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.
24th July 2008, 07:37 PM
Threaded Mode