Criminal prosecution of Garuda pilot

[Montague S]

Originally Posted by Rhys Xanthis

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 (). 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]

Originally Posted by Montague S

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

[Montague S]

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...%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.

[Philip Argy]

Originally Posted by Montague S

http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_av...%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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by ChrisG.

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.]

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.

[Adrian B]

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,