BUSINESS
Several airplane crashes have become a part of aviation history but this one that took place about four decades ago is still regarded as one of the most horrifying air plane crash in which more than six hundred people lost their lives. The crash took place at the Tenerife airport which is located in the region of Atlantic. It has never been a popular place before this plane crash of history. Tenerife is governed by the Spanish government and it is situated some hundred or more miles from the Moroccan coast. The airport is a small one and is located in the city of Santa Cruz. The airport is called as the Los Rodeos Airport. Los Rodeos was an unexpected schedule for the planes which got into the unfortunate crash.
The airplane crash took place between the two planes belonging to Pan Am and KLM airlines. It was the twenty-seventh day of March and the year was 1977. Pan Am’s flight number 1736 was flying from New York to Gran Canaria Airport at the Spanish owned and operated Canary Island. The airport is also known by the names of Gando Airport of Las Palamas Airport. There were approximately three hundred and eighty passengers and sixteen members of the crew. The Pan Am plane was a Boeing 747 and it was one of the first Boeing planes. The aircraft was also called Clipper Victor. Inside the cockpit, there were three people namely, Victor Grubbs, the pilot; Robert Bragg as the First Officer and flight engineer named George Warns.
The other plane belonged to the KLM Airline. KLM Airline 1736 was flying to Gran Canaria from Amsterdam. There were about fourteen crew members and two hundred and fifty passengers in the aircraft. The pilot, Jacob Veldhuyzen van Zanten was also an instructor at local flying ( Flin, O'Connor & Mearns, 2002).
Before the two planes landed at the Gando Airport, a bomb explosion took place due to some political issues being faced by the region. The passengers were asked to evacuate the airport and before any flights could land, it was decided by the civil aviation authorities that the airport shall be closed as another bombing act was also expected. It was then informed by the tower to the pilots of Pan Am and KLM to divert the planes to the Los Rodeos Airport. The pilot of KLM did not seem content with the decision because he had to fly back to Amsterdam that very day and duty hours could prolong if the delay continues (Weick, 1990).
It should be mentioned here that Los Rodeos Airport is a small airport and is not accustomed to handling to big aircraft. Also, it was Sunday which means that only two employees were sitting inside the control tower. The landing of two airplanes took place safely. It was announced near five in the evening by the Gando Airport that the airport has been reopened which was good news for the passengers and crew members who were tired of waiting. They did not know that an unfortunate event was waiting for them.
Before the plane could take off, a heavy fog surrounded the airport and reduced the visibility from ten kilometers to one kilometer and then a mere seven hundred meters. The pilots of both airlines were communicating with the control tower. The pilot of KLM was told to backtrack and line up at the run way for taking off. At the same time, the control tower instructed the pilot of Pan Am to take the third exit on the left and wait for further directions. The pilot of KLM did not get any clearance from air traffic controller and made the attempt to take off whereas the pilot of Pam Am was lost on the runway as he could not find the third exit as a result of low visibility. The pilot of KLM was in a haste to go reach the Gando Airport and then fly back to his home destination, Amsterdam. He did not wait for take off instructions from the control tower and hit the Pam Am plane which was still trying to locate the third exit (Ripley, 2005). The possible eight hindrances or issues which contributed to the crash include the following:
The weather condition was not favorable for taking off as the visibility was reducing with time. The control tower could have asked the met department to make sure if the weather allowed flying.
The pilots of both airlines were certainly at fault. The Pam Am pilot was instructed to clear the runway and exit through the third lane so that the KLM plane could take off. Although the pilot and the engineer had the map but they could not find the third exist. This was due to two reasons. Firstly, the visibility was very low due to which the pilot could not see where the exit was.
The investigation has revealed that the pilot of KLM made a couple of mistakes which became the real cause of this horrifying accident. The first mistake made by the pilot included his orders to fuel the aircraft. This is because he did not want to waste time at the Gando Airport and wanted to get back to Amsterdam without further delays.
KLM pilot was given orders by the control tower to make a backtrack at the runway 30 but he was in a haste to take off. His co-pilot mentioned very clearly that they do not have the takeoff clearance from the control tower and that he must show some patience.
KLM pilot was experienced and probably this is why he did not listen to his subordinates even when they were at the right point. He was over confident that he can never make any mistake. This approach is quite common in senior pilots and managers of the company. They tend to dislike the opinions and ideas of juniors- they feel insulted when someone less experienced comes forward with something creative and beneficial (Weick, 1990).
The aviation employees at the tower were enjoying the holiday of Sunday and only two were on duty. The two tower employees were listening to the football match commentary on the radio when the planes landed at the airport. Only one of the two was communicating with the pilots and while he was directing them for taking off, the visibility was not there.
The language of instructions used by the control tower employee was not corresponding to international standard (Philps, D. (1991).
Lack of training on patience and professionalism was missing for the pilot as well as the tower members.
It must be mentioned here that several steps could have been taken to avoid the horrifying incident. Bomb attack and bad weather is something which cannot be avoided but rational measures can be taken to control other circumstances. Such steps could have been taken by the pilots of both airlines. For instance, Pam Am pilot could have clearly told the tower that he is not able to locate the third exit and that help is needed. May be the tower employee would have allowed second or fourth exit for Pam Am. If training was provided to Pam Am crew about how to read the maps of airports provided to them, location of the exit must have been smooth. On the other hand, the pilot of KLM who was the basic cause of the accident must have dealt with the situation with patience. Although his experience matters but challenging the way things happen is a wrong approach which yields irreversible losses.
The role of leadership in an organization is critical to its success. A leader is someone who acts as a source of inspiration for his subordinates. Greenleaf & Spears (2002) mentioned that in the aviation industry, the concept of servant leadership is more prevalent. The captain of the plane has to play the leadership role because he is in charge of the flight and can direct his crew members and passengers whenever appropriate. A servant leader does not place his personal interests at priority. He is an active listener and his decision making is entirely based on the betterment of others who are directly or indirectly associated with him (Spears, 1998). In the case of Pan Am, the leadership role could have been taken up by the captain or pilot. He did not perform the role effectively. He must have made use of his experience and intuition to locate the exit. On the other hand, the pilot of MKL must have shown a responsible attitude towards leadership. He did not act as a servant leader at all. His subordinate was the one who made him realize his mistake when he wanted to fuel up the tank. The pilot wanted to fuel it so that he could save time from being wasted at the Gando Airport. He was experienced and knew that this action would make the take off slow but he preferred to follow his desires. He wanted to reach to Amsterdam so that his duty times could not be prolonged. Similarly, he was in a haste to take off without considering if he is getting clearance from the control tower. He was a flying instructor and very confident of his experience. He did not pay any heed to his co-pilot when he warned him that he should not take off without clearance from the control tower and his mistake probably is the main reason behind the crashing incident.
The whole story of airplane crash has been a big lesson not only for the aviation industry but also for modern day organizations. There are situations which cannot be avoided such as terrorist attacks or weather changes but then other situations can be managed with logic and sound leadership. It is very important that team members work with harmony to yield better and exceptional results but it is more important for the leader of the group to involve the input of his subordinates before taking any decision. When the employees feel empowered, only then they will be able to bring a good reputation for the organization. Technological know how must be mandatory for all organizational employees. There must be sound integration of technological systems so that communication remains a smooth and effective process. Senior managers and executives must be trained to influence others in the organization by practicing patience and becoming a role model for them in every aspect. Lastly, standards and regulations set by the authorities must be followed as they ensure both safety and prosperity.
References
Flin, R., O'Connor, P., & Mearns, K. (2002). Crew resource management: improving team work in high reliability industries. Team performance management: an international journal, 8(3/4), 68-78.
Greenleaf, R. K., & Spears, L. C. (2002). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. Paulist Press.
Philps, D. (1991). Linguistic security in the syntactic structures of air traffic control English. English world-wide, 12(1), 103-124.
Ripley, A. (2005). How to get out alive. Time, 165(18), 58-62.
Spears, L. C. (1998). Insights on leadership: Service, stewardship, spirit, and servant-leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Weick, K. E. (1990). The vulnerable system: An analysis of the Tenerife air disaster. Journal of management, 16(3), 571-593.
