Garuda Indonesia B737-800 with 130 on board skids off runway in Indonesia


It happened yesterday during heavy rain in Yogyakarta, Glad that none were hurted. The flight was GA258 and this isn’t the first time an aircraft skidded at Yogyakarta Airport during rainfall.

image
image
image

11 Likes

Oh noo, im going to Yogyakarta this summer!!

5 Likes

Don’t worry, Overall Garuda still has a good safety record =)


Btw, Have a nice holiday in here, Indonesia 😊

2 Likes

What??? @SingaporeAirlines you are joking right? Garuda has a terrible safety record.

Two mins of research look like 9 incidents since 1980 with either a full hull loss or fatalities. Pretty sure they were banned in Europe for an extensive period of time, and we’re also banned in Australia

4 Likes

Well, That was Garuda in the past.


Now, Garuda has a better management since Emirsyah Satar took office (Sadly he is under investigation now). Garuda’s image is different now. I have to agree that Garuda had a bad past (Many High profile incidents in 1990s, Though there are no more accidents since 2000). But they are changing it now. I meant they received a Title for the most improving airline.

Garuda isn’t the only example, You can also see China Airlines or Korean Air, They also had a bad past too but look at them now, They are changing now.

About Garuda’s incident in Yogya 2 days ago, Weather factor holds an important factor to the incident. Adisutjipto’s approach is known pretty challenging during rainfall, So if you touched down abit late, Then your plane can overrun the runway. So it’s not fully Pilot’s fault at this point.

That doesn’t look great. Reminds me of Pence’s 737 at La Guardia.

4 Likes

Yogyakarta has an extreme approach, because on finals they need to make a U-turn so that they don’t crash in the mountains.

2 Likes

@Louis again, as per my comment above… please explain how Garuda is ‘one of the worlds safest airlines’ and where you are getting the information for this claim from when they have had 9 incidents since 1980 that involve fatalities or a full hull loss? They have been banned in Europe and Australia previously!

1 Like

He knows, I told him in a PM

3 Likes

ono, makes the 737 looks bad.

1 Like

They’ve already made it look bad with flight 200. But in all seriousness they have improved.

2 Likes

So that’s why everyone in TS1 makes sure to touch down extra early.

1 Like

Don’t always judge an airline’s safety record by its past. Air Koryo was founded 3 years after Garuda, and has had only 1 hull loss and 3 accidents/incidents. Would you rather fly Air Koryo or Garuda maintenance-wise?

2 Likes

Air Koryo of course. They have a reputation to uphold. Old-school Russian engineering might not be fancy, but it works. In addition, their fleet is so under-utilized that I have no concerns. The airline shuttles the country’s elite around, they can’t afford a crash since heads will roll.

http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2016/08/18/north-koreas-air-koryo-bad-chinas-safety-regulator-clamping-flights/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/37114638

Sure…

and I’m sure you’re glad to know Kim Jong-un flies a (knockoff) Cessna 172.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/BL-252B-11670%3Fresponsive%3Dy

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl0677.aspx

http://m.yna.co.kr/mob2/en/contents_en.jsp?cid=AEN20161203000351315&site=0400000000&mobile

Or that the airline is somehow still running despite sanctions which are meant to prohibit the airline from running by cutting off vital resources.

Hang in a second, Comparing it to the worst airline in the world is a different story, and just because it’s better than Air Koryo does not justify its poor safety record.

I’m comparing it to the rest of the world. Let’s be fair and make a comparison to real, first world Airlines. Ask me if I’d rather fly Garuda or Qantas, Virgin, Singapore, Qatar, Emirates etc and then you’ll have a fair answer.

Garuda does not have a good safety record against other airlines in the world. Of course I would fly Garuda over Air Koryo, but that doesn’t justify calling it ‘a safe airline’. I could name 50 Airlines off the top of my head that I would chose over Garuda

The best way to judge an airlines safety is by a proven (or non proven safety record). Garuda may have improved, but until I see an un-blemished record for over 10 years, then I will still be factoring in its record to determine safety. Not having an incident for a year (which Garuda now hasn’t done with this latest incident) doesn’t just fill me with confidence and suddenly ‘prove’ it’s safe. Unfortunately the world, and the consumer, likes to see a proven track record. It’s just a fact of life

The Chinese government is simply putting on a show of smoke and mirrors. Air Koryo doesn’t care about losing face. Smoke in the cabin occurances are relatively common with major airlines. China just likes to kick up a stink to prove to the world that they’re not incompetent at managing aviation.

Look at the safety culture at Air Koryo, they need to be safe because the airline is the lifeline for the country’s elite. I might not agree with what North Korea does, but I’m sure that Air Koryo is quite reliable because of the nature of their passengers. The North Korean ruling family has an estimated $4 billion USD deposited in Swiss bank accounts, I won’t be too worried about spare parts for planes. North Korea does take care of their elite, and the airline is one facet of that. They simply can’t afford a crash. The safety culture in Indonesia on the other hand… It’s a little less strict from my experience. It’s quite telling when an airline is not shut down for bending(!) a plane, twice.

1 Like

Air Koryo, I wouldn’t trust Garuda after their recent incidents.

Garuda has gone up the Skytrax ratings because they have improved safety wise, but they still aren’t as good as Virgin or Qantas.

1 Like

But if you think about it, their safety record isn’t really maintenance-based. Looking at their history record of 17 accidents and incidents, 7 can be attributed to bad weather, 1 to ATC, 2 unknown, 1 to CFIT, 1 to hijacking, 3 runway excursions, 1 murder, and 1 directly attributed to pilot error. Assuming that the murder and runway excursions were also pilot error, that makes 4 accidents. You can’t really blame an accident on weather on an airline, can you (unless it was the pilot’s decision to continue landing), nor can you blame ATC, hijacking, or the murder. CFIT isn’t really the pilot’s error either, considering they didn’t know about the volcano). 4 directly-faulted accidents in a 70-year period, although not perfect, isn’t too terrible per se, especially considering only one of those accidents directly-faulted to Garuda was in 2015, and there were no fatalities or injuries then. Singapore Airlines has had 3 accidents or incidents, 1 to hijacking, 1 to pilot error, and 1 to engine failure, the one to pilot error causing 83 fatalities and 71 injuries, compared to Garuda’s total pilot-error fatalities at 43. While Garuda may have had more accidents, they’ve managed to kill less people than Singapore, and within the last 20 years, the only accident attributed to pilot error on GA had no accidents compared to SQ006.

1 Like