Criminal prosecution of Garuda pilot

[Pavitar Singh]

The report talks a lot about fuel conservation and the fact that Garuda was rewarding pilots for conserving fuel. But could it be that this really is the cause of the incident, being the pressure on the pilot from the company? I think rewarding pilots for better fuel management is a great thing, but if it is found that these rewards are compromising safety by putting pressure on the pilots, then it must be recognised that this pressure may lead to incorrect decisions.

I think its fair to convict someone if they're found to be guilty of negligence provided there's enough evidence against a certain decision which in the circumstances would have overwhelmingly been taken to be safer. But in this case there's also the alleged malfunction of the stabilisor and I'm sure if that were the case, the investigation would prove the pilot to be NOT guilty of being negligent.

[Rhys Xanthis]

If the pilot did ignore the co-pilot and the warnings in the cockpit, I think he should definetly go to jail. The pilots actions caused the crash which could have been otherwise prevented and lives spared rather than lost.

I also think that, in this case, Garuda should bear some kind of responsibility for the Saving fuel measure IF it was not mentioned that safety is absolutely paramount (which i find hard to believe was not mentioned). In addition, i think any airlines on a fuel saving measure should make it perfectly clear to pilots, if it isn't already, that safety comes first, although im sure pilots would not want to die for the sake of saving a few gallons of fuel.

Note: I would say this about any airline/pilot involved in a situation like this.

Rhys, are you a pilot?

[Rhys Xanthis]

Originally Posted by ChrisG.

Rhys, are you a pilot?

*sigh*

No, I am not.

Why?

[Nigel C]

Originally Posted by Rhys Xanthis

If the pilot did ignore the co-pilot and the warnings in the cockpit, I think he should definetly go to jail.

Same goes for if you ignore your teacher and talk in class, then you should go to gaol.

Better still, you fail to take the advice of a kindergarten pupil (no disrespect to flight crew intended...just an over-exaggerated example so that Rhys sees the short-sightedness of his statement) and tell your teacher that 1+1=3, then perhaps you should go to gaol.

For spelling gaol wrong, you go to gaol.

Now can you understand why ChrisG asked his question?
If not, go straight to gaol, do not pass go and certainly do not collect $200.

[Rhys Xanthis]

All im saying is that from what I have seen and how the accident has been represented to me, i believe he should go to jail (). That said, if any of what has happened has been mis-represented to me, then i shall gladly retract and review my opinion.

That is my opinion and should be treated as such.

[Montague S]

Originally Posted by Rhys Xanthis

All im saying is that from what I have seen and how the accident has been represented to me, i believe he should go to jail (). That said, if any of what has happened has been mis-represented to me, then i shall gladly retract and review my opinion.

That is my opinion and should be treated as such.

first thing about the media...don't believe everything you hear in their reports especially when those reporting the news have no jetpilot experience.

[Rhys Xanthis]

Originally Posted by Montague S

first thing about the media...don't believe everything you hear in their reports especially when those reporting the news have no jetpilot experience.

I read and watch, and from what i have gathered i think he should be punished in an approprite way.

If someone wants to point me in the direction of some other information, please do, and i will gladly read when i have the time

[Philip Argy]

There are some basic principles which could be overlooked in the discussion. First, there are a number of different charges that have been brought with varying severity. The strongest charge is 'deliberate destruction of an aircraft', and other charges include the more conventional criminal negligence charges.

I think the International Federation of Air Pilots has objected to the most severe of the charges but has accepted that the more conventional charges are within the scope of what might be fair to try the guy on.

Then we have the issue of what evidence can be used. The ATSB does not set out to find who is to blame - as has been noted, they look for a cause and for any lessons that can be learned. They do this based on all available evidence in whatever form that evidence takes, some of which might only be inferential based on the laws of physics and some of the observable facts.

I don't think it is possible for a prosecution to use the ATSB or its Indonesian counterpart's report as evidence. But what is legitimate is for the evidence that was available for the civil investigation to be used in the criminal trial. It is for the jury to decide in respect of what fact any piece of evidence is probative, and for the counsel and judge to explain to the jury their role, which is to decide if the factual elements of the charge have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. It's a very different process and I don't think any pilot should be concerned about CVR or FDR evidence incriminating them except in the most flagrant kind of case where there was some kind of act which the CVR and perhaps the FDR could demonstrate was wilful rather than negligent or lacking in sufficient experience, competence or skill.

I don't have all the facts of the Garuda crash and haven't read the report, but based solely on the newspaper and other media reports of what happened, the pilot does seem to me objectively to at least have a case to answer for criminal negligence causing death. To the extent that the other crew members might have to testify about what happened in the cockpit, and humans have poor recollection after most trauma, the objectivity of the CVR and FDR evidence is hard to beat. It might just as easily contain the defence as it does the prosecution's ace card.

[Montague S]

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...%20Release.pdf

now one thing you should understand, many of our Asian neighbours seek to lay the blame at someones doorstep rather fix the problem & that's why there are a high number of accidents in the region, China Airlines is high up on that list too, pointing the finger is easier than fixing the problem, its also face saving...but now China Airlines has quite a few western tech crew so things are different, there is accountability whereas before there wasn't.

that's not meant as a racist comment..its just an observation, just as an example look at Japanese whaling, the Japanese consume very little whale meat but the practice is still carried out each year, why? because its easier for their government to send the ships out to sea than sack the crews and lose national pride, essentially its a face saving exercise that ends up getting them nowhere, precisely the same with some of Asian carriers and their safety departments.