Garuda Pilot Jailed
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Not really sure
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7e7100 - agree 100% that the Garuda captain deserves a more severe punishment however you cannot compare the two crimes. The West Irian Jaya (Papua) incident was a border incursion / illegal immigration issue handled under associated laws. Also the pilot (who really did know better than to do what he did) and his passengers were released several weeks ago.
Sadly barrybeebone is correct - the Indonesian culture places a very different value on human life and this will not change in our lifetime.
Sadly barrybeebone is correct - the Indonesian culture places a very different value on human life and this will not change in our lifetime.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The First Officer taking over control is an occurrence which does happen. Most airlines have a set procedure to do this. Usually, manage upwards try to get the Capt to recognise the error and correct for it, if the FO is still not happy with the situation, then a command "YOU MUST GO AROUND", if the Capt doesn't go around, then the FO states "taking over and executes a go-around".
Old Fella, you seem to be saying that it is ok for the FO to just just sit there, knowing that the situation is extremely dangerous and accept the inevitable crash. The above procedure also picks up subtle incapacitation, for example, what if the Capt has a mini stroke on approach and lets the nose drop, airspeed and descent rate increase, the ground starts to rise quickly, we get SINK RATE and GLIDE SLOPE warnings, the FO starts calling out errors, at what stage do you think it is acceptable for the FO to take over ?
Qantas had an incident a while back where on approach to a short runway the Capt was going to touchdown well down the runway, not sure about managing upwards etc, but in the end the FO took over, executed the go-around. Sure its a tricky situation, but better to go-around, hand back to the Capt and fly a better approach next time. Any Capt worth his salt will accept the situation for what it was and get on with the job.
Taking over is not an easy thing to do, you have to be sure of your situation. But this is what the travelling public expects, competent, and assertive FO's and Captains.
By not jailing the FO, the Indonesian authorities have emphasised that they consider the Captain to be totally responsible, and your duties as an FO are limited to advising the Capt. A jail term would have sent a message to FO's that they too are responsible.
As others have said on this forum, that ain't gonna happen in Indonesia. But the travelling public need to be made aware of this. Remember, this crash wasn't an approach that was a bit unstable and the Capt had slight handling problems, this was a grossly unstable approach that should have been abandoned very early on. It was a criminal act to continue such an approach.
Old Fella, you seem to be saying that it is ok for the FO to just just sit there, knowing that the situation is extremely dangerous and accept the inevitable crash. The above procedure also picks up subtle incapacitation, for example, what if the Capt has a mini stroke on approach and lets the nose drop, airspeed and descent rate increase, the ground starts to rise quickly, we get SINK RATE and GLIDE SLOPE warnings, the FO starts calling out errors, at what stage do you think it is acceptable for the FO to take over ?
Qantas had an incident a while back where on approach to a short runway the Capt was going to touchdown well down the runway, not sure about managing upwards etc, but in the end the FO took over, executed the go-around. Sure its a tricky situation, but better to go-around, hand back to the Capt and fly a better approach next time. Any Capt worth his salt will accept the situation for what it was and get on with the job.
Taking over is not an easy thing to do, you have to be sure of your situation. But this is what the travelling public expects, competent, and assertive FO's and Captains.
By not jailing the FO, the Indonesian authorities have emphasised that they consider the Captain to be totally responsible, and your duties as an FO are limited to advising the Capt. A jail term would have sent a message to FO's that they too are responsible.
As others have said on this forum, that ain't gonna happen in Indonesia. But the travelling public need to be made aware of this. Remember, this crash wasn't an approach that was a bit unstable and the Capt had slight handling problems, this was a grossly unstable approach that should have been abandoned very early on. It was a criminal act to continue such an approach.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one man is responsible for the deaths of 21 people and gets 2 years in prison,
schapelle Corby (guilty or not who really cares) cops 20 years for importing 4.3kg of Canabis, its not as if she hurt anyone. How can you call that a Justice System?
schapelle Corby (guilty or not who really cares) cops 20 years for importing 4.3kg of Canabis, its not as if she hurt anyone. How can you call that a Justice System?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/O responsibilities
MrWooby, I did not suggest that the F/O should just sit there and accept the inevitable crash. In fact, I said that the Captain ignored the F/O's expressions of concern with the approach and landing. He did call for a "Go-around", he did point out the instability of the approach. He did not attempt to physically take control, which given his lack of training and the importance placed on the hierarchy in Asia, I can understand. There have been many times where the handling pilot has screwed up the approach and has conducted a missed approach before subsequently landing.
This aircraft left the runway at 110 kts, and unlike the Qantas B744 at Bangkok, which made a "long and hot" touchdown on a contaminated runway and which went off the end at 88 kts, did not have a quagmire to bring it to a stop. The Qantas accident could have been much worse had there not been a very wet and soggy over-run area. Maybe the Garuda F/O could have been more forceful, but to suggest he was culpable is a bit too strong in my view. His situation was not one of taking control from a physically incapacitated handling pilot, although one may contend that he was mentally incapacitated.
This aircraft left the runway at 110 kts, and unlike the Qantas B744 at Bangkok, which made a "long and hot" touchdown on a contaminated runway and which went off the end at 88 kts, did not have a quagmire to bring it to a stop. The Qantas accident could have been much worse had there not been a very wet and soggy over-run area. Maybe the Garuda F/O could have been more forceful, but to suggest he was culpable is a bit too strong in my view. His situation was not one of taking control from a physically incapacitated handling pilot, although one may contend that he was mentally incapacitated.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the other issues at Garuda I doubt that they have a world leading CRM program in place to help the F/O get through to the Capt let alone guidance on when or how the F/O should take over.
I was in that movie as a junior pilot when the Capt put us in an increadibly dangerous position and I was giving serious consideration to wrestling for control. In the end I did the best to stop us from crashing but short of fighting for control. 15 years on I still don't know if I did the best I could but after many discussions with other pilots I've never had any better suggestions.
At the end of the day the Capt must be held responsible for the safety of their aircraft. And when they have been warned by their crew and the aircraft's safety alerts there is no excuse for deliberately crashing their aircraft.
I was in that movie as a junior pilot when the Capt put us in an increadibly dangerous position and I was giving serious consideration to wrestling for control. In the end I did the best to stop us from crashing but short of fighting for control. 15 years on I still don't know if I did the best I could but after many discussions with other pilots I've never had any better suggestions.
At the end of the day the Capt must be held responsible for the safety of their aircraft. And when they have been warned by their crew and the aircraft's safety alerts there is no excuse for deliberately crashing their aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Lowerlobe you are right, it is better sometimes to work with someone than to go head to head. The EU and US actually have legislated systems where they go around the world looking at country's aviation safety and security systems and then if they are not up to scratch, ban them. The Australian approach is to work with those countries that make these lists if it is in Australian interests.
Rightly or wrongly, this is Australia's role as a middle power. Australia is the nice guy. Being the nice guy has it's benefits and disadvantages, just like the EU and US approach.
Rightly or wrongly, this is Australia's role as a middle power. Australia is the nice guy. Being the nice guy has it's benefits and disadvantages, just like the EU and US approach.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not read all the posts but....
Jail the Captain and problem solved, management is absolved.
Did the Captain behave erratically beforehand?
If so why was nothing done?
What was in the orders to crew in these circumstances, etc, etc
It is a bad outcome for flight safety
Jail the Captain and problem solved, management is absolved.
Did the Captain behave erratically beforehand?
If so why was nothing done?
What was in the orders to crew in these circumstances, etc, etc
It is a bad outcome for flight safety
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware this is the first time a pilot has been put in jail here (willing to be proven wrong, and not including pilots that assasinate pax)
If you read most of the accident reports here external factors such as weather are given the majority of the blame. "wind blew the plane off the runway" not "pilot lost control of the aircraft"
The 'battle scars' culture is alive and well (that scarred twin otter pilot I think is a B737 pilot now) and that's going to take years to rectify.
Also remember when it rains here it's like someone tipping Sydney Harbor on your head with massive CBs and then lots of sharp pointy mountains and short runways so the weather / terrain environment IS inherently more dangerous.
Small steps boys and girls ... they ARE trying !
If you read most of the accident reports here external factors such as weather are given the majority of the blame. "wind blew the plane off the runway" not "pilot lost control of the aircraft"
The 'battle scars' culture is alive and well (that scarred twin otter pilot I think is a B737 pilot now) and that's going to take years to rectify.
Also remember when it rains here it's like someone tipping Sydney Harbor on your head with massive CBs and then lots of sharp pointy mountains and short runways so the weather / terrain environment IS inherently more dangerous.
Small steps boys and girls ... they ARE trying !
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Ozzzzzzz
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aseanaero: quote: "Also remember when it rains here it's like someone tipping Sydney Harbor on your head with massive CBs and then lots of sharp pointy mountains and short runways so the weather / terrain environment IS inherently more dangerous."
Look at the photo's on the day mate, where is the rain? It's clear blue skies. What a lame excuse for actions taken by a captain that killed people!! Once you are holding such a position, you should surely understand the basic concepts of a "stable approach"...
"Small steps boys and girls ... they ARE trying !"
Clearly not hard enough. This is a pathetic demonstration of their law at work. Inconsistant, illogical and let's wait and see what happens next Ramadan, his sentence will be halved, but others in jail for lesser crimes will have NO reduction in sentences.
Pathetic!
Look at the photo's on the day mate, where is the rain? It's clear blue skies. What a lame excuse for actions taken by a captain that killed people!! Once you are holding such a position, you should surely understand the basic concepts of a "stable approach"...
"Small steps boys and girls ... they ARE trying !"
Clearly not hard enough. This is a pathetic demonstration of their law at work. Inconsistant, illogical and let's wait and see what happens next Ramadan, his sentence will be halved, but others in jail for lesser crimes will have NO reduction in sentences.
Pathetic!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look at the photo's on the day mate, where is the rain? It's clear blue skies. What a lame excuse for actions taken by a captain that killed people!! Once you are holding such a position, you should surely understand the basic concepts of a "stable approach"...
My point was weather is a factor here for other types of accidents which is magnified by poor PIC decisions to continue approaches, the Indo accident rate would be statistically higher given the poor infrastructure and bad weather compared to Australia for example
Clearly not hard enough. This is a pathetic demonstration of their law at work. Inconsistant, illogical and let's wait and see what happens next Ramadan, his sentence will be halved, but others in jail for lesser crimes will have NO reduction in sentences.
The whole system failed.
No Flight Data Analysis Program which could have spotted a pattern of unstabalised approaches and alerted the training department to do something about it.
Chief Pilot either not aware of unsafe operations or turning a blind eye.
Regulator, as above
Inadequate CRM training
Inadequate aircraft training
Poor checking and testing
Poor maintenance
Etc etc etc
In this case there were more holes than cheese and it was almost impossible for them not to line up.
BTW Garuda are one of the better Indonesian operators.
No Flight Data Analysis Program which could have spotted a pattern of unstabalised approaches and alerted the training department to do something about it.
Chief Pilot either not aware of unsafe operations or turning a blind eye.
Regulator, as above
Inadequate CRM training
Inadequate aircraft training
Poor checking and testing
Poor maintenance
Etc etc etc
In this case there were more holes than cheese and it was almost impossible for them not to line up.
BTW Garuda are one of the better Indonesian operators.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The easiest way to understand their system, I have found, is to imagine the logic of a 10 year old in this country, then transpose it across to almost any system in their country.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Mascot
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Fella,
I completely DISAGREE with what you are saying. The FO has a responsibility to his crew and passengers to, in this situation, take control of the aircraft and execute a go around.
I would expect that of an FO flying with me if I were to place the aircraft in a dangerous situation such as this.
The FO must also be punished for failing in his responsibility for passenger and aircraft safety.
If it's meant to be 51%/49% in the flight deck, then why does this suddenly change when it comes to culpability.... The FO isn't just there for the ride and should not be allowed to walk away.
The incompetence of BOTH crew members resulted in the loss of life, so BOTH should be held responsible.
I completely DISAGREE with what you are saying. The FO has a responsibility to his crew and passengers to, in this situation, take control of the aircraft and execute a go around.
I would expect that of an FO flying with me if I were to place the aircraft in a dangerous situation such as this.
The FO must also be punished for failing in his responsibility for passenger and aircraft safety.
If it's meant to be 51%/49% in the flight deck, then why does this suddenly change when it comes to culpability.... The FO isn't just there for the ride and should not be allowed to walk away.
The incompetence of BOTH crew members resulted in the loss of life, so BOTH should be held responsible.
Bottums Up
In the absence of incapacitation, and there's no evidence of this, the F/O taking over is simplistic.
Just imagine the stoush as two pilots fight over the controls. More than 21 deceased, I'd say.
Just imagine the stoush as two pilots fight over the controls. More than 21 deceased, I'd say.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oz
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't fly on Garuda even if they held a gun to my head. I am constantly amazed that Australians continue to fly on what is CLEARLY a very dangerous airline. I feel very sorry for the ones that have no choice (like the one's on that flight) but for the others that do it by choice. Darwin's theory of evolution kicks in. I would rather see the Australian government ban the bastards but if no one flew on them!! Its not going to happen.
That captain should of been put up against the same wall as the Bali bombers.
That captain should of been put up against the same wall as the Bali bombers.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would there would be a fight for control, I would think that the Captain would be more shocked that his presumptuous FO has taken control than anything else. In that state of initial shock I believe that the Captain would initially just let the FO fly. There would most likely be a bit of heated discussion later and the Capt would demand control, but all the FO is trying to do is to upset the train of events from happening. By starting a go-around you would hope that the capt would continue the MAP and come back for a second attempt.
How did the FO know that his captain wasn't subtly incapacitated incapacitated, the fact that he is awake and flying the aircraft doesn't mean that he is in control of his senses. Surely a pilot who is approaching very high and very fast and not in the landing config, so far out of the slot that it is not funny, displays a complete lack of situational awareness would start to ring alarm bells with the FO.
This comes back to the crux of the matter, loss of face. How do you train asian FO's to have enough balls to take over in life and death situations. Western airlines seem to be able to do it.
How did the FO know that his captain wasn't subtly incapacitated incapacitated, the fact that he is awake and flying the aircraft doesn't mean that he is in control of his senses. Surely a pilot who is approaching very high and very fast and not in the landing config, so far out of the slot that it is not funny, displays a complete lack of situational awareness would start to ring alarm bells with the FO.
This comes back to the crux of the matter, loss of face. How do you train asian FO's to have enough balls to take over in life and death situations. Western airlines seem to be able to do it.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well local Indo pilots didn't think he should be jailed at all
(News) Garuda Indonesia pilot charged with 'deliberately' crashing jet - VR-Zone IT & Lifestyle Forum!
This is the sort of stupid logic that the aviation authorities are having to deal with , if a plane crashes it's the planes fault.
I couldn't believe there were protests in support of this guy.
(News) Garuda Indonesia pilot charged with 'deliberately' crashing jet - VR-Zone IT & Lifestyle Forum!
Garuda Indonesia pilot charged with 'deliberately' crashing jet
YOGYAKARTA, (Indonesia) - THE pilot of an Indonesian passenger jet that crashed last year, killing 21 people, was charged on Thursday with deliberately causing the disaster when he appeared in court.
Marwoto Komar, a former captain from flag carrier Garuda Indonesia, could face life in prison if convicted of the charge.
He was named a suspect in February over the March 2007 crash of the Boeing 737 with 140 people on board in the central Java city of Yogyakarta.
Prosecutors Mudin Aresto and Jamin Susanto charged Komar with three counts of negligence and one of 'deliberately' destroying or damaging an aircraft causing death.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
The hearing opened with the charges being read out and was then adjourned until August 4 when the defence will get a chance to reply.
Komar's lawyer Muhammad Assegaf said his client would fight the charges on the grounds that international civil aviation codes rule out criminal liability for pilots in crashes.
'We will at the very least question why the pilot is being criminalised for an accident. This has not yet happened anywhere in Indonesia or in the world', Mr Assegaf said.
'Punishing the pilot would give rise to fears among pilots that one day they could be treated as a criminal over an aircraft accident', he added.
'It's impossible that a pilot could do this deliberately'.
An official government report in November found Komar ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings not to land as he brought the plane in at roughly twice the safe speed, causing the jet to bounce and career off the runway and burst into flames in ricefields.
Four Australian government officials and an Australian journalist were among those killed in the crash while following a visit by then Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, who was on a seperate plane.
The Garuda pilot's arrest has angered Indonesian pilots, who have staged protests arguing only aviation experts and not the legal system have the right to determine who was at fault in an accident.
Komar was sacked by Garuda in February and has had his pilot's license suspended.
Indonesia, which relies heavily on air links across the archipelago, has one of Asia's worst air safety records. -- AFP
YOGYAKARTA, (Indonesia) - THE pilot of an Indonesian passenger jet that crashed last year, killing 21 people, was charged on Thursday with deliberately causing the disaster when he appeared in court.
Marwoto Komar, a former captain from flag carrier Garuda Indonesia, could face life in prison if convicted of the charge.
He was named a suspect in February over the March 2007 crash of the Boeing 737 with 140 people on board in the central Java city of Yogyakarta.
Prosecutors Mudin Aresto and Jamin Susanto charged Komar with three counts of negligence and one of 'deliberately' destroying or damaging an aircraft causing death.
The charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
The hearing opened with the charges being read out and was then adjourned until August 4 when the defence will get a chance to reply.
Komar's lawyer Muhammad Assegaf said his client would fight the charges on the grounds that international civil aviation codes rule out criminal liability for pilots in crashes.
'We will at the very least question why the pilot is being criminalised for an accident. This has not yet happened anywhere in Indonesia or in the world', Mr Assegaf said.
'Punishing the pilot would give rise to fears among pilots that one day they could be treated as a criminal over an aircraft accident', he added.
'It's impossible that a pilot could do this deliberately'.
An official government report in November found Komar ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings not to land as he brought the plane in at roughly twice the safe speed, causing the jet to bounce and career off the runway and burst into flames in ricefields.
Four Australian government officials and an Australian journalist were among those killed in the crash while following a visit by then Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, who was on a seperate plane.
The Garuda pilot's arrest has angered Indonesian pilots, who have staged protests arguing only aviation experts and not the legal system have the right to determine who was at fault in an accident.
Komar was sacked by Garuda in February and has had his pilot's license suspended.
Indonesia, which relies heavily on air links across the archipelago, has one of Asia's worst air safety records. -- AFP
I couldn't believe there were protests in support of this guy.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The 'Bat Cave' @ HLP in the Big Durian Indo
Age: 61
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This comes back to the crux of the matter, loss of face. How do you train asian FO's to have enough balls to take over in life and death situations
The FO must also be punished for failing in his responsibility for passenger and aircraft safety.
If it's meant to be 51%/49% in the flight deck,
If it's meant to be 51%/49% in the flight deck,
If you look back into history into some of the accidents in the 50's to 70's there would have been similar accidents where an ego maniac captain totally ignored other members of the crew . The worst one that springs to mind was the KLM 747 accident that took out another jumbo , check and training captain that was god at KLM and initiated a take off without a clearance. A lot of Indonesian cockpits are still in the 'captain is god' era.
The rumor mill here mentioned the incentive to try and land off such a stupid approach was a fuel saving bonus , go arounds burn fuel.
As Metro Man previously posted in this thread the system failed at all levels.
Last edited by aseanaero; 8th Apr 2009 at 02:04.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/O "Taking over"
MrWooby and Sockedunnecessarily, please try and understand that in Asian airlines with Asian crews, the Captain is God. You each are totally correct in expecting your F/O to take over from you if they believe you are placing the aircraft and passengers in danger. Neither of you, I presume, are flying for an Asian airline. The Garuda F/O should have felt able to take control, however I would bet he did not because he believed his attempt to take control would be resisted and his career would be in jeopardy. My whole point was that it could have been much worse if there had been a wrestling match over control of the aircraft at a late stage in the approach. Sure, the approach was grossly fast, the aircraft was not properly configured and a go-around should have been carried out. As I said before, it is not the first case where an approach was allowed to be continued when the normal parameters were not being flown. Qantas pilots allowed an approach to continue when the threshold crossing height was high, the airspeed high, the touchdown point well down the runway etc. The F/O, in this case the handling pilot, initiated a go-around which was then aborted by the Captain without advising the F/O, leaving a throttle forward at a value of around 1.50 EPR whilst retarding the other three to idle-reverse. Result, directional control difficulty initially and left the end of the runway at a speed of 88 kts. Flap 25 was used and no thought of full reverse or flap 30 on a contaminated runway. So, even in our flag carrier where "losing face" is not the problem it is in Asia, inappropriate procedures have been used and confusion has occurred. Training was also found to be deficient and Operating Procedures inappropriate. Where do you think the B744 would have ended up had it not been for a very wet and boggy overrun area?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
A simple and firm yell..... GOING AROUND....AND GEAR IS UP as he pushes the gear lever up and pushes the throttles to 100%.....does the 737 have a TOGA button?
By the time a second or two had elapsed the Captain would not have even had the possibility of trying to land anymore and he would have been forced to go around as the runway disappeared behind them. They were high and fast anyway, so it would have taken very little to get that result.
Sure the Captain may have beome very pi$$ed off, but it may have yielded a better outcome...........we will never know!
By the time a second or two had elapsed the Captain would not have even had the possibility of trying to land anymore and he would have been forced to go around as the runway disappeared behind them. They were high and fast anyway, so it would have taken very little to get that result.
Sure the Captain may have beome very pi$$ed off, but it may have yielded a better outcome...........we will never know!