mischadee
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:25 am

BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:41 pm

Hi!

Almost all the major newspapers in Sweden today reports that SAS neglected to inspect the engines on 10 out of 11 long-haul Airbus planes last year. The authority's are taking this very serious and there may be some serious action taken against the company.

Furthermore, http://www.expressen.se reports that SAS had problems with passengers fainting on row 17 on the airbuses as a result of lack of oxygen. Hmm I'm flying ARN-EWR on Wednesday. Lucky for me I'm in row 33 and the inspections on the planes have now been made but way to late.

Sources in Swedish only: http://www.expressen.se/index.jsp?a=506241

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.j...=554&a=513279&previousRenderType=6

http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,763091,00.html

Mischa
ARNiboy
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13070
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 6:48 pm

This is truely big trouble. But I guess they'll not only feel the heat from the local CAAs in Sweden, Norway and Denmark, but the JAA and quite possibly the FAA might have a word on that as well (in some instances, not all of course). Those are serious safety flaws and the fact that SK didn't comply with safety and MX standards is just frightening to me.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5006
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:32 pm

Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
sk909
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:03 pm

Well, it is scary!
I remember SK had some problems maintaining some DC9/MD80 engines some years ago.
There is no explaining of this. Let's just hope that this is a one time incedent.

BUT it doen't scare my. I will still fly SK...
Life's for Living!
 
User avatar
LN-MOW
Posts: 1684
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2000 12:24 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:14 pm

People fainting on row 17 due to a missing engine inspection, sounds a little far fetched, if you ask me .....  Yeah sure

However, this is very embarrassing for SAS. But let the authorities find out what happened and let them and SAS work out a solution to make sure this doesn't happen again.
- I am LN-MOW, and I approve this message.
 
mischadee
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:25 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:30 pm

Quoting LN-MOW (Reply 4):
People fainting on row 17 due to a missing engine inspection, sounds a little far fetched, if you ask me .....

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The fainting was a separate incident that had to do with a faulty air-condition system that SAS has reported to Airbus and they are trying to fix it as it would be a disaster if the same thing happens to the pilots during flight.

Mischa.
ARNiboy
 
KaiGywer
Crew
Posts: 11182
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 9:59 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:36 pm

SK used to be very nice and glamorous. Nowadays, it seems the media finds every little thing wrong with them. Not saying missing maintenance is "little", but they just seem to always make it front page news.
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, an
 
Oykie
Posts: 1563
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:21 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:43 pm

SAS has also had some engine shutdowns on their A330 since introduction. How many more in flight engine shutdown with a following diversion are they permitted before they will experience ETOPS restrictions?
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
 
cabso1
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:23 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:26 am

Pretty scary! I wouldn't want to be with them at 35000 feet in the middle of the Atlantic. Very unprofessional of them to neglect the engine inspections.
 
CXA330300
Posts: 1257
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 5:51 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:31 am

Hmm..........maintainance doesn't seem to be SK's only problem these days.........according to a thread a few weeks back, SK seems to be losing money on all its long-haul routes.

Sad to see another airline slipping downhill..........
AC/AA/UA/DL/B6/WN/US*/CO*/FI/BA/IB/AF/SK/LX/Sabena*/TK/LY/SA/MN/SW/AM/CE*/CX/CA/MU/JL/SQ/TG/MH/KA/5J
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:39 am

European aviation authorities including the DGAC of France were quick off the mark in banning airlines from other continent for sloppy maintenance among other reasons.

Is this kind of action likely to be taken against SAS - now that this comes from within?

KC Sim
 
Flying Belgian
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2001 12:45 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:41 am

Actually you CAN reduce the rate of oxygen in the cabin ambient air mix. This way you might consume less fuel. The results/first symptoms for the pax/crew is headache.

This is theory (though some airlines have been rumoured to do so...) but it is an Airbus Senior captain who told me that.

FB.
Life is great at 41.000 feet...
 
birdbrainz
Posts: 423
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 6:57 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:18 am

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 6):
SK used to be very nice and glamorous. Nowadays, it seems the media finds every little thing wrong with them. Not saying missing maintenance is "little", but they just seem to always make it front page news.

Yeah. I remember those days.

SAS is on the sh*# list right now, just that same way that Southwest is a darling of the industry. Any little thing that goes wrong at SAS is going to get a lot of attention. Also, the media has a way of getting things mixed up.

All that said, I'd really like to see what happened. It sure doesn't sound good.

Quoting Cabso1 (Reply 8):
Pretty scary! I wouldn't want to be with them at 35000 feet in the middle of the Atlantic. Very unprofessional of them to neglect the engine inspections.

Lucky for them that they're A340s have four very reliable engines. It's still not good, though.
A good landing is one you can walk away from. A great landing is if the aircraft can be flown again.
 
CPH757
Posts: 652
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:40 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:29 am

Quoting CXA330300 (Reply 9):
Hmm..........maintainance doesn't seem to be SK's only problem these days.........according to a thread a few weeks back, SK seems to be losing money on all its long-haul routes.

I don't know why this is the ongoing belief in this forum, but actually they have improved a lot. Just take a look in the latest interim financial report for Q3/05, which is available here: http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGroup/default.asp

They have a load factor on the international flights on 80%, and the EBITDAR and EBIT margin on the internationals are actually both around 17%. I know this indicator is not always consistent, but in this case it tells that the running operations in fact earn.

SAS Denmark and SAS Sweden however are loosing money, while the Norwegian part (Braathens) is earning qiute well.
Last flight: SAW-CPH on H9 on 02/11/09 - Next Flights: 23/12/09 CPH-AAL on QI, 30/12/09 CPH-LHR on SK, 19/01/10 CPH-CDG-
 
User avatar
JohnKrist
Crew
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:54 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:35 am

Quoting KaiGywer (Reply 6):
SK used to be very nice and glamorous. Nowadays, it seems the media finds every little thing wrong with them. Not saying missing maintenance is "little", but they just seem to always make it front page news.

Yup, SK used to be great, today it's more and more tending to be an airline with the service of low cost airlines and pricing of premium airline.

Also, Swedish media is quick to write stuff like this, 'cause nothin much happens here. And we Scandinavians (at least Swedes) usually think that we are the best at everything, and as soon as a flaw is discovered, or we do not collect the gold we had seen as ours long beforehand, media bangs their "fiasco drum". Still it's sad when our pride SAS sets safety aside, for whatever reason.
Airliners.net Crew-Head Support
5D Mark III, 7D, 17-40 F4 L, 70-200 F2.8 L IS, EF 1.4x II, EF 2x III, SPEEDLITE 600EX-RT
 
RIXrat
Posts: 670
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:18 am

As an SK fan, I am dismayed at the lack of competence at SAS regarding service. I forget which one of the above articles mentioned it, but SK's excuse about maintenance is that the people who do it were farmed out contractors and not SK staff. Here we have it again. Just a few days ago we had the Alaska incident (no, two) and everyone seems to sub-contract and the sub-contractor seems also to sub-contract.

As far as the fainting on row 17, it seems to me that is a little overblown. If I'm not mistaken air/oxygen in a cabin circulates throughout the whole cabin and has nothing to do which seat or row that you are located. The Expressen article, though, did point out that if this happens on the enclosed flight deck, it is a very dangerous situation.

Sideline. Where did Helios send their remaining aircraft to be checked out? To SAS Stockholm, I believe.

Emil
 
Matt27
Posts: 2070
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 9:53 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:35 am

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 15):
As far as the fainting on row 17, it seems to me that is a little overblown.

Yes, Swedish tabloids want things to be worse than what they really are.

Where are the MX for the SAS 330/340 fleet performed?
Man ska inte dricka rödvin i en vit hall.
 
buckieboy
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:31 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:03 am

All,

Just my 5 Rappen here before I fly on an SK codeshare flight tomorrow!

As a trained and validated risk assessor (including business risk), whilst I sympathise with the "scary" comments, in a way I disagree.

The link may put my thoughts into context and I won't waste any effort with additional voiceover:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/12/content_322695.htm

It can be argued that SAS are either incompetent or negligent and in law, the latter is a serious accusation to make.

However, given that all their aircraft have at least two engines, do we really believe that the public's safety was ever jeopardised?

As an engineer, scientist and risk assessor, I believe this not to be the case.

Of course, people are entitled to walk with their feet and I'd be lying if I didn't admit that I favour LH over LX over BA for a whole host of reasons.  wink 

Cheers

Buckieboy
I'm taking orders from bottles of wine
 
RJ100
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 1:37 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:08 am

Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 17):
Just my 5 Rappen here before I fly on an SK codeshare flight tomorrow!

Let me guess? Cimber? Enjoy your flight. They are nice.

Regards,
RJ100
none
 
buckieboy
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 1:31 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:19 am

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 18):
Let me guess? Cimber? Enjoy your flight. They are nice.

Regards,
RJ100

Genau!

Cheers

Buckieboy

(Apologies if this breaks the site's language code)

PS We need to have several beers sometime!  yes .
I'm taking orders from bottles of wine
 
StevenUhl777
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 11:02 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:24 am

Quoting Birdbrainz (Reply 12):
Any little thing that goes wrong at SAS is going to get a lot of attention. Also, the media has a way of getting things mixed up.

I'm sure our friends over at Alaska Airlines can relate.  Yeah sure

As far as losing money on long haul routes, well...they are quite a bit pricier than their competition. When I was pricing SEA-FCO, I would have though SK would be in there as an option, via CPH. But, no. Maybe they don't publish on Expedia? I went to their main website and it locked up my computer.
And the winner for best actress is....REESE WITHERSPOON for 'Walk the Line'!!!!!!!!
 
SKA380
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:46 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:35 am

It's very sad to see SAS sink to this level indeed. They used to be top notch when it came to MX work.

The Scandinavian aviation authority's are even threatening to revoke their operating license if this is not corrected immediately.

I read in an article on www.hangar.no (sorry, in Norwegian) this morning where someone from SAS commented that "we have now had all the checks carried out, and we didn't find any fault. So our customers has been completely safe flying with us." hehe
That's easy to say now, after they performed the checks. There's no way they could have known that before this got to the media, and the planes were still flying without the checks.
The article seems to have been removed now, and replaced with a different.

Leif
 
aviationwiz
Posts: 882
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 7:20 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 7:55 am

If the problem with fainting in row 17 would have happened in the US, the airline would have had the pants sued off of them.
Proudly from the Home of the Red Tail.
 
mischadee
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:25 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:12 am

Quoting Aviationwiz (Reply 22):
If the problem with fainting in row 17 would have happened in the US, the airline would have had the pants sued off of them.

Apparently the airline paid of the passangers who were affected according to the article.

Mischa.
ARNiboy
 
flybynight
Posts: 1131
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:17 am

Quoting StevenUhl777 (Reply 20):
As far as losing money on long haul routes, well...they are quite a bit pricier than their competition. When I was pricing SEA-FCO, I would have though SK would be in there as an option, via CPH. But, no. Maybe they don't publish on Expedia? I went to their main website and it locked up my computer.

Not really. SK is offering flights from SEA - OSL for about $1000 US this summer. The same ticket on UA was $1300.
Heia Norge!
 
jetdeltamsy
Posts: 2688
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2000 11:51 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:29 am

This is extremely serious and I am shocked that it happened at SAS.

There is no excuse for such a lapse in management.

Heads should roll.
Tired of airline bankruptcies....EA/PA/TW and finally DL.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3014
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:35 am

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1):
FAA might have a word on that as well

The FAA would only be interested in those aircraft that are flying to the United States. The JAA standard seem to be more stringent then the FAA. Would someone correct me if I am wrong.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:12 am

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 25):
This is extremely serious and I am shocked that it happened at SAS.

There is no excuse for such a lapse in management.

Heads should roll.

Completely agree with you. The question becomes.....who within SAS ordered these cut-backs? I simply can't imagine, and it is hard to believe, that this was simply an oversight. The lack of necessary inspections seems to go across their entire long-haul fleet, and must have unfolded over quite a bit of time.

The lack of inspections seems to be systemic of nature. Somebody must have decided that these were simply not needed or simply could not be justified.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 10:18 am

Quoting Matt27 (Reply 16):
Where are the MX for the SAS 330/340 fleet performed?

Funnily enough one of the A330 fleet was recently flown empty to MAN and given a check there. Wonder if it's related to this.

I did find it strange that a SAS longhauler was flown to Britain to be overhauled.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
SKA380
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:46 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:23 pm

What does STS CPH do?

I thought they were the ones who were supposed to manage the MX on the longhaul fleet.

Leif
 
Georgetown
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:50 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:56 pm

Quoting CPH757 (Reply 13):
I don't know why this is the ongoing belief in this forum, but actually they have improved a lot. Just take a look in the latest interim financial report for Q3/05, which is available here: http://www.sasgroup.net/SASGroup/def...t.asp

I'm exhausted, so I only spent about 10 minutes reviewing their financials, but without going into much detail things are indeed looking brighter. What you want to look at is EBITDA(R), and that shows positive growth. Not sure where anyone would get the idea this airline is headed south from a buisness standpoint. If I get a break tomorrow I'll try to add more of an explaination.
Let's go Hoyas!
 
hz747300
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:38 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:42 am

Quoting Flying Belgian (Reply 11):
Actually you CAN reduce the rate of oxygen in the cabin ambient air mix. This way you might consume less fuel. The results/first symptoms for the pax/crew is headache.

This is theory (though some airlines have been rumoured to do so...) but it is an Airbus Senior captain who told me that.

It was also in the book Air Babylon that they do this, though the airline in question was never named. Makes sense, less oxygen = sleepy passengers. I'm sure the last thing the crew needs is 240 jumpy passengers clamouring for attention.

Flew SAS EWR - CPH, CPH - GVA in July and both crew and plane pleasant. No inflight engine shutdowns, and no crew member dump food in my lap.
Keep on truckin'...
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: BIG Troubles At SAS

Wed Jan 18, 2006 11:27 am

Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 17):
The link may put my thoughts into context and I won't waste any effort with additional voiceover:

Read your article about traffic accidents in China as a background to your post. Looks to me that road accidents in China are expected to go up because the volume of traffic is expected to increase. Not because roads or cars are less safe or because drivers take more risk either.

Aren't we merely looking at a volume increase of accidents here? And how does this factor into the safety inspections that SAS decided not to perform, and the effect of this on the safety of the public that have decided to fly with this airline? Am I totally missing your point? If so, please educate me.

Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 17):
It can be argued that SAS are either incompetent or negligent and in law, the latter is a serious accusation to make.

Obviously SAS is negligent here. Authorities would not even threaten to revoke their license unless they were in violation of either a law or a statutory requirement backed by a specific statute. What if an accident had occurred, and later on an inspection of records would have revealed that mandatory safety inspections were omitted that may have been the cause of just that? Do you think SAS would be liable to their passengers because of that emission? I can guarantee you that they would.

Quoting Buckieboy (Reply 17):
However, given that all their aircraft have at least two engines, do we really believe that the public's safety was ever jeopardised?

As an engineer, scientist and risk assessor, I believe this not to be the case.

Good thing that all the flights for SAS took place without incident during this time. Just keep in mind though that even though all SAS aircraft have at least two engines, the failure to perform mandatory safety inspections will decrease the airline's ability to prevent failure of either one of them. That is not to say that one or both will fail ever. I am simply touching on the airline's own ability to either quantify or control that risk.

With your background as an engineer and risk assessor I am surprised that you can make such a statement. Somehow you seem to indicate that safety standards of airlines in general could be relaxed and the public would still be just as safe (or safe enough). Just a last question: Are safety standards of this day and age simply an overkill that cost the airlines unnecessary money?
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!

Who is online