Bomarc - as far as the first part of your post is concerned - count me out
- In this particular case - the media, whether Indonesian or not, is not going to force government action where it matters - IN INDONESIA. As for things closer to my neck of the woods during my temporary 'exile' - no amount of 'investigative' reports or spectacular exposes have made a blind bit of difference in the case of RA - or indeed (more importantly) even dented the enthusiasm of the public for flying with them! In fact, the last one I saw was more concernced about the condition of seats etc, as opposed to the real safety of flight issues.
Air Garuda probably needs better training, better pilots and more resources
Possibly - but they are by far at the top of the pyramid in Indonesia - what all of them really need is a firm 'boot' from a government which cares about the safety of its own public - rather than PR excersises (the rating system) designed to fend off embarrassment or attention. Would the rating system have appeared if Australian officials hadn't been onboard, with the resultant increased interest from outside Indonesia? Personally, regrettably, I think NOT.
AND poor hiring practices...Oh for the days when you actually had to be a sharp pilot to get a job anywhere.
Isn't that the way with everything now? At least whenever companies can get away with it without consequence. The new licensing arrangements (where they are implemented) are going to make it a hell of a lot worse - as I'm sure you already know - it's been mentioned on PPruNe already.
--------------------------------------------
alf5071h - that's quite an impressive examination. Just to mirror some of your comments in relation to what this accident shares with the others in Indonesia:
Latent conditions arising mainly in the managerial sphere. Latent conditions are present in the system long before the event and are most likely bred by decision-makers, regulators, designers and other people and organisations far removed from the event;
wider industry, your management, ATC, and of course the public
We can see the public perception about GA's from a recent thread here on PPrune - and it's probably disconcerting to most pilots. But then, it's pilot responsibility to ensure safety - and if that means a GA is in order - then to hell with their perceptions. Naturally, it would be better if they understood!
It looks like it will be another while before we know WHY no GA happened(as in the motivation for continuing a 'hot' approach in the case of GA200). So an answer to the question of whether it was 'shame' or 'bravado' is going to have to wait for the moment.
--------------------------------------------
For sure an informal discussion may occur to decipher what preceded the go around
That would be the ideal situation - where many are fortunate to be. But then there are the examples of companies which publicly state their training and practice is GA-positive - but pilots have to submit written reports whenever a GA results - often in the environment of finger-waving. Of course, we all know what should happen if a F/O calls for GA - or indeed only corrections from parameters if above 500ft AGL VMC, but there are many F/O's who have a seriously justifiable reason to doubt their 'career indemnity' if they push the issue. And, unfortunately, they're not always in airlines operating in 'far off places'
. Without the support of managment - CRM and GA's begin to loose their significance - and the potential for disaster increases.