Citywing

[HeartyMeatballs]

It is shocking indeed. Having reskimmed through the official report it also says the crew wore a Manx2 uniform and were required to say "welcome onboard this Manx2 flight operated by XYZ" and "we hope you have enjoyed your Manx2 flight".

It goes back to what I was saying in that if you want to act like an airline, bother your ar$e and become one. Don't fool people by masquerading as one. Let's hope this is really the end of them.

(ps please forgive the squiggly line, it's as straight as I could get it on my tablet).

[Harry Wayfarers]

Well as an ex Operations Controller, Crew Scheduling Manager etc. I have some recognition of the incompetence:

Manx2 wouldn't have been aware that the F/O wasn't even trained, wasn't legal, whilst the Captain's command upgrade probably took place back in Spain, I mean all Manx2 would have seen was a bloke with 4 stripes on his arm ... "Ahh, you'll do"!

I can recall back to my first airline employer back in the 70's, low houred and/or pilots inexperienced in their position got an asterix against their name to ensure that two asterix's weren't scheduled to fly together whilst I've recently had a PDQ scam of the Wiki report of flight 7100 and what a total pig's ear the whole set-up appears to have been.

Whilst it is the operator that carries the can, and with prior knowledge that another F/O had been released from duties to return to Spain thus one F/O was working both day and night duties, probably without days off, from what I am reading above it would appear that these ticket selling muppets in IOM have blood on their hands.

One operator I worked for, I can't possibly mention their name but they operated HS748's from a LPL base and the CAA ultimately pulled their ticket. I had worked for them during the 90's, i returned to them during the 00's but, by then, I didn't need the money, I was just there for the crack, I was doing the day to day crew scheduling and often the commercial manager would walk in to enquire if we had a crew available for an adhoc charter.

Not to say that they were tighter than duck's backsides but crews lying around would have been considered a luxury, invariably the answer was a very firm "NO" but, as I recall, every time he would go and sell the charter and put the onus on to us that it was our problem to crew it ... and he would announce it with a smirky grin ... As I say the CAA ultimately pulled their ticket.

So ... Been there, Done that

[Startledgrapefruit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgYuLsudaJQ

[El Bunto]

Manx2 and Citywing have had a decade to get things right. They've continued to get it wrong and it is only fair that they be shut down.

Citywing hasn't been 'shut down'. There was no action taken against them as they were operating perfectly legally.

Interestingly, according to the local Czech press the Czech CAA ( a member of EASA ) has said that it is not investigating Van Air nor has it suspended its AOC; they say they have been in contact with the UK CAA but it is the latter that instigated the 'grounding' and is conducting investigation: Stroje brněnských aerolinek v Británii dolétaly. Po problematickém přistání - iDNES.cz ( machine translation ):

A spokesman for the Czech Office, however, rejects this information. "We are in contact with the British aviation authority which started and solves it. We strive for synergies, but rather it concerns the reporting of information and consultation, otherwise, we're interested in it very little.

Unfortunately as was discovered by airlines during the Icelandic ash event a few years ago, one cannot sue the UK CAA to recover losses incurred by their actions. They're basically untouchable and unaccountable. And this is a perfect example of what that enables; they can throw around some vague statements about safety concerns, send a small airline home, cause a travel provider to run up huge expenses and go bust and then... do nothing. They'll let it all drop, quietly. Job done for the Campaign Against Aviation.

[Harry Wayfarers]

Unfortunately as was discovered by airlines during the Icelandic ash event a few years ago, one cannot sue the UK CAA to recover losses incurred by their actions. They're basically untouchable and unaccountable. And this is a perfect example of what that enables; they can throw around some vague statements about safety concerns, send a small airline home, cause a travel provider to run up huge expenses and go bust and then... do nothing. They'll let it all drop, quietly. Job done for the Campaign Against Aviation.

El Bunto,

Play tell, what are the crosswind limitations for a L410 on a damp or wet runway and what are the maximum wind speeds before it is recommended that the aircraft type be tied down?

Because at the time they made their approach(es) in to BHD Storm Doris was blowing directly across (90 degrees off) the runway at speeds of circa 23-40kts, the world's favourite airline diverted to BFS, your favourite airline attempted to kill their passengers by attempting at least one approach during which they bounced off the BHD runway.

Then, rather than divert to an alternate within limits they elected to return to IOM where Storm Doris was blowing 40 degrees of the damp or wet runway at speeds of 42-56kts.

So please kindly explain how Van Air, upon behalf of Citywing, were operating legally and why the CAA were wrong to pull their ticket?

Or did I miss something?

And as a PS, I have little or no time for the CAA, during my airline career I accommodated them as a must, but on this occasion I tip my cap to them, they got something right.