Verdict on Gardua Captain due today

[Owen H]

Stephen - There is a lot more to it than just "chosing your actions", and involve airline practice, training etc.

Would you punish as harshly a driver who ran a red light and crashed, if his driving training school and the police told him it was ok to do so? How is that driver supposed to give such creedance to the red light if he is allowed to run them frequently?

A person chooses their actions because of many factors, not least of which are training and acceptance. If the regulator and airline did not actively discourage such practice (and in fact may have even encouraged it through some of their policies), is it reasonable to place the blame just on the choices he made, when he may not have been geared/trained to making other ones?

The primary concern when imposing sentences on people is making the community safer. Jailing a captain does not make Indonesia, nor the travelling public, safer. Have a look at the countries that actively pursue criminal sanctions on their flight crew, and compare that to a list of the safest aviation countries. You'll find they are not the same.

I am not saying that the pilot should be without sanction, and it would be entirely reasonable for him to have his licence suspended. If the airline were investigated and found to have the best training system in the world, and encouraged safe practice at all time, then I would be prepared to wear his actions as criminal. However simply putting the captain up on charges in front of the court system does not help the overall goal - safety, and in fact may hinder it.

[Stephen B]

Wow, Owen, you are one seriously scary dude!

[Nigel C]

Stephen, perhaps he's seen how the airline 'institution' runs from the inside and has a good understanding of the factors that make it tick, and those that grind it to a halt?

[Stephen B]

Nigel, if you choose to push the button, then be unto you the glory or blame for your actions.

There's only one other person in the cockpit with you, and I'm pretty sure they're not going to be holding a gun to your head forcing you to do the wrong thing.

If a pilot hasn't the guts to own up and face up to what they choose to do in the cockpit then they should get back to bed. Or will having to take responsibility make the airline "institution" grind to a halt?

[Sarah C]

I too am dumbfounded by the decision - the same country comes down hard on drug trafficers, and yet they can overturn this decision? When someone is so blatant in not doing thier job and ignoring warnings.........if it is instructions from higher up in the airline, they should be punished. The fact both parties escape any punishment is astounding.

What is most disturbing is this guy could be in control of an aircraft again! If Garuda or any other airline hires him again, it will be a disgrace.

[Lukas M]

No CP is going to let someone like this into their operation.

[Owen H]

Stephen - Call me scary if you want, no skin off my nose.

But, perhaps contrary to your beliefs, there has been a lot of study and research into the most effective way to ensure airline safety. Their, along with my, view is that penal action on the Pilot In Command does not enhance safety. Instead, it can work against it.

The "culture" of an airline is FAR more important in ensuring safety. Take a look at what CASA is pushing at the moment. There is an enormous push to ensure safe practices, under a safety management system. This is the latest and greatest in safety systems. You will find many things such as ensuring that everyone, FROM THE CEO DOWN is responsible for safety, including the statement by the former head of CASA that if an airline in Australia has a crash, CASA will be out to get the CEO, not just the crew involved.

You will perhaps note, however, that criminal prosecution of the pilot of the flight is NOT in the system, and the SAFEST countries in the world use this concept. Additionally, they PROHIBIT the use of a Cockpit Voice Recorder to be used as evidence in a criminal court. Why? Because it is far more important that the pilots are allowed to speak freely, knowing that their every word is not going to be analysed.

You are, unfortunately, falling for the trap that many uninitiated do - that prosecution and the threat of jail is an adequate deterrent. As you will see, it is not, and even the police acknowledge this. You are also looking at this situation from a purely emotional view - someone must pay. It is essential we do not fall for this trap, and we use RESEARCHED techniques for improving safety. Sure, we can put a pilot in jail, for life if you will. That will stop one pilot flying again, and will make the masses, on the surface, happy. The far reaching consequences, however, of making pilots reluctant to speak up for fear of criminal proceedings is far more damaging to safety. Also, how is this fixing the problem? If one pilot can do it under the existing system, and he was not detected and retrained earlier on, whats to say there won't be more?

My view comes from university research into safety systems. I am happy to entertain your views of "its just the pilots fault because he pressed the button", if you can give me researched, qualified opinion where such action has enhanced safety.

I have no problem with the aviation authorities suspending or cancelling his licence after investigation. Additionally, I will accept criminal prosecution where it is warranted. I will, however, only wear this after a FULL and THOROUGH investigation into the entire airline's safety and training system, showing that the pilot was acting in a manner that the system would find absurd... something that was not accomplished.

[Nigel C]

Well articulated Owen.

It makes sense to me...does that make me scary?

[Stephen B]

I do in fact understand there are allot of factors that contribute to the safe arrival of an aircraft to its destination, and that yes, culture and external pressures are a very big contributor to that. These pressures can be pushed right through the crew's life, and from many sources, not just from the airline.

Too much pressure can make previously very stable, reliable and experienced people do strange and unpredictable things at times, totally out of character, and even in a carefully planned way so as to avoid detection, not just in a sudden snap.

But this thread is not about throwing every pilot flying today in jail. This thread is about one pilot, who after careful and thorough examination of the facts, was found to have deliberately ignored the aircrafts own warning systems, ignored his co-pilot, ignored his previous experience and training, and deliberately crashed his aircraft onto the ground at twice its permissible landing speed in bad weather.

How can you possibly try to claim that this was not acting in a manner that the system would find absurd?????? His co-pilot did!

Please tell me what groundbreaking new safety ideas have come from this person being able to speak his mind, in a nice safe closed culture with apparently no real fear of any recriminations at all?????

And please could you direct me to the appropriate documentation by CASA, the ATSB or NTSB etc so I can read and understand what you've stated above?

[Owen H]

I wish I could give you one document that explains the philosophy, but there isn't just one. If you're interested in Safety Management Systems, there is copius documentation on the CASA website under education. One document discussing the fact that it is the whole company that is essential in safety is here.

Please tell me what groundbreaking new safety ideas have come from this person being able to speak his mind, in a nice safe closed culture with apparently no real fear of any recriminations at all?????

I think you are missing the point here. It isn't about him coming up with safety ideas. Its about errors and violations being able to be reported freely, both in the past and in the future, without the fear that those reports will be used to prosecute. Open reporting in a safe, confidential manner is essential - the CEO document I have linked you to discusses that, particularly in the last paragraph.

Just as another aside - I find it interesting that everyone assumes the first court (which I might add was assembled before a full investigation had been conducted by safety authorities) got the decision right, and that the higher authority court got the decision wrong. We do not know any of the evidence that was presented, and there may have been many reasons that the higher court overturned the decision of the first, some of which were not related specifically to this pilot's guilt.