Originally Posted by
runway30
The interesting part for me is the last but one paragraph.
'The investigation is examining, inter alia, the operational aspects of the flight including operational control and regulatory oversight. This will include the examination of the relationships between the AOC holder, the undertaking selling the service (Ticket Seller) and the undertaking which supplied the aircraft and Flight Crew.'
Much along the lines of what we discussed here previously. However, I hadn't previously appreciated that the AOC holder was a different Spanish company to the actual operator.
Paragraph 1 is also notable :
"The Ticket Seller held a Tour Operator’s Licence issued by the
Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation."
Doesn't seem the pax were on any form of Tour, in the correct sense of that licence. But if so, it brings the operation under the EC Package Travel Directive 1993, which includes :
"A direct responsibility placed on tour operators for the safety of their customers. Tour operators are legally responsible for the components of the package - coach transfers, hotels etc, if negligence is proved. They cannot avoid responsibility by attributing it to their sub-contractors. UK customers can sue operators in UK courts and no longer have to pursue action against contractors in overseas courts.
Best link I can find on this :
Legal Requirements - Federation of Tour Operators - FTO
Which as those following this story will be aware is not the approach taken by the ticket seller, or their lawyers.
I don't normally write about the operational side, but this struck me in section 3 :
"Commencement of a third approach is
not prohibited by regulation. The Investigation has not yet confirmed if the operator’s Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) address this issue."
I wonder how the investigation has still not managed to get this document out of the aircraft operator. What can be hard about "Give me your current SOP manual", "Here it is".