Verdict on Gardua Captain due today

[Montague S]

Originally Posted by Stephen B

As far as I'm aware this case was not about Indonesian avaition. It was about a pilot who did everything wrong, destroyed an aircraft and killed people. It has as a by product increased the safety of aviation world wide by removing a very dangerous person from the cockpit. But there are those who seem to think this unfair.

So I'll ask for the FOURTH time, exactly how are the responsibiities of car drivers and pilots different?

Give us an answer that can help us understand your viewpoint. Please. Are you even a pilot? Is there any justification for your viewpoint?

if its not glaringly obvious to you...then we're just going round in circles, my employment has nothing to do with this topic.

my view is the same as Adam's, trace back to the other thread and you'll find it all there. The problem isn't just the pilot, its the Indonesian system itself, the training and the need to save face which is deeply engrained throughout our Asian neighbours.

They point fingers and get their pound of flesh, but as sure as the sun rises you can bet that there will be other accidents throughout Indonesia, once again, how does putting this man in jail prevent it from re-occurring?

comparing a car driver to a pilot is beyond stupid...there is no comparison to be had.

[Stephen B]

Adam,

My concern is that there are people in this thread and in the earlier thread on this topic who have said this man should not be punished by the courts at all because it will damage the way all pilots will view the accident investigation process. It was even sugessted in the earlier thread that pilots may start disabling the CVR in fear it might be used against them in court.

The ONLY message I can take from that attitude is that pilots think they should be exempt from all responsibility and consequesnses of their actions.

Given that I am a travelling member of the public, that attitude scares the living **** out of me!

I know that no sane person would endanger themselves, but I also remeber the Silkair crash. Extreme comparisom I know, but it is what it could come to.

I want to know that the people up front understand that there are several hundred people behind them who value their lives. They're not on the aircraft for the thrill of cheating death.

To that end I do not take a wider view of the situation. I take a veiw that is around 3.5 meters wide. I have to trust in the pilots to take every aspect of their job seriously, and act in my interest as well as theirs as they read that next company directive requiring them to land with the wheels up to save on tyre wear.

Previous posts in this thread do not give me that confidence.

[Montague S]

Stephen, if you're so concerned as a member of the travelling public then why on earth can't you wrap your head around the fact that punishing one doesn't fix a system that is broken?

which do you want? safer Indonesian air travel for all in the long run? or one man brought to "justice" for the deaths of your fellow Australian's.

accidents happen, the fact that you don't grasp that scares the hell out of me even more, and what's more, it frightens me to think that you can't see the failures in the system and think finger-pointing will solve the problem. How do you know what training the captain was provided to deal with the situation he was in? you simply don't?

[Stephen B]

Firstly, to Montague, Apologies for asking if you were a pilot, that was inappropriate.

My question though is not about the Garuda crash. My question is a general one, about suggestions that pilots should never face criminal prosecution for any actions the pilot chooses to take of their own free will within any system, broken or not.

You also indicate you have knowledge of the difference in responsibility between driving a car and flying an aircraft. That is part of my question. I am not a pilot, and have no flight training of any kind, so I do not have that knowledge.

Would you mind sharing that knowledge with me so I can understand your point better please?

[NickN]

Here is a great article, and worth the read......

Ongoing inquiries by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau make it clear that Garuda remained capable of being a menace to air safety in this country until at least 17 December last year.


That was when one of its 737-400s approaching Darwin failed to comply with an air traffic control clearance to descend to 3000 feet and dropped to 2000 feet instead.


The control tower then spotted the jet when it was about 700 feet above the ground some distance north of the runway and ordered a go-around be flown, apparently because of concerns it might crash before reaching the airport.


This is one of two alarming displays of incompetent flying by the Indonesian carrier that are under ATSB investigation as Marwoto Komar, the Garuda captain that crashed a 737 at Yogyakarta on 7 March 2007 prepares to appeal a two year sentence for criminal negligence handed down in a Jakarta court yesterday.


That crash killed 21 people, including five Australians, and was a factor in the EU banning all Indonesian airlines from its airspace indefinitely.



The other incident, first reported in Crikey, occurred at Perth Airport on 9 May last year when another Garuda 737 first abandoned an attempt to land on a runway which was closed for repair.


That crew circled back, ignored a control tower call to abort their landing and then flew low over the construction workers and their equipment to land in the remaining section of the closed runway.


It was spoken of at the time as one of the most gratuitously stupid and dangerous things any airline had ever done at Perth Airport in living memory.

Crikey understands that the notification of the runway’s unavailability was conveyed in the normal manner to the airline for operations planning purposes, and also transmitted to the pilots as a message prior to their approaching Perth.

While the ATSB continues its investigations the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) today said its enhanced audits and monitoring of Garuda in the aftermath of the Yogyakarta crash has not identified "any significant safety issues that warrant a change to Garuda’s operations in Australia."

The CASA spokesperson said this morning:

After the EU placed a ban on Indonesian airlines the Civil Aviation Safety Authority reviewed all the safety data held on Garuda, including the results of CASA safety checks. This meant CASA had solid first hand knowledge of the safety performance of the airline.

In addition, CASA had even greater knowledge of the performance of the Indonesian air safety system due to the commencement of the Indonesian Transport SafetyAssistance Package.

With this data and knowledge, as well as increased safety checks of Garuda, it was determined the airline could continue to operate into Australia.


The difference between the positions of the ATSB, which must investigate safety incidents, and CASA reflects the policy response of the previous government to the crash, which were continued and strengthened by the Rudd government.

These involved avoiding strong criticism of the airline in favour of supporting a show trial of the captain of the jet, and a sensible $24 million assistance package to work ‘with’ the Indonesian authorities in improving their safety oversight.


CASA is bringing up to 40 Indonesian air safety inspectors a year to Australia in a co-operative training program.


However, the realpolitik of the situation is that unlike the EU, Australia is in no position to ban Indonesian carriers without inevitable retaliation that would close its airspace to Qantas flights to Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong.


This would cause some major detours, especially to Singapore, because this would require not just flying west of the republic, but to the north of Sumatra into Malaysian airspace before turning southwards to fly only an approach to Changi that wouldn’t transit Indonesian territorial boundaries that come very close to that city.


In practical terms, this was simply not on.


The injustice in the show trial of the Garuda pilot was that it didn’t put the senior management of the airline in the dock to answer charges of failing to maintain the required training and checking procedures or to comply fully with aviation safety requirements, even so far as using a runway that had been officially declared to be unlicensed for passenger operations.

[Rhys Xanthis]

The other incident, first reported in Crikey, occurred at Perth Airport on 9 May last year when another Garuda 737 first abandoned an attempt to land on a runway which was closed for repair.


That crew circled back, ignored a control tower call to abort their landing and then flew low over the construction workers and their equipment to land in the remaining section of the closed runway.


It was spoken of at the time as one of the most gratuitously stupid and dangerous things any airline had ever done at Perth Airport in living memory.

I'd contest that! Their has been other incidents that have been just as bad, if not worse.

[Owen H]

The injustice in the show trial of the Garuda pilot was that it didn’t put the senior management of the airline in the dock to answer charges of failing to maintain the required training and checking procedures or to comply fully with aviation safety requirements, even so far as using a runway that had been officially declared to be unlicensed for passenger operations.

Solve the management attitude and safety culture, and you basically solve the problem.

[Montague S]

Originally Posted by Stephen B

Firstly, to Montague, Apologies for asking if you were a pilot, that was inappropriate.

My question though is not about the Garuda crash. My question is a general one, about suggestions that pilots should never face criminal prosecution for any actions the pilot chooses to take of their own free will within any system, broken or not.

You also indicate you have knowledge of the difference in responsibility between driving a car and flying an aircraft. That is part of my question. I am not a pilot, and have no flight training of any kind, so I do not have that knowledge.

Would you mind sharing that knowledge with me so I can understand your point better please?

for godsake, now you're writing me in private! listen, I think its time you let it go and accept that others have different positions from your own, if you can't wrap your head around that then don't PM me asking me to elaborate.

[Stephen B]

Hi Montague,

I tried to take this private as there was no need to continue it in public. But if you wish, so be it.

I have no problem with others having different opinions to me at all. I "wrapped my head" around that one long ago. What I have a problem with is people who think it's OK to make grandiose statements, be rude and dismissive to those who have the audacity to disagree let alone dare to question, and then not have the good grace to back themselves up.

Not everyone who has a different opinion to yourself is "beyond stupid" to use your own phrase.

Every time I've asked my question all you've done is abused me for not being able to wrap my head around the fact that you have a different opinion to me, and declared it beyond stupid. But you've never answered it. If the question is too trivial for you to answer, why did you abuse me for it? Or is it that you have an opinion different to mine, but not the knowledge to back it up?

It is very possible to discuss different opinions politely, and if you can put your case clearly and factually, you may even be able to bring others around to your way of thinking. That's what I was asking for, I was not expecting an aggressive and abusive response.

[Montague S]

I haven't abused you at all, if I had you'd know it by now and the mods would have deleted the offending posts, I have made my position clear..perhaps you should take note of your own comments.

What I have a problem with is people who think it's OK to make grandiose statements, be rude and dismissive to those who have the audacity to disagree let alone dare to question, and then not have the good grace to back themselves up.

so far you have managed not to answer a simple question, how does jailing this man solve the critical problems within Indonesian aviation.