18 Indonesian Pilots Suspended

[BYOD]

18 Indonesian pilots had thier Licences suspended for busting the visibility minimuns in Indonesian aiports due to the current Haze caused by land clearing by burning. Glad the Indo authorithies are doing something right for a change. Poor chaps though. May have been doing the expected. :D

[flash8]

18 Indonesian pilots had thier Licences suspended for busting the visibility minimuns in Indonesian aiports due to the current Haze caused by land clearing by burning. Glad the Indo authorithies are doing something right for a change. Poor chaps though. May have been doing the expected. :D

How many of us, in the name of "commercial expediency" have not succumbed to questionable decisions? I doubt any of us could put our hands up. Lets hope these chaps are not hung out to dry.

[autobrake3]

Wow, a whiter than white pilot.

[Nearly Nigel]

"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men".

Never was there a truer saying when it comes to aviation.

I'd guess Pininstauld is an engineer or other ground-based worker rather than a pilot. He either doesn't understand the medium we work in or is one of the 'obedient' ones for a reason. ;)

[paco]

I agree with pininstauld. Are those bean counters going to do your jail time or pay for your loss of licence? I don't think so! They would be the first people to say they didn't ask you to bust minima! The lawyer and jury will see it as black and white, so it's a good idea to treat it as such. Delays, etc are part of the cost of doing business, and they only own you down to the point where it is illegal or unsafe.


Phil

[Nearly Nigel]

You don't bust minimums or break the law just to save the company money.On that we are completely agreed and I would admit to having been somewhat derisory and inflammatory in my previous post and I apologise for that.

But the fact remains that I can think of numerous examples where I have been forced to deviate from doing exactly what the rules stated, but nevertheless my (our) actions were completely, utterly and 100% safe and I would do the same thing again. Not for the company's sake, but because common sense dictated that it was the right thing to do at the time.

In the low-fuel (or other emergency) situation, the rules allow me to deviate from the rules anyway if, in my judgement, doing so would be a safer course of action. But that's not really what I'm talking about above and I haven't faced that situation yet.

[Gerry Mobbs]

Pininstauld,as one of those "poor buggers in the back".Thanks.We will be flying from Gatwick 30/11/06 Hope you are up front!What's wrong with doing the right thing?:D

[bear11]

I don't disagree with your attitudes, however it can be very easy to get on your first-World high horse and comment on what the Indonesians are doing - you do have a slightly different perspective from an Indonesian Captains USD 3,000 a month working under pressure for a crappy airline, though. Your sentiment is admirable, but you know as well as I do that you could list off a string of poor countries and airlines around the world where this can, and does, happen.

[mutt]

Captains USD 3,000 a month

Make that $1500 for left seat MD80 :(

Mutt

[prim2]

AB3 and NN:
Thank you for your enlightening comments. I suspect my experience is not as extensive as yours, as at this point I wouldn't be able to advise others just how far they can safely go beyond limits.
On an approach in low vis, would you say 20% below min vis would be good, or perhaps we could press on to 50% below? Do you think one would be OK 160 feet below MDA on an NDB approach? I'm sorry, I'm just not sure when it gets to the dangerous bit. Could you provide some guidance?
While you're at it, are there any items not listed in the M.E.L./C.D.L. that we likely don't really need for a flight?
Thanks,
prim2

[BYOD]

Yes Pininstauld, 18 pilots would bust minimums just for fun. After all, they'r just working for fun. :p

[Airbrake]

Many of the laws and rules in aviation are written in other peoples blood from the harsh lessons learnt after accidents. Do not bust your minima! However, as we all know in amongst all the black and white rules there are always shades of grey. These are the most difficult to judge and deal with and where a professional pilot has to apply large amounts of common sense on the day in question.
How many pilots have carried a minor interrmittant problem for a sector just to snag it at base at the end of the day? A fault is a fault which should be actioned accordingly but how many of us would put an U\s landing light into a tech log and then ADD it down route instead of snag it at home base?
Maybe not the best of examples but not all rules are black and white. If they were it would make life much easier at times. However, as written else where nobody will do you any favours if you have an accident after a mis interpretation of the law. Safety first as always.

[flash8]

Originally Posted by flash8
How many of us, in the name of "commercial expediency" have not succumbed to questionable decisions? I doubt any of us could put our hands up. Lets hope these chaps are not hung out to dry.

......But what we definitely don't need in this day and age, in a public forum. is people who (sounding vaguely like they might be from the flight-deck) want to argue that it is acceptable to break the law (however marginally) to suit the needs of the bean counters. .... It's shameful behaviour, and shame on you too for making such a remark as the one above.

Did I advocate breaking the law?

I don't think you'll find I did. You seem to be making up your own questions and answers here. A Questionable decision may well be within the realms of the law. I don't advocate and certainly wouldn't execute an approach with viz below minima btw.

.

[autobrake3]

Common sense has served me well, I'll strap in behind Nearly Nigel any day.

[KC135777]

Make that $1500 for left seat MD80 :(

Mutt

You've got to be kidding......right? :yuk:

[greybeard]

The pressures placed on Pilots from many cultures are from the completely black ages as distinct from just the dark ones.
These could well have been"caught" by some buracrat looking at the ATIS and then the Pilots/aircraft who landed in the time frame of the reduced vis.
We all know the ATIS is constructed by a system sometimes removed geographically and structurally from reality in Indonesia.

There is the rub, we as Pilots do our bit, staying safe as best we know and the rest try to make it hard.
"You should not be tired Captain, you have had minimum rest"
Visibility 4000m on ATIS, Aircraft making missed approaches at Jakarta, no change to the Vis as the ATIS can only be changed by the Met man, who is at prayer!!!
VOR Notam as U/S, "make VOR approach", sorry no can do, "visibility too bad for visual, make VOR approach".
Financial penality for non completed sectors due ANY reason.
Engineer asking to look at forecast to write off Radar snag, in pooring rain!!!
Poor tyre tread, "there are at least 6 landings left Capt", the aircraft was scheduled for 14 in the day before return, "I will get Ops to reduce the landings scheduled"
Nil Barstardum Carborundum

Stay safe if you can, stay very safe if you can't.

:= :ok:

[prim2]

Pin:

Actually, I was in full agreement with you. My earlier post was dripping with sarcasm.

Regards,

prim2

[SeniorFelineOfficer]

At some of the Indonesian airports they have the RVR transmissometers that work by assessing reflected light. They only give valid readings when the visibility is reduced by water vapour. When the visibility is reduced by smoke particles they are totally useless and should not be used. The manufacturer says so.

Typically the ATIS will be Vis 8000m in smoke, RVR 400m.

If these guys have been prosecuted for busting a RVR that is not valid and should not have been reported then they have my sympathy. If they have been busting legitimate minima then "more fool them" and they deserve to be prosecuted.

Maybe we should find out the facts before we burn them at the stake.

[mutt]

Prior to 1998, Indonesian ATC had the authority to close airports if the RVR was below minima. When a number of airports remained closed for over a month, this authority was removed and given to flight crews.

Following an incident this year when an aircraft landed long following a late visual, the Indonesian VP got involved, he gave the authority back to the ATC in certain airports. It was during this period that crews were accused of busting minima.

So there you have it, the crews state that they were visual, above minima in a stable approach, ATC say that it was below minima. If the same thing happened today, ATC have the authority to close the airport but at that time the authority was with the crew!


Mutt

[Wanches]

As I came from Indonesia, I have to inform that it's not 100% pilots fault. Having heard from colleagues that flying for some low budget airlines in Indonesia can be very dangerous..

It's not just about the salary that Mutt has mention before. The more difficult challanges come from the Airlines managements. So many pressure for our fellow pilots, including: lack of rest hour, "on time performance" policy, poor maintainance of the A/C, etc... And they don't have the rights to fight this situation.

I don't know with you guys out there, but me-myself can't imagine how it feels to do up to 6 landing in a day. What'll happen if the 6th approach is conducted at small airport, limited runway, and below minima visibility...? Will the pilots choose to go around and go to alternate, with the consequence that there will be the 7th landing? I don't think so, they're too tired to do that...

I choose to blame the government and authorities that allow such Airlines to operate. Well, let's hope this is the momentum for us Indonesian to learn to put Safety above all...

Regards...

[Lemper]

The way I see it is:

1)The State grants me a licence, which is not a diploma, degree or brevet, but merely an "temporary administrative authorisation" to occupy a function on board a flying machine.
2)The Company gives me a job on the condition that I hold a licence.
If the Company is not happy with my "comercial" performance, it might, and sometimes will, take away my job, but will not be able to take my licence. In this case, I will take my licence and go look for a job elsewhere; no matter how hard it can be, I still have a chance to get one.
If the State is not happy with my professional performance, regardless how efficient my comercial performance has been, It will take my licence away, and probably the chances to get a licence in another State. In this case, the Company will thank me heartily for my excellent comercial performance but regret to have to terminate my employment as point Nr. 2) here above is not fulfilled. Regrettably too, I will not be able to find any flying job anywhere else because of the same point Nr. 2) here above.
An Airline may be "Low Cost", and most of them are indeed becoming so just like an advert for Mastercard, but your licence is priceless.

[UP and Down Operator]

I don't know with you guys out there, but me-myself can't imagine how it feels to do up to 6 landing in a day. What'll happen if the 6th approach is conducted at small airport, limited runway, and below minima visibility...? Will the pilots choose to go around and go to alternate, with the consequence that there will be the 7th landing? I don't think so, they're too tired to do that...

Regards...

I often fly 6 sectors in a day, and maximum was 9, so i know it is possible and can be done safely. Having said that then yes, it is exhausting and there is not much energy for anything else when you come back home from work.
I do not know how conditions are in Indonesia and can have no oppinion about what the 18 grounded guys has done, except that if they are innocent then they have my full sympathy regardless.

BUT, if you have a job in a cockpit and you are not in a condition to do it safely on an everyday basis, then it is your own bloody responsibility to find something else to do. And that is just though luck, but it is all about safety for all the people that is carried in the back of the tube. Sorry, but i do not feel with people that work after a "too hard scheduele", because they can say "stop" and find something else to do. We are not selling candy and lollipops, we are transporting humans in an already rough environment and if you can't stand the heat, or if the company, materiel and conditions under which you work are not safe, then leave.

I know it sounds though and people have put a lot of money and efford into getting their licenses plus have fought for years to get an airline job, but after my oppinion that is no excuse. In my company good people have left because they couldn't cope with the many sectors and I respect that big time. It doesn't make them less good than anybody else, but we all have our different strenghts and weeknesses (sorry for my bad spelling), and one can only respect those who recognise that they can not cope with the job they have at present, and then are doing something about it. There are lot of other companies with different route setups that then might fit the individual better so they can continue to fly, but then do it safely and NOT take into consideration that they are "too tired to go to alternate" :=

[ManaAdaSystem]

You should all give Greybeards post a good read 2 and 3 times before you mount your high horses.
Or does it suit you better to just ignore it?