile complex at its Sohae missile and space launch facility near the northwestern border with China, according to U.S. officials. The underground complex includes both facilities for preparing missiles for launch and storage areas that are connected by rail lines, according to officials familiar with intelligence reports of the complex.

The secret facility took over a decade to build and is an example of Pyongyang’s capability at tunneling and building secret below-ground military facilities.

The complex is creating problems for U.S. intelligence agencies charged with providing warning time for missile launches.

In the past, North Korean missiles and space launchers were transported by open rail cars and constructed and fueled for days, allowing U.S. spy satellites, aircraft and ships to keep close watch.

Now, the underground complex allows the North Koreans to conduct mating of stages without U.S. monitoring.

The Sohae complex was used for two space launches that the Pentagon said were in reality long-range missile tests disguised as rocket launches in 2012.

Intelligence agencies are reporting with high confidence that North Korea is preparing for another launch for Sohae in the coming weeks.

The endpoint for the underground complex was revealed recently in a report by the think tank 38 North, part of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

According to satellite photos, the North Koreans recently constructed a shelter over a rail line used to move missile stages to a launch pad from outside Sohae.

A defense official said the rail shelter is part of large-scale North Korean missile complex concealment efforts.

Equal review for female Rangers?

Army sources tell Inside the Ring the two female Army Ranger candidates slated to become the first to graduate from the grueling Ranger training course were given special treatment by the service, including relaxing some of the grueling physical standards so that is easier for females to pass.

Specifically, the sources said the two women, who had been “recycled” back into the training program twice before finally passing, did not undergo the same military student evaluation as their male counterparts called peer review. Under current rules, if fellow candidates give a student an approval rating below 60 percent, that student can be disqualified.

The peer review process also can be skewed by squad members who agree not to issue negative ratings on each other. Ranger School leaders are said to watch for such cheating.

“The females were not subjected to the peer reviews like the males,” one Army source close to a Ranger instructor said. “A lot of people get dropped from the course because of peer reviews. Bulls***t.”

No details of the peer review for the two women could be learned.

Army spokeswoman Tatjana Christian told Inside the Ring in a statement that to graduate from Ranger school, “all students, male and female, are required to meet all course standards.”

“The course standards for Ranger Class 08-15 are the exact same standards that have been used for all other Ranger classes,” she said.

Pressed on whether the women underwent peer review like their male counterparts, Ms. Christian said: “Yes they did undergo peer review.” She did not provide details.

Another source close to Ranger trainers said the weight of the backpacks carried by the candidates were reduced by about 10 pounds.

The Army announced from Fort Benning, Georgia, on Tuesday that 94 men and the two women will graduate the 62-day Ranger Course on Friday. The two women soldiers are Capt. Kristen Griest and Lt. Shaye Haver, who will become the first women to graduate from the Ranger course. More than 20 women Marines have tried and failed to pass the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course, another extremely difficult training regimen.

The Obama administration ordered the military services to open most ground combat positions to women under its politically correct military policies.

Critics say the integration of women into combat slots appears to be a higher priority for the Obama administration than resolving the current defense budget crisis that has left the military services scrambling to make ends meet.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said many military leaders have become “politicians in uniform” in backing the push for putting women in combat.

“These officials and more in this administration are putting gender politics above national security and the best interests of both women and men in the military,” she said.

An analysis by the Center found that injury rates for women were twice the rate for male soldiers.

“In theory, gender integration is supposed to occur without lowering standards or combat effectiveness,” Ms. Donnelly said. “That goal is on a collision course, however, with Defense Department political mandates to achieve ‘gender diversity metrics,’ another name for ‘quotas.'”

President Obama, currently vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, may attend the Ranger graduation, according to a defense official.

If the president makes the trip to Fort Benning, “it would be a real slap at serving or prior-service Ranger Regiment members, given he has not paid a bit of attention to their achievements in his seven years in office,” a former Army official said.

Seeking answers on secret Iran deals

Two national security-oriented members of Congress are calling on Secretary of State John F. Kerry to make public two secret side deals reached with Iran on its nuclear program.

Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, stated in a letter to Mr. Kerry the Obama administration has failed to provide Congress with the text of the two side deals. The administration also appears to have reneged on promises to seek a verifiable agreement with Iran, the Republican lawmakers said.

“Congress and the American people were promised robust verification of the prior military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear activity,” the lawmakers stated in the Aug. 19 letter.

The side deals address inspections and investigations into past nuclear arms work at Iran’s Parchin nuclear site, a location Tehran has prohibited inspectors from visiting in the past. The administration has said the deals are bilateral pacts between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency and thus are confidential.

The documents outlining Iran’s past nuclear arms work and Parchin have been kept secret from Congress, despite legislation passed into law earlier this year requiring all secret codicils and side agreements to be shared with Capitol Hill.

Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Cotton said the administration has issued contradictory statements about whether U.S. officials have actually reviewed the side agreements, or merely been briefed on them.

“By our count, there have been seven different answers from members of the administration to this simple question,” they stated. “While we find third- or fourth-hand briefings on a matter of such importance unacceptable, you and your team have consistently said that the administration has extensive knowledge of these side deals.”

After national security advisor Susan Rice said July 28 that the contents of the secret deals are known, the lawmakers demanded answers to questions about the side deals.

Reports of recent activity at Parchin, near Tehran, indicate Iran may be sanitizing the site and Mr. Pompeo and Mr. Cotton are asking whether the secret agreements allow such activity. They also asked whether Iranian officials will be permitted to conduct soil testing on their own at Parchin without IAEA monitoring as part of the deals.

Additionally, the lawmakers want to know if the secret accords require Iran to make nuclear scientists available for interviews on past nuclear work, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, who is suspected of being a key player in the arms program.

“The ability of the United States to detect any nefarious nuclear activities is dependent on our ability to understand the complete picture of prior military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program,” the lawmakers wrote. “Without knowing Iran’s past nuclear activities, it would be incredibly difficult to detect future activities or accurately predict breakout times.”

It also is unclear whether the U.S. intelligence agencies that provided a required report to Congress assessing the verification provisions of the Iran agreement saw the secret side deals.

“With the administration’s apparent knowledge of the side deals, we believe these questions should not be difficult to answer,” the congressmen said.

The letter was sent the same day that former CIA Director R. James Woolsey and former CIA analyst Peter Pry disclosed in a Washington Times op-ed article that Iran’s military in the past discussed the use of nuclear weapons in electronics-disrupting attacks with nuclear weapons called electronic magnetic pulse strikes.

• Contact Bill Gertz on Twitter at @BillGertz.

Read More

Nigerian teenager, Georgia Oboh won the recently concluded 2015 U.S. Kids Golf Teen World Championship, which held at the Mid Pines Inn and Golf Club, North Carolina, FEVER PITCH caught up with her for an interview in which she called on the Nigeria Golf Federation to come to her aid as she prepares for another tournament.

Do you still pinch yourself to prove you aren’t dreaming after your amazing success at the US Kids Golf Teen World Championship or have you adapted to your new status by now?

I think I have adapted to my new status as the Girls 14 World Champion because I always knew a big victory was just around the corner, so I was prepared to accept it. I had been close a few times so I had learnt a great deal from my near misses. I have also prayed for wisdom from God.

What’s the secret to your success , any special routine or diet you adhered to prior to your success?

Was golf something you’ve always wanted to do or daddy and mummy had a say before you got into it? I have always enjoyed playing golf but it was only when I was about 7 that I knew it was the career for me. That year, me and my parents went to the Ricoh Women’s British Open, we watched Lorena Ochoa and on the 17th hole tee box she rolled a golf ball to me (I was in the crowd spectating). After that I knew that I genuinely wanted to become a professional golfer, seeing her play with pure joy even in a major championship showed me; that golf was just a game that everyone should enjoy.

What other interests do you have apart from golf?

I love to write, so maybe I will release a book in the future, I love listening to pop music mostly but I do enjoy Afro Jazz . I watch movies in my spare time especially fast paced action movies they are probably my favourite kind of movies, I sometimes go on the internet and just search different topics like world politics and I also study successful and inspirational people for clues to their success. I would love to help golf in the developing world especially Africa someday through my foundation and charity.

What will be your ultimate ambition as a golfer and why?

To be the best professional player in the world because it is the greatest achievement any golfer can hold, it shows everyone else that you are the best in your trade or line of work. I would also love to do for Africa what Se Ri Pak did for Korean golf by encouraging girls and boys to take up the game and enjoy the competition. I am currently an ambassador for KIDS GOLF INTERNATIONAL who organise a program for Junior golf in Nigeria at the moment and also for the GREEN PROJECT by McWord and hope to start an initiative called STREET GOLF, introducing golf to less priviledged kids in schools and in the street.

To be continued next week

Read More

Nigerian teenager, Georgia Oboh won the recently concluded 2015 U.S. Kids Golf Teen World Championship, which held at the Mid Pines Inn and Golf Club, North Carolina, FEVER PITCH caught up with her for an interview in which she called on the Nigeria Golf Federation to come to her aid as she prepares for another tournament.

Do you still pinch yourself to prove you aren’t dreaming after your amazing success at the US Kids Golf Teen World Championship or have you adapted to your new status by now?

I think I have adapted to my new status as the Girls 14 World Champion because I always knew a big victory was just around the corner, so I was prepared to accept it. I had been close a few times so I had learnt a great deal from my near misses. I have also prayed for wisdom from God.

What’s the secret to your success , any special routine or diet you adhered to prior to your success?

Was golf something you’ve always wanted to do or daddy and mummy had a say before you got into it? I have always enjoyed playing golf but it was only when I was about 7 that I knew it was the career for me. That year, me and my parents went to the Ricoh Women’s British Open, we watched Lorena Ochoa and on the 17th hole tee box she rolled a golf ball to me (I was in the crowd spectating). After that I knew that I genuinely wanted to become a professional golfer, seeing her play with pure joy even in a major championship showed me; that golf was just a game that everyone should enjoy.

What other interests do you have apart from golf?

I love to write, so maybe I will release a book in the future, I love listening to pop music mostly but I do enjoy Afro Jazz . I watch movies in my spare time especially fast paced action movies they are probably my favourite kind of movies, I sometimes go on the internet and just search different topics like world politics and I also study successful and inspirational people for clues to their success. I would love to help golf in the developing world especially Africa someday through my foundation and charity.

What will be your ultimate ambition as a golfer and why?

To be the best professional player in the world because it is the greatest achievement any golfer can hold, it shows everyone else that you are the best in your trade or line of work. I would also love to do for Africa what Se Ri Pak did for Korean golf by encouraging girls and boys to take up the game and enjoy the competition. I am currently an ambassador for KIDS GOLF INTERNATIONAL who organise a program for Junior golf in Nigeria at the moment and also for the GREEN PROJECT by McWord and hope to start an initiative called STREET GOLF, introducing golf to less priviledged kids in schools and in the street.

Read More

“My wife and I decided not to fly anymore,” a friend said to me last weekend. “The damn machines have forgotten how to fly, or their pilots have. They keep falling out of the sky.”

Not true. Airplanes are made to fly. They stay in the air because it’s their nature, just as it’s the nature of boats to float. When a plane goes down – as an Indonesian airliner did on Sunday, with 49 passengers and a crew of five, which prompted my friend’s outburst – it’s for reasons that, though often complex, are rarely mysterious.

Flying machines can come to grief in innumerable ways, but here are 10 favourites.

1. A plane can be deliberately shot down. You’d think this is unusual in peacetime, but it’s not as unusual as you’d think. Since the 1970s, its happened to two Korean Air 747’s, an Iranian Airbus, a Sri Lankan Antonov, three Georgian Tu-154s and one Tu-134, plus two Rhodesian passenger planes and a Siberia Airlines Tu-154, among others. Most recently it happened to Malaysia Flight 17 over Ukraine.

2.  A plane can be bombed, hijacked or otherwise sabotaged. This isn’t unusual either, owing to terrorists born and bred in every part of the world, though in some parts and periods more often than in others, such as the Middle East in our day. Shooting down or blowing up airplanes has to do with political dynamics, of course, not aerodynamics.

3.  A plane can have a midair or ground collision with another object – civilian or military. Sometimes even a natural object – i.e., a bird. Collisions aren’t frequent – it’s a big sky – but no month passes without one. Aviation’s worst loss of life came in 1977 from a ground collision of two wide-body passenger jets over Tenerife, Canary Islands.

4.  An aircraft can fly into the ground (or an obstacle sticking up from it) resulting in a notorious type of accident called a controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). CFITs are usually caused by human error, sometimes combined with equipment failure or malfunction, resulting in a loss of what aviators call “situational awareness.” In simple language, it means a pilot flying a perfectly good machine into a hill because he doesn’t know where the hell he is. It usually happens at night or in poor visibility, though it can happen in visual meteorological conditions if a crew becomes distracted. Notorious CFITs included a tragic crash of a U.S. airliner in Cali, Colombia, as well as the loss of U.S. Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown’s flight in the former Yugoslavia.

Flying is dangerous. Oh well – so is living.

5.  A plane can suffer a catastrophic failure of a vital structure, such as a wing or a fuselage component. This is very rare, but it can happen as a result of metal fatigue caused by age, defective manufacturing, or improper maintenance. Three examples have been a Turkish DC-10 near Paris in 1974, killing 346; an American DC-10 near Chicago in 1979, killing 275; and a Japan Air Lines 747 in 1985, death toll 520, the worst single-plane air disaster ever. A similar danger is uncontained failure of an engine that destroys flying surfaces or flight controls, as happened to a United DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa, in 1989.

6.  An aircraft can encounter an unlucky sequence of adverse events, minor in themselves – ranging from failure of some non-vital component to inclement weather and traffic delays – that in combination overwhelm the crew. A plane may suddenly lose pressurization, as may have happened to golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet in 1999, giving no time for the pilots to go on supplementary oxygen. A few years ago, a South American airliner crashed near New York because a series of delays at JFK airport, coupled with communication problems, resulted in fuel exhaustion. Another South American airliner was lost when ground workers left some masking tape on the fuselage after washing it, resulting in erroneous instrument readings that confused the pilots.

7.  A component in a highly complex machine can start acting in ways unforeseen by engineers and pilots. Unusual as this is, it does happen sometimes with catastrophic results. It’s on such occasions that the cockpit voice recorder recovered from the wreckage contains lines like, “What’s it doing now?” as some equipment on the flight deck seems to acquire a mind of its own. The 1994 crash of a USAir Boeing 737-300 near Pittsburgh may fall into this category; it could have been caused by the uncommanded deployment of the plane’s rudder. The spontaneous deployment of a thrust reverser in flight may have caused the crash of an Austrian Lauda-Air Boeing 767-300 over the Thai jungle. A midair collision was narrowly averted some years ago near Albany, N.Y., when a collision avoidance system commanded one plane to climb into another.

8.  In-flight fire from a variety of sources can create a nightmarish emergency. Whether it’s dangerous cargo, as in the ill-fated Valuejet flight over Florida, or an electrical short in the on-board entertainment system, as suspected in the Swissair tragedy off Nova Scotia, smoke or noxious fumes can incapacitate a crew in a short span of time. In 1980, 301 people perished when a Muslim pilgrim’s butane stove set a Saudi Arabian Lockheed 1011 Tristar ablaze after taking off from Riyadh.

9.  The latest generation of computerized “glass cockpits” may let pilots fall though a crack between their traditional role as hands-on aviators and new role as systems managers. Flying skills may deteriorate because of insufficient use; attention may flag because of high automation, until a situation develops where, between man and machine, nobody’s minding the store. The loss of an Air France Airbus on a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris a few years ago has been attributed to the crew’s inability to hand-fly the plane after icing caused the autopilot to quit.

These nine causes together probably account for about 70 per cent of all airline mishaps. The other 30 per cent are caused by No. 10: assorted lapses of judgment. Pilots, engineers, mechanics and air traffic controllers do stupid things at times. So do other people, but flying is less forgiving of mistakes. Preliminary reports seem to point to human error as the cause of Sunday’s crash.

Hmm. Reading what I’ve just written, I may have inadvertently proved my friend’s point. Flying is dangerous. Oh well – so is living.

National Post

Read More