Perhaps Steven Stott (Flight International, 2-8 March) can clarify his letter for me. Is he seriously suggesting that the Zurich Kloten air traffic control is responsible for the Crossair Avro RJ100 crew descending below minimum descent altitude without the runway in sight and the controlled flight into terrain incident that followed? He questions why there was no minimum safe altitude warning system and why runway 14 was not used. Is the lack of either a valid excuse for bending the rules? When things are not going well, the travelling public would like to know they can rely on the crews to do the right thing. That is why they sit up the front. A more pertinent question I think is why was the pilot allowed to have two 13-15h duty days in a row with just 10h rest in between?
Niles Adams Brisbane, Australia
Steven Stott suggests in his letter about the Crossair Avro RJ accident at Zurich (Flight International, 2-8 March) that Kloten air traffic control was the proximate cause of the accident rather than the pilots. As a matter of law, the proximate cause, ie, that nearest to the ground without anything intervening, was that the crew flew the aircraft into the ground. The actions of air traffic control in directing a non-precision approach when the instrument landing system was serviceable on the other runway may well have been material, but demonstrably was not the proximate cause of the accident.
Tony Kilbride Newdigate, Surrey, UK
Source: Flight International
