Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Garuda Crash Pilot's Conviction Overturned.  
User currently offlineJeta380 From Australia, joined Nov 2005, 38 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3311 times:

AN Indonesian court has overturned the criminal negligence conviction of a Garuda pilot whose Boeing 737 crash landed at Yogyakarta airport in 2007, killing 21 people including five Australians.

Air crash investigators state that the pilot ignored a series of warnings not to land the plane, but landed it at twice the normal speed. The pilot blamed mechanical problems.

The pilot was sentenced to two years imprisonment and this has been overturned by a panel of five judges, who state prosecutors had failed to prove Komar "officially and convincingly guilty of a crime". The judges have ordered that the charges be dropped and his diginty and position as a pilot be returned.

So I guess he will be flying 737's again soon.

http://www.news.com.au/world/garuda-...urned/story-e6frfkyi-1225809563355

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1029 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3296 times:

i dont know should i be happy or sad.

Sad because his negligence caused 21 people's death.
Feel ok because he is realized from jail and flying 737.

If it were in US, the pilot's license would be canceled.

If the NW pilots were suspended for overshooting the airport..wonder what would have been his consequence.



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 2, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

As far as I know, the court case was a sham for both sides.

The prosecutor said "he landed way above the normal speed, and ignored warnings, people died, and therefore he's guilty".

The defending laywer said, "pilots are not criminally liable for their actions in accidents."

No one seemed to mention about task saturation or incapacity in court, and then the F/O's police testimony was changed halfway through the case.

As to his career, it's over, news from the inside is that Garuda has fired him.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePagophilus From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2934 times:

That's bad news. I'm due to fly Garuda next year and I sure hope he's not my pilot.

Looks like the legal system fails again.


User currently offlineAfterburner From Indonesia, joined Jun 2005, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2896 times:

Regardless of whether he was guilty or not, he has been punished.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 2):
As to his career, it's over, news from the inside is that Garuda has fired him.



User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2814 times:

This guy came in at over 200 knots, telling his First Officer to bung the flaps down anyway. And when the FO refused - as per handbook - he just landed anyway, and duly piled in.........

Besides the 21 killed, there were many people seriously injured. This accident was completely 'avoidable,' given that the weather was perfect and that there was nothing at all wrong with the aeroplane. IMO the appeal decision is an appalling 'hometown' verdict.

Just thanking my stars that I'm retired and no longer HAVE to fly to places like Indonesia except on my terms. I haven't had to fly with Garuda for many years, and I'm sure not planning to use them again any time soon.........

[Edited 2009-12-12 04:28:33]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2651 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 2):
As far as I know, the court case was a sham for both sides.

Agreed but not very sure this makes it much better.

It is a bit easier to demonstrate that he put folks life in danger than oh say Schapelle Corby.

Justice has a hibit of being mysterious, but I am not sure it has to be as mysterious as some tends to be in Indonesia??


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 7, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

The F/O for fear of self-incrimination changed his police testimony to "I did not remember everything" instead of "I failed to take over the aircraft when danger was imminent"...

Both their careers are over anyways. The F/O has been taken off flying duties a long time ago.

NAV20... all accidents are completely avoidable... but then, accidents still happen. The case was a legal sham... blame the prosecutors for putting up such a cr4p case (and the defending lawyers for putting up a totally ludicrous defence)... And, is it an "appalling hometown verdict"? Not from what I've been hearing... the credible rumour mills are saying that "foreign entities with interest in safety" has been pressurizing for the acquital. I also thank my stars that I don't have to be in the same flying airframe with you at the controls, but that's just a personal viewpoint.  Smile The discussion we had in those days were good at least despite our differences!  Smile Let's hope next time we have one, it won't be because of an accident.

BTW, the F/O didn't refuse. He failed to follow his "handbook" of taking over when danger was imminent due to the captain not seemingly to function properly. He paid for that price too (see above). Severe criticism on his actions during the day and in past flights by other captains and his fellow peers I guessed showed part of the reason as to why the accident happened. Remember, there are 2 guys up front for a good reason.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2444 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 7):
Not from what I've been hearing... the credible rumour mills are saying that "foreign entities with interest in safety" has been pressurizing for the acquittal.

Interesting. It probably looks a great deal worse than it is. And we both know what that happens. It seems near on impossible to get a case through an Indonesian court without it appearing extraordinary in some way or other. I am sure that the system is better than that - well fairly sure, but cases like the mining case in Manado did no good at all. What astonished me in that case was the failure - as far as one could tell - to mention that the illegal miners - the length and breadth of Sulawesi - had been running mercury stills on the edge of paddy fields for decades. A bit as if they had failed to mention that the 737 had engines that could be used for a go around! So maybe the 737 case showed some improvements!

It will be a hard "rest of his life" for the (ex) pilot and his F/O even if he is not spending it in jail.

I just hope that the additional training means that F/Os will feel more able to intervene. Not an easy moment, for an Indonesian F/O probably more difficult than is desirable.


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 9, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2332 times:

The FO was trained to the GA standard for CRM... and the training included taking over the aircraft from a dangerous situation (to which an unstable approach was a common one used in training on the SIM).

It was apparent that after the case, there are still FOs reluctant to take over even when danger was imminent for fear of a good telling off by the other Captains. BUT, FOs taking over when an unstable approach occurred or on other "times of need" saved 3 Garuda jets... one of which was in Perth... and it wasn't long after the GA200 case. On 2 occasions the Captains were the the old type "I can do no wrong" ego types... but on all 3, the captains was never bitter about the takeover... they were quite thankful.

Corby case? Don't bother mentioning it here, I'll end up in a fight with a lot of people...  Smile
*strangely enough, a friend of the Corbys got some nice juicy info, but that's not for a.net discussions*.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2310 times:



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
On 2 occasions the Captains were the the old type "I can do no wrong" ego types... but on all 3, the captains was never bitter about the takeover... they were quite thankful.

Interesting. And maybe promising.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
Corby case? Don't bother mentioning it here,

No indeed, it rather the contrast than the cases themselves.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12594 posts, RR: 34
Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

GA has ruled out reinstating the captain, despite winning his appeal; I doubt if any of us will be surprised at that.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 9):
UT, FOs taking over when an unstable approach occurred or on other "times of need" saved 3 Garuda jets... one of which was in Perth... and it wasn't long after the GA200 case. On 2 occasions the Captains were the the old type "I can do no wrong" ego types... but on all 3, the captains was never bitter about the takeover... they were quite thankful.

I'm fascinated about how that would work (or works) in practice; it sounds fine in theory, but what happens if you get a junior FA and a senior t/captain who's tired and very cranky. I certainly wouldn't like to be a junior FO in that situation.

What type of acft was involved in the PER situation; was it a 330?


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 35
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2169 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 11):
I'm fascinated about how that would work (or works) in practice; it sounds fine in theory, but what happens if you get a junior FA and a senior t/captain who's tired and very cranky. I certainly wouldn't like to be a junior FO in that situation.

Couldn't agree more, Kaitak. The 'official' procedure is that the F/O should just say firmly, "I have control!" and start flying the aeroplane himself. This was confirmed ages back by a serving airline pilot on one of the threads on the Jogjakarta accident at the time. But, logically, there can't really be any 'procedure' to deal with a situation where the pilot flying refuses to surrender control.

Presumably it would come down to which of the two pilots was the strongest? Not an inviting concept in this sort of case - where the aeroplane was at about 100 feet AGL, with only 5 degrees of flaps down, and doing all of 210 knots........and the two pilots start wrestling each other for control of the aeroplane........


Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 7):
BTW, the F/O didn't refuse. He failed to follow his "handbook" of taking over when danger was imminent due to the captain not seemingly to function properly. He paid for that price too (see above).

Sorry, Mandala mate, but I can't go along with that reasoning. The captain 'creates' an accident situation by gross negligence. The First Offcer calls warnings, but fails physically to intervene. So, according to the court, as I understand their judgment, the Captain is not to blame for his (proven) maniacal conduct; the FO is 100% to blame, for not instantly deciding to stage what would have amounted to a mutiny.........

I'm afraid that, as far as I can see, that's the sort of legal reasoning that the Spanish Inquisition would have been proud of.

Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 7):
the credible rumour mills are saying that "foreign entities with interest in safety" has been pressurizing for the acquital

Oh dear - the second (almost routine) gambit, blame it on anonymous foreign interference.........

Funny - in our discussions at the time of the accident, I recall that we both recorded our admiration for the Indonesian Investigation Board, which very quickly, honestly, and decisively analysed the evidence and produced a clear, comprehensive report in record time. I reckon that it's very sad that their excellent work has now been 'set aside' by the courts.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2051 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 11):
What type of acft was involved in the PER situation; was it a 330?

It was a 734. Floated a hell of a long way down the runway, FO called go around 2x, Capt refused, 3rd call was "Go around, my control, go around!" The Capt's immediately shouted your control... and the rest went along by the book.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
The captain 'creates' an accident situation by gross negligence. The First Offcer calls warnings, but fails physically to intervene. So, according to the court, as I understand their judgment, the Captain is not to blame for his (proven) maniacal conduct; the FO is 100% to blame, for not instantly deciding to stage what would have amounted to a mutiny.........

That has to be one of the most ridiculous thing I've heard regarding CRM... Mutiny? U're saying then, he should just continue saying "go around" endlessly and let the accident happen? Mutiny? Come on!!!!!
I never said the FO is 100% to blame. All I said is that he also failed in carrying out his duty as FO and PM.

Shortly before appearing to testify in court, the FO did recant his statement to the police on what happened during the accident, replacing it with "I cannot remember anything", for fear of having himself implicated as co-actor in an act of negligence, and he was the key witness the prosecutors needed. The case therefore, did not have any eyewitnesses of the captain's actions.

That prevented the prosecutor from attempting to pursue further "willful wrongdoing / negligence" under article 479(a) of our criminal code, and severely weakened 479(b).

Quote:
Article 479 a
(1) Anyone who intentionally and act against the law in destroying, renders useless or cause damage to a building required for the safety of air traffic, or affect a failure to secure that building shall be criminally liable to a maximum of 9 years;
(2) With criminal liability of a maximum of 9 years if because of his/her actions, the result is danger to the security and safety of air traffic;
(3) With criminal liability of a maximum of 9 years if his/her actions results in a person's death.

Article 479 b
(1) Anyone who through negligence destroys, renders useless or cause damage tp a building required for the safety of air traffic, or affect a failure to secure the building shall be criminally liable to a maximum of 3 years;
(2) With criminal liability of a maximum of 5 years if because of his/her actions, the result is danger to the security and safety of air traffic;
(3) With criminal liability of a maximum of 7 years if his/her actions results in a person's death.

Why he was charged under those 2 clauses beats me! There are other stuff they could have had a better shot at sending the Captain to jail with little possibility of an appeal.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
Funny - in our discussions at the time of the accident, I recall that we both recorded our admiration for the Indonesian Investigation Board, which very quickly, honestly, and decisively analysed the evidence and produced a clear, comprehensive report in record time. I reckon that it's very sad that their excellent work has now been 'set aside' by the courts.

The criminal investigator tried to get the court to admit the accident report, CVR and FDR data as evidence. That drew protests from allover... especially IFALPA. The prosecutor tried to implicate the Dept. of Transport as accomplices to a crime by preventing the accident report to be used as evidence. It took the Dept. of Transport and the Dept. of Foreign Affairs to explain to the judge of ICAO Annex 13 and that Indonesia is a signatory member.

You praise the accident report, which is to find out what happened and to recommend safety improvements... and you're saying it has been set aside by the courts? So, why not let the accident investigation be used as evidence then? Or ICAO Annex 13 doesn't apply specifically for this case? I am not saying the Captain should be free from all criminal charges, but the case was flawed because it had absolutely no hurdle test to assess criminal culpability. The case rested on the failed outcome, with the warnings ignored, with no acceptance of any possibility of mental saturation. That to me, is flawed.

In that case, we might as well prosecute the captain of Sriwijaya's Jambi accident to which he overran and severed the limbs of a bystander despite the dual HYD failure because "by the book, he should not have overran, therefore he's negligent" ????

Quite late in the case, I was offered to provide material of opinion to "representatives" of each side of the case and refused because I felt the hurdle test for the conviction, and the defence argument, both go against my conscience.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 12):
Oh dear - the second (almost routine) gambit, blame it on anonymous foreign interference.........

Your foreign affairs department pushed for the case to go through, and so was a member of the media. Foreign "interference" was in this case from the start... on both sides. However, Flight Safety, IFALPA, etc, have sent its protest to the court and our Dept. of Transport as to the case. In the words of the accident investigator involved, me mentioned that the foreign concern was that of the court's capability to understand the mental workload of the crew during the critical phases of the flight, this concern was directed not just on this case, but on the possibility of unfair lack of technical understanding/acceptance by the court if a foreign pilot was involved in a future accident (which we hope won't happen). Call it interference if you want, but no intervention was done by any foreign entities regarding this case.

I find it rather funny that several leading members of Garuda Pilot Association wanted that conviction to succeed, and that the Indonesian Federation of Pilots opposed to it citing fears of further "low/no hurdle criminalization" and "being on the receiving end of poorly assembled prosecution".

We are talking about a country where not long before the accident, a pilot refusing to fly an unsafe aircraft could be criminally charged (reported by the company) for allowing himself to fly an unsafe aircraft on the same company before.

Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, better CRM is now in effect, FOs no longer need to fear retribution from "the diminishing old guard mafia"... but at a cost, crew members are less willing to be honest in accident investigations for fear of criminal prosecution.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
QC Helicopter Crash: Pilot, CTV Cameraman Killed posted Wed Aug 5 2009 11:53:18 by Jamesontheroad
Garuda Crash Pilot 'Saving Fuel' posted Wed Jul 23 2008 16:28:48 by Peh
Garuda Crash Pilot's Interrogation posted Wed Jul 23 2008 15:26:50 by Allrite
Arkansas AA Crash Pilot Exonerated? posted Fri Jun 3 2005 17:01:14 by GoAllegheny
Luxair Crash: Pilot Error posted Sat Nov 23 2002 17:22:09 by Com3205
Plane Crash, Pilot Dead? posted Fri Jun 28 2002 08:15:13 by Hardkor
Cessna Skyscraper Crash - Pilot Was Member posted Tue Jan 8 2002 09:14:24 by Administrator
Tampa Crash Pilot "a Bin Laden Supporter" posted Sun Jan 6 2002 23:52:32 by Jiml1126
Crossair Crash: Pilot Mistake? posted Tue Dec 11 2001 10:41:48 by Dens
Ansett NZ Crash Pilot Not Guilty Of Manslaughter! posted Fri Jun 1 2001 15:24:46 by TG992