i agree its a risk and tris did have more than a few upsets over the years and the locals were more than happy with them.

Having had to shut one down on a twin turbine fixed wing I am more than happy not taking the risk of ending up in Channel Islands waters.

If others want to take that risk that's fine by me.

you really don't want to look at the survival statistics for those flights. If they could hold a tri's worth of punters and they all died every time one crashed it you would have a A380's worth of dead punters every year. But as its only 2-3 at a time nobody notices or cares.

I worked for Brymon, one day a Twotter PLH/LHR with a full load had an engine disintegrate, it couldn't maintain altitude and did a dirty dive in to Odiham so the Tri losing an engine is not unique!

Thread drift
 

I am wondering what any of the above has to do with Aurigny Air Services which flies neither Caravans, Islanders Trislanders nor Twotters, the airline Waves has its own thread where I believe this discussion belongs.

G-OAUR is on the way back to GCI now having been at AMS since 24th October.

ATR activity:-
Presumably ATR42 G-HUET is u/s at Norwich as ATR72 G-COBO positioned from GCI this afternoon and is operating Logan flights.
Also today G-VZON operating to Stansted turned back mid-Channel and returned to GCI. Pax were transferred to G-LERE. However -VZON is now back in service to LGW.

Both G-COBO and G-HUET now on their way back to GCI. No Loganair flights timetabled from NWI until Monday, so maybe one of them will return for Monday's flights.

Just seen this article about Aurigny staff wering body cameras to combat aggressive passengers. How can such a small airline have to resort to these measures

Aurigny: Staff on Channel Islands airline are wearing body cameras to combat aggressive passengers | The Independent

Strange as you don't really look upon the average Aurigny passenger as being the aggressive type, the airline has obviously had issues with some passengers hence this announcement regarding staff and body cameras.

In recent times AUR have (arguably) replaced an old aircraft with another old aircraft - or at least an old design in the shape of the Do228, then along come Cessna with a cleansheet design......Cessna SkyCourier

It's not been built, or flown yet, but FedEx have ordered 50. You do get the feeling it's been designed for them as a twin Caravan (and will have a door big enough to accommodate LD3's), but a 19 pax version is also planned.

If you fly scheduled you need to comply - if you try and buck the system it will bite you as other operators are feeling the pain daily! - but on the flip side - its not like the OL financial fitness will be very high for the C208 with a small local schedule - so not a big show stopper....

that doesn't apply in the CI anyway as its a tracing paper requirement to comply with any meaningful international aviation requirments.

the trilander box fore years broke every international regulation in the book but they used it.

But if a crew member didn't have their high vis button up there was a fine from that clueless idiot in charge of those sort of things.

ATR42 G-HUET
When announcement was made that the GCI-LCY route was being dropped, GR stated that G-HUET would be sold. However it was retained throughout November. A/c positioned GCI-SGD yesterday. Is this for maintenance or onward sale?

I believe that HUET is leased & that Aurigny stated that it would be sub leased, however apart from a brief spell with Loganair I don't think any work has been found for it as yet..

The ATR 42 was leased in early 2015 for 5 years.

I would imagine that this is a binding contract which Aurigny can't get out of.

Thanks. Probably a matter of semantics. Looking back to the 16 August the announcement was that GR would drop the ATR42 from its fleet. The wording was not "sell" - and G-info confirms that it is indeed "chartered" rather than owned. Probably therefore a case of awaiting more work. :confused:

This morning, the airline have decided there was no lightning strike after all, although they are not yet offering an explanation of what happened to the electrics. To be fair, there was a fair bit of lightning activity around the South coast at the time. I was a bit surprised at the company's explanation of the decision to abandon a diversion to Southampton because it would mean flying back into the storms. Returning to Guernsey would also involve flying back through the storms as they appeared to be very active over that part of the Channel.
Guernsey plane U-turn not caused by 'lightning strike' - BBC News

Rather than slate the operator off at every given opportunity how about getting the facts correct ... It was National Air Traffic Services that stated a diversion to SOU would have encountered the storm ... Whilst the aircraft has weather radar, providing that that had not been damaged by the electrical problem, who has the ability to see the Cumulus Nimbus clouds on radar, NATS or the spotters on a forum?

'SAM' is an en-route beacon, of course it would have been heading for the Southampton Airport beacon!

G-HUET
 

G-HUET flew to LGW on Saturday as flight GR608. The return flight was cancelled and the a/c appears to still be at LGW, at least according to FR24. Any ideas as to what is going on?

As reported elsewhere, Air Alderney has applied to operate a scheduled cargo service between Guernsey and Alderney with EC155 equipment and two BN-2T Islanders as back-up. Mark Darby's objection, in a letter to Dep. Barry Paint, is available to view here.