What Communication Ethiopia Aircraft Tells Us

 A source close to the investigation of the open-air crash has reportedly listened to the cockpit voice recorder and shared details with Reuters, one of the world's most reputable news organizations. Such organizations, known for their credibility and rigorous fact-checking, are unlikely to be misled easily. This makes the information they publish more trustworthy compared to other outlets.

According to this source, the cockpit voice recorder revealed a request from the cockpit of the ill-fated Boeing 737 Max for permission to climb to 14,000 feet. The request cited a "flight control problem" as the reason, and the voice on the recording reportedly sounded nervous. This detail is significant and worth noting.

The reason for the pilot's request to climb is understandable: higher altitudes provide more time to respond to emergencies and potentially save the aircraft. The source, however, admitted they were unfamiliar with the voice of Captain Arad, who was in control of the plane. Nevertheless, they stated that one voice dominated the relevant part of the recording.

Approximately two minutes later, the same voice urgently said, "Break, break," signaling the need to cease non-urgent communication. This phrase suggests the pilot was heavily engaged in managing a critical situation, likely struggling with the aircraft's Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). The source added that the voice sounded very scared.

The pilot then requested permission to return to the airport and turn right—away from the city and back to the runway. This was the last communication from the cockpit.

The observation that the voice sounded scared is particularly troubling. While fear is a natural human response, in the context of an investigation, such a statement could imply panic. A panicked pilot may not think clearly or make the best decisions to save the aircraft. This could shape a narrative of pilot error prematurely.

What’s concerning is that the source admitted they were unfamiliar with the pilot’s voice. In many investigations, experts bring in colleagues or individuals familiar with the pilots to listen to the recordings. These individuals can provide better insights into the emotions and tone of the pilot's communication. However, in this case, no such familiar individuals appear to have been consulted.

The suggestion that the pilot sounded scared raises questions about whether this narrative is being shaped deliberately. It might pave the way for a conclusion of pilot error, casting doubt on their competence. Yet, it’s essential to remember that pilots flying the 737 Max were likely briefed about the MCAS system after a previous incident involving the same aircraft model.

Furthermore, the early leak of information appears to steer public perception in a specific direction before the investigation concludes. This raises suspicions about whether the narrative is being manipulated to protect the aircraft manufacturer from serious allegations.

Adding to these concerns are past issues with Boeing's safety practices. About a decade ago, whistleblowers alleged that parts sourced from a subcontractor, Ducommun Incorporated, for the 737 NG were faulty and nonconforming, potentially compromising aircraft safety. These whistleblowers faced backlash and were fired.

Such incidents cast doubt on Boeing’s commitment to quality and safety. This history makes it even more crucial to approach the investigation with skepticism and critical thinking. It’s vital to analyze and question the information being presented, rather than accepting it at face value.

If the final investigation concludes that pilot error or a lack of competence is to blame, so be it. The truth must come out, regardless of who is at fault. However, on this platform, the goal is not to push any agenda or narrative but to uncover the facts and seek the truth.