http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2066577.htm

The final report on the crash of a Garuda plane in Indonesia earlier
this year has delivered scathing criticism of the pilots and airline
regulators.

Five Australians were among the 21 people killed when Garuda flight 200
crash-landed in March.

The final report on the crash has strongly condemned the pilot in charge
for flying too fast for the plane's wing-flaps to be operated properly.

It says the pilot in charge of Garuda flight 200 did not follow company
procedures and make a stabilised approach to the runway in Yogyakarta on
the day of the accident.

He was also criticised for not aborting the landing and going around
when alerts sounded 15 times, as well as the copilot screaming to the
chief pilot to go around when the aircraft first bounced off the runway.

The copilot was also criticised for not taking control of the aircraft
when it was clear the landing conditions were unsafe.

The report also finds the copilot received no simulated training in
taking over control of the plane from the chief pilot to execute a
go-around when conditions were unsafe.

Rob wrote:

"GB" kickindanuts.threefiddy.com> wrote in message
news:13hp60vgvtb7n7d@corp.supernews.com...

Sometimes wonder at the obsesssion to nick-pick every news item not written
by an aviation expert.
I would suggest that the general public would not have be mislead by using
"chief pilot" instead of "pilot in command". Even aviation experts would
have understood what was meant without feeling the need to demean the
author. Now check every word I've written - you'll probably find at least
one spilling error :)

Cheers,
John

GB wrote:

One word - puerile!

GB, the report , and I'm sure you have read it, says amongst other things,
an I quote "

'The copilot did not follow company procedures and take control of the
aircraft from the PIC and execute a go around...."

So, in this case, the ABC report was spot on in their quote.
I am by no means a defender nor a fan of all things ABC, but in this case, I
feel they need to be congratulated on excellent reporting.

Agree GB?

Yagu wrote:

"... as well as the copilot screaming to the chief pilot to go around when
the aircraft first bounced off the runway."

Perhaps a little dramatic journaliar licence in this sentence Yagu :) Does
anybody know if the voice recorder data is available for download?

I personally can't imagine what drugs the Captain was on that caused him
to continue such an unstable approach. I laugh when I hear reports (mainly
from the PIC's legal team) that the pilot should be commended for saving
as many lives as he did. It's akin to *intentionally* shooting somebody in
the head and then praising them when the victim doesn't die!

On Oct 24, 7:14 pm, nos...@usenet.fake (Rob Ford) wrote:

Rob Ford wrote:

Based on just what you ignorant prick?

To return a rather milder insult than the derogatory
compliment you and the juvenile GB extended to the reporter!

On Oct 24, 8:02 pm, Ned aioe.org> wrote:

"Pits" gmail.com> wrote in message

I'm on dial-up so won't be reading/printing it. However, if the co-pilot's
total hours are close to the hours on type, then you have an example of the
latest version of asian airline pilot training, as described to me last
Sunday by an instructor who is in that system. IOW the ab-initio candidate
is given the bare minimum of hands-on, plus a big chunk of simulator and is
then posted as a co-pilot on the airline aircraft type to gain further
experience *while flying routes*! Later they *may* come back to learn to
fly s.e. a/c, including going solo and getting a licence. I kid you not.

Assuming that is the case here, it is totally unsurprising that the co-pilot
was ineffectual...................

So the go seems to be that on asian airlines you can count on having one
pilot and a trainee.

But the cabin crew are generally great! :-)