Often when I am placing new aviation news items on the Indonesian version of this website I feel like changing the language used (even though it is not my native language) because I believe that the information in the media doesn't improve the public's understanding of aviation issues, and may in fact be increasing the risk regarding aviation safety in Indonesia.
For instance today I added a news item "Lion Air Failed To Land At Kendari". What is the actual meaning of this story, what is the meaning of the word failed (gagal) to journalists, the public's perception, and the implications for pilots?
One local journalist stated (today):
|
"From the journalist's perspective, a headline isn't just born. Headlines that we choose must be attractive, communicative, immediately be understood by the readers, brief, and simple. Because of that, we strive so that the words chosen are as accurate as possible to the eyes of the public in general, even though they may not be so precise in the case of specific readers."
"Use of the word failed (gagal), for instance in this case, was chosen because it directly points to the fact that the aircraft in this case failed to land at the destination airport because of a number of reasons."
|
What do we really mean? Lion Air "Didn't" Land At Kendari. Is the word "failed" as "accurate as possible"? From my understanding Lion Air didn't fail because, even though they wanted to they didn't actually try to land.
Story of one of the passengers:
|
"We also felt very tense when we were in the air, our aircraft circled the airport a number of times with the intention of landing at Kendari Airport, however because the weather was very bad the aircraft eventually landed at Makassar Airport, they said."
|
From the passenger's story, it would appear that the pilot made a decision that ensured the safety of the passengers from a potentially dangerous situation, the best decision. Bottom line, the pilot made a decision not to land, he didn't fail. To me the cases at Yogyakarta, Riau, Jakarta and Bandara Husein Sastranegara are real examples of "failed landings" however they are called incidents (skidding off the runway).
The most important issue to me is why did these incidents happen? Why, even though the weather was very bad or the situation (airspeed) was not appropriate the pilot still attempted to land?
What is the public meaning of the word failed (gagal)? According to the 3rd Edition of the MoE Dictionary:
"ga.gal v
1 not succeed; not achieve (i.e.): Desire to be the winner ..;
2 not happen: this year the harvesting --;"
If we say He failed .. or Lion Air failed... what is the public perception "not succeed", "not achieve", or "not happen"? Why is this important?
I am sure that to individuals and airline companies it is very important!
Also it may be able to open a window to understanding one of the reasons why pilots sometimes take the risk and try to land.
Who, or what company wants to be said to have failed?
I can still clearly remember the effects of "peer pressure" and my concern for the impressions of other people who were at the airport when I was practicing crosswind landings. I have to admit that sometimes I continued to land, even though I knew that I was not in full control of the situation and the landing would probably be very rough. My feelings at that time were that it was best to land even though it would be a very bad landing (but not that visible from a distance) rather than to abort and for other people to think that I couldn't (or failed).
Try to imagine the feelings of commercial pilots who know that tomorrow in all the Indonesian media the headlines will be something like "Lion Air Failed To Land ...". Could this possibly effect the pilot's decision making processes? As a professional pilot, it shouldn't. But we all (including pilots) are human, and may be effected by social culture and the culture of our media.
A very important issue is that we (the public) and airlines respect and accept the decisions of aircraft captains (or PIC) and support the decisions of aircraft captains because they will certainly be in the best interests of their passengers. Occasionaly I read that passengers become very verbal because their aircraft "diverted" and landed at an alternate airport, but I have never read where the passengers have saluted thier captain even though he/she may have just saved them from a very dangerous situation.
We need to raise the public's understanding of these issues.
One of the journalists said, "Maybe what we need to change is the public's perception of the word fail (gagal) that it is bad or wrong, most importantly in the aviation world."
But to change "the perception" of all the people in Indonesia (240,000,000+) I perceive as "Mission Impossible" (no way). It would be so much easier, and could illustrate the professionalism of our journalists if they didn't use the word failed (gagal) that could be replaced with a word like didn't (tidak jadi).
My personal opinion is that pilots who choose to divert to another airport or go-around are heroes compared to those pilots who force themselves (and their passengers) to land when they are not 100% sure that they can land safely.
We at IndonesianAviation.Com Salute the Lion Air Captain yesterday, and all Pilots who prioritze the safety of their passengers.
Please read "Air Disasters and Learning"
Fly safely!
Phillip Rekdale
IndonesianAviation.Com
19 April 2009
|
