Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fly Globespan Guilty Of Safey Breach  
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2601 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/7485650.stm

How serious is this really? Not clear how much they're going to be fined yet, still awaiting sentence.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAcelanzarote From Spain, joined Nov 2005, 821 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

not very good only having 20 passingers on board either....


from the Island with sun and great photo's.. Why not visit Lanzarote
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2582 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Acelanzarote (Reply 1):
not very good only having 20 passingers on board either....

Ha, well that of course is another story altogether.  Smile

As for the issue at hand though, is this really as serious a business as they are making out?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2573 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 2):
is this really as serious a business as they are making out?

Well what do you think the MEL is there for and why do you think GSM are being prosecuted?

They are morons.



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2517 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4):



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.


User currently offlineCaptain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2375 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?
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2354 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2350 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4):
Please don't just respond with sarcasm if you have nothing informative or interesting to add.

I was answering your question in brief. Sarcasm helped communicated the point quickly. In major I just wanted to communicate my thoughts.

The MEL has been described now though so I'm glad you fully understand what occurred.



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



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.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2301 times:



Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
How exactly?

Stress resulting in human error.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 9):
If anyone can explain the actual consequences fully but in dunce language for me I'd be grateful.

Plane go boom boom, people go die die?  Wink



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineBoeing74741R From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2007, 1153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2225 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.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7692 posts, RR: 21
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2165 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Myt332 (Reply 10):
Plane go boom boom, people go die die? Wink

Great, but I was actually rather thinking of the technical processes involved.....



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineSoxfan From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 864 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2159 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!"
User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24911 posts, RR: 56
Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Anyone else remember Excaliburs good ol' DC-10?  duck 


When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlinePeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2098 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.


User currently offlineSandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

Sandyb123



DC3, 727, 737, 744, 753, 777, A32X, A345, A388, ERJ145, E190, BaE146, D328, ATR72, Q400
User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 71
Reply 17, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2077 times:



Quoting PeterPuck (Reply 15):
Hardly likely that a plane will crash because of one unserviceable EPR gauge

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.



One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineHiggi91 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2068 times:

WOW! suprised pilots even accepted the a/c

Dan.



Hey Hey :D
User currently offlineRongotai From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2055 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.


User currently offlinePeterPuck From Canada, joined Jun 2004, 323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1989 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


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1965 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.

ER

[Edited 2008-07-02 17:37:41]

[Edited 2008-07-02 17:39:07]

[Edited 2008-07-02 17:51:25]

User currently offlineRongotai From New Zealand, joined Sep 2000, 477 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1908 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.


User currently offlineRobsawatsky From Canada, joined Dec 2003, 597 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1857 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).
.


User currently offlineElbowRoom From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1716 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did Eastern Fly L-1011's Out Of ORD After 1983? posted Sun Sep 23 2007 02:38:04 by TWA1985
What Is The Largest A/C To Fly In/out Of DCA? posted Wed May 9 2007 03:33:51 by 777fan
Fly Globespan From Chambery To GVA? Howcome? posted Wed Apr 4 2007 20:18:05 by RootsAir
Fly Globespan 757s posted Mon Feb 26 2007 06:40:11 by Fly_yhm
Fly Globespan YHM Flights posted Sat Jan 13 2007 05:39:20 by Fly_yhm
Fly Globespan 757 Acquistion Plans? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 04:26:17 by Fly_yhm
ABX Contractors Guilty Of Hiring Illegal Workers posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:14:05 by FlyingTexan
Bad Day To Fly In/out Of SFO-OAK Area... posted Sun Mar 19 2006 21:24:35 by 777fan
Sabre Found Guilty Of Monopoly In Venezuela posted Sat Nov 19 2005 13:40:51 by Luisde8cd
Presidental Choppers Fly Into Path Of MD-80 posted Fri Aug 12 2005 05:20:07 by CcrlR