Just now, I found this video on my YouTube recommended page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHJOjXD-Uc

Apparently, this airline failed to even document a wait and balance sheet before takeoff, no loading plans, pilots were improperly trained, etc, etc. Immediately, I just thought "How could such an airline/company even exist?" They probably just about broke every rule in the book. Although they ceased ops in 2004, which was after the accident, there are still a few examples of shady airlines that come to my mind. For example, everyone just about knows that the cargo airline Aerosucre is notorious for over-loading their aircraft. There has got to be at least 5 separate videos of them almost overrunning the runway because of overloading. And they even caused a crash!

And I'm sure we all remember Hewa Bora Airways back from the mid 2000s-early 2010s, right? Yeah, I don't think I need to elaborate much on the things they did...

Now, I guess I could go on and on about different shady airlines and I'm sure you guys also know some too. But, my question is, why are these airlines even allowed to operate? I get that the aviation regulators in 3rd world countries may be different and likely more lax in terms of security, but still, there are human souls on board these planes!! There for sure has to be some degree of scrutiny for airlines. And most of these places I mentioned do not have a hefty host of restrictions placed on them by the rest of the world (like, say Iran, who also has some shady airlines). And, no, they don't have to be allowed to fly into the West to still follow the gosh darn rules and be somewhat safe.

So, basically my question is, "Why is aviation more lax in the third world and it allows the spring up of shady airlines who don't follow the rules?"

(btw, I'm 14 so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but it's always been a concern/question of mine.)

Because money, not enough of it to get regulators and customers to demand safety compliance. Advanced countries have the resources and people place a higher value on their lives and safety. We’re not rich because we’re safe, we’re safe because we’re rich.

Partially due to Less Finances & a Weak Regulatory system, Some 3rd World countries could have a less than ideal safety record in Aviation

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Because money, not enough of it to get regulators and customers to demand safety compliance. Advanced countries have the resources and people place a higher value on their lives and safety. We’re not rich because we’re safe, we’re safe because we’re rich.

There’s a COVID vaccine joke in there somewhere.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Now, I guess I could go on and on about different shady airlines and I'm sure you guys also know some too. But, my question is, why are these airlines even allowed to operate? I get that the aviation regulators in 3rd world countries may be different and likely more lax in terms of security, but still, there are human souls on board these planes!! There for sure has to be some degree of scrutiny for airlines. And most of these places I mentioned do not have a hefty host of restrictions placed on them by the rest of the world (like, say Iran, who also has some shady airlines). And, no, they don't have to be allowed to fly into the West to still follow the gosh darn rules and be somewhat safe.

So, basically my question is, "Why is aviation more lax in the third world and it allows the spring up of shady airlines who don't follow the rules?"

(btw, I'm 14 so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but it's always been a concern/question of mine.)

Oh to be 14 and naive again

The short answer is - humans are greedy and profit trumps life

The long answer is more complicated. A lot has to do (especially in Africa), with the influences of colonialism. They had systems in place while the colonial powers were there, but since they did not place a high value into training locals to do the job, there was a vacuum when they left. Systems and processes had to be put in place again, but aviation safety in a lot of places is very far behind in the queue when it comes to budget.
If you've been to some of these places, you would understand the desperateness of the local population to fly, because there is no other method available to them to get to a job, family or doctors.
The aircraft might not be airworthy, but they might not know it, or the possible risk of an accident is less than the risk of dying from hunger.

Couple that with extreme poverty, where every $1 bribe makes a big difference to the amount of food on your table, the general uselessness of the states and governments in question, it becomes a very complex issue to resolve.

Of course it is also not just the government's fault (although better oversight would of course aid in this) - but go anywhere in Africa, and you would find (predominantly) Russian crews willing to do anything for a buck. The planes would immediately be grounded in any place with an airworthiness inspector, but hey, if it starts, it flies.

Some might argue that Tower Air was a shady airline in a first world country. They operated their hub out of an abandoned Pan Am hangar. One person said it was a miracle they never had a crash.

Some of the shady airlines carry shady cargo for shady organisations that may not care too much about the lives of their pilots ...

Kam Air, for example, is allegedly a major exporter of Afghan opium. Mahan Air has been accused of smuggling weapons. Aerosucre may be carrying white powder that isn't sugar.

blacksoviet wrote:

Some might argue that Tower Air was a shady airline in a first world country. They operated their hub out of an abandoned Pan Am hangar. One person said it was a miracle they never had a crash.

That Tower never had a crash is a testament to the training and regulatory environment in the US.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Just now, I found this video on my YouTube recommended page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHJOjXD-Uc

Apparently, this airline failed to even document a wait and balance sheet before takeoff, no loading plans, pilots were improperly trained, etc, etc. Immediately, I just thought "How could such an airline/company even exist?" They probably just about broke every rule in the book. Although they ceased ops in 2004, which was after the accident, there are still a few examples of shady airlines that come to my mind. For example, everyone just about knows that the cargo airline Aerosucre is notorious for over-loading their aircraft. There has got to be at least 5 separate videos of them almost overrunning the runway because of overloading. And they even caused a crash!

And I'm sure we all remember Hewa Bora Airways back from the mid 2000s-early 2010s, right? Yeah, I don't think I need to elaborate much on the things they did...

Now, I guess I could go on and on about different shady airlines and I'm sure you guys also know some too. But, my question is, why are these airlines even allowed to operate? I get that the aviation regulators in 3rd world countries may be different and likely more lax in terms of security, but still, there are human souls on board these planes!! There for sure has to be some degree of scrutiny for airlines. And most of these places I mentioned do not have a hefty host of restrictions placed on them by the rest of the world (like, say Iran, who also has some shady airlines). And, no, they don't have to be allowed to fly into the West to still follow the gosh darn rules and be somewhat safe.

So, basically my question is, "Why is aviation more lax in the third world and it allows the spring up of shady airlines who don't follow the rules?"

(btw, I'm 14 so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but it's always been a concern/question of mine.)

Good regulatory environment, like that in the US, tends to weed out bad maintenance practices. Until it doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... able_cause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Wor ... estigation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Ai ... _aftermath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent ... able_cause

Good regulatory environment, like that in the US, tends to weed out negligent flight preparation: load sheets, correct takeoff weight calculations, center of gravity stuff. Until it doesn't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Midwest_Flight_5481
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_Air_ ... ermination

And so on.
So your question isn't dumb.
There are shady airlines everywhere. Sometimes they are weeded out, sometimes they are not. Weeding out airlines is, by definition, anti-competitive.

If you have only one airline left in your country, weeding it out leaves you without airlines -- even if it's bad and deserves to be closed.
It's good to have a wealthy populace, healthy transportation market, and rich airlines -- that allows regulators to put the bar higher, and if some airlines don't clear it -- no worries, in the name of safety, it's a price worth paying.

If your populace is poor, and the airlines are broke, proper enforcement could leave you with no airlines. Tough call -- would you prefer less safe airline(s), or no air transport?

SAAFNAV wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Now, I guess I could go on and on about different shady airlines and I'm sure you guys also know some too. But, my question is, why are these airlines even allowed to operate? I get that the aviation regulators in 3rd world countries may be different and likely more lax in terms of security, but still, there are human souls on board these planes!! There for sure has to be some degree of scrutiny for airlines. And most of these places I mentioned do not have a hefty host of restrictions placed on them by the rest of the world (like, say Iran, who also has some shady airlines). And, no, they don't have to be allowed to fly into the West to still follow the gosh darn rules and be somewhat safe.

So, basically my question is, "Why is aviation more lax in the third world and it allows the spring up of shady airlines who don't follow the rules?"

(btw, I'm 14 so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but it's always been a concern/question of mine.)

Oh to be 14 and naive again

The short answer is - humans are greedy and profit trumps life

The long answer is more complicated. A lot has to do (especially in Africa), with the influences of colonialism. They had systems in place while the colonial powers were there, but since they did not place a high value into training locals to do the job, there was a vacuum when they left. Systems and processes had to be put in place again, but aviation safety in a lot of places is very far behind in the queue when it comes to budget.
If you've been to some of these places, you would understand the desperateness of the local population to fly, because there is no other method available to them to get to a job, family or doctors.
The aircraft might not be airworthy, but they might not know it, or the possible risk of an accident is less than the risk of dying from hunger.

Couple that with extreme poverty, where every $1 bribe makes a big difference to the amount of food on your table, the general uselessness of the states and governments in question, it becomes a very complex issue to resolve.

Of course it is also not just the government's fault (although better oversight would of course aid in this) - but go anywhere in Africa, and you would find (predominantly) Russian crews willing to do anything for a buck. The planes would immediately be grounded in any place with an airworthiness inspector, but hey, if it starts, it flies.

It’s a shame you ruined your detailed answer by starting your post with a condescending remark


The poster asked a very reasonable question and mentioned their age to provide more perspective on it, that doesn’t make him ‘naive’ just a 14 year old


Furthermore, he’s the future, you should encourage his curiosity not belittle it with ‘grandiosity’

Max Q wrote:

SAAFNAV wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Now, I guess I could go on and on about different shady airlines and I'm sure you guys also know some too. But, my question is, why are these airlines even allowed to operate? I get that the aviation regulators in 3rd world countries may be different and likely more lax in terms of security, but still, there are human souls on board these planes!! There for sure has to be some degree of scrutiny for airlines. And most of these places I mentioned do not have a hefty host of restrictions placed on them by the rest of the world (like, say Iran, who also has some shady airlines). And, no, they don't have to be allowed to fly into the West to still follow the gosh darn rules and be somewhat safe.

So, basically my question is, "Why is aviation more lax in the third world and it allows the spring up of shady airlines who don't follow the rules?"

(btw, I'm 14 so sorry if it sounds like a dumb question, but it's always been a concern/question of mine.)

Oh to be 14 and naive again

The short answer is - humans are greedy and profit trumps life

The long answer is more complicated. A lot has to do (especially in Africa), with the influences of colonialism. They had systems in place while the colonial powers were there, but since they did not place a high value into training locals to do the job, there was a vacuum when they left. Systems and processes had to be put in place again, but aviation safety in a lot of places is very far behind in the queue when it comes to budget.
If you've been to some of these places, you would understand the desperateness of the local population to fly, because there is no other method available to them to get to a job, family or doctors.
The aircraft might not be airworthy, but they might not know it, or the possible risk of an accident is less than the risk of dying from hunger.

Couple that with extreme poverty, where every $1 bribe makes a big difference to the amount of food on your table, the general uselessness of the states and governments in question, it becomes a very complex issue to resolve.

Of course it is also not just the government's fault (although better oversight would of course aid in this) - but go anywhere in Africa, and you would find (predominantly) Russian crews willing to do anything for a buck. The planes would immediately be grounded in any place with an airworthiness inspector, but hey, if it starts, it flies.

It’s a shame you ruined your detailed answer by starting your post with a condescending remark ’

I am sorry that it was condescending to you, and possibly the poster too.
I really did not mean it that way, in fact I could see a bit of own previous naiveté in a comment like.

N1120A wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Some might argue that Tower Air was a shady airline in a first world country. They operated their hub out of an abandoned Pan Am hangar. One person said it was a miracle they never had a crash.

That Tower never had a crash is a testament to the training and regulatory environment in the US.

And, I would argue, a large supply of available, experienced, and highly qualified pilots coming out of the collapse of Pan Am and Eastern.

PresRDC wrote:

N1120A wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Some might argue that Tower Air was a shady airline in a first world country. They operated their hub out of an abandoned Pan Am hangar. One person said it was a miracle they never had a crash.

That Tower never had a crash is a testament to the training and regulatory environment in the US.

And, I would argue, a large supply of available, experienced, and highly qualified pilots coming out of the collapse of Pan Am and Eastern.

Maintenance folks, too, surely? I've read stories of Tower Air maintenance people who came in from Pan Am, and knew some of those birds from their cradle. And could cobble up fixes on shoestring budgets, keeping those "planes with character" airborne, and airworthy.

SAAFNAV wrote:

Max Q wrote:

SAAFNAV wrote:

Oh to be 14 and naive again

The short answer is - humans are greedy and profit trumps life

The long answer is more complicated. A lot has to do (especially in Africa), with the influences of colonialism. They had systems in place while the colonial powers were there, but since they did not place a high value into training locals to do the job, there was a vacuum when they left. Systems and processes had to be put in place again, but aviation safety in a lot of places is very far behind in the queue when it comes to budget.
If you've been to some of these places, you would understand the desperateness of the local population to fly, because there is no other method available to them to get to a job, family or doctors.
The aircraft might not be airworthy, but they might not know it, or the possible risk of an accident is less than the risk of dying from hunger.

Couple that with extreme poverty, where every $1 bribe makes a big difference to the amount of food on your table, the general uselessness of the states and governments in question, it becomes a very complex issue to resolve.

Of course it is also not just the government's fault (although better oversight would of course aid in this) - but go anywhere in Africa, and you would find (predominantly) Russian crews willing to do anything for a buck. The planes would immediately be grounded in any place with an airworthiness inspector, but hey, if it starts, it flies.

It’s a shame you ruined your detailed answer by starting your post with a condescending remark ’

I am sorry that it was condescending to you, and possibly the poster too.
I really did not mean it that way, in fact I could see a bit of own previous naiveté in a comment like.

No problem at all, SAAFNAV. We all make mistakes, and that's ok. I just looked past the first sentence and saw the good in your answer. Thank you for the detailed response for my question.

Phosphorus wrote:

PresRDC wrote:

N1120A wrote:

That Tower never had a crash is a testament to the training and regulatory environment in the US.

And, I would argue, a large supply of available, experienced, and highly qualified pilots coming out of the collapse of Pan Am and Eastern.

Maintenance folks, too, surely? I've read stories of Tower Air maintenance people who came in from Pan Am, and knew some of those birds from their cradle. And could cobble up fixes on shoestring budgets, keeping those "planes with character" airborne, and airworthy.

Totally. They had a pool of experienced A&P talent looking for work right in their backyard.

blacksoviet wrote:

Some might argue that Tower Air was a shady airline in a first world country. They operated their hub out of an abandoned Pan Am hangar. One person said it was a miracle they never had a crash.

Reminds me of an experience my wife and I had on an ATH/JFK trip on Tower. It was our first trip to Greece together, so we’re looking at 1996.

We’re sitting behind the wing on the left side of the aircraft, about 5 rows forward of the smoking ‘section’. I noticed that the most inboard flight spoiler is starting to float. Not much at first, but progressively got worse. I could see that some trim had been dialed into the aileron. The spoiler deflection stabilized somewhere around…I don’t know 10 or 15 degrees, maybe more, maybe less…can you really tell?. Quite noticeable, though.

Just as we were crossing the North American coastline, the flight engineer comes walking back, glad-handing the passengers…”how’s the flight?”, “how was your trip?”, “thanks for flying with us.”, etc. And, every couple of rows, he takes a look out the window. He gets to us, and before he can say a thing, I ask him if we’re going to have to make a fuel stop. He pauses a second then says “only if it gets worse…then we spend the night at Logan”.

I guess he just wanted to get eyes on it.

We made it to JFK. I wonder how much fuel we had left?

Note: I worked for Pan Am at JFK from 86-88 and was intimately familiar with Tower Air’s aircraft.

SAAFNAV wrote:

Max Q wrote:

SAAFNAV wrote:

Oh to be 14 and naive again

The short answer is - humans are greedy and profit trumps life

The long answer is more complicated. A lot has to do (especially in Africa), with the influences of colonialism. They had systems in place while the colonial powers were there, but since they did not place a high value into training locals to do the job, there was a vacuum when they left. Systems and processes had to be put in place again, but aviation safety in a lot of places is very far behind in the queue when it comes to budget.
If you've been to some of these places, you would understand the desperateness of the local population to fly, because there is no other method available to them to get to a job, family or doctors.
The aircraft might not be airworthy, but they might not know it, or the possible risk of an accident is less than the risk of dying from hunger.

Couple that with extreme poverty, where every $1 bribe makes a big difference to the amount of food on your table, the general uselessness of the states and governments in question, it becomes a very complex issue to resolve.

Of course it is also not just the government's fault (although better oversight would of course aid in this) - but go anywhere in Africa, and you would find (predominantly) Russian crews willing to do anything for a buck. The planes would immediately be grounded in any place with an airworthiness inspector, but hey, if it starts, it flies.

It’s a shame you ruined your detailed answer by starting your post with a condescending remark ’

I am sorry that it was condescending to you, and possibly the poster too.
I really did not mean it that way, in fact I could see a bit of own previous naiveté in a comment like.

Well, I am sorry to you for misinterpreting and overreacting to your remarks, thank you for the clarification and best wishes