The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Punitive "Justice"

Old 28th Oct 2007, 09:50
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
what can I say prospector... your last post has left me gob-smacked that such utter nonsense could come from someone purporting to be a professional pilot.
kiwiblue is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2007, 13:44
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
SOP's

Yes, the major cause of accidents is human error. That is well proven. But how can we improve that?? Why does it happen? It has been happening for a long time, and is still happening. Will we fix it by doing what we have always done?
Will we fix anything by prosecuting pilots? In some cases pilots do not follow SOP's. Why? Is there a lack of credibility in the system? Or the SOP's? Why, and will it be fixed by prosecuting pilots?. I don't think so. Should we also prosecute the Chief pilot and managers for hiring pilots who do these things?
The simplistic, militaristic "blame game" is like burning witches. It makes the scientific gathering and analysis of data very difficult. And progress then stops. With the job half done.
bushy is offline  
Old 28th Oct 2007, 22:48
  #23 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kiwiblue,
Please advise what you find in this report that fits in with your statement appertaining to lack of factual evidence??? I believe my take on this report more accurately fits the mood of many people than your "No Blame" scenario.
http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...%20Release.pdf
You said,
" because for sure I'm seeing nothing in your posts that points to direct, significant, factual evidence at all!!! Just more rumour, hyperbole, supposition and hearsay."

It would appear, if your line of thought is taken, that the accident was caused by the Captain fighting with his wife, and not getting enough sleep, would this be correct???
 
Old 28th Oct 2007, 23:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 47
Posts: 224
prospector,

I've just finished reading the report and I could not find any mention of the Captain's marital issues, only this;

There was no evidence that the PIC was not fit for duty, however he did not provide the
investigation with information about his activities during the 72 hours prior to
commencing duty on 7 March 2007.
TLAW is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2007, 00:49
  #25 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
TLaw,
Try this for what its worth, the facts came from their own association president, or reportedly so, or then again it may be
"Just more rumour, hyperbole, supposition and hearsay."
CRASH PILOT SUFFERED MARITAL STRIFE
the pilot responsible for the Garuda air disaster in March that killed 21 people,
including five Australians, may have been distracted by fights with his wife and too little sleep the night
before the crash, fellow pilots have claimed. Indonesian police have confirmed that an accident
report, which identified Captain's poor decision-making as a key cause of the crash,
contained enough material to move to the next stage of a criminal prosecution. Garuda pilots
association president Stephanus Geraldus said yesterday problems at home helped explain why the
respected Captain, 45, attempted the high-speed landing on March 7.
Geraldus said conflict between Captain and his wife, former air hostess, was
“common knowledge''. The claim was backed up by aviation industry analyst Dudi Sudibyo, who
expressed disappointment that the report failed to delve into the pilot's mental state. Captain
and his co-pilot, reported at 4.30am for the scheduled 6am Jakarta-Yogyakarta
flight, the crash report said. “What I want to know now is: why he didn't report that lack of sleep and
ask to be shifted to the next flight, or maybe he felt extremely confident he could fly - overconfident,''
Sudibyo said.
Part of the same article that should have been added,
"He also said it was
possible that Garuda could be prosecuted for failing to properly train pilots. The report criticised
Indonesia's Director-General of Civil Aviation for neglecting to fix Garuda's training failings. (Source:
The Australian)

Last edited by prospector; 29th Oct 2007 at 09:23. Reason: Add part of article from Australian.
 
Old 29th Oct 2007, 01:30
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 47
Posts: 224
hear·say (hîr'sā') Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.
TLAW is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2007, 07:32
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Prevention

If you find someone to blame, will that stop it happenning again? I don't think so.
When you get that done you have the job half done.
bushy is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2007, 09:03
  #28 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
TLAW,
That was posted to give a chance to find some of the holes that need to line up to explain this occurrence.
Where in the official report do you find any hearsay evidence??
The report shows a shocking display of incompetence by a professional crew. They were not inexperienced, the Capt had some 13,000hrs, no matter what his "Cultural background" that is a lot of hours experience to fall back on. He displayed criminal negligence in carrying out his duties in such a reckless manner.
You said
"That is where the 'no blame' culture is headed. It does not advocate no punitive action in cases of gross misconduct or criminal intent. It does advocate suspending judgement until all the facts are in and assessed by an appropriately professional body"
The facts are there before you in that report, or do you consider the authors of the report, and the people that interpreted the facts from the electronic recording devices not an "appropriate professional body"? There is ample proof of gross misconduct, no one at any time has raised any question of criminal intent.
KiwiBlue,
The report was available before this thread started, so where you get this from,
You said,
" because for sure I'm seeing nothing in your posts that points to direct, significant, factual evidence at all!!! Just more rumour, hyperbole, supposition and hearsay."
Is that what you consider the report consists of???
Bushy,
"If you find someone to blame, will that stop it happenning again?"
Probably not, but are you sure you really want to advocate that the crew are not responsible for their unforgiveable gross negligence?? ask the opinion of the survivors who have to live the remainder of their lives maimed, or the relatives of the people who died, because of this, I say again, gross negligence.

Last edited by prospector; 29th Oct 2007 at 09:25.
 
Old 29th Oct 2007, 09:23
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Congratulations on finding the report. At last you provide some evidence to support your contentions -but not the red-neck attitude I see you displaying. At this moment, I'm just in the door from work, so haven't yet had time to read or digest the report. I'm extremely impressed that the Indonesians have managed to publish a final report in such a brief time... almost any other ICAO state I can think of would barely be at the preliminary report stage now, still be gathering and contemplating existing evidence and searching for any other relevant data a mere 6 months after the event...

As I said I have not read the report yet, so in answer to your most current statements all I will say is: you offered absolutely no supporting evidence in previous posts at all -despite that fact being pointed out to you repeatedly. You dived straight into the discussion with what I personally thought of as an offensive attitude. You plainly fail(ed) to see the point of the original post and apparently still fail to see any of the inherent benefits to us all in such a paradigm. As I have said before I hope you personally are never in a position that may cause you to regret those words, or those same "pack mentality" standards be applied to your actions -whether you should be around to argue your case or not.

The whole point of this discussion is what you are missing. The Garuda case is but one of... how many? How long have you been in aviation? Has there never been a time you thought someone had been excessively harshly judged in the media/investigations for actions they are unwilling or unable to defend? Would you like to be in that position?
kiwiblue is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2007, 09:32
  #30 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I would suggest you read the report before and give us your take on the action of the crew before any further discussion takes place.
 
Old 29th Oct 2007, 09:37
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Fantasy Isthmus
Age: 47
Posts: 224
Prospector

???

I don't find any hearsay in the report - but your news report claiming the pilot suffered marital strife was pure hearsay. The accident report mentioned almost nothing about the state of mind or physical condition of the pilots. It mentioned he was singing during descent, which probably indicates an odd state of mind, but that is my conclusion only. We can only conjecture as to the condition the pilots were in, and why the NTSB chose not to disclose any details in that regard.

If you're looking for holes to line up, then read the conclusions of the report. A policy of rewarding crews for saving fuel, thereby discouraging them from going around (although the captain states categorically this did not influence his decision process.) A steep CRM gradient, inhibiting first officers from speaking up against the captain's actions. The crew not trained about GPWS. No evidence of the first officer being trained in taking over from a captain in an unstable approach. A runway with insufficient overrun. Emergency services unable to get to the crash site in a timely manner. An airport emergency plan which was inadequate and not followed anyway.

This is much more than just one pilot having a bad day.
TLAW is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2007, 10:08
  #32 (permalink)  
prospector
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Kiwiblue,
You said in a different thread, addressing a different person,
"I realised a long time ago that the world is full of arseholes (just like you) and the thought of being on the left- or right-hand side of an arsehole (just like you) for 18 interminable hours would steal all the joy that aviation brings"
If that is the best you can come up with, and calling me a redneck because I do not agree with your codswallop quite frankly your views are of no value to me at all.
You said,
" You dived straight into the discussion with what I personally thought of as an offensive attitude. You plainly fail(ed) to see the point of the original post and apparently still fail to see any of the inherent benefits to us all in such a paradigm."
As the first sentence from your other thread indicates, you have no interest, or experience in multi crew heavy aircraft operations. Exactly how you expect to benefit from a "no blame" situation eludes me.
I see the point of the original post quite clearly, I disagree with it, and in a public forum then I will say so. If you wish to throw pedigrees around, I believe your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance, but thats just my opinion.
Just for your info, I have been involved in Aviation for just over 50 years, in many roles, Agricultural, SPIFR airline ops, multi crew airline ops, and even a spell as an Air Traffic Controller.
 
Old 29th Oct 2007, 11:18
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
prospector: you are trolling. Quoting me out of context (I make no apology for that comment btw) achieves nothing. Strikes me more as the grasping of straws by one who knew from the start his argument was flawed.

If my views are of no interest to you at all... I care little. I'm not on a crusade to convert the world, for I know what a futile mission that would be. I will however do all I can to add a little salt to life, float ideas that may strike some as off the wall, provoke discussion where possible, argument where necessary and choose the arguments that matter. Given the closed mindedness you have displayed to any ideal beyond a simplistic pack-mentality and an absolute aversion to the notion that any ideal beyond your own may be appropriate, I sincerely doubt that I will be pursuing any further discussion with you.
kiwiblue is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.