Garuda Pilot Jailed
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushy, the FO, who was flying the aircraft got out of the slot and inititiated a go-around.
A contributing factor to this was the stupid SOP that if the capt was flying he could leave the AP engaged down to minima, however if the the FO was flying then he had to disengage and fly manually below 1000 feet. SOP's are now that either pilot can fly on AP down to minima.
After the FO had initiated the go-around the capt took control and then attempted to land. There a quite a few attempted explanations as to why he did this, many relate to years of base and simulator training, where the capt would take over and land on a trainees landing. In reality we all know that initiate a go-around, you complete it, you don't change your mind mid-course.
A contributing factor to this was the stupid SOP that if the capt was flying he could leave the AP engaged down to minima, however if the the FO was flying then he had to disengage and fly manually below 1000 feet. SOP's are now that either pilot can fly on AP down to minima.
After the FO had initiated the go-around the capt took control and then attempted to land. There a quite a few attempted explanations as to why he did this, many relate to years of base and simulator training, where the capt would take over and land on a trainees landing. In reality we all know that initiate a go-around, you complete it, you don't change your mind mid-course.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOPs
Many airlines, have SOPs that require F/Os to hand fly from below 1000' agl. The reason for this is: many F/Os especially the ones who have come on line in the last few years, (boom time employment), simply have substandard aircraft handling skills. Even Qf at one stage did this in the 737 fleet as the newly upgraded 747 S/Os couldnt hand fly the aircraft.
As far as the F/O leaning over and putting the gear up during an approach, this is just pure fantasy. It may have averted an accident but it would simply NEVER happen. If an F/O did it to me, he certainly wouldnt be employed by the airline after the landing. Management would 100% agree with my last sentiment. There is only ONE captain.
Garuda, is by far, the safest indonesian airline. I would not fly with them. The rest of the industry in indonesia is a completly farcical shambles. Garuda's accident prevention program consists of buying new airplanes. They dont tend to crash as often. (statistically).
Pilot training in indonesia is below the standard enjoyed in western nations. With a bit of cash, you can buy anything you want. That goes across the entire society.
Why does Aust allow Garuda to operate to and from Aust, have a read up on your politics. That may help.
Asian nations are VERY nationalistic. How many foreigners have been given Thai licences. Not permits to fly, but actual licences. F*ck all. Life is cheap, so are airplanes, big populations, people gotta travel, people gotta fly. As long as the backhanders keep flying so will the airplanes and the shonky airlines that operate them.
Unpleasant, but the reality of Asia.
rant over!
As far as the F/O leaning over and putting the gear up during an approach, this is just pure fantasy. It may have averted an accident but it would simply NEVER happen. If an F/O did it to me, he certainly wouldnt be employed by the airline after the landing. Management would 100% agree with my last sentiment. There is only ONE captain.
Garuda, is by far, the safest indonesian airline. I would not fly with them. The rest of the industry in indonesia is a completly farcical shambles. Garuda's accident prevention program consists of buying new airplanes. They dont tend to crash as often. (statistically).
Pilot training in indonesia is below the standard enjoyed in western nations. With a bit of cash, you can buy anything you want. That goes across the entire society.
Why does Aust allow Garuda to operate to and from Aust, have a read up on your politics. That may help.
Asian nations are VERY nationalistic. How many foreigners have been given Thai licences. Not permits to fly, but actual licences. F*ck all. Life is cheap, so are airplanes, big populations, people gotta travel, people gotta fly. As long as the backhanders keep flying so will the airplanes and the shonky airlines that operate them.
Unpleasant, but the reality of Asia.
rant over!
ithinkso, sadly you are spot on.
I am a Silver FF with Garuda and refer to it as my Silver Death Card, I don't bungy jump, parachute or try and tame wild animals, flying Garuda is my risky activity.
I would love to see things change for the better and will do my part to keep safe and act responsibly and professionally when flying. However I don't see the wholesale change needed in the industry coming even within my lifetime.
I am a Silver FF with Garuda and refer to it as my Silver Death Card, I don't bungy jump, parachute or try and tame wild animals, flying Garuda is my risky activity.
I would love to see things change for the better and will do my part to keep safe and act responsibly and professionally when flying. However I don't see the wholesale change needed in the industry coming even within my lifetime.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand flying below 1000 feet on a clear day is fine, bit when the weather is ****e, you use all aids available to you. Had the QF FO used the A/P down to minima the aircraft wouldn't have got out of the slot, there wouldn't have been a go-around and the incident would never had happened.
As for saying that "I would have the co-pilot sacked if he pulled the gear up on me" only continues to re-inforce the attitude that the captain is king and shouldn't be questioned. It should never get to that situation, but if it does there must have been extenuating circumstances, such as subtle incapacitation. I am sure that management wouldn't sack the co-pilot purely at the captains request, but investigate why the FO was forced into that action as a last resort.
That is what this thread is trying to achieve, having a situation where the FO doesn't feel threatened if he takes control.
As for saying that "I would have the co-pilot sacked if he pulled the gear up on me" only continues to re-inforce the attitude that the captain is king and shouldn't be questioned. It should never get to that situation, but if it does there must have been extenuating circumstances, such as subtle incapacitation. I am sure that management wouldn't sack the co-pilot purely at the captains request, but investigate why the FO was forced into that action as a last resort.
That is what this thread is trying to achieve, having a situation where the FO doesn't feel threatened if he takes control.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Wooby
Go and fly an airliner, for a real airline, and then you may understand what I was saying. With the exception of RNP, any pilot on the aircraft should be able to hand fly the aircraft to the minima, with the same outcome as the automation.
Be aware, that Captains and F/Os , many times have great differences in their level of experience. If Captains reacted to every "spurious" call that F/Os make, you would find your airfares are much,much higher. Experience counts for everything!
I reiterate: THERE IS ONLY ONE CAPTAIN!!!
Non-asian crews don't suffer the same near vertical authority gradient. We are happy to "lose face", when we are wrong, especially if it may cost us our life.
I know your sentiments are based in sympathy for the victims of this idiot, but you really have to face reality. CRM is present in every multi crew environment, just in some cases it is better than in others. The whole thing was a total cock up, and people lost their lives. But as long as we are flying aeroplanes there will be cock ups and people will continue to die. Hopefully not as meaninglessly as this though. This is one of the worst I have seen.
ps: If F/O attempted to wrangle the controls from my hands, he would make his dentist a little bit richer. Its hard to eat corn on the cob with no front teeth. Even at QF.
Be aware, that Captains and F/Os , many times have great differences in their level of experience. If Captains reacted to every "spurious" call that F/Os make, you would find your airfares are much,much higher. Experience counts for everything!
I reiterate: THERE IS ONLY ONE CAPTAIN!!!
Non-asian crews don't suffer the same near vertical authority gradient. We are happy to "lose face", when we are wrong, especially if it may cost us our life.
I know your sentiments are based in sympathy for the victims of this idiot, but you really have to face reality. CRM is present in every multi crew environment, just in some cases it is better than in others. The whole thing was a total cock up, and people lost their lives. But as long as we are flying aeroplanes there will be cock ups and people will continue to die. Hopefully not as meaninglessly as this though. This is one of the worst I have seen.
ps: If F/O attempted to wrangle the controls from my hands, he would make his dentist a little bit richer. Its hard to eat corn on the cob with no front teeth. Even at QF.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilot who says that he can hand fly the aircraft to the same accuracy as the autopilot is bull****ting. I am a very good hands on pilot, over 15,000 hours, military and airlines, but I would rather thrust the autopilot in bad weather. I suppose that why the majority of pilots use autopilot in bad wx. Its not about EGO, ego is "I can fly as good as the autopilot", being a good pilot is using all resources to achieve the safest outcome.
Its not just about accuracy of flying, its also situational awareness, by freeing up your processing skills (using the autopilot) you become more situationally aware, you have more peripheral vision. You can react quicker to external events.
Experience levels can go the other way, the are plenty of times the FO and even SO has more experience than the captain.
We are not talking about spurious situations where the IAS is + 20 over Vref, or a bit high on approach. We are talking about a situation which most people on this forum would agree, was a blatant life and death situation.
I'll say it again, this is about getting FO's to speak up and act if required. Ithinkso, put yourself in the FO shoes, at what stage would you take over, or would you just let the capt land because it is his aircraft.
Its not just about accuracy of flying, its also situational awareness, by freeing up your processing skills (using the autopilot) you become more situationally aware, you have more peripheral vision. You can react quicker to external events.
Experience levels can go the other way, the are plenty of times the FO and even SO has more experience than the captain.
We are not talking about spurious situations where the IAS is + 20 over Vref, or a bit high on approach. We are talking about a situation which most people on this forum would agree, was a blatant life and death situation.
I'll say it again, this is about getting FO's to speak up and act if required. Ithinkso, put yourself in the FO shoes, at what stage would you take over, or would you just let the capt land because it is his aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Wooby
You just dont listen.
I agree with you. And if you re read my post SLOWLY you will see that I specifically said, fly the aircraft to the same outcome. IE: Fly an approach to the minima, or conduct a missed approach, within the appropriate tolerances.
I believe the killer who was flying that 737 was trained in the military. I am embarrassed to be tarred with the same brush as him. I cant imagine him at night, in the bite, low level in the murk, looking for russian submarines in a P3. Just goes to show, standards are different everywhere. What he did, just doenst happen where I come from!
I agree with you. And if you re read my post SLOWLY you will see that I specifically said, fly the aircraft to the same outcome. IE: Fly an approach to the minima, or conduct a missed approach, within the appropriate tolerances.
I believe the killer who was flying that 737 was trained in the military. I am embarrassed to be tarred with the same brush as him. I cant imagine him at night, in the bite, low level in the murk, looking for russian submarines in a P3. Just goes to show, standards are different everywhere. What he did, just doenst happen where I come from!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ithinkso, lets look at two situations. Firstly, hand flown approach to very accurate standards, involves good scan with very minimal time for a look up glance. Arrive at minima, with immediate transition to visual, remember where in heavy rain in the QF incident. Secondly, autocoupled approach, autopilot flies accurate approach, more time for scanning visual picture, more SA, at minima a smooth transition to visual, why hell when can even let the autopilot land the aircraft if we really need to ! I know what I would regard as the safest procedure. The outcome is the landing, not the approach.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: anywhere
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is something wrong with you sir.
No one is disagreeing with you, you twit! ( by the way, if you have done an autoland recently, there is no way you would say its safer than a hand flown one, you twit! Probably also why autolandings have more restrictions, eg: crosswind limitations, tailwind limitations. you twit!)
TWIT!!!
No one is disagreeing with you, you twit! ( by the way, if you have done an autoland recently, there is no way you would say its safer than a hand flown one, you twit! Probably also why autolandings have more restrictions, eg: crosswind limitations, tailwind limitations. you twit!)
TWIT!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ithinkso, this forum is about expressing views, there is give and take, to resort to name calling says VOLUMES about you. By the way every autoland land I have done has been virtually picture perfect, not so some of the landings I have had to endure with some captains (and some I have done myself !). Yes there are limits applied to autolands, and beyond those limits it takes a competent pilot. But in the low vis situation, autolands are far safer.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF 1.
I would add to Mr Wooby's "contributing factors", a non appreciation of the very wet runway and the desirability of using 30 Flap and Full Reverse Thrust. When the F/O had commenced the "Go around" it certainly should have been continued with. The previous experience of the Captain in a Training and Simulator environment certainly did not help in this case as he took control without advising the F/O, closed three thrust levers to flight idle leaving No 1 forward where it reached 1.50 EPR before being retarded. Idle reverse was never selected, let alone full reverse. The "logic" systems were confused and the auto-brake tripped to OFF, directional control was initially difficult and centreline was regained just before the aircraft left the end of the runway. This was a classic case of a poor landing approach contributing to a long and hot touch-down. It was further compounded by a breakdown in communication between the pilots and a company policy of using 25 Flap and Idle Reverse as the preferred configuration. In the report which I read the pilots between them had seen only about six Full Flap/Max Reverse landings. One, as I recall, had never witnessed it at all other than in the Sim. As in most accidents a combination of factors lead to the outcome. Lessons were learned and actions taken to address the identified deficiencies. It could easily have been a much harder lesson.
Bottums Up
From The Australian, Monday Dec 14.
"GARUDA has ruled out re-employing pilot Marwoto Komar after an Indonesian court quashed his jail term for wilful negligence in the 2007 Yogyakarta crash that killed 21 people, including five Australians.
The Indonesian flag carrier said yesterday that Captain Marwoto resigned from the airline after an investigation into the high-speed crash."
...
"The court also cleared the way for him to return to flying."
...
"it was revealed on Friday that the Yogyakarta High Court overturned the decision in September, saying Captain Marwoto's negligence was not "legally and convincingly" proven."
On the surface it seems that the law works in funny ways!
"GARUDA has ruled out re-employing pilot Marwoto Komar after an Indonesian court quashed his jail term for wilful negligence in the 2007 Yogyakarta crash that killed 21 people, including five Australians.
The Indonesian flag carrier said yesterday that Captain Marwoto resigned from the airline after an investigation into the high-speed crash."
...
"The court also cleared the way for him to return to flying."
...
"it was revealed on Friday that the Yogyakarta High Court overturned the decision in September, saying Captain Marwoto's negligence was not "legally and convincingly" proven."
On the surface it seems that the law works in funny ways!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: asia
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the way, if you have done an autoland recently, there is no way you would say its safer than a hand flown one, you twit! Probably also why autolandings have more restrictions, eg: crosswind limitations, tailwind limitations. you twit!
Cat3 landings are not allowed to be hand flown to 0/0, so I think you will find that hand flying is far more restrictive in this case. In fact, a go around is required for any A/p failure on an autoland, which is why it is called an AUTOLAND, not a MANUAL LAND.
Maybe things are different on your microsoft flight sim
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stralya
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Captains reacted to every "spurious" call that F/Os make, you would find your airfares are much,much higher.
I fly for a major Australian airline, and our Ops Man Vol. 1 states unequivocally that if the words "Go Around" is stated during approach, by any operating crew member (and that includes F/O AND CRFO - A GO-AROUND IS MANDATORY, by the Pilot Flying, REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY STRIPES HE HAPPENS TO WEAR.
Should you Sir, in this context disobey the call "GO AROUND", I can assure you that you would be the one faced with a CAE (Career Altering Event), and not the unfortunate F/O who had to put up with a recalcitrant Captain and physically wrestle the controls away from you. You may wish to think this through before you go sign on for your next roster.
Best regards
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ithinkso
Do you actually fly for an airline. No i'm not talking virtual airlines here son. But your comments with refernce to autoland make absolutely no sense and as a seasoned preofessional you portray yourself to be I am a little confused here. I would have thought any Captain or FO should be aware that airlines encourage maximum use of autopilot which unfortunately doesn't help with your hand flying kills.
Cat 2 app's should be autolanded. OK the landing may not always be as smooth as yours and yes they do have limitations. EG the A330 has 35 head, 20 x and 10 tailwind and I have been told they can take significantly more component but that is how Airbus limited the autolands. For you to state a hand flown ILS with a manual landing is safer is rediculous and in Cat 3 well that is simply not allowed. In fact from below 1000 feet if you get certain bells and whistles a MAP must be initiated. The a/c does a better job than you and it frees up brain space that is why A/P use is mandated for Cat 2 AND Cat 3.
From they way you post I better be careful of not to question you or I'll lose my front teeth!
Do you actually fly for an airline. No i'm not talking virtual airlines here son. But your comments with refernce to autoland make absolutely no sense and as a seasoned preofessional you portray yourself to be I am a little confused here. I would have thought any Captain or FO should be aware that airlines encourage maximum use of autopilot which unfortunately doesn't help with your hand flying kills.
Cat 2 app's should be autolanded. OK the landing may not always be as smooth as yours and yes they do have limitations. EG the A330 has 35 head, 20 x and 10 tailwind and I have been told they can take significantly more component but that is how Airbus limited the autolands. For you to state a hand flown ILS with a manual landing is safer is rediculous and in Cat 3 well that is simply not allowed. In fact from below 1000 feet if you get certain bells and whistles a MAP must be initiated. The a/c does a better job than you and it frees up brain space that is why A/P use is mandated for Cat 2 AND Cat 3.
From they way you post I better be careful of not to question you or I'll lose my front teeth!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRM ??
ithinkso,you stated the following:
May I respectfully suggest that before you next fly, you undertake Anger Management and CRM Training, PLEASE !
ps: If F/O attempted to wrangle the controls from my hands, he would make his dentist a little bit richer. Its hard to eat corn on the cob with no front teeth. Even at QF.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with the same outcome as the automation.