Manx2 is from January going to be called "Citywing" due to management buyout but Noel Hayes will remain as Chairman. I always thought buyouts meant you got rid of the old owners but apparently not in this case.
Funny how they still use the flight numbers of FLM (NM) even after their departure from M2. Now its flown by Van Air and Links Air according to the website. Who will be the extra 2013 AOCs? Van Air are starting up again in Shoreham under with another virtual airline Brighton City Wings doing a Ryanair style to Paris Pointoise i.e. only 22 miles away.
I wonder how the increase in APD for all aircraft over 5700kgs is going to effect pax numbers as it goes from £0 to £13 in April so their fare advantage goes. Altough the IOM Gov will not impose new APD in IOM.
Anyone got a spare Caravan II for BLK-IOM operations?
This smells a bit, too. The lawyers won't sue a company with no money, but Honeywell and co are fair game. A question to those of you who have flown this aircraft. If there was a fault, as they are suggesting, wouldn't the crew have noticed this on the first two attempts and compensated accordingly?
They have to issue a statement on the status of the investigation every year until the final one is issued.
On that note if any of the affected familys are reading my thoughts will be with you on the day. An update report coming out just before will be like a knife twisting in the wound.
And the pilots familys please don't let the technical side of the pilots actions hang to heavily. Most experenced crews know that they were given way way to much rope to hang themselves with. So technically they will be held at fault but most of us know that they are victims of the operation and managment that employed them.
He was referring to an interim report by the Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) which was published last February and identified a problem with the sensor on the right-side engine of the plane. The report found that there was a flaw with the fuel transmission to this right-hand side engine which could have been giving more power than the left-hand side engine. This means there was a potential for the plane to be unbalanced as it landed.
The crew made three attempts at landing. I am no expert but I would have thought that they would have detected this imbalance on the first attempt and compensated accordingly. This suit IMHO is a blatant attempt at screwing money out of companies who can appear to afford it. Like you, AK, I hope it comes to nought.
It's actually the second interim statement and the third publication. It is, as you say a summary and it consists of three pages which basically state that the investigation is ongoing and has required further research into the organisations involved together with difficult and time-consuming translations of technical data from Spanish to English.
Does anyone have any predictions on when, or whether we are ever likely to see a final report on the Meroliner crash at Cork Airport? I know a report was published last month, but after more than 2 years it revealed little more than the initial report. The many regulatory authorities involved must be very relieved that a legal case has been initiated which has taken the focus off their lamentable failures in the oversight of the ad-hoc company involved. I wonder if EASA (and one of its regional offices, the CAA), for all its edicts, regulations, and unfathomable, mind-numbing literature will re-appear in the lawyers' sights once the "difficult process of translation of documents" is complete. I am only bringing this up as I believe this case brings up so many issues. Such as the exploitation of pilots desperate to pursue aviation as a career. The well and truly elastic requirements for adequate, and well trained maintenance staff to be available, and by that I mean the engineer not having to take a boat, plane, fast train, or space shuttle to sign off the tech log at the end of the flying day. And, generally, the whole illusion that there is a functioning airline when it is just a collection of different elements which exploits the regulating authorities' own regulations without censure. As has been proved many times before, the lawyers will get to the truth in the end, even if there are a few diversions along the way, so delaying the report will only cause more pain for everyone involved.
Last edited by kapton; 5th Mar 2013 at 08:55.
I mean the engineer not having to take a boat, plane, fast train, or space shuttle to sign off the tech log at the end of the flying day
Why would you need an engineer to sign off the techlog at the end of the day?.
On these type of aircraft its normal for the Captain to sign it in and the aircraft to get a 10 day check by the Engineer. For a while I was authed to do the 10 day checks and carried a calibrated pressure gauge for the tyres.
By whats been reported so far there wasn't anything unusual about the aircraft from a tech point of view.
I suspect the report will be out before the summer or in September.
I never said there were any technical issues. I said the crash will reveal other issues. The actual incident has been discussed by well-informed, professional people on this forum. Yes, the prime cause wil probably be the operation and handling of the aircraft, but there is also an underlying philosophy, and culture in organisations which find themselves involved in incidents such as happened at Cork. I am sure you have a deft, feline touch with a tyre pressure gauge, and use your krytonite vision to detect defective strobe lights. I am awed by your devotion to completing the tech log at the end of the day before resting your head on it for the night. Now go and look in the mirror and listen to your reflection tell you how good you are. Now, back to Cork. I just hope the report, while dealing with the objective causes of this crash, gives the regulatory authorities something to think about before allowing organisations such as involved in this accident to operate.
Does anyone have any predictions on when, or whether we are ever likely to see a final report on the Meroliner crash at Cork Airport?
The regulation that covers accident investigation says 'The safety investigation authority shall make public the final report in the shortest possible time and if possible within 12 months of the date of the accident. If the final report cannot be made public within 12 months, the safety investigation authority shall release an interim statement at least at each anniversary of the accident, detailing the progress of the investigation and any safety issues raised'.
Things seem to be progressing according to the rules so it is reasonable to expect that a final report will be published when the investigation is complete. When that will be is down to the people doing the investigation.
The reason that it is taking so long may well be because, as you say '...I believe this case brings up so many issues'. Although you may be right that lawyers will get to the truth in the end, it is unfortunate that in the courts the truth is so often twisted to suit the needs of the lawyers' case at the time - this is not a criticism, that's what they are paid for. What we will hopefully get from the AAIU, and all of the indications so far are that this is where they are headed, is an analysis of the accident based on fact with the intention of preventing future aviation accidents and serious incidents rather than apportioning blame or liability.
What will be interesting when the report is published is how EASA and the rule framework that it has developed will be handled. It is arguable that comprehensive and effective oversight of virtual airlines and their operations has become far more difficult as a result of the Europe-wide regulations 'sponsored' by EASA and the principle of mutual recognition that is embedded within the rules. And, of course, EASA is an appointed observer to the investigation.
You have obviously never seen a 10 day checklist for a directshaft TP aircraft.
Or have a clue what the line engineers check and what they need a part 145 hanger for.
Or for that matter know what the training is for getting the QA approval for doing such a check. I suspect I also used to pick up more faults than the Engineers did but thats also because I used to fly the sod for 6 sectors a day.
That fact I was also a Pro Engineer and a plant fitter in a previous life might also have something to do with it. There are pilots who its best not to allow near an aircraft with anything sharper than a biro and can't change the spark plugs on a car, a bit like avionics engineers.
Unfortunatley any pilot flying these old heaps of turboprops will require a screwdriver everyday for oil level inspection, oil filter bypass button inspection hydralic level inspection. Even if they don't actually look at whats inside the panels they still need to open the panels for the "security" check.
Well, you have a lot more faith than I, bearing in mind that I do live here (Spain) and know something about false trails, lost evidence, hidden papers, and the rest. Still, as we say here 'Vamos a ver'.