RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, RR: 23 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 3): Well what do you think the MEL is there for
Well I wouldn't really know, since I am not fully conversant with such matters, hence why I posed the question in the first place. I only just here found out what MEL stood for.
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 3): why do you think GSM are being prosecuted?
Obviously because they breached the rules, but then there are breaches of the rules and there are also very serious breaches of the rules that directly endanger life etc.
I ask the question because I don't know much about it, and because I would like to know more from those that are in the know. Please don't just respond with sarcasm if you have nothing informative or interesting to add.
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4): Obviously because they breached the rules, but then there are breaches of the rules and there are also very serious breaches of the rules that directly endanger life etc.
There was no direct, immediate danger to life. The non-functioning sensor meant a higher workload and the potential for errors in the manual calculations that had to be performed. So, it would be fair to say the fault increased the risk, particularly if something were to coincidentally go wrong with the engines.
Whether the excuses and absence of pressure to continue operation are truthful or not is another matter subject to pure speculation.
Captain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 703 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
The MEL is the Minimum Equipment List. Its basically a book that covers just about every component on the aircraft (in some form or another) and tells the engineers and flight crew (in case of malfunction) if the aircraft is ok to be despatched.
Flight crew should comply with it at all times, simple as that.
I hope that GSM have the book thrown at them.
Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1919 times:
Quoting Captain.md-11 (Reply 6): The MEL is the Minimum Equipment List. Its basically a book that covers just about every component on the aircraft (in some form or another) and tells the engineers and flight crew (in case of malfunction) if the aircraft is ok to be despatched.
Flight crew should comply with it at all times, simple as that.
I hope that GSM have the book thrown at them.
Thank you cap'n. Are they known for this sort of thing? I remember they had maintenance issues and a few events a while back.
RussianJet From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 8): The MEL has been described now though so I'm glad you fully understand what occurred.
Well, I kind of do, in that I get what the MEL is for and that what they did constitutes a breach, but I don't really understand the practical consequences of flying with the deficiencies they did.
Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 5): The non-functioning sensor meant a higher workload and the potential for errors in the manual calculations that had to be performed
How exactly? If anyone can explain the actual consequences fully but in dunce language for me I'd be grateful.
Boeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1790 times:
Quoting RussianJet (Reply 7): Thank you cap'n. Are they known for this sort of thing? I remember they had maintenance issues and a few events a while back.
Well their ambitious long-haul programme for last year can be described in one word - farce! This incident is merely rubbing salt into the wound, and I for one will be glad if GSM get the book thrown at them.
Soxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 854 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1724 times:
I would assume that the court will take the airline's past safety record into account when deciding how to sentence them?
And I found it interesting (though I wasn't surprised) when I saw that only twenty passengers were on board. After reading thread-after-negative-thread on this site, and review-after-negative-review on Skytrax, maybe people are starting to realize just what kind of an airline FlyGlobespan is.
Pilot: "Request push, which way should we face?" JFK Ground: "You better face the front, sir, or you'll scare the pax!"
PeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 318 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 10): Plane go boom boom, people go die die?
Hardly likely that a plane will crash because of one unserviceable EPR gauge. Any pilot would know the typical N1, fuel flow, etc for the normal phases of flight.
Sandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1660 times:
I personally hope that GSM will get the book thrown at them also, but have a niggling suspicion that they might just get away with this one with a small fine.
Quoting Soxfan (Reply 13): when I saw that only twenty passengers were on board
Yeah, I've posted about low load factors for GSM here and that their website was still quoting last minute fares both short and long haul. I think that it won't be long before they face real financial trouble, even without the authorities squeezing them.
Rongotai From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 477 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1620 times:
Quoting PeterPuck (Reply 15): Hardly likely that a plane will crash because of one unserviceable EPR gauge. Any pilot would know the typical N1, fuel flow, etc for the normal phases of flight.
There are two big factors at work here:
1. What GSM accepted here is indicative of an operational culture that is systemically dangerous. If there is a MEL, there is a MEL. If you routinely make judgements about whther or not to comply with it, then the probability that a fatal judgement will eventually be made increases.
2. This is a typical risk management issue. It is a cliche in aviation safety that planes rarely crash because something goes wrong - they usually crash because common small problems happen simultaneously, and then are escalated by further errors made while under workload pressures while dealing with the initial problems. Many of the gains in aviation safety have been the result of technological advances that reduce the frequency of those sorts of pressure situations arising. These sensors are such a technology.
Thus it may be perfectly true that it is 'hardly likely' that a particular plane will crash because the sensor has gone tec. But it is the case that if it is allowed to become routine that people choose to fly with such equipment unserviceable, then there will be more crashes.
If regulatory authorities allow 'small' breaches go because it is unlikely that in this case this plane would have crashed, then they are opening the gates to increasing tolerance of non-compliance (and economic pressures on all carriers to operate at the sinking compliance levels) that will eventually lead to an increase in accident rates overall.
PeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 318 posts, RR: 2 Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Quoting Myt332 (Reply 17): True but I wasn't just referring to the EPR gauge. I was referring in a jovial manor to flying with a f*cked plane basically
Quoting Rongotai (Reply 19): Thus it may be perfectly true that it is 'hardly likely' that a particular plane will crash because the sensor has gone tec. But it is the case that if it is allowed to become routine that people choose to fly with such equipment unserviceable, then there will be more crashes.
I was only pointing out that people, like the media, have a way of sensationalizing things. Airplane not go boom boom because of faulty gauge. See what I'm saying.
The MEL at any airline must be complied with. I didn't imply anything different
ElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1530 times:
Quoting Rongotai (Reply 19): is indicative of an operational culture that is systemically dangerous. If there is a MEL, there is a MEL.
Hear, hear
It's not for GSM to decide whether or not to comply with minimum safety standards agreed with the regulator on behalf of the flying public. They either comply, or don't fly.
Throw the book at them. I certainly won't be using their services unless there's evidence of a dramatic turnaround.
Rongotai From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 477 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1473 times:
Quoting PeterPuck (Reply 20): I was only pointing out that people, like the media, have a way of sensationalizing things. Airplane not go boom boom because of faulty gauge. See what I'm saying.
Yes, I do understand what you are saying there. However in my view the original story cited in this thread was reasonably measured. It is quite difficult when reporting to the general public to get acrtoss the point that this sort of breach - if unchecked - may not have directly endangered THAT aircraft, but that the behaviour increases EVERYBODY's risk.
Robsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1422 times:
Quoting Rongotai (Reply 22): Yes, I do understand what you are saying there. However in my view the original story cited in this thread was reasonably measured.
I'd agree - more measured and with actual informative content than some of the non-value-added responses in this thread.
Was Globespan wrong, absolutely, and they deserve sanctions for it. However, it would be helpful to those not expert on aircraft systems to differentiate between the severity of a MEL due to a faulty sensor (and what the lack of that sensor may specifically entail in terms of extra crew work) and say missing an entire engine or perhaps 25 feet of the end of one wing (yes, that is sarcasm).
.
ElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 174 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1281 times:
Quoting Robsawatsky (Reply 23): it would be helpful to those not expert on aircraft systems to differentiate between the severity of a MEL due to a faulty sensor
This is an interesting point and I want to pick you up on it.
I totally agree that from an engineer/machanic's perspective there is a world of difference. But from the punters' point of view - who do not have that expert knowledge - the MEL and the safety regulator that enforces it give them some extra confidence in the airline industry, and in particular airlines. If GSM decide they are not going to play this game, and they are going to decide what is safe to fly below the MEL, then that's fine, but they can't then expect to have the confidence of the flying public. What I am saying is that in the air travel market, adherence to safety regs is valuable, and GSM are risking losing that value.
Sorry if my post was grumpy - was late. But I hope you can see my point of view.
ER
25 Boeing74741R: And to add, if it becomes widespread knowledge (which I hope it does) it will eventually be ta ta to GSM.
26 Rongotai: It is more than this - far more. 1. I have pointed out in an earlier post that once you begin to erode MEL standards you increase the risk of dangero
Sponsor Message: 
From Kazakhstan, joined Jul 2007, 6293 posts, 
From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 783 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 854 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 477 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
