FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Absent minded pilots

 


paul_indo
Jakarta Post April 1st 2007

Quote:
Investigator suspects 'absent-mindedness' in Garuda crash

CANBERRA (AP): The pilots of a Garuda Airlines passenger jet were arguing moments before it crashed last month at an Indonesian airport, killing 21 people, a senior investigator said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

The Boeing 737-400 burst into flames after overshooting the runway and skidding into a rice field when landing March 7 at Yogyakarta airport.

Chief investigator Tatang Kurniadi said his preliminary findings would point to human error as the cause of the disaster.

"I worry that this accident came from the absent-mindedness from the cockpit," Tatang said in the Nine Network interview.

The airliner's cockpit audio recordings revealed that the pilot and co-pilot were arguing over their speed and wing flap angles moments before the crash, Tatang said.

The captain and co-pilot, who were among the 119 survivors of the tragedy, were flying together for the first time, he said.

The captain had "enough experience" after flying more than 15,000 hours, while the co-pilot was a "young pilot" with 2,000 flying hours, he said.

The co-pilot demanded the pilot "go around" - abandon the landing attempt and make a second approach, Tatang said.

He said the co-pilot did not properly lower the airliner's wing flaps because he argued the plane was flying too fast.

Tatang and his investigation team are to finalize their results within a month.

The crash killed 21 people, while 119 others were able to escape through the exits of the burning jet.

It was the fourth accident involving a commercial jetliner in Indonesia since 2005. Experts say poor maintenance, rule-bending and a shortage of properly trained pilots may contribute to the sprawling country's poor aviation safety record.


April fools!!!!!!! Sadly not.

Absentmindedness? Also no.

Indonesian egoism. Yes.

The senior pilot could not possibly admit that the copilot was right because he would loose face, so 21 people had to die to maintain his ego

Sick, sick, sick.
suntzu3500
It's not necessarily that. As with any media article, you're only getting one side of the story. You don't know what was going through the mind of that pilot as he was preparing to land the plane, perhaps he genuinely believed that what the copilot was suggesting would be a bad idea, and perhaps even more dangerous. You'd have to ask the pilot what he was thinking, not base it off a voice recorder of the cockpit conversation.
HoboPelican
Yeah..I also would be hesitant to pass judgment too early. It will be interesting to see what comes from this, though. I am thinking, from the little I read, that the PIC and not the copilot is gonna get blamed. Even if the copilot was wrong in his decision to not deploy the flaps, it seems the pilot knew that they were not extended at the correct time and that should have been the point to initiated a go around. But who knows what other facts will be released later. Wait and see.
GSIS
I made up my mind not to fly Garuda again for two reasons.

1) On the take-off of a flight from Bandung to Jakarta I had a seat where I could see through the open cockpit door. During taxiing a circuit breaker to the left of the left seat kept tripping out. During take-off the PIC held the breaker closed. Rolling Eyes

2) In Jakarta I lived in one of the expensive hotels. There I became acquainted with one of the European (IIRC) service engineers subcontracted to Garuda. He spent all evening, every evening, drinking in the hotel lobby.
paul_indo
suntzu3500 wrote:
It's not necessarily that. As with any media article, you're only getting one side of the story. You don't know what was going through the mind of that pilot as he was preparing to land the plane, perhaps he genuinely believed that what the copilot was suggesting would be a bad idea, and perhaps even more dangerous. You'd have to ask the pilot what he was thinking, not base it off a voice recorder of the cockpit conversation.


Boeing state in the aircraft flight manual the maximum airspeed at which different flap settings can be used. The captain should know damn well that he was going too fast as it has now been reported that the airspeed was in excess of 400 kph. Landing speed should be around 200 kph or so.

It is never more dangerous to go around and try again than too land at 400 kph. Particularly when the aircraft has been found to have no known faults contributing to the accident. It was pilot error. That pretty much proves he was wrong.
achowles
paul_indo wrote:


Boeing state in the aircraft flight manual the maximum airspeed at which different flap settings can be used. The captain should know damn well that he was going too fast as it has now been reported that the airspeed was in excess of 400 kph. Landing speed should be around 200 kph or so.

It is never more dangerous to go around and try again than too land at 400 kph. Particularly when the aircraft has been found to have no known faults contributing to the accident. It was pilot error. That pretty much proves he was wrong.


Wow... I've always had a very high impression of pilots, but that's absolutely ridiculous! Clearly he should never have attempted the landing at that speed.

The planes are falling apart too? D:

The fact that this has happened so often before and is clearly very likely to happen again would scare the hell out of me if I ever had to fly to or even through there.
suntzu3500
paul_indo wrote:
suntzu3500 wrote:
It's not necessarily that. As with any media article, you're only getting one side of the story. You don't know what was going through the mind of that pilot as he was preparing to land the plane, perhaps he genuinely believed that what the copilot was suggesting would be a bad idea, and perhaps even more dangerous. You'd have to ask the pilot what he was thinking, not base it off a voice recorder of the cockpit conversation.


Boeing state in the aircraft flight manual the maximum airspeed at which different flap settings can be used. The captain should know damn well that he was going too fast as it has now been reported that the airspeed was in excess of 400 kph. Landing speed should be around 200 kph or so.

It is never more dangerous to go around and try again than too land at 400 kph. Particularly when the aircraft has been found to have no known faults contributing to the accident. It was pilot error. That pretty much proves he was wrong.


Alright, point. I take it you're a pilot, or someone who knows a lot about aircraft. You're right. My point was, though, that you have to think carefully about the report and the reasons behind the decision before you blame someone for making it.
Related topics

The Absent-minded Professor
Which one do u belong in? Types of piss, Types of piss
got undo closetab?
Hey, new here
Amost every woman I've EVER ridden in a vehicle with

Worst Boss Ever?
foreiners learning english
Absent-minded Professor
AIM KILLS GRADES
Any Pilots Around here???

Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Are blind pilots flying?
Should pilots be able to carry a firearm?
COMMAND & CONQUER: GENERALS - I LOVE! THIS GAME!
Megaman Phoenix
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.