Secret European Safety Blacklist published in UK?(merged)

[747FOCAL]

Airline blacklist stays secret
By Sheila Barter
BBC News Online

Five airlines which have such poor safety records they have been banned in some countries are having their identities kept secret in an information black hole.


Flash Airlines, whose plane crashed in Egypt on Saturday, was only one of six airlines whose safety standards were considered so poor they were banned or restricted in a European country in 2002.
But 133 French passengers boarded the doomed jet unaware that it had failed a Swiss safety test and remained banned from Swiss airspace.

And future passengers who want to know the names of the five other banned airlines face a seemingly impossible task, even though these names are not officially secret.

The information is held on a vast database in France and the Netherlands. National governments know, but passengers and - crucially - even tour operators can find out only if a government decides to reveal the information.


"Protocol is for the countries which imposed the actions to talk about it,
UK Department of Transport
"The public has no way of knowing which airlines they are," says David Learmount, of Flight International Magazine.
"Yes they should know, but who should tell them?"

The information is not classified as confidential - but it is not obtainable, it seems.

No names

The UK's Department of Transport confirmed to BBC News Online that in 2002 - the last year for which figures are available - the Swiss had imposed four bans or restrictions, and the Belgians and Dutch one each.

But the names of the firms were not being revealed in the UK.

"Information is shared between member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), but it is for the state taking the action to put out any information," a Department of Transport spokeswoman said.


It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information, but we have to have regard for certain criteria
Jude Mariadassou
ECAC
"It's a combination of protocol and legal restrictions relevant to the problem in that particular country."
Switzerland, for example, has strict business confidentiality rules. A total of 23 aircraft are currently banned from flying over Switzerland, but - citing these confidentiality rules - the Swiss civil aviation body would not reveal their names to the Tribune de Geneve newspaper.

It is "shocking" that their names are not known, said the paper, arguing that people could be risking their lives without knowing.

The testing system - known as Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) - is administered by the Dutch-based Joint Aviation Authorities on behalf of the ECAC.

Testing procedures

Thousands of tests are carried out on hundreds of airlines every year. Some find no faults or only minor ones.

A handful each year, however, turn up such serious problems that the entire airline has its permission to fly revoked or limited.


But at this point the information falls into the void. ECAC passes the information to its 41 member governments, insisting it is up to them to decide whether to make the information public.
But in practice, disclosure has never happened. Even Flash's Swiss ban was revealed only after the plane had crashed.

"It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information," said Jude Mariadassou, deputy executive secretary at ECAC.

"But we have to have regard for certain criteria - for example making sure the information is understood and not misunderstood, to maintain equal treatment amongst everyone.

"There are also commercial aspects, and because different states have different legal systems we need a certain degree of clarity."


I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel
Nelly Maes
European parliament air safety rapporteur
ECAC and the airline body International Air Transport Association (IATA) also warn that too much disclosure could stop airlines co-operating in testing programmes.
IATA, for example, is granted access to many flight data recorders, using the information to help pilots learn from incidents or mistakes.

"It is very important that the whole matter remains confidential, " says IATA spokesman William Gaillard, "or we will never get hold of these recordings - they will be erased. It is very important to learn from mistakes."

But campaigners argue that the public has the right to know about airline safety records - especially when one country has such major concerns that it has banned an airline altogether.

Euro campaign

"I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel," says Belgian Green MEP Nelly Maes, the European Parliament's rapporteur on foreign aircraft safety.

"This of course includes an airline's safety record."


Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel - it's elementary. So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important
William Gaillard
IATA
Ms Maes, pressing for the EU to publish an annual report on airlines' records, accuses the European Commission and Council of dragging their feet on the issue, by citing the same concerns about commercial sensitivity,
"Frankly their position loses credibility by the day," she says.

IATA says all tour operators should demand copies of charter firms' independent safety audits, and passengers should choose tour operators which name the charter firms in their brochures - to avoid using firms which simply grab the cheapest charter firm available a few days before the flight is due.

"It's about the right of consumers to know," says IATA's William Gaillard. "Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel and certain information about it - it's elementary.

"So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/europe/3372339.stm

Published: 2004/01/06 13:07:49 GMT

[Wino]

What's the point of harmonization if you aren't going to share info?

For that matter I wonder if info between the USA and EU is shared. Some entire countries have become Category II which is considered a safety risk and bans them from increasing service to the USA untill deficiencies are fixed. The Dominican Republic is one which I think got on the list when a 727 of the then state airline with a broken starter performed a 2 engine takeoff with PAX abord and airstarted the 3rd.... (Having done 2 engine ferries on 727 I am a little skeptical of the story, I suspect they did it empty and then came back to the gate and left the suspect engine running,but you never know)

Sometimes different offices of the FAA don't share info (Think oversite of valujet) so I guess I can't be too critical, except that appears there isn't even a venue to share the info.



Cheers
Wino

[Pax-man]

As a regular pax, I'm astounded to learn that such information exists but is not publicly available.

Sure, there may be some will say that making the public privvy to such information may result in scaremongering; to that I would say that we passengers should have the right to make our own minds up

We should duly be concerned about flying with any airline that has been banned for any reason, and I personally would avoid any such airline. Yes, we're opening a can of worms here, but I'm sure that some of the pax on the Flash Airlines flight may have chosen not to travel had they known what we now know. Sadly, it's now too late for them.

If the current legislation fails to protect us, then we must have the right to protect ourselves. I find this witholding of important information absolutely shocking but, sadly, I am not surprised one bit.

[WorkingHard]

I can see that other countries within the ECAC(?) may wish to hide for all sorts of reasons but what about the open society in the UK. Could not someone like BALPA or a similar organisation mount a legal challenge to get this vital data into the public domain. No state secrets involved here, or are there? Is this what decides ministers which airline to use when RAF or BA is not available or convenient. This must absolutely be challenged.

[Cathar]

The report does not say that the Department for Transport have been asked about airlines that the UK has banned. It may that is asked they would be prepared to give this information. As I understand it this information would not particularly help travellers from the UK as the airlines concerned obviously do not operate to or from the UK.

The article concentrates on information that the UK receives from other states. It appears that the information is exchanged on the understanding that it remains the property of the originating state. The UK is not in a position to make that information public. If the UK did not respect this rule it may lose access to the information concerned.

[Sir Kitt Braker]

Korean, Ethiopian, Natal, Nigerian, Okrima

[Pub User]

I apologise for appearing flippant in such a serious matter, but I do find some amusement in the report that the names of FIVE airlines are kept on a 'vast database'.

[Voeni]

We must understand, that failing a safety test might happen, even to so-called "safe airlines". As a matter of fact, even safe airlines may receive temporarily bans, but of course they are going to fix the issue the fastest way possible. Often they are happy that someone found something, because often it`s not very easy to find safety relevant issues on an aircraft.

What might be the problem here is, that the public would misunderstood such information. If, for example, a BA jet has some deficiencies and this would become public, some journalists and most of the people out there would be very sceptical towards BA and this would become a commercial issue, even BA can definitely be regarded as a safe airline (regarding mechanical issues). People would tend to look at the whole airline just because of one incident.

Of course, if an airline stays banned from a certain territory there`s no need to hide information, but what the Swiss authorities also stressed was that the ban was outspoken because of a check in 2002, and because Flash never applied for landing rights in Switzerland, there was no further check, so the issus may have vanished.

[Kalium Chloride]

I apologise for appearing flippant in such a serious matter, but I do find some amusement in the report that the names of FIVE airlines are kept on a 'vast database'.


I'll try to believe that this is not another cheap shot in the long line of cheap shots at journalism which tiresomely appear on this forum. I'm sure the reporter knows full well that the vast database contains the results of the thousands of detailed inspections conducted under the SAFA programme each year, and that she simply assumed that readers would have the intelligence to conclude the same without being spoon-fed.

[Cornish Jack]

Beeb R4 afternoon news bulletin suggests that airlines excluded by UK for sub-standard ops will be publicised. Comments?

[Localiser Green]

The names of airlines banned from the UK because of safety concerns are to be published by the transport secretary.

BBC News Online Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3375671.stm)

[spacecowbhoy]

Following the widely reported story by the UK media (BBC Radio 5 news) that in response to a House of Commons question from a Conservative MP in the wake of the recent B737 disaster in Egypt that the UK government will disclose the names of banned operators to the UK , but not those banned by other European states ,can we expect mass mis-information generated by the press due to this question and its subsequent answer?

How misleading will this information be out of context of the full details of the regulatory authority ruling in each case?

Should the other European governments follow the lead of the UK and name the operators they have banned?

As some airlines with the worst safety records are still operating into the UK , presumably after corrective actions were accepted , what does it take for a regulator to revoke an existing licence ?

Comments?

[Pub User]

Oh dear Kalium, did I touch a nerve?

In the midst of so much doom and gloom in our industry, and indeed the World in general, I found a point of amusement.

The journalist in question would doubtless find some amusement in my professional abilities, were she to experience my landings. I would not hold this against her, and I suspect she would not concern herself unduly about my finding amusement in her phraseology.

Calm down.

[411A]

Well, for starters, looking back some time ago, which airlines were found, after landing at LHR after long range flights, with nearly dry tanks?

Why, it was good 'ole QF and MAS.
Three and a half tons remaining (on a B747-400) if memory serves.

Seems even the 'respectable' stub their toe every so often.

Nothing new really.

[jmc757]

Another, similar story from the beeb

HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3376643.stm)

Says that these 2 airlines operating into the UK that have been banned elsewhere are believed to be holiday charters. Also says the Government cannot name these airlines, that is up to the countries that banned them.

Looks like our "black list" will be with us tommorow though...

Earlier on Wednesday, UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling did announce that a list of airlines banned or rejected by the UK in the last three years would be published on Thursday morning.

[Voeni]

Quote:
Well, for starters, looking back some time ago, which airlines were found, after landing at LHR after long range flights, with nearly dry tanks?

For legal purposes this is not a matter. Even if you use your last drop of fuel to get into your parking position it`s legal, if nothing happened and you declared an emergency at the respective time, at least when using your final reserve.

One of the problem with Flash was the fuel planning BEFORE the flight, and this could lead to legal problems, because there are certain standards you HAVE TO follow. QF and MAS certainly followed this rules.

[Daysleeper]

so now we have the press who through their crazy reporting of "britains most dangerous aeroplane" managed to force the CAA to get the publication of MORs suppressed . This list should not be published as we cannot realy on the press to treat the information responsibly.

[747FOCAL]

Voeni,

I don't know about over there, but I believe here in the USA you must takeoff with enough fuel for your planned destination and be carrying 45 minutes of IFR reserves once you reach the patern. I could be wrong, but that is what I was once told. :ok:

[jetstream7]

News from the BBC


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3379773.stm

UK's airline blacklist published



A list of airlines from eight countries which are banned from flying in UK airspace have been published by the Department of Transport.
Safety concerns led to the public naming of bans covering all airlines operating from Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and Tajikistan.

It follows the Flash Airline crash in Egypt last week, and the revelation the airline had been banned by Switzerland.

The named companies have had a licence either reviewed or revoked since 2000.

They include Sierra Leone's Star Air and Air Universal, Cameroon Airlines, Albanian Airlines and Central Air Express which flies from DR Congo.

[Superfly]

U.K. Names Airlines Refused Permits to Fly in Last Four Years

Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. has banned 11 airlines in the
last four years for failing to meet safety standards, according
to U.K. Transport Minister Tony McNulty.
Star Aid Ltd., of Sierra Leone; RAF-AVIA, of Latvia; Enimex,
of Estonia; Air Bosnia; Inter Trans Air, of Bulgaria; Air
Memphis, of Egypt; Cameroon Airlines; Albanian Airlines; Central
Air Express, of the Democratic Republic of Congo; Air Universal,
also of Sierra Leone; and Kyrgyzstan Airlines have been unable to
fly to the U.K. at some point since Jan. 1, 2000.
Airlines in Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and
Tajikistan are also banned from the U.K. because of inadequate
safety regulation, McNulty said in a written answer to a
parliamentary question e-mailed to Bloomberg.
Since Jan. 1, 2000, ``a number of airlines have had
applications for permits turned down, or would have had an
application turned down if one had been received, because of
failure to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation
standards or other concerns,'' McNulty said.
The government said it hadn't received an application tooperate in the U.K. by Flash Airlines, which operated the
Egyptian Boeing Co. 737-300 charter plane that crashed on
Saturday killing all 148 on board.

[sharpshot]

It will be difficult for the public at large to appreciate some of the reasons behind banning certain airlines. I used to come into contact with two of the airlines mentioned today.
One used to fly a leased A.320 fully TCAS equipped and then a TU-154 - not even an "M" variant would turn up. They had authority to use 154's with certain registrations but it was never these that appeared - inspections made and ban came into effect.

On other flights, it would be reasonable to say that some carriers have appeared with no Pax Safety cards and you have to wonder about pre-departure briefings, especially as no entertainmet screens existed for the uptodate screening of safety information.

I recall a further inspection of an aircraft whose galley equipment was far from secure and likely to move around the cabin.

Worn tyres were prevalent on many types and I can't admonish some European carriers for the appearance of some of their rubber either!

It is interesting to note that whilst much in aviation is shared across borders, particularly within the EU and manufacturers with customers, and type certification etc, this odd quirke about some authorities not highlighting concerns they have about operators has arisen.

Whatever the outcome, let's hope that the sharing of safety information is not compromised and those that are faced with potential adversity in aviation are prepared to pass on what they have learned.

[Pax-man]

Well, that didn't hurt, did it??

Full marks to the Govt. for letting us know who we may choose to avoid. I doubt very much that the press will be able to find much 'sensationalism' in that rather obscure lot - let's face it, hardly any of the flying public in the UK is ever likely to come into contact with any of the outfits on the list. Those who might have to now at least have the choice of whether to fly or not.

Let's face it, though. Having seen the list, most (if not all) seem to originate from areas where common sense would tell you to pick your carrier carefully.

Now, if there had been a major carrier on there due to a relatively 'minor' issue which was since rectified, then the press may have had a field day and caused unnecessary grief. But even the British Govt. isn't that reckless. Well, not in this area anyway.

We're all better off for knowing the names of carriers who fall short on safety - the only people who don't benefit are the unscrupulous operators themselves and their unfortunate staff.

[Bubbette]

Posted at all airports in the US there is a list of airports which the FAA suggests not flying to or from beause of security issues. I don't see any upside for a list based on not meeting objective safety standards to be kept secret.

[ramsrc]

What surprises me a little is that this information does not seem to be shared with the appropriate authorities of the other EU member countries. Surely if an airline is banned from say the UK, because of safety concerns it should also be banned from flying into Germany, Belgium, France etc.

At least one of the "banned" airlines regularly flies their TU-154's into Frankfurt, for example.

[sharpshot]

Authorities should at least share the information from say a spot check that leads to a ban. Each nation cannot necessarily spot check the individual aircraft that falls short of standards and not necessarily unearth defects during a turnround on their territory.

I wonder what part "wise" handling agents play in tipping off authorities when they have doubts about the airworthiness etc. of aircraft they are working on?

[openfly]

The list failed to mention all US carriers as being potentially unsafe. They allow...actively encourage... guns with live ammunition to be carried in the cabins of their aircraft!

[Pointer]

As seems to be evident, the JAA seems to be the organisation which should be having a responsibility in these matters. Clear is therefore that the JAA is not equipped with enough authority.

What is another troubling development is that as soon as the outfit is small and unknown, the "governments" (in this case the Swiss) are the one's who are spreading the gospel.

Give these guy's a break and let the data prove if there was a deficiency in the maintenance. It has been proven that the Swiss will use un-just measures to achieve their goals on more than one occasion.

Let the Swiss back up their claim, because the French claim that they checked Flash 3 times and the last two revealed that they where in compliance.

I'm not pro Flash but I am against wild allegations from people that push paper around and are never in a position to take any responsibility


Pointer

[RASTAMIKE]

Pointer wrote:

quote
Let the Swiss back up their claim, because the French claim that they checked Flash 3 times and the last two revealed that they where in compliance.

I'm not pro Flash but I am against wild allegations from people that push paper around and are never in a position to take any responsibility
unquote

The Swiss airworthiness inspectors are highly qualified and know their job. La Grande Nation should once take example on the small Swiss, first country that was fully JAA compliant in Europe

For the ones interested, here you will find the countries classified by the FAA (1 compliant to ICAO, 2 non compliant):

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/iasa/index.cfm

[Skunkie]

:confused:

Hello everyone
does anyone heard smtg about "adriatica" a Croatian airline, flying, I suppose, B-737?
I'm wondering if they are part of the black list of airlines published yesterday.
As long as my company operates some flights for them, for italian tour operators to sharm-el-sheikh, all croatian crew except one italian cabin crew for commercial purposes (and the cabin crew is supposed to be me...:sad: ) i'm trying to get as much infos as possible about the status of their aicrafts and the situation of their crew.
I'm supposed to go to sharm on sunday and really it scares me a little....so hope someone of you knows more at least to reassure me and also my 148 pax!

Thanx a lot everyone!!!

Skunkie

[RASTAMIKE]

Air Adr'atica operate one MD81.

We worked with them twice for special operations and I can tell they are professional, the aircraft is good and the crew excellent

[md80forum]

... operates two ex-USAir MD-82 out of Pula, Croatia, both 20+ years of age.

Jan-Erik

[Skunkie]

:mad:
just this morning breaking news , on Italian television, was published blacklist by ENAC for Companies not anymore admitted in Italy....Air adriatica was one of them!!!!!
Azzurra was operating with them since the last two months, and thanks to my interest (as I was supposed to fly for them) they changed company with Spanair, that shuold be a litle better....at least is part of an alliance!!!!!
other Azzurra news (not definitely sure, on the right thread, but I'll write tomorrow....gotta go to sleep...early wake up tomorrow morning!!!
cheers and be faithful! :D

Skunkie

[Mark Lewis]

Enimex and Star Airlines are very regular visitors to the UK, or at least were last year?

[Skunkie]

;) yep they should be, that's why I'm much more relaxed.

I was really worried as my collegues (only purser) have been flyng on MD 832 for 2 months and we are not certificated on Md of any type.
At Least, Spanair's got A-320 and, if the flight is operated w/those a/c, we are certified.
It's true that we are only supervisor for the commercial, but as long as we know the aircraft, we can immedialtly be choosen as ABP and we undestand our duty in not more than 5 seconds.....
At present ( 3:51 L.T. in Italy) I don't know if the flight has been canx.
Remember that the destination is Sharm, with Italian pax, and really I don' t know what they tour operator is and what they have been told....
I was landing at Marsalam while Flash airlines had the accident i Sharm, so you could imagine the reaction of pax........beyond the 12h 30' of dalay (4 because of the Egyptian airspace and 8 becouse of their not serious tour operator....there was quite a "golpe" in the Cabin...).
Thanx a lot for the infos to everyone. :ok:


Skunkie

[Rockwell]

RAF-AVIA, of Latvia; Enimex, of Estonia;

have both been operating in the UK all last year and the former presently has an aircraft based at
Liverpool for night freight runs around the UK. The RAF AVIA aircraft operates for Emerald
and the Enimex for Channel Express.

In your case PAX-Man bit closer to home than you thought :)

[CargoOne]

I feel there is some misinterpretation of the published list.
If you read other publications, like http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1022595.htm
you will see that some airlines listed in fact has been banned only temporarely.

Those which had been barred, but have since been allowed to resume services, include the Bosnian airline Air Bosna, Latvia's RAF-AVIA, Estonia's Enimex, Inter Trans Air from Bulgaria, and Star Air of Sierra Leone.

That's explains Rockwell's notice.

[sottens]

Anyone having the full list published by the Italian News agency, containing airlines banned from Swiss sky?

I just heard there is the German Cirrus Airline... wish seems ridiculous since FlyBaboo just got approval in November from the Swiss FOCA to operate with wet leased Dash8 from Cirrus.

[RASTAMIKE]

negatif, Cirrus is not listed. Here a press report in French, you will be able to read the names:

L'OFAC publie 7 noms de compagnies dont les avions sont interdits


BERNE - L'Office fédéral de l'aviation civile a confirmé les noms de sept compagnies dont les avions sont interdits de vol en Suisse. Ces données avaient déjà été publiées par la presse. La liste complète reste cependant encore secrète.
L'OFAC a finalement réagi à la publication d'informations dans la presse. Il a décidé, sans consulter les sociétés concernées, de publier le nom des appareils interdits de vol afin d'éviter la propagation de rumeurs et de rétablir la sécurité du droit, a déclaré son porte-parole Daniel Göring.
Outre l'égyptienne Flash Airlines, les compagnies concernées sont: GIR Jet (Espagne), Hemus Air (Bulgarie), JR Executive (Liban/Etats-Unis), Dniproavia (Ukraine), Premium Air Shuttle (Nigéria). et Silk Way (Azerbaïdjan/Belgique). Toutes les machines sont destinées au transport de passagers à l'exception du Boeing DC-8 de Silk Way destiné au fret.
Les données concernant les 14 autres avions frappés d'une interdiction d'atterrir, dont certains peuvent théoriquement appartenir à une même société, n'ont en revanche pas été rendues publiques. Avant de publier ou non la liste complète, l'OFAC et le Département fédéral des transports entendent mener une étude approfondie.
Ils veulent clarifier les "questions délicates" liées à la protection des données et à la responsabilité civile ainsi qu'aux effets d'une telle publication sur le programme de contrôle de la Conférence européenne de l'aviation civile. M. Göring s'est refusé à avancer un délai.
Il a toutefois précisé qu'agissant de le sorte, l'OFAC ne donnait pas moins de poids à la protection des consommateurs et à la sécurité des passagers qu'à la protection des données. Vu que les avions ne sont plus autorisés à atterrir sur territoire suisse, l'office juge qu'il n'y a pas nécessité d'agir.
(ats / 14 janvier 2004 18:10)

[RASTAMIKE]

After that the Swiss CAA released some names of operators banned from Swiss airports for airworthiness or safety reasons, the Lebanese (lessons learnt Cotonou and UTA), made an opportunity inspection on one of them, for instance JR Executive's Boeing 720, and discovered 32 technical problems on the aircraft.

JR Executive is a US-Lebanese company.....

[airmen]

The problem here is that you want to give informations to people which are not able to understand it obviously. Being my self airline pilot and having 13 years experience of maintenance engineer for a major airline, I have a background of knowledges which help me to figure out what I could interpret about a report, but the average people is not able to do that and more the information should be given with the date of occurence, the findings and the corrective action taken. Plus you will have to check it out at regular intervals to be updated about the evolution.
Every airline have done mistakes, will do mistakes and do not need to have such bad publicity with reports that will be not correctly interpreted.
Harmonised rules exists and States Authorities have to check that they are applied, this is not an easy task and it cost big amount of time and money.
To reassure passengers, I would say that as a rule of thumb, the less you pay, the less you have but not necessarily on maintenance or crews. Look at the plane you are boarding, is it old, not clean, parts are missing in the cabin, etc? If it is the case, think about going back!
Air transportation is still the safest way to travel, I am personally more scared to drive to the airport...