B1900 missing in the congo?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Behind 1480mm RHA equivalent
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, I found V1's posts quite relevant, especially since somebody calling themselves 'Cemair' is posting on this thread. Whether that person is actually somebody from Cemair, is of course open to debate. This is an anonymous forum after all. Hopefully, the realisation that one cannot just throw any old equipment into any aircraft and call it 'IFR certified' (for example) is slowly penetrating operators' skulls.
As for respectful, we should all be expecting good answers to questions like these if the deaths of these people (and the many before them in similar circumstances) means anything at all to us. I would expect no less were it myself who had died. I find nothing disrespectful about V1's posts. IMHO.
As for respectful, we should all be expecting good answers to questions like these if the deaths of these people (and the many before them in similar circumstances) means anything at all to us. I would expect no less were it myself who had died. I find nothing disrespectful about V1's posts. IMHO.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Jhb
Age: 44
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shrike200
I have absolutely no problem with questions being asked and yes, some of them are relevant and yes, we can all learn from this - that I am certainly not disputing.
However, I do have a problem with the tact and sensitivity with which the questions are asked and the posts are written.
The response "We appeal to you for facts" at the end of the post, where CemAir had ended their post with "We appeal to you for respect" I found completely inappropriate and tactless. The tone of the posts, as I read them, were accusational (if that's a word) and indicting, which under the circumstances I feel is not called for.
All I'm saying is that there are many of us who have been affected by this accident and many who are heartbroken and trying to deal with their grief. A little bit of consideration for these people in this difficult time, I don't think is too much to ask.
However, I do have a problem with the tact and sensitivity with which the questions are asked and the posts are written.
The response "We appeal to you for facts" at the end of the post, where CemAir had ended their post with "We appeal to you for respect" I found completely inappropriate and tactless. The tone of the posts, as I read them, were accusational (if that's a word) and indicting, which under the circumstances I feel is not called for.
All I'm saying is that there are many of us who have been affected by this accident and many who are heartbroken and trying to deal with their grief. A little bit of consideration for these people in this difficult time, I don't think is too much to ask.
Life’s-A-Beech:
Every time a discussion appears here on PPrune about a fatal accident in sub-Saharan Africa, two different themes soon appear in the conversation. The first is “Let our crewmembers Rest In Peace, let’s not pursue this discussion further, other than of course posting our obsequies to the crewmembers we knew”. The other theme is “What factors contributed to this accident, and what can we learn from it to avoid future repetitions”. That is what I am pursuing. I did not know the crew, for that reason I can’t offer obsequies without being superficial and gratuitous.
Sub-Saharan Africa in general, and the DRC in particular, has an extraordinarily high rate of public transport aviation accidents. Possible contributory factors in the DRC include the nature of the terrain (mountainous), the nature of the weather (convective), few navigational aids, minimal aviation support infrastructure (ATC, ATS), and weak regulatory oversight.
If we take a critical and comparative look at those items individually, though, it becomes apparent to those of us who are aviation professionals that many of them are not, a priori, insurmountable barriers to safe operations. Europe and North America also have mountainous terrain, but that doesn’t cause an increase in CFIT accidents. Have a look at the approach plates for Juneau, AK or Innsbruck, Austria – the terrain you will see there is far more threatening that what lies around Bukavu. Angola and Mozambique have similar strong convective activity (and similar limited weather observation capability), but weather related accidents in those two countries are not substantially out of line with world accident rates for that same causal factor. Alaska and Northern Canada have few ground based navigational aids, many short, rough, or unimproved strips, and minimal aviation support infrastructure relative to the size of the territory, but despite this, the public is assured of a reasonable level of safety in public commercial operations in those areas.
This leaves lack of regulatory oversight as the remaining and most significant contributing factor. It’s obvious that countries that are in the midst of – or have just emerged from – a civil war are going to have a weak civil aviation regulatory authority. We can’t blame the people or the government of the DRC or South Sudan for not being able to provide ICAO standard oversight of civil aviation activities. Heck, in both cases, the governments are overwhelmed with other far more pressing concerns, such as keeping the peace, or providing the basic necessities of life to the population, or trying to rebuild infrastructure and gain some control over the country.
This is where this particular accident – as well as the AirServ accidents of 21 January 2008 and 30 August 2007 – get interesting.
None of those accidents involved locally (DRC) registered aircraft. None of those accidents involved local operators, in other words, none of the operators held a DRC operation certificate. These were all pure expatriate operations, using American or South African registered aircraft crewed by Americans or South Africans, under the operational control of American or South African companies.
Neither America or South Africa are lesser developed countries. Both of these countries have ‘first world’ standard regulatory authorities. Although one could make a weak argument that the DRC AAC (the formal name for the aviation regulatory authority of the DRC) should have provided regulatory oversight, where the heck was the South African CAA? Where was the American FAA? The South African CAA certainly must have known that Cem Air was flying that 1900C on scheduled public commercial services, and the American FAA certainly must have known that AirServ was selling the tickets and holding that aircraft out for charter. What MORAL, if not legal, obligation did these two agencies have to step in and exercise some operational control over the business activities of their citizens in the DRC?
Had AirServ been operating the same type of service in the United States, they would have been obliged to hold a Part 135 OC, and they would have been obliged to comply with all the applicable 135 rules as well as additional operations specifications that the FAA would have imposed in light of unique hazards presented by the region of operation. At the least, this would have meant dual Gamma 1 GPSRs, Class A TAWS, regular simulator training for the crews, flight and duty time limits, operator specific MELs, appropriate dispatch procedures including in-flight operational control, and flight and duty time limits. Had Cem Air been operating the same type of service in South Africa, the South African CAA would have imposed very similar requirements – presuming, of course, that the South African CAA was even willing to take the first step of granting Cem Air an operating certificate that allows them to offer public commercial service.
Why is it that operators from highly developed countries (the USA and SA) can set up operations in lesser developed countries and operate with absolute impunity from the rules that they would have to follow in their home countries? I’m not talking about short-term disaster relief here, such as a rapid response to a tsunami, earthquake, or a sudden political event – according to their own website, AirServ has been active in the DRC since 1999. That’s more than long enough to get their house in order. I don’t know how long Cem Air has been around, but it is my understanding that the principals behind Cem Air are not novices, they have been active in civil aviation in South Africa long enough to know the rules – and in several cases, have had the rules formally drawn to their attention by the South African judicial system.
The provision of air transport in any country – first world or third world – is a competitive business that rewards the operator who can offer the transportation service at the lowest cost. The only reason that the traveling public (and the pilots, for that matter) enjoy any level of safety anywhere in the world is because regulatory authorities step in and impose minimum compliance requirements. There is not a single public commercial carrier in the world who would voluntarily fit TCAS, ACAS, contemporary GPWS, CVRs, FDRs, provide crew training, provide adequate operational control, impose duty and rest requirements, operate a quality assurance system and so forth unless they were obliged to by a regulatory authority to whom they were accountable.
I’ve been involved in humanitarian aviation in sub-Saharan Africa for 20 years. I’ve been there, I’ve done it, and I’ve bought the T-shirt. I’ve had one engine blown clean off the wing of my multi-engine turbine by hostile fire, and the only reason I’m still alive today is because the operator I was working for fully complied with all the first-world rules they were subject to. They sent the engines out to factory approved overhaul facilities when they were due, which is why my remaining engine was able to take me home, rather than take me to the scene of the crash. They sent me and my co-pilot out to the best available simulator training every year, which is why he and I had some knowledge of what to do and how to do it when we lost the engine. I’m grateful that I was lucky enough to work for a company that was supervised by a competent, professional, no-nonsense regulatory authority, even though that regulatory authority was from an entirely different continent. That company (and others of equal quality) are still around today, but do you think they can compete on price with organizations that get little or no regulatory supervision? They don't even waste their time bidding.
I’m saddened and disgusted to see the same scenario repeated again and again: Operators from fully developed countries head abroad, set up shop, then willingly and knowingly fail to comply with the rules that would apply to them if they were back in their home country, thus enabling them to offer their services at the lowest price. It’s nonsense, it’s wrong, it’s immoral, and it’s not doing anyone any good, other than lining the pockets of the aircraft owners and lessors.
Look at the history of humanitarian aviation in sub-Saharan Africa over the past couple of decades. We’ve seen Rossair come in during the 1990s and undercut everyone else on price, thus establishing a dominant position in the ACMI business. They certainly didn’t comply with the rules that would have been applicable to them if they were conducting similar operations in South Africa, and before they went down, their maintenance practices fell far short of what the law in SA dictates. Aviation Assistance was in there around the same time, operating out of Europe instead of SA, but with the same non-compliance to the operational and maintenance rules that applied in their country of registration. Both Rossair and Aviation Assistance have since folded, but the same players keep popping up over and over again – according to Cem Air’s website, their maintenance manager is none other than the maintenance manager of Rossair at the time Rossair folded.
By comparison, take a look at public commercial aviation in Asia. 30 or 40 years ago, many Asian countries were in the same place as their counterparts in Africa – newly independent, or just coming out of a civil war, or otherwise starting from scratch so far as aviation safety and regulatory oversight is concerned. Since then, local (domestic) carriers have emerged, and thanks to assistance put in place by ICAO, IATA, and others, both the carriers and the local regulatory agencies have developed their operational skills and established a level of safety that, while perhaps not perfect, is at least showing steady improvement from year to year. Would they have been able to accomplish this if foreign operators were in their country eating their lunch and operating with impunity from the law? Not damn likely.
I’m not suggesting here that expatriate aviation operations are inherently wrong. What I am saying is that it is absolutely wrong that an operator from a country that knows how to do things right and has legislation in place mandating that things should be done right – whether that is South Africa, the United States, Denmark, or elsewhere – should be able to operate in a lesser-developed country without being obliged to follow the same rules that would apply to them at home. That is the point that needs to be pressed home, and until the regulatory authorities do this, this same sad and familiar scenario of ‘yet another foreign registered aircraft crashes in a lesser developed country’ is going to continue to be repeated over and over again.
If foreign operators were obliged by their regulatory authority to follow the same standards abroad that apply to them at home, and the regulatory agencies of the state of registration kept a close eye on what their operators do abroad, the foreign operators would (at first) offer the traveling public a clear operational and safety advantage compared to domestic operators in lesser developed countries. But, at least the contract price structure would enable the domestic operators to start up and attempt to grab their share of the pie by offering the same level of safety as their first world competitors. That would benefit our industry, and would benefit the traveling public (and the crews).
Every time a discussion appears here on PPrune about a fatal accident in sub-Saharan Africa, two different themes soon appear in the conversation. The first is “Let our crewmembers Rest In Peace, let’s not pursue this discussion further, other than of course posting our obsequies to the crewmembers we knew”. The other theme is “What factors contributed to this accident, and what can we learn from it to avoid future repetitions”. That is what I am pursuing. I did not know the crew, for that reason I can’t offer obsequies without being superficial and gratuitous.
Sub-Saharan Africa in general, and the DRC in particular, has an extraordinarily high rate of public transport aviation accidents. Possible contributory factors in the DRC include the nature of the terrain (mountainous), the nature of the weather (convective), few navigational aids, minimal aviation support infrastructure (ATC, ATS), and weak regulatory oversight.
If we take a critical and comparative look at those items individually, though, it becomes apparent to those of us who are aviation professionals that many of them are not, a priori, insurmountable barriers to safe operations. Europe and North America also have mountainous terrain, but that doesn’t cause an increase in CFIT accidents. Have a look at the approach plates for Juneau, AK or Innsbruck, Austria – the terrain you will see there is far more threatening that what lies around Bukavu. Angola and Mozambique have similar strong convective activity (and similar limited weather observation capability), but weather related accidents in those two countries are not substantially out of line with world accident rates for that same causal factor. Alaska and Northern Canada have few ground based navigational aids, many short, rough, or unimproved strips, and minimal aviation support infrastructure relative to the size of the territory, but despite this, the public is assured of a reasonable level of safety in public commercial operations in those areas.
This leaves lack of regulatory oversight as the remaining and most significant contributing factor. It’s obvious that countries that are in the midst of – or have just emerged from – a civil war are going to have a weak civil aviation regulatory authority. We can’t blame the people or the government of the DRC or South Sudan for not being able to provide ICAO standard oversight of civil aviation activities. Heck, in both cases, the governments are overwhelmed with other far more pressing concerns, such as keeping the peace, or providing the basic necessities of life to the population, or trying to rebuild infrastructure and gain some control over the country.
This is where this particular accident – as well as the AirServ accidents of 21 January 2008 and 30 August 2007 – get interesting.
None of those accidents involved locally (DRC) registered aircraft. None of those accidents involved local operators, in other words, none of the operators held a DRC operation certificate. These were all pure expatriate operations, using American or South African registered aircraft crewed by Americans or South Africans, under the operational control of American or South African companies.
Neither America or South Africa are lesser developed countries. Both of these countries have ‘first world’ standard regulatory authorities. Although one could make a weak argument that the DRC AAC (the formal name for the aviation regulatory authority of the DRC) should have provided regulatory oversight, where the heck was the South African CAA? Where was the American FAA? The South African CAA certainly must have known that Cem Air was flying that 1900C on scheduled public commercial services, and the American FAA certainly must have known that AirServ was selling the tickets and holding that aircraft out for charter. What MORAL, if not legal, obligation did these two agencies have to step in and exercise some operational control over the business activities of their citizens in the DRC?
Had AirServ been operating the same type of service in the United States, they would have been obliged to hold a Part 135 OC, and they would have been obliged to comply with all the applicable 135 rules as well as additional operations specifications that the FAA would have imposed in light of unique hazards presented by the region of operation. At the least, this would have meant dual Gamma 1 GPSRs, Class A TAWS, regular simulator training for the crews, flight and duty time limits, operator specific MELs, appropriate dispatch procedures including in-flight operational control, and flight and duty time limits. Had Cem Air been operating the same type of service in South Africa, the South African CAA would have imposed very similar requirements – presuming, of course, that the South African CAA was even willing to take the first step of granting Cem Air an operating certificate that allows them to offer public commercial service.
Why is it that operators from highly developed countries (the USA and SA) can set up operations in lesser developed countries and operate with absolute impunity from the rules that they would have to follow in their home countries? I’m not talking about short-term disaster relief here, such as a rapid response to a tsunami, earthquake, or a sudden political event – according to their own website, AirServ has been active in the DRC since 1999. That’s more than long enough to get their house in order. I don’t know how long Cem Air has been around, but it is my understanding that the principals behind Cem Air are not novices, they have been active in civil aviation in South Africa long enough to know the rules – and in several cases, have had the rules formally drawn to their attention by the South African judicial system.
The provision of air transport in any country – first world or third world – is a competitive business that rewards the operator who can offer the transportation service at the lowest cost. The only reason that the traveling public (and the pilots, for that matter) enjoy any level of safety anywhere in the world is because regulatory authorities step in and impose minimum compliance requirements. There is not a single public commercial carrier in the world who would voluntarily fit TCAS, ACAS, contemporary GPWS, CVRs, FDRs, provide crew training, provide adequate operational control, impose duty and rest requirements, operate a quality assurance system and so forth unless they were obliged to by a regulatory authority to whom they were accountable.
I’ve been involved in humanitarian aviation in sub-Saharan Africa for 20 years. I’ve been there, I’ve done it, and I’ve bought the T-shirt. I’ve had one engine blown clean off the wing of my multi-engine turbine by hostile fire, and the only reason I’m still alive today is because the operator I was working for fully complied with all the first-world rules they were subject to. They sent the engines out to factory approved overhaul facilities when they were due, which is why my remaining engine was able to take me home, rather than take me to the scene of the crash. They sent me and my co-pilot out to the best available simulator training every year, which is why he and I had some knowledge of what to do and how to do it when we lost the engine. I’m grateful that I was lucky enough to work for a company that was supervised by a competent, professional, no-nonsense regulatory authority, even though that regulatory authority was from an entirely different continent. That company (and others of equal quality) are still around today, but do you think they can compete on price with organizations that get little or no regulatory supervision? They don't even waste their time bidding.
I’m saddened and disgusted to see the same scenario repeated again and again: Operators from fully developed countries head abroad, set up shop, then willingly and knowingly fail to comply with the rules that would apply to them if they were back in their home country, thus enabling them to offer their services at the lowest price. It’s nonsense, it’s wrong, it’s immoral, and it’s not doing anyone any good, other than lining the pockets of the aircraft owners and lessors.
Look at the history of humanitarian aviation in sub-Saharan Africa over the past couple of decades. We’ve seen Rossair come in during the 1990s and undercut everyone else on price, thus establishing a dominant position in the ACMI business. They certainly didn’t comply with the rules that would have been applicable to them if they were conducting similar operations in South Africa, and before they went down, their maintenance practices fell far short of what the law in SA dictates. Aviation Assistance was in there around the same time, operating out of Europe instead of SA, but with the same non-compliance to the operational and maintenance rules that applied in their country of registration. Both Rossair and Aviation Assistance have since folded, but the same players keep popping up over and over again – according to Cem Air’s website, their maintenance manager is none other than the maintenance manager of Rossair at the time Rossair folded.
By comparison, take a look at public commercial aviation in Asia. 30 or 40 years ago, many Asian countries were in the same place as their counterparts in Africa – newly independent, or just coming out of a civil war, or otherwise starting from scratch so far as aviation safety and regulatory oversight is concerned. Since then, local (domestic) carriers have emerged, and thanks to assistance put in place by ICAO, IATA, and others, both the carriers and the local regulatory agencies have developed their operational skills and established a level of safety that, while perhaps not perfect, is at least showing steady improvement from year to year. Would they have been able to accomplish this if foreign operators were in their country eating their lunch and operating with impunity from the law? Not damn likely.
I’m not suggesting here that expatriate aviation operations are inherently wrong. What I am saying is that it is absolutely wrong that an operator from a country that knows how to do things right and has legislation in place mandating that things should be done right – whether that is South Africa, the United States, Denmark, or elsewhere – should be able to operate in a lesser-developed country without being obliged to follow the same rules that would apply to them at home. That is the point that needs to be pressed home, and until the regulatory authorities do this, this same sad and familiar scenario of ‘yet another foreign registered aircraft crashes in a lesser developed country’ is going to continue to be repeated over and over again.
If foreign operators were obliged by their regulatory authority to follow the same standards abroad that apply to them at home, and the regulatory agencies of the state of registration kept a close eye on what their operators do abroad, the foreign operators would (at first) offer the traveling public a clear operational and safety advantage compared to domestic operators in lesser developed countries. But, at least the contract price structure would enable the domestic operators to start up and attempt to grab their share of the pie by offering the same level of safety as their first world competitors. That would benefit our industry, and would benefit the traveling public (and the crews).
Last edited by V1... Ooops; 6th Sep 2008 at 22:56.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post V1.
I think the reasons why some operators from First World countries are behaving like Thrid World operators is because the directors of those companies or owners of the planes are making huge First World money while providing a Third World service, which in basic terms equates to a far bigger profit margin.
They are not there because they are humanitarians.
Secondly, one has also to factor in the Russian/Ukranian factor into the accident numbers, we have all seen how they operate, to their own set of standards, to their own alcohol blood level, to their own maintenance standards and 'hammer and hack-saw' Service Bullitins.
Not to take away from your post, I agree in principle with what you say, but in reality I think it is very complicated.
I think the reasons why some operators from First World countries are behaving like Thrid World operators is because the directors of those companies or owners of the planes are making huge First World money while providing a Third World service, which in basic terms equates to a far bigger profit margin.
They are not there because they are humanitarians.
Secondly, one has also to factor in the Russian/Ukranian factor into the accident numbers, we have all seen how they operate, to their own set of standards, to their own alcohol blood level, to their own maintenance standards and 'hammer and hack-saw' Service Bullitins.
Not to take away from your post, I agree in principle with what you say, but in reality I think it is very complicated.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: RDC
Age: 67
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
south coast
Very interesting idea.....
Explain please that such "own alcohol blood level" in the Russian/Ukranian body.
And what is the causality between the cause of the accident of B1900 and this level of the alcohol in the blood of Russian pilots?
Otherwise I have to say, that you can not drink and you can not fly.
Very interesting idea.....
Explain please that such "own alcohol blood level" in the Russian/Ukranian body.
And what is the causality between the cause of the accident of B1900 and this level of the alcohol in the blood of Russian pilots?
Otherwise I have to say, that you can not drink and you can not fly.
Great post v1, as always it boils down to money. The lowest bid or the highest bribe usually wins in africa. Safety a very secondary consideration seems to be theme in Africa. Witness the number of russian aircraft crashes, rock bottom prices and many accidents.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we're all here for a profit.
Some well made points but I'm still not sure that they wouldn't have been more appropriate on a thread of their own or at least based on an accident where more facts were known.
Answer me this though: Let's take TCAS11 as an example although no relevance to the recent tragedy. Excellent system but less valuable in most of Africa than 1st world environments due to the fact that not all aircraft are transponder equipped. So, if a 1st world operator sends out an aircraft equipped with TCAS11 and crew trained to use it and then the same aircraft crashes into an a non transponder equipped local aircraft, are you going to blame the 1st world operator?
Are there not political and environmental pressures at work here that are outside of the scope of the operators or pilots? I'm not trying to let dodgy operators off the hook, merely trying to be practical.
Should we do sim training that includes semi literate controllers babbling in any language other than English with QNH's that are wrong and faulty nav aids maybe?
Accident investigators trained to deal with hostile areas, and looted crash sites?
Realistically it'll take a lot more than IATA, the UN and a bunch of well meaning NGOs to change Africa.
As pilots we can only really refuse to fly overweight, unequipped and under trained etc.. and on that note...we should do that little we can.
My 2 cents on the matter.
Some well made points but I'm still not sure that they wouldn't have been more appropriate on a thread of their own or at least based on an accident where more facts were known.
Answer me this though: Let's take TCAS11 as an example although no relevance to the recent tragedy. Excellent system but less valuable in most of Africa than 1st world environments due to the fact that not all aircraft are transponder equipped. So, if a 1st world operator sends out an aircraft equipped with TCAS11 and crew trained to use it and then the same aircraft crashes into an a non transponder equipped local aircraft, are you going to blame the 1st world operator?
Are there not political and environmental pressures at work here that are outside of the scope of the operators or pilots? I'm not trying to let dodgy operators off the hook, merely trying to be practical.
Should we do sim training that includes semi literate controllers babbling in any language other than English with QNH's that are wrong and faulty nav aids maybe?
Accident investigators trained to deal with hostile areas, and looted crash sites?
Realistically it'll take a lot more than IATA, the UN and a bunch of well meaning NGOs to change Africa.
As pilots we can only really refuse to fly overweight, unequipped and under trained etc.. and on that note...we should do that little we can.
My 2 cents on the matter.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The wrong side of town.
Posts: 193
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V1
You make some valid points but one or two things I feel you are out of line on.
You mention that Rossair, as a South African, company went out of bussiness as a result of poor maintenance standards and subsequently a senior ex Rossair engineer is now the senior engineer at Cemair.
Firstly after looking at your profile one can assume that you work/fly for Zimex, of Geneva and so, would have a vested interest in the elimination of SA operators from your company's sphere of influence and as such subsequently be biased in your opinion of SA operators.
Just so that you know, Rossair was able to undercut your company's and others rates mainly as a result of currency disparities prevalent at the time thereby winning tenders over company's who worked from stronger currency bases.
Rossair went out of business as a result of poor fiscal management not , as you suggest, poor aircraft maintenance standards. As I recall Rossair had greater than 99 percent dispatch reliability for their clients in Algeria (which were also your clients) and passed the infield client maintenance audits.
Admittedly, Zimex probably has the highest DHC 6 maintenance standards in the world, Swiss precision, and all that, but that does not mean that SA operators are by default, all poorly maintained.
Your inferance, that the crash under discussion on this thread was caused by poor maintenance , because the Cemair Chief Engineer used to work for Rossair is ridiculous and unsubstanciated.
You make some valid points but one or two things I feel you are out of line on.
You mention that Rossair, as a South African, company went out of bussiness as a result of poor maintenance standards and subsequently a senior ex Rossair engineer is now the senior engineer at Cemair.
Firstly after looking at your profile one can assume that you work/fly for Zimex, of Geneva and so, would have a vested interest in the elimination of SA operators from your company's sphere of influence and as such subsequently be biased in your opinion of SA operators.
Just so that you know, Rossair was able to undercut your company's and others rates mainly as a result of currency disparities prevalent at the time thereby winning tenders over company's who worked from stronger currency bases.
Rossair went out of business as a result of poor fiscal management not , as you suggest, poor aircraft maintenance standards. As I recall Rossair had greater than 99 percent dispatch reliability for their clients in Algeria (which were also your clients) and passed the infield client maintenance audits.
Admittedly, Zimex probably has the highest DHC 6 maintenance standards in the world, Swiss precision, and all that, but that does not mean that SA operators are by default, all poorly maintained.
Your inferance, that the crash under discussion on this thread was caused by poor maintenance , because the Cemair Chief Engineer used to work for Rossair is ridiculous and unsubstanciated.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAXRATED, You are right on about Rossair.
V1, I also agree with most of what you said.
I recall a ZIMEX Twotter having SAM7 take out an engine, I think it was Angola, possibly around 1991-92. Was that you V1?
V1, I also agree with most of what you said.
I recall a ZIMEX Twotter having SAM7 take out an engine, I think it was Angola, possibly around 1991-92. Was that you V1?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SA
Age: 49
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gooneybird, What are you talking about. When was the last time you were in Africa? (See you in UK). Most ac in Africa are transponder equipped. South Coast your post on Russian and Ukrainian pilots being intoxicated is a little out of line. V1 nice post!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Still looking
Age: 81
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Swiss
I have been following this thread, and yes its a network where all give there 2 cents.
Now I ask all of You!
Everyone of these pro Pilots. Can you honestly say while flying in Africa, that there has not been a second, not minute or day, A SECOND! That you have not done it accordingly to the Books???
And then if there is? Well you need to go and get a rag and wipe that s
t off your gip. As I have been all over Africa with all kind of contracts. And even the "best" pilot in my eyes has broken some "LAW"! 
Then we get to MR SwissOoops V! Knowing everything, should be a rocket scientist. Do you remember a few years ago of a Twin Twotter that sliced itself up in Algeria?? (Prop almost trimming pilots hear)
And then we will not talk about a cabin heat problem in a new 1900 in Algeria?? And if you wanna point out "shoddy" maintenance?? Then the planes should fall out of the ski? Maybe you should start wearing a hard hat??
So yes..... sticks and bones can break bones.
And all what is said, not one of you guys were in the cockpit at that moment in time!
So lets get the right people to do there work and if You all who know what if and what what and all the other ifs. Go and do there work for them! Go tell them how to do it!
PS. South-Coast, I hope you still doing your CRM??
Now I ask all of You!
Everyone of these pro Pilots. Can you honestly say while flying in Africa, that there has not been a second, not minute or day, A SECOND! That you have not done it accordingly to the Books???
And then if there is? Well you need to go and get a rag and wipe that s
t off your gip. As I have been all over Africa with all kind of contracts. And even the "best" pilot in my eyes has broken some "LAW"! Then we get to MR Swiss
Ooops V! Knowing everything, should be a rocket scientist. Do you remember a few years ago of a Twin Twotter that sliced itself up in Algeria?? (Prop almost trimming pilots hear)And then we will not talk about a cabin heat problem in a new 1900 in Algeria?? And if you wanna point out "shoddy" maintenance?? Then the planes should fall out of the ski? Maybe you should start wearing a hard hat??
So yes..... sticks and bones can break bones.
And all what is said, not one of you guys were in the cockpit at that moment in time!
So lets get the right people to do there work and if You all who know what if and what what and all the other ifs. Go and do there work for them! Go tell them how to do it!
PS. South-Coast, I hope you still doing your CRM??
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flux and Airman 56, yes I stand by my comments, perhaps a gross generalisation, but I saw it first hand and therefore feel I can quote it.
Ukranian crew in Kalemie drink themselves silly and then up and fly within hours on a regular basis.
But that is not what this thread is about, it was merely a point which has and does happen.
Ukranian crew in Kalemie drink themselves silly and then up and fly within hours on a regular basis.
But that is not what this thread is about, it was merely a point which has and does happen.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: RDC
Age: 67
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
south coast
OK. And Ukranian crew in Kalemie they are the men.
But what about this.
An EasyJet pilot is facing the sack for being more than five times the legal alcohol limit when she arrived to take charge of a flight packed with 120 passengers at Berlin's Schönefeld airport.
The captain, who was one of the low-cost airline's few female pilots, aroused the suspicion of colleagues when she turned up for flight EZY3455 to the Swiss city of Basle at 6.45am on Saturday.
OK. And Ukranian crew in Kalemie they are the men.
But what about this.
An EasyJet pilot is facing the sack for being more than five times the legal alcohol limit when she arrived to take charge of a flight packed with 120 passengers at Berlin's Schönefeld airport.
The captain, who was one of the low-cost airline's few female pilots, aroused the suspicion of colleagues when she turned up for flight EZY3455 to the Swiss city of Basle at 6.45am on Saturday.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flux Gooneybird, What are you talking about. When was the last time you were in Africa? (See you in UK). Most ac in Africa are transponder equipped. South Coast your post on Russian and Ukrainian pilots being intoxicated is a little out of line. V1 nice post!
Plenty of a/c that I've seen aren't transponder equipped or haven't been calibrated in years, and no I'm not mostly talking about ZS registered. Anyway the TCAS11/transponder was merely an example of how 1st world rules don't work the same way in Africa as they do in their countries of origin.
Originally Posted by MaxRated
Firstly after looking at your profile one can assume that you work/fly for Zimex, of Geneva and so, would have a vested interest…
Please, go back and read the post I made, but this time, don’t go looking for anything between the lines. The point I have tried so hard to make is that we need to look at the level of regulatory oversight that the state of registry exercises over aircraft and aircraft operators when they are conducting foreign operations.
South African operators have the experience, the equipment, the financial resources, and the human resources necessary to meet ‘best industry practice’ safety standards, measured against any benchmark you choose – SA regulations, North American regulations, or European regulations. This is obvious if you look at the high level of safety provided to passengers and crew who travel in South African public commercial domestic operations or South African flag carrier operations. But, the South African CAA does not exercise this same level of regulatory oversight to their aircraft and their operators when they set up shop in another country. Neither, apparently, does the US FAA or (in the early part of this decade, at least) did the Danish.
Some regulatory authorities keep a very close watch on their aircraft and a very tight leash on their commercial operators wherever they may be. The Swiss, the British, and the Canadians are good examples of this. The Ugandan CAA also keeps a very close watch over their operators, both at home and abroad.
Goonybird, it is to everyone’s benefit – and that includes the crew as well as the passengers – that public commercial air transportation is tightly regulated and closely supervised. You know as well as I do that in the absence of a strong and effective regulatory presence, operators – no matter where they are from - will not voluntarily comply with best industry practice. If there is effective regulatory oversight, operators will all follow the same set of rules. That actually levels the playing field for competition. Look at the number of operators active in Asia to Europe or Asia to North America air freight, or Western Europe to North America passenger operations. They are all tightly regulated and closely supervised, but there is still an extraordinary amount of competition in that market.
The issue this accident raises, as it relates to foreign air operators operating in the DRC, is “Who is going to bell the cat?” The regulatory authority of the DRC does not have the capability to effectively supervise public air transportation in their country. We can hardly blame them for this, their country has just emerged from a long period of war and the conflict still is not over in parts of the country. We don't consider it to be a 'failing' of the government of the DRC that they need assistance with peacekeeping, thus, we provide MONUC peacekeepers. Why are we not also providing aviation regulatory oversight during the DRC's time of need?
My point is that the regulatory authorities from the state of registration of aircraft that are operating public transport in the DRC have a MORAL obligation to step up to the plate and ensure that their citizens abide by the same laws that would apply to them at home. No more and no less than this.
Originally Posted by planecrazi
…I recall a ZIMEX Twin Otter having SAM7 take out an engine, I think it was Angola, possibly around 1991-92. Was that you V1?
Last edited by V1... Ooops; 1st May 2009 at 20:40.