FlyGlobespan - 6
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chester
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If GSM s cabin crew are anything like ours then I would not put too much weight on what is said on "Galley FM". Kind of makes the Sunday Sport look like a factual newspaper. My flat mate works for this lot out of Manchester (base closure announced last month-- so not a happy bunny). He showed me an internal e-mail which says that this all centres on one engineering issue (not specified) on a sub contracted aircraft (an Icelandair 757) a couple of months ago. It also says that only 4% of flights are affected by the ETOPs suspension as most of the transatlatic stuff is operated by Neos. GLA - BOS and LPL - JFK are the two flights affected both operated by Globespan.These were due to cease at the end of Oct anyway (which can be verified by looking at their website).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: planet igloo
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He showed me an internal e-mail which says that this all centres on one engineering issue (not specified) on a sub contracted aircraft (an Icelandair 757) a couple of months ago.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be very surprised if it was down to one small problem. The chaps in the FOI usually work with a company to keep the show running. They don't just pull approvals for little or no reason.
I have no information as to why this has happened, but blaming it on "one engineering issue (not specified) on a sub contracted aircraft" doesn't seem to get close to me.
Someone has obviously stuffed up and it may be a paperwork issue, but it is still an almighty slap in the chops from the CAA.
Is MM still the FOI for GSM? He was one of the people who pulled the plug at Emerald. Maybe he just won't put up with any nonsense at all now?
I have no information as to why this has happened, but blaming it on "one engineering issue (not specified) on a sub contracted aircraft" doesn't seem to get close to me.
Someone has obviously stuffed up and it may be a paperwork issue, but it is still an almighty slap in the chops from the CAA.
Is MM still the FOI for GSM? He was one of the people who pulled the plug at Emerald. Maybe he just won't put up with any nonsense at all now?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Age: 39
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question, and forgive me if its a stupid one... If the problem is with one of the subcontracted aircraft (Neos or Icelandair), how come the subcontractors are still allowed to fly GSM ETOPS routes?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted on another thread as to the practicalities/viabilty of a B737-800 flying MAN-Canada...via Keflavik. Happened umpteen times. If I was a punter, I would not be a "happy bunny"
watp,iktch
watp,iktch
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right, so now we have a "sub standard operation" flying a more northerly route than they would like just so they can fly within 400 nms of airfields who's weather may be totally unsuitable. Not very nice. In other words, if any thing goes wrong,the diversion to a suitable airfield may take longer as they are further away than if they were on an ETOPs route.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
What I think he is raising is that they no longer require to have 'Suitable' airfields, only 'Adequate' ones. They could route north across KEF etc with airfields within 400nm all totally 'out' weather wise quite legally, and be further away from an airfield from where the suitable weather exists.
It would require some extremes of weather across the whole route I appreciate, but the basis of what he suggets could technically happen......
Stupid rule I know, but thats what IS actually allowed
What I think he is raising is that they no longer require to have 'Suitable' airfields, only 'Adequate' ones. They could route north across KEF etc with airfields within 400nm all totally 'out' weather wise quite legally, and be further away from an airfield from where the suitable weather exists.
It would require some extremes of weather across the whole route I appreciate, but the basis of what he suggets could technically happen......
Stupid rule I know, but thats what IS actually allowed
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Figures on the LPL route
Our local paper has got that story too - LPL-JFK route now also stopping after Knock to refuel?
Figures for the route don't look good either, though I doubt the negative publicity has helped.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-19975182/
Figures for the route don't look good either, though I doubt the negative publicity has helped.
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-19975182/
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC I suggest you modify your knowledge of non ETOPs twin engine flying.
If you are non ETOPs you must be within 400 nms of an airfieild. The met conditions at that airfield do not matter. Therefore you may be considerably furthur away from a field you can land at than if you are on a proper ETOPs route with flyable weather. Of course airmanship would stop you doing that but what about comercial pressures and "pressonitis".
eg, you may find yourself between Iceland and Greenland on one engine. Sonderstrom and Kef are both out so you flip a coin to decide if you head for Ireland or Newfoundland. Insanely horrible but legal.
I have avoided technical terms so any one can under stand my point. Even a four engine pilot!
As Uncle Roger said years ago ETOPS:
Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming
If you are non ETOPs you must be within 400 nms of an airfieild. The met conditions at that airfield do not matter. Therefore you may be considerably furthur away from a field you can land at than if you are on a proper ETOPs route with flyable weather. Of course airmanship would stop you doing that but what about comercial pressures and "pressonitis".
eg, you may find yourself between Iceland and Greenland on one engine. Sonderstrom and Kef are both out so you flip a coin to decide if you head for Ireland or Newfoundland. Insanely horrible but legal.
I have avoided technical terms so any one can under stand my point. Even a four engine pilot!
As Uncle Roger said years ago ETOPS:
Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming
Last edited by doubledolphins; 20th Oct 2007 at 10:33.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are non ETOPs you must be within 400 nms of an airfieild.
PS 2 engines
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... too much, too quickly...
I think that GSM have taken on more than they can chew.
Starting up a 'European' low-cost airline is no mean feat. GSM did provide a value for money and reliable service and one which got great reviews. However things got a little out-of-hand when the long-haul routes started and aircraft sub-leased out to Air India.
Yeah, its easy money leasing out your aircraft, great money at that too. Never forget though, where you started and the loyal customer base back home. Why fly out of numerous UK airports to numerous long-haul destinations with multiple pickups en route (not forgetting un-planned stops), when GSM could have built up their native European network - then - look to the longhaul market.
Its sad that things now seem to be slipping and once the CAA get involved, its a very lengthly, uphill and expensive process to get back on top of the situation, trying to persuade unhappy and disgruntled pax to fly GSM again.
Open skies loom. It will be very interesting to see how GSM fair in this turbulent spell.
I know crews both flightdeck and cabin who have become very unsettled at GSM in recent months. They are top class people who love their respective jobs but find the daily running and planning to be of complete chaos...
Words of wisdom GSM - Dont end up like Air Scotland! Another great idea and initially well run and liked airline, only to fail due to poor management and planning...
Starting up a 'European' low-cost airline is no mean feat. GSM did provide a value for money and reliable service and one which got great reviews. However things got a little out-of-hand when the long-haul routes started and aircraft sub-leased out to Air India.
Yeah, its easy money leasing out your aircraft, great money at that too. Never forget though, where you started and the loyal customer base back home. Why fly out of numerous UK airports to numerous long-haul destinations with multiple pickups en route (not forgetting un-planned stops), when GSM could have built up their native European network - then - look to the longhaul market.
Its sad that things now seem to be slipping and once the CAA get involved, its a very lengthly, uphill and expensive process to get back on top of the situation, trying to persuade unhappy and disgruntled pax to fly GSM again.
Open skies loom. It will be very interesting to see how GSM fair in this turbulent spell.
I know crews both flightdeck and cabin who have become very unsettled at GSM in recent months. They are top class people who love their respective jobs but find the daily running and planning to be of complete chaos...
Words of wisdom GSM - Dont end up like Air Scotland! Another great idea and initially well run and liked airline, only to fail due to poor management and planning...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC give it a rest. I am not implying anything. Others have done that. My only experience of GS is that their 767s always looked very shiny when parked alongside mine at SFB and a very nice senior pilot of theirs once offered me a Job whislt we were briefing at SFB.
I am only pointing out that I have always believed flying accross on the non ETOPS route to be inherantly more dangerous than flying an ETOPs route.
Also it does not do a great deal for GS's carbon footprint
I would only ever slag off a fellow aviator in person and never on a public forum.
Having said that,
Does your handle imply that you flew for the grand old corporation or simply that you are well aquainted with a lady named Christine
I am only pointing out that I have always believed flying accross on the non ETOPS route to be inherantly more dangerous than flying an ETOPs route.
Also it does not do a great deal for GS's carbon footprint
I would only ever slag off a fellow aviator in person and never on a public forum.
Having said that,
Does your handle imply that you flew for the grand old corporation or simply that you are well aquainted with a lady named Christine
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I doubt very much a UK operator would launch across unsuitable airfields
I ask because a couple of weeks back I operated to FNC. T16 heavily in use by all UK charter operators southbound that day due to the winds. T16 REQUIRES LEST as an ADEQUATE airfield (at the furthest point out on T16 ONLY LEST is within 400nm). LEST weather had been forecast, and was, below operating minima (200-300m, sky obs). Under ETOPS rules LEST could never have been considered (as not suitable), but because flights were non-ETOPS the rules say it 'doesn't matter'.
A range of operators, including my own, all operated happily down T16 that day, and legally so. I appreciate the scenario I describe is 'slightly' different, but how different to the one under discussion? If its legal........
We're coming from the same side as to sensibility, but the rules are written as they are, and the above shows that operators WILL operate to what's legal. They put themselves at commercial disadvantage to build in extra 'above the legal' constraints if their competitors don't do so.
30W
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 - my comments referred to the route in question.
I agree totally with what you both say about the 'rules', but you have to remember that it is all about statistics and putting in place added protection for a more limiting operation eg oceanic on two. The 400 miles from land is, I believe, a 'ditching' consideration anyway and is based on 'suitable land'? The 'adequate airfield' determinant is based on OEI speed and is not '400 miles'.
- Danny 'chose' it for me. Q1: a 'partial yes' - the Leper Colony at LGW. 'EOG' would have been a better name. Q2: No-one else knows about that.
I agree totally with what you both say about the 'rules', but you have to remember that it is all about statistics and putting in place added protection for a more limiting operation eg oceanic on two. The 400 miles from land is, I believe, a 'ditching' consideration anyway and is based on 'suitable land'? The 'adequate airfield' determinant is based on OEI speed and is not '400 miles'.
Originally Posted by dd
Does your handle imply that you flew for the grand old corporation or simply that you are well aquainted with a lady named Christine
Q1: a 'partial yes' - the Leper Colony at LGW. 'EOG' would have been a better name. Q2: No-one else knows about that.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EGGW
Posts: 2,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My guess on why Globespan has lost its ETOPS approval would be nothing to do with aircrew, however experienced or not.
It looks to me that Globespan's engineering QA department has screwed up big time and have been using a engineering company to turn around the aircraft without the required CAA type approvals.
This is only a guess but as both the CAA and the FAA are involved it leans towards my theory.
However feel free to shot me down.
It looks to me that Globespan's engineering QA department has screwed up big time and have been using a engineering company to turn around the aircraft without the required CAA type approvals.
This is only a guess but as both the CAA and the FAA are involved it leans towards my theory.
However feel free to shot me down.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ayrshire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm very loathe to put my two penneth worth in to a flyglobespan thread because it might look like i have an axe to grind but, in all seriousness,the opinion of a lot of people i have spoken to is that GSM will only win the day if they forge ahead with their core business-short haul to europe!the model for that was unrivalled-nobody else was doing it that well from scotland and succeeding!forget the long-haul stuff just now guys-the image has already been tainted,the damage is done.Forge ahead with what works-survive.Bring back passenger confidence then,in a few years,hopefully GSM will be ready to take on the world and they will have the dreamliners in place for the fulfilling of their ambitions-a scottish airline kicking butt with the competition!Things look bad just now but i for one firmly believe that this plucky young company can ride out the storm but i also believe that it has to be by concentrating on what made them great in the first place.This is a bump in the road-nothing more...hopefully.As for the whole ETOPS thing-i don't have a comment to make apart from this-its looking more and more like a witchunt evry day.Every LOCO has issues and they aren't spotlighted like this.Someone has got a personal axe to grind with GSM and hopefully,the CAA will see right through it.I for one do not believe that all the rumours and stories going about are true-they just cant be.Surely not.