Criminal prosecution of Garuda pilot [Archive] - Sydney Airport Message Board

Adam P.

24th July 2008, 06:29 PM

OK. I shall explain.

The purpose of the CVR and FDR, and indeed interviews with those who were there and all the other bits and pieces used in investigations is to provide safety investigators with data to support a safety investigation. Ultimately the purpose of safety investions is to explain why an accident occurred, with the view to learning where any safety issues might lie so that action can be taken - industry-wide if necessary - to reduce the chances of a similar accident occurring again.

Crucially, the purpose of a safety investigation is not necessarily to 'point the finger'. The following appears at the start of every investigation report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau:
It is not the object of an investigation to determine blame or liability. However, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner.
In other words - use the available data to work out what went wrong and why it went wrong. That is why accidents are investigated. They are not investigated to apportion 'blame' in a criminal sense.

The problem as I see it with involving criminal prosecutions is the very natural instinct of people to want to protect themselves. A pilot who is being interviewed following an accident that may or may not have been 'their fault' will naturally clam up and not tell the whole story if in doing so there is a chance that what they say will later be used in court proceedings against them. This of course means that the entire story will not come out, which has far-reaching implications for future aviation safety.

Aviation is a complex system. Humans being humans will continue to make mistakes. There are very real psychological phenomena which affect human performance and behaviour and can lead to these mistakes (fixation with landing is one such issue cited in the report into this accident). The difference of course with aviation is that such mistakes can turn very nasty for a lot of people. Investigate accidents to find out why the crew made those mistakes, sure. But criminal prosecution for making such mistakes - for the very act of being human - is surely not the way to go.

Adam J

24th July 2008, 06:54 PM

Hi Adam

You make an interesting argument and I am in general agreement with not prosecuting employees or anyone for that matter for human error. However an opposite view could be taken that absolving pilots from any sort of criminal prosecution regardless is also dangerous regarding aviation safety.

If the Garuda pilots actions were reckless and thus endangering and ultimately fatal then i feel he should face criminal charges. It is of course a matter of proving that he was reckless and the use of CVR & FDR i imagine could ultimately prove or disprove the case.

As I say a simple error is one thing but reckless actions causing death need to be punished. I make no judgement on the specific Garuda case that is for others to prove.

Adam

Kim F

24th July 2008, 06:57 PM

Thanks for that clear explanation about safety investigations. My Boss was at the airport that morning and was meant to be on board. A very last minute change of plans meant he didn't board. He knew some of those that died and I guess that explains my interest.

What about a similar situation with a bus driver. Say a bus driver is speeding and fails to bring his bus to a halt at a red traffic light, goes through the intersection and collects some poor innocent passer by. Isn't that criminal negligence ?

Adam P.

24th July 2008, 07:25 PM

'Other' Adam,
It is of course a matter of proving that he was reckless and the use of CVR & FDR i imagine could ultimately prove or disprove the case.

Sure, prove there was negligence, if indeed there was. However, the day a pilot is convicted in a case that made use of CVR/FDR evidence to successfully prosecute is the day other pilots will simply pull the circuit breaker in the cockpit, thus shutting off the devices in fear of their own errors being prosecuted. This would be taking what is in my view a very retrograde step for aviation safety overall.

I'm not saying 'absolve' pilots of blame/responsibility for negligence. Just don't use any evidence tendered for a safety investigation to prosecute (because the first time you do, other pilots in future incidents will not tell the whole story for fear of implicating themselves - thus having an overall negative effect on safety), and don't allow criminal prosecutors anywhere near anyone involved in the accident until the safety investigation is complete.

Kim,
You raise a fair point. A bus taking out a bystander may well be a symptom of criminal negligence on the part of the driver. The danger is in plunging in assuming negligence from Day One, which is the attitude prosecutors by nature take. First let a proper safety investigation decide why the accident happened. If there might be a case after that avenue has been exhausted, go ahead. But do not use any evidence given in good faith to the safety investigation, for a prosecution.

Good discussion fellas, thank you.

Pavitar Singh

24th July 2008, 07:37 PM

The report talks a lot about fuel conservation and the fact that Garuda was rewarding pilots for conserving fuel. But could it be that this really is the cause of the incident, being the pressure on the pilot from the company? I think rewarding pilots for better fuel management is a great thing, but if it is found that these rewards are compromising safety by putting pressure on the pilots, then it must be recognised that this pressure may lead to incorrect decisions.

I think its fair to convict someone if they're found to be guilty of negligence provided there's enough evidence against a certain decision which in the circumstances would have overwhelmingly been taken to be safer. But in this case there's also the alleged malfunction of the stabilisor and I'm sure if that were the case, the investigation would prove the pilot to be NOT guilty of being negligent.

:)

Rhys Xanthis

24th July 2008, 08:20 PM

If the pilot did ignore the co-pilot and the warnings in the cockpit, I think he should definetly go to jail. The pilots actions caused the crash which could have been otherwise prevented and lives spared rather than lost.

I also think that, in this case, Garuda should bear some kind of responsibility for the Saving fuel measure IF it was not mentioned that safety is absolutely paramount (which i find hard to believe was not mentioned). In addition, i think any airlines on a fuel saving measure should make it perfectly clear to pilots, if it isn't already, that safety comes first, although im sure pilots would not want to die for the sake of saving a few gallons of fuel.

Note: I would say this about any airline/pilot involved in a situation like this.

ChrisG.

24th July 2008, 08:24 PM

Rhys, are you a pilot?

Rhys Xanthis

24th July 2008, 08:28 PM

Rhys, are you a pilot?

*sigh*

No, I am not.

Why?

Nigel C

24th July 2008, 09:26 PM

If the pilot did ignore the co-pilot and the warnings in the cockpit, I think he should definetly go to jail.

Same goes for if you ignore your teacher and talk in class, then you should go to gaol.

Better still, you fail to take the advice of a kindergarten pupil (no disrespect to flight crew intended...just an over-exaggerated example so that Rhys sees the short-sightedness of his statement) and tell your teacher that 1+1=3, then perhaps you should go to gaol.

For spelling gaol wrong, you go to gaol.

Now can you understand why ChrisG asked his question?
If not, go straight to gaol, do not pass go and certainly do not collect $200.

Rhys Xanthis

24th July 2008, 10:28 PM

Montague S

24th July 2008, 10:39 PM

All im saying is that from what I have seen and how the accident has been represented to me, i believe he should go to jail (:p). That said, if any of what has happened has been mis-represented to me, then i shall gladly retract and review my opinion.

That is my opinion and should be treated as such.

first thing about the media...don't believe everything you hear in their reports especially when those reporting the news have no jetpilot experience.

Rhys Xanthis

24th July 2008, 10:48 PM

first thing about the media...don't believe everything you hear in their reports especially when those reporting the news have no jetpilot experience.

I read and watch, and from what i have gathered i think he should be punished in an approprite way.

If someone wants to point me in the direction of some other information, please do, and i will gladly read when i have the time:)

Philip Argy

24th July 2008, 10:54 PM

There are some basic principles which could be overlooked in the discussion. First, there are a number of different charges that have been brought with varying severity. The strongest charge is 'deliberate destruction of an aircraft', and other charges include the more conventional criminal negligence charges.

I think the International Federation of Air Pilots has objected to the most severe of the charges but has accepted that the more conventional charges are within the scope of what might be fair to try the guy on.

Then we have the issue of what evidence can be used. The ATSB does not set out to find who is to blame - as has been noted, they look for a cause and for any lessons that can be learned. They do this based on all available evidence in whatever form that evidence takes, some of which might only be inferential based on the laws of physics and some of the observable facts.

I don't think it is possible for a prosecution to use the ATSB or its Indonesian counterpart's report as evidence. But what is legitimate is for the evidence that was available for the civil investigation to be used in the criminal trial. It is for the jury to decide in respect of what fact any piece of evidence is probative, and for the counsel and judge to explain to the jury their role, which is to decide if the factual elements of the charge have been made out beyond reasonable doubt. It's a very different process and I don't think any pilot should be concerned about CVR or FDR evidence incriminating them except in the most flagrant kind of case where there was some kind of act which the CVR and perhaps the FDR could demonstrate was wilful rather than negligent or lacking in sufficient experience, competence or skill.

I don't have all the facts of the Garuda crash and haven't read the report, but based solely on the newspaper and other media reports of what happened, the pilot does seem to me objectively to at least have a case to answer for criminal negligence causing death. To the extent that the other crew members might have to testify about what happened in the cockpit, and humans have poor recollection after most trauma, the objectivity of the CVR and FDR evidence is hard to beat. It might just as easily contain the defence as it does the prosecution's ace card.

Montague S

24th July 2008, 10:59 PM

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/Final%20report%20PK-GZC%20Release.pdf

now one thing you should understand, many of our Asian neighbours seek to lay the blame at someones doorstep rather fix the problem & that's why there are a high number of accidents in the region, China Airlines is high up on that list too, pointing the finger is easier than fixing the problem, its also face saving...but now China Airlines has quite a few western tech crew so things are different, there is accountability whereas before there wasn't.

that's not meant as a racist comment..its just an observation, just as an example look at Japanese whaling, the Japanese consume very little whale meat but the practice is still carried out each year, why? because its easier for their government to send the ships out to sea than sack the crews and lose national pride, essentially its a face saving exercise that ends up getting them nowhere, precisely the same with some of Asian carriers and their safety departments.

Adrian B

24th July 2008, 11:02 PM

A couple of days ago, my work mate watched a 24 year old run a red light. As a consequence of his actions, which he chose to undertake (namely drive through the red light,) my work mate watched two people die. That driver is now in remand on culpable driving charges.

When you take on the responsibility of a pilot, driver or any other role involving people, you must accept the responsibility that comes wih the job, a resonsibility to operate a vehicle in a safe and legal manner.

I do not know the facts about the crash other than what I saw. That said, If the PIC chose to ignore warnings, and ignore training he had been given to allow him to legally and competently fly the aircraft in question, then he must be held responsibile for his actions.

As for the comment about removing the fuse to disable the CVR, I think that it is a stain on the majority of professional pilots who do the right thing and follow procedures and training. If you have nothing to hide, then whats the issue?

PS I was a pilot,

Philip Argy

24th July 2008, 11:10 PM

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/Final%20report%20PK-GZC%20Release.pdf

Thanks Montague S

Note the third main paragraph on page 2 of the Report, as well as the third paragraph in the boxed section on that page:

Readers are advised that the NTSC investigates for the sole purpose of
enhancing aviation safety. Consequently, NTSC reports are confined
to matters of safety significance and may be misleading if used for any
other purpose.

and

Readers should note that the information in NTSC reports and
recommendations is provided to promote aviation safety. In no
case is it intended to imply blame or liability.

That would be sufficent for any jury or panel of judges to have reasonable doubts if the report as such was tendered in evidence as proof of any criminal conduct. That's why the underlying evidence itself has to be presented to the triers of fact and the theory of what happened and how it proves the criminality of the pilot all developed from first principles. Whilst the Schapelle Corby case doesn't give me the greatest faith in the Indonesian criminal justice system, it's better than you get in many other countries and it's at least open for all to see.

ChrisG.

24th July 2008, 11:20 PM

Rhys,
Accident Reports are compiled to learn from, and find out what went wrong. NOT to attribute blame.

If you're saying that this pilot should be gaoled for his decisions that day, then you're attributing blame.

Are you also saying that every other pilot in past accidents who have made a wrong decision, should also go to gaol? If you're not, then why say it about this pilot?

I'm not saying he made a right decision or a wrong decision. However, the accident report lays out the facts of the accident for enhancing safety across the aviation industry worldwide.

Please have a think about the above, and maybe read things in the reports before blaming people.

Chris

D Chan

25th July 2008, 12:52 AM

indeed the question of criminal prosecution of the Garuda captain will raise a few eyebrows especially for those who have an active involvement in aviation safety or the legal fraternity.

What Montague had said previously about Asians and pointing fingers are true to a certain extent, although I believe the notion of saving 'face' is more significant.

To what extent are the pilots responsible for this accident? Certainly by all means the aircraft as reported by the media was airworthy and visibility definitely was not in question.

Airlines, Aircraft Manufacturers, Aircraft part manufacturers have all been sued in many previous accidents. I think it is worthwhile comparing the Garuda crash with the infamous Aeroflot A310 crash over Siberia (where kids were allowed to be seated in the Captain's seat). Does the Tech Crew have the duty of care for ensuring the safety of passengers and occupants on the flight? - the answer is obviously yes - though it's a question of how much or to what extent. What if the Crew unintentionally jeopardised the safety of the flight through his / her actions - yes, they still do have the duty of care, but I would not think they would have breached it. It would be a different story however if the pilot-flying's action was deemed to be so wreckless, to the extent that it could be determined as a deliberate safety breach.

It is worth referring to the James Reason's model of safety culture:
Informed Culture– when all stakeholders have the necessary knowledge about the personal, technical and environmental components of a systematic approach to managing safety
Reporting Culture– people are encouraged and supported in reporting hazards, near misses, incidents and errors
Learning Culture – lessons learned are regularly communicated across the business so continual improvement is achieved
Risk Aware and Planning Culture – people focus on the identification of hazards prior to exposing stakeholders. Being proactive in hazard identification, control and removal, and accident and injury protection as well as health preservation and promotion is important
Just and Caring Culture – no blame is applied to those who proactively report and there is an environment of trust

We already know that safety investigations have shifted from the previous practice of apportioning blame solely on the Flight Crew for committing errors / mistakes (often they are defenseless because they don't have the chance to respond if they also died in the crash) to a more 'systemic' approach of investigating latent failures and safety deficiencies within the ‘blunt’ end of organisations (e.g. management levels).

I am sure that besides the Garuda crew on this flight, the investigation would have uncovered at least *some* deficiencies within this 'blunt end' of the airline e.g. training issues, organisation culture etc.
I do fear that the prosecution of the Flight Crew would pave the way back to the bad days of apportioning the blame solely on the crew. If that is the case I believe this would be counter-productive and that future safety investigations would not be as effective in enhancing safety across our industry.

Do note though - under Reason's Safety Culture model for 'just' culture - the element of 'no blame' does not cover those who choose to deliberately sabotage or jeopardise the safety of the flight.

Rhys Xanthis

25th July 2008, 12:53 AM

Are you also saying that every other pilot in past accidents who have made a wrong decision, should also go to gaol? If you're not, then why say it about this pilot?

I'm not saying he made a right decision or a wrong decision. However, the accident report lays out the facts of the accident for enhancing safety across the aviation industry worldwide.

Please have a think about the above, and maybe read things in the reports before blaming people.

Look, all i was saying is that from what i have seen he should be jailed. People can accept or not accept my view, thats fine, i dont mind.

But my opinions are my opinions and they will not be easily changed by people telling me otherwise.

I chose to say that this pilot should go to jail because from what I have read of the awareness of the issue in the cockpit, the pilot did not listen at all to warnings, did not respond to various visual and audio alarms and he also mostly ignored the advice of the First Officer on the flight to go around.

When i have some time tomorrow i will read through those reports, however right now, from what i have seen, that is my opinion.

Ray P.

26th July 2008, 01:56 PM

Rhys Xanthis

26th July 2008, 02:19 PM

So I suspect it's safe to say that this is your uninformed (or perhaps not completly informed) opinion which you find difficult to change easily. The risk is that your opinion may be wrong, resulting in you casting aspertions on an individual who may be entirely innocent.

I would say not completely informed, but from what i have seen, he seems to be the only party that really caused it.

But i will read the reports when i get round to it...im lazy:p

damien b

26th July 2008, 08:09 PM

I believe this is a Catch 22 situation. The Pilot in question more than likely failed to ahead to cockpit warnings and advice from a fellow pilot and landed the aircraft under his command in an unsafe manner. As already mentioned safety investigations are not designed to attribute blame, but find out what went wrong.

However, as also mentioned, there have been previous cases of pilots, tech crew and ground crew charged and found guilty following the safety investigations.

Pilots want to feel safe and have confidence in a safety system that is not designed to find them guilty if they cause an accident. The public however want to know that a pilot can be charged if he/she makes a mistake that causes death or injury due to neglect/failure of a duty of care.

The FDR/CVR was designed to allow safety investigation to occur. It has been used in criminal cases succesfully and contray to what some say here, if a member of either the aircrew or ground crew can be charged with criminal negligence following an incident causing death then do so. If that makes others scared, well they shouldn't be if they obey the rules, follow laid out instructions and provide a duty of care. If a court of law finds them not guilty, great - if guilty, well lock them up and give them a suitable punishment.

Mick M

27th July 2008, 08:29 PM

Any evidence can be tendered, in court and there is very little information these days that cannot be subpoenaed in legal proceedings, particularly when there is a strong probitive value attached to that information. And prior to that there is also much information, records and data that can be obtained by investigators by way of warrant.

However the discussion here should revolve around the key element of acting in accordance with company training, procedures, aviation law and the manufacturers guidelines. Where you act in accordance with these you place yourself well within a window of protection from prosecution and to a lesser degree, civil liability.

However when you substantially deviate from one or any of these procedures you leave yourself exposed with no reasonable protection because you have done something that is clearly well outside a number of published procedures, all of which exist to safeguard the aircraft and aviation generally. If you choose to embark on a course of action outside these, then you accept a significant personal liability when things go wrong. And when this happens you should expect no leniency merely because you are flying an aircraft.

And as to crew pulling C/B's, well I'd expect they would have a very short and limited future in the industry with any reputable operator should they be caught out doing that.

Operators of other vessels and vehicles who are appropriately licenced to a standard and have to comply with accepted rules and laws are held criminally responsible if their actions are so reckless there is injury or damage caused. In that respect why should aircrew, who have significantly greater training, knowledge and expertise of their equipment be held to a lower standard of accountability than the rest of the community?

CASA obviously prosecutes pilots for detected offences and should continue to do so in the interests of encouraging compliance. The ATSB obviously have aviation safety and safety improvement as their goal and that should not change, but nor is it reasonable to expect that expert crash investigators will not be called to give evidence in criminal proceedings either.

Edward Terry

27th July 2008, 09:45 PM

And as to crew pulling C/B's, well I'd expect they would have a very short and limited future in the industry with any reputable operator should they be caught out doing that.

Out of interest how would an operator know whether the C/B had been pulled?

Greg W.

28th July 2008, 10:27 PM

Any evidence can be tendered

There may be an attempt to tender material, but it is another thing whether it will be allowed into evidence. Put simply, the tendering of a document may (1) be objected to, and (2) the magistrate/judge may not allow it into evidence (after hearing legal argument on its admissibility).

... in court and there is very little information these days that cannot be subpoenaed in legal proceedings, particularly when there is a strong probitive value attached to that information.

Just because evidence is probative, does not of itself make it admissible. The court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might: (a) be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or b) be misleading or confusing; or (c) cause or result in undue waste of time. (s135 Evidence Act) In criminal proceedings, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. (s137 Evidence Act). That being said, I have never dealt with the rules of evidence anywhere outside of Australia, nor the Indonesian criminal burden of proof.

One MAJOR point I am completely bemused by is why the pilot didn't exercise his right to silence. :eek: My mind boggles at his decision to talk to the police, especially considering they are seeking life upon conviction. People will generally dig themselves a hole when trying to assist / cooperate with the authorities by participating in an interview; Rarely is it helpful for a defendant.

Nigel C

28th July 2008, 11:04 PM

Does Indonesia provide the accused the right to silence?

Philip Argy

11th August 2008, 06:14 PM

Today's news:

Pilot pleads not guilty over Garuda crash

An Indonesian pilot has pleaded not guilty to deliberately crashing a passenger jet last year, killing 21 people including four Australian officials and a journalist at Yogyakarta airport.
"It is impossible that with experience of 22 years as a pilot I would deliberately crash the plane," Marwoto Komar told a district court in Yogyakarta, Central Java.
"I didn't have any intention to carelessly do things to harm the passengers," he said, wearing his pilot's uniform.
With his voice trembling, the former Garuda pilot added, "God please allow me to fly again".
A Indonesian Government probe 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 burst into flames in ricefields.
The four Australian Government officials and journalist killed were following a visit by then Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, who was on a separate plane.
Prosecutors last month charged Mr Komar with three counts of negligence and one count of "deliberately" destroying or damaging an aircraft causing death, charges that carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Komar has had his pilot's licence suspended.
He was sacked by Garuda in February.
Indonesia, which relies heavily on air links across the archipelago, has one of Asia's worst air safety records.

Montague S

11th August 2008, 07:10 PM

here's hoping he's not made a scapegoat and that Garuda gets processes & recommendations sorted so this doesn't happen again.

Philip Argy

8th September 2008, 06:48 PM

News just in:

Trial of Garuda crash pilot to proceed

An Indonesian court has ruled that it will proceed with the trial of a pilot charged with deliberately crashing a passenger jet in 2007, killing 21 people, including five Australians.
After considering preliminary arguments from prosecutors as well as lawyers for the Indonesian pilot, who has pleaded not guilty, judge Sri Andini said the case should go ahead.
"We rejected a plea of not guilty filed by the defendant's lawyer and decided to continue the hearing," the judge told Sleman district court in central Java province.
She said witnesses will be called when the trial resumes on September 15.
When Marwoto Komar, a former captain from flag carrier Garuda Indonesia, entered his plea last month, he said that with 22 years of experience as a pilot he would not have deliberately crashed the plane.
A government probe 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 burst into flames in nearby rice fields.
"I don't have any choice but to accept the decision," Komar told reporters following Judge Andini's ruling.
His lawyer, Muhammad Assegaf, said he was surprised by the judge's decision and that the court should consider international civil aviation codes, which rule out criminal liability for pilots in crashes.
But Judge Andini noted in her ruling that "everybody is equal before the law, with no exception for a pilot".

Philip Argy

24th February 2009, 07:48 AM

An update from ABC News on the original story:

Charge downgraded, Garuda crash pilot facing 4 years

By Jakarta correspondent Geoff Thompson (http://www.abc.net.au/profiles/content/s1888057.htm?site=news)

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r275009_1160752.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200807/r275009_1160757.jpg)A guilty finding on the "deliberate" crash charge would have sent the accused to jail for life. (Reuters: Dwi Oblo, file photo)

Indonesian prosecutors have dropped a charge alleging that a former Garuda pilot "deliberately" crashed a jet in which five Australians died in March 2007.

They are now seeking a four-year jail term for pilot Marwoto Komar.
Prosecutors leading the criminal case against Komar had alleged that he had "deliberately" crashed the jet in which 21 people died when it broke apart and caught fire upon landing in Jogyakarta in March of 2007.
Cockpit recordings proved that Komar had ignored 15 automated warnings and the advice of his co-pilot before Garuda Flight 200 bounced off the runway at almost twice the normal landing speed.

Prosecutors have downgraded their sentence demand to four years prison, alleging only that he negligently caused the deaths of others.

Wearing his pilot's uniform to court, Komar has said he hopes to fly again.

NickN

24th February 2009, 10:09 AM

here's hoping he's not made a scapegoat and that Garuda gets processes & recommendations sorted so this doesn't happen again.

No process can account for a human beings choice to ignore cockpit warning signals. All the processes in the world cannot override human decisions.

And is it just me, or is it extremely light punishment to get 4 years for killing 21 people, and Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for 4kg of dope? Which never killed a single person.

Greg McDonald

24th February 2009, 10:32 AM

No process can account for a human beings choice to ignore cockpit warning signals. All the processes in the world cannot override human decisions.

And is it just me, or is it extremely light punishment to get 4 years for killing 21 people, and Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for 4kg of dope? Which never killed a single person.

Absolutely agree. And since when is "had ignored 15 automated warnings and the advice of his co-pilot before Garuda Flight 200 bounced off the runway at almost twice the normal landing speed." not deliberate?

Sounds to me like typical Indonesian justice (or lack thereof) at work here!!

Stephen B

24th February 2009, 11:31 AM

Could one of the pilots on this board please tell me what is the difference between the responsibilties of driving a car and flying an aircraft?

There seems to be a theme through this thread that pilots should not face criminal charges from an accident in which they are involved and found to be at fault. There also seems to be a view that the findings of an accident investigation should never be used by the justice system in the support of any charges.

There was also a comment made that pilots would simply pull the circuit breaker on the CVR in fear of it being used as evidence. Surely no pilot worthy of his license would ever stoop to that? Do we need to have control of that sort of equipment taken away from the flight crew? And if the data recorded is good enough for a correct finding in an accident investigation, then assuming evidential rules are met, why should it not be allowed in court if needed? I agree the report is not intended to be proof of criminal conduct or intent, but it is a factual statement of what was done.

I'm not commenting on the Garuda case, simply in general. If you have an at fault accident in a car for any reason you rightly face prosecution for negligence. The same applies for the crew of a ship. Why should the same thing not apply to pilots. I most certainly agree that no charges could be laid until after the accident investigation was complete, however long that might take. But if you allow yourself, or choose, to stuff up, how could you possibly think you should not be brought to task for what you had done?

I though airlines went out of their way to train "The God Concept" out of their crews these days.

Stephen B

26th February 2009, 07:26 AM

Bump.

Come on guys, I'm not a pilot or in any way associated with the aviation industry, so could one of the pilots on this board, perhaps AdamP, Nigel C, or Chris G please explain your view points in an answer to my question?

You make it sound as if Pilots think they should be absolved of all responsibility in all circumstances, and wish to deny anyone outside the aviation industry the chance to understand what is going on.

As a member of the general travelling public, that sounds rather reckless and scary to me.

Stephen.

NickN

26th February 2009, 09:52 AM

The only thing Nigel pilots is a coffee cup and Krispy Kreme donut :D

Greg McDonald

10th March 2009, 02:18 PM

From NEWS.COM.AU:

THE Indonesian pilot of a plane that crashed killing 21 people, including five Australians, said he did all he could to land the aircraft safely.
The Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737 slammed onto the runway at Yogyakarta airport, careered into a field and exploded in flames on March 7, 2007.

A government probe found pilot Marwoto Komar ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings not to land as he brought the plane in at roughly twice the safe speed.

Mr Komar is now facing trial in Yogyakarta, accused of criminal negligence leading to death. A verdict is expected in the coming weeks.

But in a magazine interview this week, Mr Komar said human error was not to blame for the crash.

"One possibility, is that the stabiliser jammed," he told Tempo magazine.

"The system that functions to stabilise aircraft jammed during the last part of the landing, in the crucial seconds before the landing."

Mr Komar said the aircraft came in towards the runway too steeply, and he tried to correct it.

"I tried to lift the plane up but I couldn't," he said.

"I yelled, 'oh no, nothing is right'."

Mr Komar said he landed the plane as a last resort, and the crash could have been much worse if he had not acted the way he did.

"There is no pilot who wants such an accident," he said.

Prosecutors last month abandoned a charge against Mr Komar that he deliberately crashed the plane, conceding they did not have enough evidence to back it up.

Mr Komar's case was due to return to court tomorrow.

The Australians killed in the crash were diplomat Liz O'Neill, AusAID official Allison Sudradjat, Australian Federal Police officers Brice Steele and Mark Scott, and Australian Financial Review journalist Morgan Mellish.

Indonesia, which relies heavily on air links across the archipelago, has one of Asia's worst air safety records.

NickN

10th March 2009, 02:24 PM

said he did all he could to land the aircraft safely.

Well obviously, he ignored 15 cockpit alarms and landed at twice the normal landing speed, isn't that what all safety conscious pilots do?:confused:

Rhys Xanthis

10th March 2009, 03:57 PM

Well obviously, he ignored 15 cockpit alarms and landed at twice the normal landing speed, isn't that what all safety conscious pilots do?:confused:

That's been my argument all along...that could not have been in the interests of either the aircraft or people in it....Maybe the schedule.

Mike W

11th March 2009, 06:43 AM

That's been my argument all along...that could not have been in the interests of either the aircraft or people in it....Maybe the schedule.

What about his own interests? Do you really think he was reckless risking his own life as well as the pax? I don't know but one would have to believe he at least had a go to rectify his prevous bad decisions during the landing. :confused:

Matt_L

11th March 2009, 07:09 AM

What about his own interests? Do you really think he was reckless risking his own life as well as the pax? I don't know but one would have to believe he at least had a go to rectify his prevous bad decisions during the landing. :confused:

Yes I actually think he was. He was totally negligent during the whole approach and landing phase and deserves at worst life behind bars.

Yeah, Its a hard stance but look at the results of his negligence and when your in control of an airplane and ignore warnings/signs to go around that a "rationale, well trained" pilot would then to me that is nothing but total ignorance/negligence as i said.

The Indonesian Legal system is so corrupt however that no doubt he will be set free probably to fly just when Garuda get their next big longhaul order- why not give this guy a promotion- what an absolute joke- makes my blood boil!

NickN

11th March 2009, 07:58 AM

Do you really think he was reckless risking his own life as well as the pax?

Based on his actions what else could one suspect apart from concluding that yes he was reckless and had little or no respect for the life of his colleagues or passengers.

It would be hard to conclude otherwise based on the pilots actions.

Grant Smith

11th March 2009, 09:19 AM

Soapboxes anyone?

:rolleyes:

Was anyone here involved in the case? Prosecuter, Judge or even the PIC or at a stretch, have been in the exact same position as the Garuda pilot in question...

Being an armchair expert is a hell of a lot easier...

:cool:

NickN

11th March 2009, 09:31 AM

Hey Smith, it doesn't take a genius to look at the situation and see the pilot ignored continual warnings, and then landed an aircraft at twice the normal landing speed.

Don't need to be part of the case to see the guy f****d up and killed alot of people.

Instead of the load of bollocks you posted, why don't you let everyone know your opinion on the matter. Pick a side.

Grant Smith

11th March 2009, 09:44 AM

Hey Smith, it doesn't take a genius to look at the situation and see the pilot ignored continual warnings, and then landed an aircraft at twice the normal landing speed.

Is that why you feel the need to comment?

Do you have all the facts of the case? Given that I don't have all the facts, was not in the courtroom during the trial nor involved in the case in anyway, shape or form, am not a pilot and haven't been put in the same position - I'm not one to speculate on the pilots state of mind or the actions he chose to undertake.

The prosecution feel that they don't have enough evidence to get the verdict you so seethingly desire the pilot should recieve - deal with it!

Greg McDonald

11th March 2009, 10:00 AM

Hey Smith, it doesn't take a genius to look at the situation and see the pilot ignored continual warnings, and then landed an aircraft at twice the normal landing speed.

Don't need to be part of the case to see the guy f****d up and killed alot of people.

Have to agree on this. The facts are not disputed. At the very least the pilot is guilty of gross misconduct and caused the death of a number of people DIRECTLY because of his actions or inactions even though he was being advised differently by his first officer. These facts are just that, FACTS, as proven by the cockpit recorders. I have no idea Grant how you can possibly think otherwise!

Montague S

11th March 2009, 10:05 AM

Hey Smith, it doesn't take a genius to look at the situation and see the pilot ignored continual warnings, and then landed an aircraft at twice the normal landing speed.

where's your degree in air safety? perhaps you should be the investigator, prosecution, defence, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, you seem to know it all but at the end of the day you know nothing because you weren't there.

end of discussion.

Grant Smith

11th March 2009, 10:09 AM

I have no idea Grant how you can possibly think otherwise!

Greg, I think otherwise because I was (as I said before) not involved in the case...

NickN

11th March 2009, 10:32 AM

Just because they cannot prove he deliberately crashed the plane, doesn't mean his negligance and blatant disregard for operating procedures should be ignored. Or his disregard for human life and the lack or regard for the consequences of his CHOICE to ignore those warnings and operating procedures.

where's your degree in air safety?

Oh geez here we go with your pathetic rhetoric.

Quite simply put fellas, if this guy was a driver on the road, who ignored a red light, a stop sign and was speeding and killed someone he'd be put away for a considerable jail term for manslaughter. The fact it was done in a commercial aircraft with more peoples lives at risk and a much higher degree for something to go wrong just amplifies the issue.

As Greg mentioned, the facts are not in dispute, it has been proven the cockpit warnings were ignored, and that the aircraft was traveling at twice the safe airspeed to land. What else is one to conclude except that the pilot was reckless and innocent people died because of his actions.

Stephen Brown

11th March 2009, 10:37 AM

Nick,

While it is a lot of fun to speculate, and thank the great gods of the interwebbusnetthingy that it allows anyone with any level of maturity or education to do this, I'm sure that anything that is based around legal action is a lot more involved and a lot more complex than anything you can read in the Daily Terrorgraph, or whatever tawdry sensationalistic rag you choose to consume on that day.

I'm sure our resident legal minds (is that you Mr. Argy??) would only be too willing to point out the complexities of cases, especially where human lives are involved, and the need to examine all elements in these proceedings.

I don't think it is your fault that you have fallen into this lynch mob mentality, as this mode of thinking is promoted every night on network television in the A Current Affairs and Today Tonights of this world. Get a picture of someone, put some spooky music underneath and say this person is to blame gets most of the lesser minded viewers frothing at the mouth and ready to scapegoat this individual.

As Montague and Grant have so correctly pointed out, you were not there, and are working from hearsay reports. What must be realised is that the process of discovery is there for a reason and as such must be respected, for without this process of discovery within the law, I'm afraid we'll all be going back to ritualistic witch burning and stoning people for saying Jehovah!