There are no legitimate comparisons with respect to the crew's culpability when discussing the QF Bangkok and The GA Yogjakarta overrun incidents. Repeat, none.
The Garuda crew had initially been cleared for a circling approach to the reciprocal runway to the one from which the accident eventually occurred, and had managed the aircraft's descent and speed parameters with this in mind. When offered a straight in approach to the reciprocal runway late in proceedings, despite the fact that the aircraft's energy state was completely inappropriate for such an approach, the PIC, apparently without any consideration to the potential ramifications, or consultation and input from his F/O, requested it.
The PIC, irrespective of cultural issues, elected to continue with an approach from which it was patently obvious from the outset would have the aircraft land in an uncertified configuration, and massively in excess of the aircraft type's required velocity for the approach and landing manoeuvre phase.
His subsequent attempts to shirk responsibility for such gross incompetence and, more crucially from a legal perspective, negligence and recklessness, by blaming environmental conditions, the performance of his offsider, equipment failure, medical issues, etc are offensive and nauseating. Relatives and friends of the victims are rightly outraged.
The offsider in question did pretty much everything that his training and culture allowed to try and avert the tragedy. Realistically, physical intervention by him in order to attempt to avert what transpired was not feasible, nor would necessarily have led to a less extreme result.
The QF crew were still operating within required limits when approaching the threshold in Bangkok, and at no time in a reckless or non-conscientious fashion, and became victims of circumstance.
Last edited by jaded boiler; 8th Apr 2009 at 09:41.