Verdict on Gardua Captain due today

[Adrian B]

D Day for the Garuda Captain;

Herald Sun - Garuda crash pilot Marwoto Komar faces verdict over fatal crash - Article (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25295194-663,00.html)

INDONESIA'S pilots federation has pleaded for Garuda's Yogyakarta fatal crash pilot to be acquitted, more than two years after the disaster.

Five Australians were among 21 people killed in the crash.

A verdict is expected today in the case against Captain Marwoto, who is charged with criminal negligence in crashing the aircraft on March 7, 2007, The Australian reports.

Australian Federal Police officers Brice Steele and Mark Scott, AusAID country head Allison Sudradjat, Australian embassy public relations staffer Elizabeth O'Neill and Australian Financial Review journalist Morgan Mellish died in the crash.

Sydney Morning Herald reporter Cynthia Banham was seriously injured.

The Australians were all travelling to the central Java city in connection with a visit there by then foreign minister Alexander Downer.

Family members and friends of the victims plan to be in the court for today's verdict.

Prosecutors had initially asked for a maximum penalty of life in prison, arguing that Captain Marwoto deliberately crashed the Boeing 737-400, causing it to burst into flames after running off the end of the runway at Yogyakarta's Adisucipto airport.

However, they downgraded that charge towards the end of the trial, conceding they did not have enough evidence, and have settled on the lesser one of negligence, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years' prison.

But Manotar Napitupulu, from the Indonesian Pilots Federation, told The Australian it was already "a heavy enough penalty" that Captain Marwoto had had his pilot's licence revoked, and insisted any further sanctions should come from the transport department or from Garuda.

"We hope he will be set free, not jailed, that's clear," Captain Napitupulu said. "We view this as a matter that should not be a criminal issue, since if there's an error it should be dealt with by the Transport Ministry or by the relevant airline company.

"His licence has been revoked, that's the heaviest penalty possible for a pilot, there's nothing above that - so we hope the judges have the conscience andknowledge to set him free."

[NickN]

so we hope the judges have the conscience andknowledge to set him free

Personally I would think letting him go free would be an insult to the families of those who perished.

[KrishnaM]

Just being reported that he has been found guilty of criminal negligence and jailed for two years

[Rhys Xanthis]

Just being reported that he has been found guilty of criminal negligence and jailed for two years

The pilot of a Garuda jet which crashed in Yoyakarta two years ago, killing 21 people including five Australians, has been sentenced to two years in jail.

Former senior Garuda pilot Marwoto Komar was accused of negligently causing the deaths of 21 people when he ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings and attempted to land a Boeing 737 jet at Yogyakarta Airport at almost twice the normal landing speed.

Garuda Flight 200 bounced off the runway and slammed into an embankment before breaking apart and catching fire.

Prosecutors were seeking a four-year jail term for Komar.

Five Australians were among those killed, including a diplomat, an AusAID official, two Australian federal policemen and a journalist for the Australian Financial Review.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/06/2536335.htm?section=world

[Greg McDonald]

So, after being found guilty of taking 21 lives through negligence, he gets just over one month per life. Standard Indonesian justice me thinks!! And to make matters even more interesting, he wasn't even ordered to jail....that has to come from a higher court!! Unbelievable :mad::mad:

[Owen H]

I'm not sure I personally see what a jail sentence for the pilot will do. It is far more important to encourage open reporting and tackle the real root of the problem than jeapodise future investigations by involving the criminal courts.

[Montague S]

Spot on!

[Stephen B]

This is to Owen H and Montague S, and all the other people out there who agree with them. This is now the third time I've asked this question, and so far no-one has replied.

Could you please explain to me exactly what are the differences in responsibility and liability between the driver of a car and a pilot?

You are suggesting that even though this pilot has been found to be the cause of this aircraft crashing and being destroyed resulting in numerous injuries and 21 deaths, he (and by association all other pilots) should bear no legal responsibility at all.

How can you possibly say this? Please, you've stated your opinion, can you please justify it?

You talk about having a culture of open reporting of issues by aircrew, and blame management pressures for pilots flying dangerously. Why don't you report these bad management pressures to the regulatory authorities then???

[Adrian B]

I am guessing that the regulatory bodies behind Indonesia Aviation are not as 'tough' as other nations. For those familiar with Underbelly, I am also guessing that there is a fair bit of 'drinks for the boys' as well....

[Gareth Forwood]

Just going on from Adrian's post...

Indonesia has suffered a string of airline disasters in recent years, raising concerns about safety and prompting the European Union to ban all Indonesian airlines from its airspace.
Also from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/06/2536335.htm?section=world

I also agree with Stephen on this, if all the evidence proves that the pilot was negligent, why should he/she not be subject to criminal prosecution? I can understand that the purpose of the investigation is to increase safety in the aviation industry, but my understanding is that in most commercial aircraft incidents there is enough solid data (from data recorders, radar and voice recorders etc) to give investigators a clear picture of what happened before they even need to speak to the pilots.

I just don't see how it is any different to a bus driver crashing purely from negligence. If it is a fault with equipment, then of course the pilot should not be held liable - but if it is clearly the pilot's fault that the plane crashed then he/she should be criminally tried.

[NickN]

Quite disgusting seeing a 2 year term dished out, when they locked up poor Schapelle for 20 years for some dope.

My sympathies to the families of those who perished who feel no justice has been done in this matter.

[Adam P.]

I really shouldn't be getting involved in this one again, but here goes nothing...

I think what Owen and Monty are taking exception to is the idea that the crash was all Captain Komar's fault. Giving him personally a jail sentence is clearly pointing the finger squarely at him - the fact that noone else has been prosecuted shows that.

In today's Sydney Morning Herald online is this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/despair-as-garuda-pilot-gets-two-years-20090406-9ux2.html

Right below it online is a link to this one:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/another-crash-damns-air-safety-effort-20090406-9ux0.html

Read those two articles closely and see if you make the same connection I did. Especially read and think about the last few words in the first paragraph of the second one. The situation as I see it is much more complicated than hysterically pointing accusing fingers while saying that "HE ignored heaps of warnings and HE didn't go around and it was all HIS fault".

I'll even make it easy for you:
AN INDONESIAN military aircraft crashed in the city of Bandung yesterday, adding to the three mid-air emergencies and a crash landing in the past six weeks that are testament to the deep problems with Indonesia's air safety.

Do you see it? I'll emphasise it for you:
deep problems with Indonesia's air safety
One more time:
deep problems with Indonesia's air safety
The point I am trying to make is so very subtle that even the SMH does not appear to have made the connection. It really comes down to something quite simple:

It is very unfair to place the blame on the shoulders of one man.

An accident is very very rarely the fault of just one person. An accident is usually a symptom of a much deeper problem, a problem seated deep within an organisation, one that's part of its culture. Note that culture in this context is more than simply what country the company is from. Culture is 'the way we do things around here' and flows from the top, down. The example of 'the way they do things over there' that is referenced in the above article is of companies instructing engineers to repair unservicable bits of equipment rather than buying a new one, or pilots being rewarded for saving fuel. Clearly these are not particularly helpful for system safety as we might define it.

It is reasonable to assume that we are all essentially rational - ie in general we want to do the right thing. We want to make the right decisions. Sure, Captain Komar was the 'guy who made the mistake' that brought the whole world crashing down. But it is wise to consider what other, external factors contributed to Captain Komar's judgement on that day - factors which are not necessarily entirely under his control. Jailing just one man while saying "it was all HIS fault" is not an effective way to deal with the deeper issues that are at play in Indonesian aviation.

[Greg McDonald]

It is very unfair to place the blame on the shoulders of one man.


I do understand what you're saying and I think everyone would agree that Indonesian aviation is little more than a very bad joke. Howver, in this case, the blame must be attributed to one man - the pilot.

Relate it back to the roads again...If a truckie has an accident and kills somebody on the road he is held ENTIRELY responsible. It doesn't matter if he is half asleep due to being pushed by his company. The responsibility is entirely his. Sure, his company might get a slap on the wrist for enforcing unsafe work practises but the ultimate decision to drive is still the drivers.
The same applies here. The pilot had numerous chances to abort the landing and was advised to do so by his second. It was ENTIRELY his decision to proceed with the landing and therefore ENTIRELY his responsibility to suffer the consequences for his poor decision.

[Adam P.]

So how does picking on one bloke help aviation safety overall, if the company gets a mere 'slap on the wrist'?

[NickN]

I don't think he was picked on, more like he was held to account for his actions, or lack thereof. If you call prosecuting a negligent driver of any vehicle (aircraft or otherwise) being picked on you would then have to say anybody made to account for their actions by law being picked on.

The only way Indonesian aviation can ultimately become safer is for other countries to ban access to Indonesian carriers. Once Garuda and others are banned from their major destinations they will be forced to look internally and take on safer practices, better training and maintenance in order to be allowed to fly to those destinations once again.

[Owen H]

NickN,

Its a nice idea to just ban them outright, but it can work against the final goal.

If Garuda are banned from flying to overseas countries, Indonesian aviation will suffer majorly, and the money will dry up. Unless there is money coming in, there is no way their industry will change for the better.

What needs to happen is that instead of bans, the other countries work together with the Indonesians (which may also require putting in funds), to work towards a far safer industry.

Greg,

Relate it back to the roads again...If a truckie has an accident and kills somebody on the road he is held ENTIRELY responsible. It doesn't matter if he is half asleep due to being pushed by his company. The responsibility is entirely his. Sure, his company might get a slap on the wrist for enforcing unsafe work practises but the ultimate decision to drive is still the drivers.


I find it strange that you relate it back to an industry attitude that is clearly broken! Our whole point is that the situation you describe of penalising the driver, and not the company, is the WRONG one to take! It is purely penal, and does not fix the problem.

[Stephen B]

I find it strange that you relate it back to an industry attitude that is clearly broken! Our whole point is that the situation you describe of penalising the driver, and not the company, is the WRONG one to take! It is purely penal, and does not fix the problem.


Owen,

The company did not disregard years of training practice and experience. The company did not ignore 15 separate warning systems. The company did not ignore the second pilot. The company did not try to land a 737 at twice it's landing speed. The company did not drive that same 737 into a paddock causing it to be destroyed. The company did not kill 21 people and injure many others.

Regardless of what he may or may not have been thinking, one man chose to do these things. The independent accident investigation run by aviation experts said so.

That man, and ANYONE else who would do the same should pay the price. Yes, under the penal system, because it's the one we have right now.

I know that just about every company in every field of business places undue pressure on their employees at some time. What and how the employee chooses of their own free will to do in that situation is up to them. Yes, sometimes the choices are very difficult to make, but you always have a choice.

If you, instead of making a choice, can live with driving an airliner into the ground and killing everyone but yourself, please tell me with whom you fly and I'll be sure never to fly with them again.

[Owen H]

Stephen,

The pilot did not intentionally crash the aircraft. He made a decision based on his training, practice and experience as you say. The company, and industry, is partially responsible for a pilot's training, which is where we need to concentrate.

My concern is not that the pilot gets some form of penalty. My concern is that so many here, and in the media, seem to have some perverted desire to just punish punish punish, while not understanding that what they are doing can damage the safety systems that exist. You and many others have said that he should, and I quote "pay the price". It makes us feel warm and fuzzy to know someone has been punished, while the industry is no safer, and more people can be killed in similar circumstances.

It is so important we can find out the causes behind this mentality of continue in what were marginal circumstances.

To go back to the trucking analogy - For a long time if a truck driver fell asleep at the wheel they were charged and imprisoned, and nothing else happened. That wasn't solving the problem, which is why, now, the regulator is putting pressure on the industry as a whole to remove the unrealistic timeframes the drivers are given.

Imprisoning drivers didn't make the industry safer, nor prevent further crashes. Regulator pressure to outlaw unsafe rostering practices, and harsh penalties for companies that created and encouraged unsafe driving patterns has helped.

We have lead the way in this field in aviation, and we need to ensure that it continues into some of the less wealthy aviation areas.

[Adam P.]

Owen, it is obvious you are writing from an informed perspective. Thank you.

Stephen,
I know that just about every company in every field of business places undue pressure on their employees at some time.
Clearly this is a company attitude that is not condicive to safe operations. What measures do you think would be acceptable and effective in mitigating the risk arising from this sort of company culture?

Finally, to all,
At the risk of sounding like the thread police, this has been a fascinating discussion with some obviously polarised opinions. It would be a shame to see it going the way of the last thread on this topic. Please keep it civil - play the ball, not the man!

[Stephen B]

The way I see it, there are only two ways to mitigate/eradicate the risk of dangerous pressures being placed on employees to act in dangerous ways. The first is regulation by government. But in this capitalist society where the dollar is all too often the most important thing, effective and appropriate regulation can often be hard to come by.

Where there is no such regulation, the employees have to take a stand. There are various ways to do this, which can include going higher up the chain, going to the media, or simply refusing to undertake an unsafe activity.

If as has been suggested the pilot here was pressured to act in what has turned out to be a deadly way, then he should have taken action against it, up to and including refusing to fly the aircraft. And yes this could have cost him his job, which is a very big price for anyone. But now 21 other people have paid the price for him. And 21 families will continue to do so for the rest of their lives. Not to mention those injured and maimed.

This is the other side of the employees taking a stand. There is unfortunately always someone greedy or stupid enough to think they can get away with it. These are the people, such as potentially in this case that need to be removed from the equation.

If there are other factors that need to be investigated beyond those directly responsible for this crash, then someone needs to do it. They may even be a factor here, but this pilot deliberately chose and is solely responsible for his actions.

[Montague S]

Stephen, when you can show me how this verdict and the sentence has made Indonesian aviation safer then I'll entertain the rest of your posts.

[Chris Griffiths]

I don't get this.
There are some who feel this accident was caused by the system and trying and jailing the pilot is not conducive to open disclosure of future incidents.

I agree the Indonesian system is flawed and needs a culture change to bring it into line with other countries and yes that culture change needs to start at the very top.

The system did not ignore all those warnings, did not land an aircraft at extremely high speed . The pilot did.

What action do those against trying the pilot suggest should be taken against someone who acts in such a negligent manner, comfort him and say "it's OK it wasn't your fault!"

[Rhys Xanthis]

I've tried to resist posting in this topic on past experiences...but i have to.

The Indonesian system is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed. Make no mistake that i believe the contrary. However...

To those who believe the pilot should not be imprisoned on the premise it doesn't improve the situation..how do you know it doesn't? How do you know that other pilots will be more careful in the future?

And if one of your family members (or someone as close to you) was killed in this incident, would you not be after the most severe gaol sentence you could get? Or would you still be caring about the overall picture?

Let me tell you, it would be the former.

[Owen H]

Edit - Removed as I'm just restating what I said before.

[Stephen B]

Stephen, when you can show me how this verdict and the sentence has made Indonesian aviation safer then I'll entertain the rest of your posts.

As far as I'm aware this case was not about Indonesian avaition. It was about a pilot who did everything wrong, destroyed an aircraft and killed people. It has as a by product increased the safety of aviation world wide by removing a very dangerous person from the cockpit. But there are those who seem to think this unfair.

So I'll ask for the FOURTH time, exactly how are the responsibiities of car drivers and pilots different?

Give us an answer that can help us understand your viewpoint. Please. Are you even a pilot? Is there any justification for your viewpoint?

[Chris W]

Surley the pilot is not the only one with their actions being scrutinised here. I have not read into any of this discussion, but from what I can gather the media is pointing the finger squarely at the pilot, and so is anyone who pays attention to that.

In my line of work, If i made a terrible mistake that jeopardised the lives of passengers, I would be held accountable. However, an investigation would also be carried out into how I was trained, the working conditions and any other factors that affect my ability to work. If any problems were found there, then action would be taken against those parties as well.

I do not think anyone here is questioning that the pilot should not be punished, and I believe a gaol term is a fair punishment. His command decisions that day can hardly be considered normal as per his training. However I do not think that this investigation has stopped there, questions must linked to the flight crew's training, why did the First Officer not take over after repeatedly asking the Captain to abort the landing for instance?

[Rhys Xanthis]

Are you even a pilot? Is there any justification for your viewpoint?

Just answering this now so Montague can answer your other questions, because i want to know the asnwers, but...

Its pretty irrelevant if he is a pilot or not, and his viewpoint is his viewpoint, he can believe what he wants.

[Adam P.]

Stephen,
Let's step back a bit and look at it from a wider perspective. What you suggest is a good start, from an employee level. But this 'culture' thing is deeply ingrained within any company. Clearly it's the culture that needs changing. I agree with your suggestion of individual employees refusing to take on dangerous tasks, for example, as one way to attempt to change the culture. But it needs to start higher than that - as I wrote earlier, 'from the top, down'.
The first step in any type of problem solving is identifying the problem. My biggest issue with criminal prosecutions of people like Captain Komar is that because people see that 'someone has been punished', they assume the case is closed. The danger is that the real reason for unsafe practices - something at a deeper company level - may be missed, because 'it has been dealt with', ie someone has been punished. So just sending this bloke to prison won't achieve anything if the real issues remain unidentified.

exactly how are the responsibiities of car drivers and pilots different?
They're not. But as a private car driver you are not affected by company culture, which is where I'd wager the real issues lie in this case. I do not believe that car drivers are relevant to the discussion at hand.

Are you even a pilot?

Stephen.

Please keep it civil - play the ball, not the man!

Please?

Rhys,
Let me tell you, it would be the former.
Not here it wouldn't. If I were in the situation you suggest, I would not want a similar accident to happen again - that way my family member would not have died in vain. By 'similar accident' here I'm not necessarily referring to a high-speed overrun - similar in this context is an accident resulting from similar issues in the organisation (for example the 'save face' thing). If there are as you have acknowledged flaws in the system, then I would want those systemic issues solved before anyone is jumped on as a scapegoat. The 'scapegoat' thing appeals to many people necause it appears that 'something has been done' to fix a situation. But has it really made a difference, has it really acheived anything, if the same systemic flaws that led to an accident are left there to lie dormant waiting for the next set of holes in the swiss cheese to line up? I don't think so.

[Chris Griffiths]

Adam,
So you believe Captain Komar should have been left to continue his career or did you have some other sanction in mind?
I am still troubled by those that feel he is above any form of punishment when despite the aviation culture he was trained in he truly screwed up.
He was obviously performing outside the standards of even the Indonesian industry otherwise the airports there would be surround by the burning hulks of the daily airliner crashes.
Yes fix the culture but also punish those that do wrong and he did.

[Adam P.]

Read my posts again Chris. I have not said outright that Captain Komar should not be punished. My issue is with the finger being pointed squarely at just one man.

The modern understanding of aviation accidents is that they are the ultimate conclusion to a long and usually complicated chain of events. Many factors go together to create that chain of events, and eventually the accident itself. It's never solely the fault of one person.

Sure, send him to jail. But fix the wider problems too. Otherwise aviation is no safer for it and you have ultimately achieved nothing.

[Montague S]

As far as I'm aware this case was not about Indonesian avaition. It was about a pilot who did everything wrong, destroyed an aircraft and killed people. It has as a by product increased the safety of aviation world wide by removing a very dangerous person from the cockpit. But there are those who seem to think this unfair.

So I'll ask for the FOURTH time, exactly how are the responsibiities of car drivers and pilots different?

Give us an answer that can help us understand your viewpoint. Please. Are you even a pilot? Is there any justification for your viewpoint?

if its not glaringly obvious to you...then we're just going round in circles, my employment has nothing to do with this topic.

my view is the same as Adam's, trace back to the other thread and you'll find it all there. The problem isn't just the pilot, its the Indonesian system itself, the training and the need to save face which is deeply engrained throughout our Asian neighbours.

They point fingers and get their pound of flesh, but as sure as the sun rises you can bet that there will be other accidents throughout Indonesia, once again, how does putting this man in jail prevent it from re-occurring?

comparing a car driver to a pilot is beyond stupid...there is no comparison to be had.

[Stephen B]

Adam,

My concern is that there are people in this thread and in the earlier thread on this topic who have said this man should not be punished by the courts at all because it will damage the way all pilots will view the accident investigation process. It was even sugessted in the earlier thread that pilots may start disabling the CVR in fear it might be used against them in court.

The ONLY message I can take from that attitude is that pilots think they should be exempt from all responsibility and consequesnses of their actions.

Given that I am a travelling member of the public, that attitude scares the living **** out of me!

I know that no sane person would endanger themselves, but I also remeber the Silkair crash. Extreme comparisom I know, but it is what it could come to.

I want to know that the people up front understand that there are several hundred people behind them who value their lives. They're not on the aircraft for the thrill of cheating death.

To that end I do not take a wider view of the situation. I take a veiw that is around 3.5 meters wide. I have to trust in the pilots to take every aspect of their job seriously, and act in my interest as well as theirs as they read that next company directive requiring them to land with the wheels up to save on tyre wear.

Previous posts in this thread do not give me that confidence.

[Montague S]

Stephen, if you're so concerned as a member of the travelling public then why on earth can't you wrap your head around the fact that punishing one doesn't fix a system that is broken?

which do you want? safer Indonesian air travel for all in the long run? or one man brought to "justice" for the deaths of your fellow Australian's.

accidents happen, the fact that you don't grasp that scares the hell out of me even more, and what's more, it frightens me to think that you can't see the failures in the system and think finger-pointing will solve the problem. How do you know what training the captain was provided to deal with the situation he was in? you simply don't?

[Stephen B]

Firstly, to Montague, Apologies for asking if you were a pilot, that was inappropriate.

My question though is not about the Garuda crash. My question is a general one, about suggestions that pilots should never face criminal prosecution for any actions the pilot chooses to take of their own free will within any system, broken or not.

You also indicate you have knowledge of the difference in responsibility between driving a car and flying an aircraft. That is part of my question. I am not a pilot, and have no flight training of any kind, so I do not have that knowledge.

Would you mind sharing that knowledge with me so I can understand your point better please?

[NickN]

Here is a great article, and worth the read......

Ongoing inquiries by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau make it clear that Garuda remained capable of being a menace to air safety in this country until at least 17 December last year.


That was when one of its 737-400s approaching Darwin failed to comply with an air traffic control clearance to descend to 3000 feet and dropped to 2000 feet instead.


The control tower then spotted the jet when it was about 700 feet above the ground some distance north of the runway and ordered a go-around be flown, apparently because of concerns it might crash before reaching the airport.


This is one of two alarming displays of incompetent flying by the Indonesian carrier that are under ATSB investigation as Marwoto Komar, the Garuda captain that crashed a 737 at Yogyakarta on 7 March 2007 prepares to appeal a two year sentence for criminal negligence handed down in a Jakarta court yesterday.


That crash killed 21 people, including five Australians, and was a factor in the EU banning all Indonesian airlines from its airspace indefinitely.



The other incident, first reported in Crikey, occurred at Perth Airport on 9 May last year when another Garuda 737 first abandoned an attempt to land on a runway which was closed for repair.


That crew circled back, ignored a control tower call to abort their landing and then flew low over the construction workers and their equipment to land in the remaining section of the closed runway.


It was spoken of at the time as one of the most gratuitously stupid and dangerous things any airline had ever done at Perth Airport in living memory.

Crikey understands that the notification of the runway’s unavailability was conveyed in the normal manner to the airline for operations planning purposes, and also transmitted to the pilots as a message prior to their approaching Perth.

While the ATSB continues its investigations the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) today said its enhanced audits and monitoring of Garuda in the aftermath of the Yogyakarta crash has not identified "any significant safety issues that warrant a change to Garuda’s operations in Australia."

The CASA spokesperson said this morning:

After the EU placed a ban on Indonesian airlines the Civil Aviation Safety Authority reviewed all the safety data held on Garuda, including the results of CASA safety checks. This meant CASA had solid first hand knowledge of the safety performance of the airline.

In addition, CASA had even greater knowledge of the performance of the Indonesian air safety system due to the commencement of the Indonesian Transport SafetyAssistance Package.

With this data and knowledge, as well as increased safety checks of Garuda, it was determined the airline could continue to operate into Australia.


The difference between the positions of the ATSB, which must investigate safety incidents, and CASA reflects the policy response of the previous government to the crash, which were continued and strengthened by the Rudd government.

These involved avoiding strong criticism of the airline in favour of supporting a show trial of the captain of the jet, and a sensible $24 million assistance package to work ‘with’ the Indonesian authorities in improving their safety oversight.


CASA is bringing up to 40 Indonesian air safety inspectors a year to Australia in a co-operative training program.


However, the realpolitik of the situation is that unlike the EU, Australia is in no position to ban Indonesian carriers without inevitable retaliation that would close its airspace to Qantas flights to Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong.


This would cause some major detours, especially to Singapore, because this would require not just flying west of the republic, but to the north of Sumatra into Malaysian airspace before turning southwards to fly only an approach to Changi that wouldn’t transit Indonesian territorial boundaries that come very close to that city.


In practical terms, this was simply not on.


The injustice in the show trial of the Garuda pilot was that it didn’t put the senior management of the airline in the dock to answer charges of failing to maintain the required training and checking procedures or to comply fully with aviation safety requirements, even so far as using a runway that had been officially declared to be unlicensed for passenger operations.

[Rhys Xanthis]

The other incident, first reported in Crikey, occurred at Perth Airport on 9 May last year when another Garuda 737 first abandoned an attempt to land on a runway which was closed for repair.


That crew circled back, ignored a control tower call to abort their landing and then flew low over the construction workers and their equipment to land in the remaining section of the closed runway.


It was spoken of at the time as one of the most gratuitously stupid and dangerous things any airline had ever done at Perth Airport in living memory.


I'd contest that! Their has been other incidents that have been just as bad, if not worse.

[Owen H]

The injustice in the show trial of the Garuda pilot was that it didn’t put the senior management of the airline in the dock to answer charges of failing to maintain the required training and checking procedures or to comply fully with aviation safety requirements, even so far as using a runway that had been officially declared to be unlicensed for passenger operations.

Solve the management attitude and safety culture, and you basically solve the problem.

[Montague S]

Firstly, to Montague, Apologies for asking if you were a pilot, that was inappropriate.

My question though is not about the Garuda crash. My question is a general one, about suggestions that pilots should never face criminal prosecution for any actions the pilot chooses to take of their own free will within any system, broken or not.

You also indicate you have knowledge of the difference in responsibility between driving a car and flying an aircraft. That is part of my question. I am not a pilot, and have no flight training of any kind, so I do not have that knowledge.

Would you mind sharing that knowledge with me so I can understand your point better please?

for godsake, now you're writing me in private! listen, I think its time you let it go and accept that others have different positions from your own, if you can't wrap your head around that then don't PM me asking me to elaborate.

[Stephen B]

Hi Montague,

I tried to take this private as there was no need to continue it in public. But if you wish, so be it.

I have no problem with others having different opinions to me at all. I "wrapped my head" around that one long ago. What I have a problem with is people who think it's OK to make grandiose statements, be rude and dismissive to those who have the audacity to disagree let alone dare to question, and then not have the good grace to back themselves up.

Not everyone who has a different opinion to yourself is "beyond stupid" to use your own phrase.

Every time I've asked my question all you've done is abused me for not being able to wrap my head around the fact that you have a different opinion to me, and declared it beyond stupid. But you've never answered it. If the question is too trivial for you to answer, why did you abuse me for it? Or is it that you have an opinion different to mine, but not the knowledge to back it up? :confused:

It is very possible to discuss different opinions politely, and if you can put your case clearly and factually, you may even be able to bring others around to your way of thinking. That's what I was asking for, I was not expecting an aggressive and abusive response.

[Montague S]

I haven't abused you at all, if I had you'd know it by now and the mods would have deleted the offending posts, I have made my position clear..perhaps you should take note of your own comments.

What I have a problem with is people who think it's OK to make grandiose statements, be rude and dismissive to those who have the audacity to disagree let alone dare to question, and then not have the good grace to back themselves up.

so far you have managed not to answer a simple question, how does jailing this man solve the critical problems within Indonesian aviation.

[Stephen B]

Please see post # 25.

[Greg McDonald]

From NEWS.COM.AU today:

Indonesia airlines must grow or be shut down


INDONESIA will require passenger airlines to fly at least 10 planes by 2012 or be shut down under new rules to improve safety and service, a transportation ministry official said.
Under the new rules, at least five of the 10 planes must be wholly owned, the official said.

”By 2012, all airlines must fully own at least five planes and lease the rest. If not, they will have to shut down or merge with other airlines to meet the quota,” ministry spokesman Bambang Ervan said.

”We want airlines to be financially sound and committed to giving the best in terms of service and safety,” Ervan said.

Indonesian airlines are currently required to operate a minimum of five planes, of which at least two must be wholly owned, he said.

More than half of the country's 50 commercial and charter airlines own fewer than five planes.

Indonesia, an archipelago nation that relies heavily on air links, has one of Asia's worst air safety records.

The European Union banned all Indonesian-registered aircraft from flying over its airspace in 2007, acting on a report from the International Civil Aviation Organization, which criticised the country's safety standards.

I wonder if this is a good or bad thing??

[Michael Mak]

From NEWS.COM.AU today:



I wonder if this is a good or bad thing??
Not sure how it will improve safety??

[NickN]

Well to have a minimum of 10 and wholly own 5 it seems they believe the airline should be technically financially sound being on that position and less inclined to allow maintenance/training to fall by the wayside because of funding shortages. There is no guarantee that this will work in any way, but you would like to think it would. Tougher enforcement of training programs and maintenance schedules would also help of course. But as has been discussed, the whole country and its systems must want to change, and be committed to ensuring that change happens. The only place that can start is with the attitudes of everyone involved.

[Rhys Xanthis]

Not sure how it will improve safety??

I suppose the argument is to remove the inefficient operator's...but I fail to see how that really improves safety when some of them will have the cash flow to buy more planes to cover the requirements, and fail to keep up on maintenance and upkeep because of higher operating expenses...

[Montague S]

seems the good folk at CH7 have secured an interview with the pilot of this flight...can't wait to see how its edited! :rolleyes:

[Greg McDonald]

But wait....there's more....

INDONESIAN pilots are threatening to strike in protest at a court's decision to jail a Garuda captain for negligence over a crash that killed 21 people, including five Australians.
Marwoto Komar's Boeing 737 slammed onto the runway at Yogyakarta airport, careered into a field and burst into flames on March 7, 2007.

After a lengthy trial, Komar was found guilty this month of criminal negligence and sentenced to two years in prison.

Stephanus Gerrardus, chief of the Garuda Pilots' Association, said Komar's trial was "a mess" and it had set a dangerous precedent of criminalising pilots.

"Our main concern is this decision could actually disturb aviation safety," he said.

"Imagine how hard it would be for a pilot to perform his duty when he's burdened with something like this.

"It makes pilots doubtful, and could lead to mistakes.

"If we don't get any attention on this, no correction on this, we will not hesitate to strike."

Komar's lawyer, Mohammad Assegaf, said he still intends to appeal the verdict.


"We just got the copy of the judge's decision a few days ago," he said.

"So, we are going to study it first before we arrange the draft for (the appeal).

"We've formed a team to do this."

Manotar Napitupulu, president of the Indonesian Pilots Federation, said pilots would wait to see the outcome of the appeal before striking.

"Hopefully, the decision will be something better," he said.

"But if it's the same or worse, then let's see."

My opinion (FWIW) is that they'd be doing us all a favour if they go on strike.....at least then they wouldn't be flying!!

[Rhys Xanthis]

LOL!!

Sad but true:p

[Dan Hammond]

HAHA agreed Rhys! :p

[Matt_L]

Stephanus Gerrardus, chief of the Garuda Pilots' Association, said Komar's trial was "a mess" and it had set a dangerous precedent of criminalising pilots.

"Our main concern is this decision could actually disturb aviation safety," he said.

"Imagine how hard it would be for a pilot to perform his duty when he's burdened with something like this.

"It makes pilots doubtful, and could lead to mistakes.

"If we don't get any attention on this, no correction on this, we will not hesitate to strike."

Is it just me or are these people absolutely insane in the head. I cant actually fathom how you can run an airline/be a part of one and act in this mindset. I see student pilots out of Bankstown who probably have a better sense of safety through their training then this man and the majority of his pilots flying for Garuda.

Theyve been banned in the EU and the USA amongst other places and I simply dont understand why it doesnt extend to Australia. It really is an accident waiting to happen, as Geoff Thomas (esteemed aviation journalist for over 20 years said in an interview on Sunday Nights Channel 7 2 weeks ago)

[Andrew P]

I simply dont understand why it doesnt extend to Australia.

obvious, Aussie bans them, Indonesia retaliates by banning Aussie airlines from Indonesian air space, also send out a few more boats

it called politics

[NickN]

How can you NOT punish the captain of an aircraft if he commits a serious breach of safety procedures and kills others?

On the seas a ships pilot/captain is responsible if he navigates incorrectly causing death, injury or damage (Sydney Ferries have a few examples of this). On the road a truckie who drives recklessly, speeds etc is held responsible for his actions (he is also driving a vehicle on behalf of a company such as Toll etc.) just as a train driver is responsible for an accident if he fails to follow procedure.

Saying that a pilot is any different, regardless of systemic failures within the airline itself is almost justifying wrongdoing.

I know Montague and others put forward the point that Garuda itself needs to improve training and safety, which we all understand will go a long way to improving their safety record, but that shouldn't automatically remove responsibility from the pilot. He was trained independantly of Garuda, he knows what is right and wrong, procedurally and morally. If he chooses to ignore his training, then some form of punishment needs to be handed down to remind other pilots that they still have a duty of care to themselves, their colleagues and most of all the public.

Yes Garuda needs to institute a new culture of safety first practices but I personally believe that it shouldn't mean that negligent pilots should be allowed to walk away unpunished.

P.S. I do understand in this case the pilot has had his license revoked, which is a good start, and a prison sentence of any kind also sends a message.

[Adrian B]

Matt L,

The reason it wont extend to Australia has been pointed out somewhere (possibly in this post) namely that the retalliation from Indonesia will involve removal of overflight rights to Indonessian airspace. (cannot think of the correct term). direct flights to KL, Singapore and Bangkok. will need to be re-routed around Indonesia). This will effect all flight to Asia and Europe that go via Asia based hubs.

[Matt_L]

Fair enough.

Thanks for the explanation. I still think however something must be done to combat this endemic problem with Garuda- to be honest if I was flying around as a pax or airline pilot I wouldnt want to be sharing the skies with these idiots.. such as garuda, Merpati, Lion Air etc at any flight level!

Just take a look at some of the accidents/incidents here for Indonesia and this doesnt cover all of them http://avherald.com/h?search_term=indonesia&opt=0&dosearch=1

I wonder if it will take an accident here with Garuda to get proactive action in regards to this issue just like the fact that Moorabbin airports GAAP procedures are now changing as a result of the mid air with one student death last year.

It seems to take an accident and lives lost for anything to ever happen with CASA and this is not only here, but quite common around the world.

[NickN]

Some of these are a worry....

Garuda B734 near Palembang on Feb 18th 2009, alert of torn fuselage in flight

Garuda A333 near Sydney on Aug 15th 2007, engine shut down in flight due to fatigue fracture

Garuda B734 at Darwin on Dec 17th 2008, failure to comply with ATC instruction

Garuda Indonesia B738 at Perth on May 9th 2008, airplane aimed short of runway twice

Garuda B747 over Bay of Bengal on Apr 12th 2007, nearly collided with an Indian ballistic missile

Garuda B737 at Palangkaraya on Mar 13th 2007, flames and sparks during takeoff run, rejected



The ballistic missile one was interesting!

[Philip Argy]

News just in from Djakarta via AAP:


Garuda pilot's conviction quashed
December 11, 2009 - 8:59PM




AAP
An Indonesian court has overturned a criminal negligence conviction of a Garuda pilot whose plane crashed in 2007 killing 21 people, including five Australians.
A lawyer for Marwoto Komar says the Yogyakarta High Court has quashed Komar's conviction and two-year prison sentence imposed by a district court earlier this year.
"The defendant tried to make a maximum effort as a captain to save the plane and the passengers," lawyer Muchtar Zuhdy told AAP after being given a copy of the court's decision on Friday.
"He is not guilty."
Zuhdy said that the court had also ordered charges against Komar be dropped, meaning prosecutors could not appeal the decision.
"That means this decision is the final decision," Zuhdy said.
Komar's Boeing 737 slammed onto the runway at Yogyakarta airport, careered into a field and exploded in flames on March 7, 2007.
Five Australians were killed in the crash: diplomat Liz O'Neill, AusAID official Allison Sudradjat, Australian Federal Police officers Brice Steele and Mark Scott, and Australian Financial Review journalist Morgan Mellish.
Investigators had argued Komar ignored a series of warnings not to land the plane as he brought it in at about twice the safe speed.
But Komar blamed the disaster on mechanical problems.

[Greg McDonald]

Absolute travesty of justice, but we've come to expect that from Indonesia. How any sane person could fail to see that the captain is heavily at fault here defies belief.
If the Aussie government had any ***** at all they'd ban garuda for a period of time as a protest but 1) They'd simply ban our overflights in retaliation and 2) the government has no ***** anyway!! :mad::mad::mad:

[Rhys Xanthis]

"The defendant tried to make a maximum effort as a captain to save the plane and the passengers," lawyer Muchtar Zuhdy told AAP after being given a copy of the court's decision on Friday.

Got to say from what I read on the incident, this doesn't sound accurate at all.

[Owen H]

All reports are that Garuda is picking up their act, and are being allowed back into Europe. Far more can be gained by helping the Indonesian authorities to improve safety than by banning them outright. That will just financially cripple the airlines, leading to even worse practices.

While I understand that a lot of people want the captain of this flight punished, the courts are not necessarily the place to do that when it is a safety related matter, especially when it surrounded by systemic problems rather than just individual behaviour. Unfortunately it is a delicate balance.

[Stephen B]

All reports are that Garuda is picking up their act, and are being allowed back into Europe. Far more can be gained by helping the Indonesian authorities to improve safety than by banning them outright. That will just financially cripple the airlines, leading to even worse practices.

Completely agree, so long as the country and airline concerned (in this case Indonesia and Garuda) actually see a problem and actually want to fix it.



While I understand that a lot of people want the captain of this flight punished, the courts are not necessarily the place to do that when it is a safety related matter, especially when it surrounded by systemic problems rather than just individual behaviour. Unfortunately it is a delicate balance.


Sorry Owen, but you're wrong. The captain of this flight chose his actions, in exactly the same as a car driver who runs a red light. He faces the same court, and the same penalties if convicted as any other mere mortal.

[Owen H]

Stephen - There is a lot more to it than just "chosing your actions", and involve airline practice, training etc.

Would you punish as harshly a driver who ran a red light and crashed, if his driving training school and the police told him it was ok to do so? How is that driver supposed to give such creedance to the red light if he is allowed to run them frequently?

A person chooses their actions because of many factors, not least of which are training and acceptance. If the regulator and airline did not actively discourage such practice (and in fact may have even encouraged it through some of their policies), is it reasonable to place the blame just on the choices he made, when he may not have been geared/trained to making other ones?

The primary concern when imposing sentences on people is making the community safer. Jailing a captain does not make Indonesia, nor the travelling public, safer. Have a look at the countries that actively pursue criminal sanctions on their flight crew, and compare that to a list of the safest aviation countries. You'll find they are not the same.

I am not saying that the pilot should be without sanction, and it would be entirely reasonable for him to have his licence suspended. If the airline were investigated and found to have the best training system in the world, and encouraged safe practice at all time, then I would be prepared to wear his actions as criminal. However simply putting the captain up on charges in front of the court system does not help the overall goal - safety, and in fact may hinder it.

[Stephen B]

Wow, Owen, you are one seriously scary dude!

[Nigel C]

Stephen, perhaps he's seen how the airline 'institution' runs from the inside and has a good understanding of the factors that make it tick, and those that grind it to a halt?

[Stephen B]

Nigel, if you choose to push the button, then be unto you the glory or blame for your actions.

There's only one other person in the cockpit with you, and I'm pretty sure they're not going to be holding a gun to your head forcing you to do the wrong thing.

If a pilot hasn't the guts to own up and face up to what they choose to do in the cockpit then they should get back to bed. Or will having to take responsibility make the airline "institution" grind to a halt?

[Sarah C]

I too am dumbfounded by the decision - the same country comes down hard on drug trafficers, and yet they can overturn this decision? When someone is so blatant in not doing thier job and ignoring warnings.........if it is instructions from higher up in the airline, they should be punished. The fact both parties escape any punishment is astounding.

What is most disturbing is this guy could be in control of an aircraft again! If Garuda or any other airline hires him again, it will be a disgrace.

[Lukas M]

No CP is going to let someone like this into their operation.

[Owen H]

Stephen - Call me scary if you want, no skin off my nose.

But, perhaps contrary to your beliefs, there has been a lot of study and research into the most effective way to ensure airline safety. Their, along with my, view is that penal action on the Pilot In Command does not enhance safety. Instead, it can work against it.

The "culture" of an airline is FAR more important in ensuring safety. Take a look at what CASA is pushing at the moment. There is an enormous push to ensure safe practices, under a safety management system. This is the latest and greatest in safety systems. You will find many things such as ensuring that everyone, FROM THE CEO DOWN is responsible for safety, including the statement by the former head of CASA that if an airline in Australia has a crash, CASA will be out to get the CEO, not just the crew involved.

You will perhaps note, however, that criminal prosecution of the pilot of the flight is NOT in the system, and the SAFEST countries in the world use this concept. Additionally, they PROHIBIT the use of a Cockpit Voice Recorder to be used as evidence in a criminal court. Why? Because it is far more important that the pilots are allowed to speak freely, knowing that their every word is not going to be analysed.

You are, unfortunately, falling for the trap that many uninitiated do - that prosecution and the threat of jail is an adequate deterrent. As you will see, it is not, and even the police acknowledge this. You are also looking at this situation from a purely emotional view - someone must pay. It is essential we do not fall for this trap, and we use RESEARCHED techniques for improving safety. Sure, we can put a pilot in jail, for life if you will. That will stop one pilot flying again, and will make the masses, on the surface, happy. The far reaching consequences, however, of making pilots reluctant to speak up for fear of criminal proceedings is far more damaging to safety. Also, how is this fixing the problem? If one pilot can do it under the existing system, and he was not detected and retrained earlier on, whats to say there won't be more?

My view comes from university research into safety systems. I am happy to entertain your views of "its just the pilots fault because he pressed the button", if you can give me researched, qualified opinion where such action has enhanced safety.

I have no problem with the aviation authorities suspending or cancelling his licence after investigation. Additionally, I will accept criminal prosecution where it is warranted. I will, however, only wear this after a FULL and THOROUGH investigation into the entire airline's safety and training system, showing that the pilot was acting in a manner that the system would find absurd... something that was not accomplished.

[Nigel C]

Well articulated Owen.

It makes sense to me...does that make me scary?:eek:
:p

[Stephen B]

I do in fact understand there are allot of factors that contribute to the safe arrival of an aircraft to its destination, and that yes, culture and external pressures are a very big contributor to that. These pressures can be pushed right through the crew's life, and from many sources, not just from the airline.

Too much pressure can make previously very stable, reliable and experienced people do strange and unpredictable things at times, totally out of character, and even in a carefully planned way so as to avoid detection, not just in a sudden snap.

But this thread is not about throwing every pilot flying today in jail. This thread is about one pilot, who after careful and thorough examination of the facts, was found to have deliberately ignored the aircrafts own warning systems, ignored his co-pilot, ignored his previous experience and training, and deliberately crashed his aircraft onto the ground at twice its permissible landing speed in bad weather.

How can you possibly try to claim that this was not acting in a manner that the system would find absurd?????? His co-pilot did!

Please tell me what groundbreaking new safety ideas have come from this person being able to speak his mind, in a nice safe closed culture with apparently no real fear of any recriminations at all?????

And please could you direct me to the appropriate documentation by CASA, the ATSB or NTSB etc so I can read and understand what you've stated above?

[Owen H]

I wish I could give you one document that explains the philosophy, but there isn't just one. If you're interested in Safety Management Systems, there is copius documentation on the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au) under education. One document discussing the fact that it is the whole company that is essential in safety is here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/sms/toolkit/sms-ceo.pdf).

Please tell me what groundbreaking new safety ideas have come from this person being able to speak his mind, in a nice safe closed culture with apparently no real fear of any recriminations at all?????

I think you are missing the point here. It isn't about him coming up with safety ideas. Its about errors and violations being able to be reported freely, both in the past and in the future, without the fear that those reports will be used to prosecute. Open reporting in a safe, confidential manner is essential - the CEO document I have linked you to discusses that, particularly in the last paragraph.

Just as another aside - I find it interesting that everyone assumes the first court (which I might add was assembled before a full investigation had been conducted by safety authorities) got the decision right, and that the higher authority court got the decision wrong. We do not know any of the evidence that was presented, and there may have been many reasons that the higher court overturned the decision of the first, some of which were not related specifically to this pilot's guilt.

[Andrew M]

Two things here, of which neither are new.

1. Indonesia is a country I will never visit
2. Garuda is an airline I will never fly