Garuda Flight crew SIM/Line checks

[ratso]

A delicate question.
Does anybody on this forum know what checks are done on GARUDA flight crews SIM or Line checks?
As an emplyee of a company whose fellow staff travels a lot to that region, I now have my superiors finally listening to me reference the landing accidents this mob have.
As a current pilot former flight instructor I have witnessed some shocking approaches by GARUDA.
The main question I ask is are they taught to land in a cross wind and do they do courses on CRM?
I await any criticism for the above question but lives are still at risk.

[Yusef Danet]

Ratso

There are a few ex-Garuda 737 FOs at VB, also QF, NZ, NH and EK. At least a couple never saw the inside of a sim after initial endorsement. It's a very different sport when you paint PK- on the aircraft. The scary thing is... Garuda are probably the best operator up there.

PM me if you need more

YD

[Myriad]

Ratso,

I used to work with GIA as a B737 F/O.

Sim checks were conducted every 6 months as per the regulations. The instructors were decent guys, who, for the most part, were professional and knew what they were doing.

No CRM training was conducted when I was there (10 years ago).

The problem though is hierachy and the "loss of face" issue.

I once flew with a captain in a sim session who crashed the aeroplane 3 times during engine failure exercises. He passed with no questions asked. Why you ask? Well, the captain was an ex-air force officer who out ranked the sim instructor. The sim instructor did not want the captain to lose face and passed him instead.

Strong cross wind landings in sims were not practised that often. Maybe 15 to 25kts max. On the line, strong cross wind landings were not performed that often either...it's just the nature of living in the tropics i.e light winds.

On the line, Minimum Descent Altitudes (MDA's) were regulary disregarded so as to get below the cloud or haze and to see the runway for landing.

If a Captain makes a mistake, the F/O's are VERY reluctant to speak up about it. This of course leads to inevitable consequences.

I paxed home once on a GIA DC-10 on staff travel. We had 3 rejected take-offs before we got airborne. Lord only knows why I stayed onboard. I wanted to get home I guess.

Maintenance of the aircraft was of a very average standard. I can say this with authority as I have worked with several 737 operators, and I have seen how excellent maintenance can be performed. Unfortunately, the Indonesian Rupiah to the US$ has been abysmal and hence the cost of spare parts is expensive. Personally, I think the engineering people there simply do the best with what resources they are given.

In summary, Garuda has many decent, hard working pilots and engineers. The terrain is tough, ATC is a nightmare at times, navaids in some areas is poor, and the weather.........WELL THE WEATHER AT TIMES IS BLOODY AWFUL. Oops, I forgot to mention the continuous encounters with VOLCANIC ASH too.

RATSO, I don't think your question about cross wind landings is very relevant.


What's relevant is the cultural and hierachy issue of LOSS OF FACE.

[HotDog]

I have operated into WIHH and subsequently into WIII on a regular basis with our aircraft overnighting with all required checks and maintenance carried out by Indonesian engineering teams to an extremely high standard. Admittedly, they were in our company's employ and suitably renumerated so we probably had the cream of the available expertise.

[PK-KAR]

6 month checks are in place, and mandatory CRM course in force... no going around it!
As a result, F/Os are more assertive and the loss of face issue has been more or less eliminated.

And there's no MPL either. And no cadet scheme.

PK-KAR

[404 Titan]

PK-KAR
No I do not work for the company.
Right now we're hoping that the investigation will not be interfered.
For some one that doesn’t work for the airline, you do seem to know an awful lot about their SOP’s. How is that? Are you an employee of the regulator that oversees their operation? If you are then maybe you are trying to protect yourself and those of your government agency. There is absolutely no hiding the fact that GA and Indonesia as a whole has an appalling aviation safety record and a lot of the problem stems from corruption in the regulator and the airlines concerned.

[Elroy Jettson]

What is Garuda's stabilised approach criteria? Whats in their books? :confused:

[PK-KAR]

Elroy,
As far as I remember (I last saw their Company Policy 3 years ago) 1000ft AGL instrument, 500ft AGL visual and flap 30 (737) and Autobrake 2, but I have to check on this again as it has been a while. On the flights I've been on, it has been applied. The ones I don't go on, I don't know.

404 Titan,
I do not work for GA, its competitors, the DOT, the DGAC, the NTSC nor the newspaper either. I have no interest in protecting them. There is no doubt that Indonesia's aviation is in dire needs of massive improvements. We have so far 24 incidents/accidents/preventive/atc diverts in our airspace so far this year... involving 3 write offs, 2 fatal accidents, 2 ATC "gross deficiencies"... these are just ones that are caught by our local news, crews who are willing to talk, and the local aviation forum. And the we have at least 3 (if I remember correctly) silly government directives on aviation over the past 6 months that makes us wonder "what the hell they are thinking."

Obviously doesn't take a genius to see these deficiencies/room for improvement.

In the past, loss of face, secrecy (like the "brotherhood" mentality) have hidden a lot, but these are being broken down slowly, that's why we've all come to be aware of the problems.

Should this accident be truly a pilot error, so be it. But, it is in our interest to seek out all other possibility because in the past, accidents have been unfairly blamed on the pilot while management policy/pressures haven't been touched. Blaming pilot error for an accident where the factors causing his error was say, maintenance, and not even mentioning that in the accident report, is not the way to do it.

There are many ways to bring change, one is to enforce it, another is to encourage it. One cannot go without the other. There are of course other ways, but it is in the interest of objectivity that the ones who want change over here, tell the truth and dismiss the untruth.

One thing we all know, we still got a long way to go.

Cheers,

PK-KAR

[ZFT]

Before you start ‘knocking’ Garuda too much it’s worth remembering that they at least have invested in their own very comprehensive training facility with their own simulators and have done so since the early 80s when they procured a 742 and an F28.

The currently operate a fairly modern 734 sim too and have also invested in a permanent manufacturers site engineering rep to ensure its serviceability.

Like many carriers within this region, they have their issues, but they are making the effort and certainly from what we know about this weeks events, at least one of the crew made the ultimate sacrifice in his line of duty.

[Chocks Away]

I agree ZFT. It will take some years for the efforts to be realised fully though i guess.
Speaking from personal experience gained from extensive flying around Indonesia and Malaysia during the Tsunami Relief, there are huge and extensive deficiencies in Indonesias systems.
Witnessed every day at Medan (a long runway), amoungst others, were consistent fast landings, long landings and unstable approaches by all local carriers. Smoking brakes were a regular site.
Together with this is the ATC procedure to give YOU a turn (on Dep or Arrive), THEN give the aircraft in your way the corrective manouevre! So, ATC ends up turning you into known traffic, not a vacant space!
Now I could handle stacks on the ILS hold up 7 levels, with opposite direction landings and takeoffs on the one runway, once visual, low level, in the smog/haze (had to be on the ball!)... but this ATC practice just wasn't logical and when radio traffic jammed ATC's transmissions, it came close on many occasions!
I hope ATC has adapted procedure but doubt they have... that's just the way it is there...:uhoh:

[PK-KAR]

Oh God! WIMM App is an embarrassment to the nation!
I had a friend being vectored into a mountain on the 6th, ATC was blurr in his awareness.
F/O: "Approach, XYZ123, confirm we are clear of terrain?"
APP: "XYZ123, maintain heading and altitude"
F/O: "Approach, XYZ123, confirm we are clear of terrain?"
APP: "XYZ123, maintain heading and altitude, traffic is just departing now"
CPT: "Approach, XYZ123, you're directing me into the mountain, I'm turning left NOW!"
APP: "eh? say again XYZ123?"

2 secs later "terrain terrain!"

That's probably the 3rd of such cases I've heard from friends since the GA A300 crash there in 97.

PK-KAR

[Eastwest Loco]

Yesterday I called my little mate Jodie from GA sales, just to lend support. She is shattered and was pleased with the contact. The staff at GA - all very nice and competent people are a mess. Hull and life losses take their toll as GA is still a "people" airline.

Today's Garuda is a far cry from the cardboard and string operation of 15 years ago and this tragedy just adds pressure to the good crews. I have flown GA and will again. Over the years I have travelled on DC10s, 734s and A330s and apart from interesting landings on occasion (slam dunk or long hop) I have never had an issue with them.

In the bad old days GA would send their least serviceable aeroplane into the Australian market as QF who ground handled them would not sign the aeroplane out as serviceable until it was fixed. Those days are long gone. The AN guys from ADL will no doubt remember the A300-600 incident with the O ring the on board South American chimp engineer wanted to replace with silasic.

The new GA is trying to recover for the excesses of some in Bali. This is the core of their route network and it is back. How long it is before some radical gang of wastes of spaces go and commit another atrocity there is anybody's guess but they have weathered that storm.

It will be interesting to hear the relevations from the black boxes and hopefully it will not reflect badly on the crew. One of the flight deck crew is apparently on suicide watch.

This has all gone into history so all we can do is hope that all surviving crew and passengers are returned to good health as soon as possible.

The Indonesian Airline industry is populated by monied wanabees with a good number of carriers belting around in 732's and the like. I have refused to book clients on some of the LCCs operating in that market. Check Padang - Jakarta.

You have GA plus Awair, Lion, Adam and Mandala all on a very thin route.

I do not like LCCs full stop, but within Asia I will not touch them for my clients. The "go or leave our employ and never divert" mindset unfortunately lives.

I live in hope that GA will be cleared of some of the blame and can get on with steadily improving their Airline.

God bless those who passed and their families.

EWL

[B772]

EW Ron. I believe you are attempting to say the the most serviceable aircraft, not the least serviceable aircraft. Cheers

[Eastwest Loco]

No B772 - they did in the bad old days send the aeroplane with the most unserviceabilities into Aus ports as they knew the repairs would be done before it would be signed out, and QF had to wait a long time to be paid for said repairs.

I am sure LAMEs of long standing with QF would back this up.

As I said, those days are thankfully long gone.

Best regards

EWL

[Long Bay Mauler]

I think unfortunately for the pilots involved,it will most likely come down to human error,and losing control of the aircraft.

The airport that I currently work at handles garuda B737's.I often watch their landing approaches and they are very quick when comparing them to QF or VB.When asking some crews what their landing speed is when they have activated the aircraft flap load relief,their only response is "landing speed",and not actual figures in knots.

And if the cause of this accident is overshooting the runway due to excessive landing speed,it will be part of a bigger problem in the culture of Garuda pilot training.

Correct me if I am wrong,but is it true that some airlines management encourage their crews to land at higher speeds and lower profiles(eg less flaring) in order to save on fuel?

If this is the case here,was the loss of this aircraft and those onboard worth it for the price of a few litres of fuel?

Me thinks not................

[ratso]

Thanks ever so much for everybodies reply to my original question on this thread.
After some of the replies, my comment to myself has been I thought so.
There again no airline is perfect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Below is a copy paste of a link from todays (monday 12mar07) news site on a guy who survived the Garuda crash, interesting comments.
Looks as though the flaps may not have been down
According to the web this runway is 7250ft long.
If the link will not copy I have copied the entire text below the HTML link.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21365248-2,00.html
Mystery crash survivor fled siteBy staff writers and wires
March 12, 2007 07:30am
Article from: Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
A MISSING Australian who survived the Garuda jet crash fled the scene to board another plane to Jakarta, fearing he would never fly again if he delayed the flight.
After leaving the burning wreckage, Alessandro Bertellotti took a cab into town, bought clothes to replace those splattered with his blood and took a plane to Jakarta.
The Melbourne man was unaware he was the subject of media attention as the mysterious 10th Australian who disappeared from the crash site, Fairfax newspapers reported.
Mr Bertellotti arrived back at his St Kilda flat on Friday. His observations of the doomed flight could help determine the cause of the crash.
The seasoned traveller was seated four rows back from the wings and said the plane came in too fast, the main wing flaps were not extended and proper landing procedures to ready crew and passenger were not followed.
"We were travelling at an incredible speed," Mr Bertellotti said.
"Everyone was screaming before the landing because we knew it was too fast. I looked outside. The air brakes were up but I saw the airport building passing by in a flash. My impression was the flaps weren't down. I am pretty sure they weren't open. I am quite sure.
"There was no wind at all before the crash. I did feel it dip for just a moment. We were about 50m above the ground. There was this fast movement, but already we were approaching too fast, we were already screaming.
"I don't understand why they didn't 'touch and go' (take off again and re-land). There was a huge bang and that was it."
Two stewards were still running towards their seats and were thrown into the air by the impact, he said.
"I am very lucky. I am still alive. I was in seat 21C and the fire started four seats in front of me."

[Capt_SNAFU]

I have always been bemused by passengers claiming of "too fast" how they can tell from sitting in the back astoundes me. The RAAF guys included. When I pax and look out the side window, it is extremely difficult to tell what speed you are doing let alone tell if you are going "too fast." This seems the standard catch phrase of most people involved in landing accidents. I think they are trying to rationalise in their own minds why it crashed and going "too fast" seems to do it .It may be correct in this case, I just wish the media for the most part would stop reporting this.

The fact of the matters is that if you are going more than Ref+20 (how you can tell this form the back?) it is reccommended that you go-around because otherwise you pretty much have to touch down nose wheel first, something you definitely don't want to do.

As for the flaps being up. Then you the unfactored landing distance for a an all flaps up landing in a 734 is at 48000 kg is 1205m going up by 95 for every 2000kg above that. So at MLW it is 1585m. Well within the 2200m.

[WynSock]

I agree,
An excessive rate of descent could be confused with "too fast". We will have to wait to get the CVR and FDR.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bugs,
A few tangents there, old chap!
Snafu,
if you are going more than Ref+20 (how you can tell this form the back?) it is reccommended that you go-around [/B]
I should bloody-well think so! I hope that's outside your company's stabilised approach criteria and that a goround would be MANDATED (unless of course it was near the briefed/agreed VApp).
404Titan,
For some one that doesn’t work for the airline, you do seem to know an awful lot about their SOP’s. How is that? Are you an employee of the regulator that oversees their operation? If you are then maybe you are trying to protect yourself and those of your government agency.
Funny but I don't read PK that way at all. Sure he seems to know what is going on but if you read his posts in R and N on the subject it's pretty obvious he's not trying to hide anything. Why would anybody wanting to protect himself or "his" government agency spill his guts with all sorts of seemingly truthful info?

[dodgybrothers]

SNAFU:

I agree totally. How would some air force anyone who has had a few rides in the back of a trash hauler know what the approach speed was? Those guys should know a hell of a lot better than to speak out when the facts have not yet been produced. While I'll agree that it does not look good, opinions such as that should be reserved for the experts. I remember years ago having a complaint from a passenger via the company safety department saying that our nose attitude was 'way too high'. How the f@rk would he know? we just rotated up to the company and manufacturers recommendation and we were hauled through the coals. Even the safety department when told of what we rotated to said, 'that seems a little high' and I told him to go back and check in the books (which he should have done to start with) and he came back and aplogised unreservedly. The point being, justice systems all over the world have a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise, why can't we give these guys the same courtesy?

If I had said (allegedly) to that same airforce guy, 'you ran away from that plane with out saving anyone and all you were concerned about was yourself' he'd have me for slander.

Although when everything is out I'm sure that I'll be wrong but, we should at least respect their presumption of innocence.

[Victor India]

Dodgy,

The Air Force fellas who made comment about the landing speed are unfortunate victims of the Press. The Press, of course, mentioned their employer as a means to add some weight to the comments, without emphasising that they are RAAF Security Police and in no way professionally involved in the technical side of aviation. I do, however, believe their proximity to the disaster fully qualifies them to make any expression of opinion they wish.

Having said that - they are both permanently attached to a Squadron which operates B737 aircraft on which they both travel frequently as passengers. I reckon they would have a better idea than many about what a 'normal' landing would feel like. Of course - if the aeroplane was only 10 or 20 kt fast, making this judgement could be difficult (for anybody), but if, as investigations may reveal, the aeroplane was being grossly mishandled, I reckon a 10yo kid could probably pick it!

VI

[atiuta]

I would say the eye witness reports of the RAAF Officers was pretty accurate judging by the outcome.

Regarding flying with Garuda, no thanks. Accidents are not just the domain of a few select carriers, it can happen anywhere, but it is a fact that Garuda's track record is very poor. Anyone that takes offence to my comments just serve to highlight the "cultural" issues that prevail with this and many other carriers. Face has no place in aviation and until these operators (from corporate office to the baggage boy) appreciate this fact, Garuda and others will continue to be seen for what it is. A carrier that you don't fly with.

[cunninglinguist]

Bloggsy, I reckon a few people have looked out the window of the 71 a few times and probably thought that a GS of around 300 ( at 10 miles ) was a bit excessive :ok:
( for the record, I believe the record is 330 at 8nm, stable by 500' if you wanted to have a crack :E )