So tomorows the day GSM go to court!!!! :*

How many a/c do GSM have based in GLA & EDI?

The bases for the GSM shorthaul fleet are:

MME
1 x B733

ABZ
1 x B73W

EDI
1 x B733
1 x B736
1 x B73W

GLA
1 x B736
3 x B73H

Spare
1 x B73H - covers for maint

Hope this is off help

Globespan pleaded guilty to the CAA charges at the Magistrates court hearing this morning. Case has now been referred to Crown Court for sentencing.

Will the fine be big or small?
 

FLYGLOBESPAN faces an unlimited fine for operating a flight with 20 passengers from Liverpool to New York via Knock in Ireland without a valid safety certificate.

The Edinburgh-based budget airline admitted two summonses under the Air Navigation Order 2005 at City of Westminster Magistrates Court and was sent to Southwark Crown Court for sentence. The company admitted the plane was flown without a valid certificate of airworthiness. A summons accusing the company of failing to report an occurrence to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) was withdrawn.

District Judge Timothy Daber said in sending the case to the Crown Court: "Although the offences arose out of one incident and there was no suggestion of passengers being endangered, there is a heavy duty on operators of compliance with the certificate." The court was told that lightning struck at New York's JFK Airport on June 27 last year and shortly after taking off for Liverpool the next day a pressure gauge on the Boeing 757-28A aircraft failed.

Engineers at Liverpool were unable to correct the problem but the return flight took off with 20 passengers, stopping off en route at Knock. The plane then flew on to New York, where the necessary work was carried out. In October, US officials reported the matter to the CAA and Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, told the court that the company's managing director was interviewed and admitted its systems had not been "robust" enough.

Stephen Spence, defending, said the firm had been previously voted Airline of the Year and Best Holiday Airline in Scotland, and there was no suggestion of any danger to passengers. He said even without gauges operating properly, pilots can assess the power of the thrust from engines by a different method, involving manual calculations.

"Some people would say the pilot had to work for his living," said Mr Spence. But he added that the company had not "turned a blind eye" to the incident. Two senior officials with the company have since been replaced and the court was told that the company has co-operated with the CAA. Judge Daber said the regulations were for the "health, safety and well-being of fare-paying passengers". He added that a message had to be given that breaches such as this cannot be tolerated. No date for sentencing has yet been scheduled.

Source: Edinburgh Evening News

Good Management?
 

Maybe it would have been better if someone in a position of authority had said, 'Let's cancel the flight as we have only 20 pax and get the thing fixed instead.'

Agreed - 20 people? Was it worth it?

Even if they cancelled the return journey - putting people up in a hotel, or reaccommading paz surely would have worked just slightly more expensive that operating a 757 with an LF close to 10% (no doubt they were cheap seats too).

I wonder - but I've a feeling this fine won't be too much. They've admitted that mistakes have been made, which won't be as bad as claiming ignorance.

is this a silly question?
 

Quote:

---

Judge Daber said the regulations were for the "health, safety and well-being of fare-paying passengers".

---

ok, only SLF here, so not sure if this is a silly question or not, but here goes.........

considering the breach of regulations here and the possibility of a fine that could be £1000's, £10000's or even more, would this matter be treated differently through the courts is the passengers on board were not fare paying (ie travelling free)? bearing in mind there were only 20 pax on board.

i once remember watching an airline program regarding stelios & easyjet. he had sold seats on a european route but did not have the official status to operate that flight as a scheduled / fare paying passenger route. his solution, he gave all those on board their money back effectively getting around the problem as all the passengers were not classed as 'fare paying passengers'.

ok ok, i know we are talking slightly different reasons here - one a technical safety point of view (globespan) and the second a paperwork / licence scenario (easyjet)

however with the judge specifically saying 'fare paying passengers' would the situation have been different if all those on board travelled free?

I would hope not! :confused: Fines are there for a reason. If you could just 'get around' them - then I'm pretty sure safety would suffer immensely. :sad:

The guilty plea is counter to what the airline said about defending itself. I guess they just didn't want to be faced with a long procession of prosecution witnesses and the risk of other wee nasties crawling out of the woodwork.

HXdave
 

Alas its not that simple, every airline has to have an AOC (air opertor cert) and within in this is a very large list of do's and don't if you like, one that covers defects to aircraft is called the MEL (min equipement list) this states in black and white terms what equipment MUST be serviceable for a flight or a series of flights: for example the weather radar must be serviceable if on your intended route there is forcast or reported CB's like wise you can fly with out certain NAV lights but again only by day.

The AOC will allow you to operate with a lower level of equipment on non revenue flights, but that doesn't mean passenger travelling for free,it may allow some non crew employee's eg engineers.

In any event whilst i am not family with the 757 MEL you can bet your life that it wont allow you to set of with both EPR gauges u/s all the more so on transatlantic flights, ETOPS rules (extended twin operations) are far tougher because you are flying so far away from a suitable aiport if something goes wrong and this is probably why they had their ETOPS approval removed and the resultant removal of the flt ops director.

An AOC must have nominated post holders for various aspect of the business including the flt ops director, Chief pilot, engineering, quality,safety and so on and it is normal for the MD to be a post holder.

This ensure that no one can idea behind the " i wasn't aware" in the way that our slimeball gov minesters do when they get it wrong.

Was this flight dangerous: no, was it illegal: you bet, will they get a heavy fine? define heavy? i would be surprised at anything under a £100.000 but expect between £200k & 500k.

As for the lawyer, well i would get him up at 4 am drive a 100miles, deal with airport security a late flight, then present him with the problem and use his undoubted degree to read the MEL followed by the CRZ performance manuals and deal with JF swearing and cursing down the mobile, he might see it in a diffrent light to " the flight crew would have to work for their money" prat

The MEL is like having a thrid person between the flight crew and ops, you didn't write it and the company requires you to follow it jobs a goodun

Is branson expressing interest in infrastructure? Only the vague possible connection i could think of.... Even thats 99.99999% unlikely though.

I think what Globespan actually said was that they would vigorously defend themselves against any allegations which they felt to be unjustified (BBC website 26 May). The fact that they have pleaded guilty says it all, really.

Off topic a bit, sorry, but a question.
 

So (if) Globespan get fined, as have Severn Trent Water to the tune of millions over the past few days I believe.

Where does the fine money go?

Bet the customers of said fine payers do not see a bean.

Bored

Anybody got any estimates on how big this fine is going to be?

Im guessing if a second 763 joining Air India looks unlikely it will be the a/c put into Amman.

What a/c are GSM set to be using W08 and were will they be based?

I wonder where it does go. A bit like all of the extortionate CAA fees for just about everything - where does the money go?

Next time you are near LGW, pop in to the CAAs' ivory towers, you'll find the subsidised cafe on the top floor! Top Nosh.

And just look at all the glass, must be a huge window cleaning bill!:ok:

Facelookbovvered

As it happens I know the lawyer involved. He got up at 4.30 am drove 110 miles, dealt with the London rush hour and then dealt with the case in court. Oh and he is a pilot. The quote you object to was taken by the newspaper out of context and followed the CAA suggestion that the lack of overboost protection and auto throttle led to an increased work load that posed a risk. What he was speaking about was the relatively small difference between an automatic system and the pilots having to manually set the power by reference to N1. If you think that 10 words is a full and complete account of a court hearing that took something like an hour then I wonder who is the prat by rushing to judgement.

As for the size of the fine I will bet you the difference between what they get fined and 200k (or 500 - you choose) that it's less.:ok:

Flightrider

FlyGlobespan indicated that they would defend one of the three summonses and the CAA withdrew it.

Where do the fines go?
 

They all go to the Exchequer. That means the Government which means in effect it is another tax.
Mind you the Judge does not take that into consideration when he passes sentence.

Col Raymond
 

You can twist and you can turn, but the bottom line here is that Globespan pushed it too far, i don't give a toss what your lawyer friend did or didn't do, bottom line he/she is there for one reason only and thats to try and mitigate Globespans loss, if they had put the money into robust flight support systems they would not have this problem now, i'll go further, they have been very lucky that the CAA didn't pull their AOC i understand that they were within days of doing so.

I wish Globespan or its employees no ill, but there is a line and sending crews accross the pond without US visa's and asking them to get changed and travel back as pax is taking the piss, there is a cost to doing anything sadly like many in Scotland they like someone else to foot the bill.

Globespan called it wrong and that is why they have said, guilty as charged my lord and off to crown court, no doubt your legal eagle will have to get up early and drive another 110 miles and plead, the fact remains the CAA will wish to send a very clear message to any other outfit who thinks that rules apply to others not them.

£325k should do it

As I though guys/girls
 

All fines off to the GW fund as the NH crunbles and taxation rises. Fair?