|
|
|
|
|
#7
24th July 2008, 07:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
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. 
__________________
Arguing with a pilot is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a while you begin to think the pig likes it. |
|
#8
24th July 2008, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
24th July 2008, 08:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rhys, are you a pilot?
|
|
#10
24th July 2008, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
No, I am not. Why? |
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
