View Full Version : Another Channex incident.

8th Jun 2001, 17:06
From the 6th June Jersey Evening Post:-

A TRAGEDY was averted yesterday morning when a cargo plane developed an engine fire just after take-off but managed to land safely.

The Channel Express plane was forced to return to the Airport just minutes after getting airborne, and was met by Airport Fire and Rescue Services.

Although debris dropped from the engine during the brief flight, no one – including the three crew members – was injured.

The flight took off for Bournemouth from the easterly runway just before midday, but within a few minutes Captain David Maxwell notified ground control that the port engine was on fire. He triggered the onboard extinguishers which put the fire out.

Mr Maxwell then landed the plane safely, and Airport fire and rescue services accompanied the plane to the freight terminal.

Engineers are currently preparing a report for the air accident investigation board.

Airport director Mike Lanyon said that the cause of the fire was unknown at this stage. However, it is understood that the plane had been delayed earlier that morning because of engine trouble.

Red Snake
8th Jun 2001, 20:03
Well done David. A great guy to fly with.

Lightning ace
8th Jun 2001, 20:08
What was it an F27 ?

8th Jun 2001, 22:30
David is a pilot with great reputation and excellent skills. He knows the F27 very well and his actions were certainly appropriate to a professional.
Well done!

8th Jun 2001, 23:37
What a bunch of cowboys. This operation isn't the secret UK cargo arm of Korean Airlines is it? Isn't it time the CAA had a long hard look a their "enviable" safety record?

9th Jun 2001, 00:43
Incoming!!!!! Hey Barcode, how about you state your case before you start stirring the sh#t??

9th Jun 2001, 03:03
Fokker F-27 registered G-CEXF

9th Jun 2001, 03:20

You are clearly a ********. Channex is a fine airline and Dave Maxwell did a fine job, so why don't you take your attitude and stuff it up your arse, you ******!!!!!!!!

9th Jun 2001, 03:45
OK, give me a carefully reasoned, well measured and logical argument against Channex. Anyone can have an engine go BANG, it happens. The point is that the man did the job and got the aeroplane on the ground with no probs and, more importantly, everyone walked away from it. Cowboys would have crashed - Dave Maxwell didn't. He did the job as advertised in what is, I believe, an aeroplane that is marginal on one engine. (Any F27 drivers out there might wish to confirm/deny this). If a BA jet suffered an engine failure on take-off, and the captain went round and landed safely, would you call them cowboys? Yeah, you probably would, coz I bet they turned you down for a job too!!

9th Jun 2001, 03:46
check your original post you hypocritical gimp !.
I knew Dave when he was an L188 crew member, well done mate. Whats the matter Barcode, Channel turned you down for a job ?.
Edited to say "SNAP" to Vmike (check posting times !).

[This message has been edited by ragspanner (edited 08 June 2001).]

9th Jun 2001, 04:00
You have yet to state your case.

9th Jun 2001, 11:54
Not defending barcode, but...

Channex had an unfortunate accident in GCI due to incorrect loading after which they banned their crews from landing with full flap. Net result of this policy is that they have now had 1 aircraft go through the hedge at Coventry and also a VERY close shave at STN which is detailed in the latest AAIB bulletin where the resultant lack of drag has been a contributing factor.

If there was a problem with the loading in the GCI incident surely the right thing to do is (re)teach loading rather than change the way it has been operated for 40years?

Note also the comment in the JEP report of the previous tech delay. Might something have not been done up the way it should resulting in a fuel leak?

[This message has been edited by Flap40 (edited 09 June 2001).]

9th Jun 2001, 13:40
I presume the copilot did nothing? Well done to both pilots - it's a shame the press haven't heard of CRM!

Lightning ace
9th Jun 2001, 18:11
Why do so many poeple slag off channex. We all know they made you work hard for your money, and the money is not the best in the world. But thats business. At least they have a healthy business and plenty of seats to keep us drivers in work.
Lighten up guys...

9th Jun 2001, 18:13
What series was G-CEXF?

9th Jun 2001, 19:27
Hogg - I couldn't disagree more. It's one thing practicing an emergency procedure every six months - it's another having to put it into effect without warning. It's not just another day at the office. All the crew deserve whatever praise comes thier way. I can only presume either you've not had an emergency yourself yet or if you have it never got any press coverage?

9th Jun 2001, 19:42
Sorry my old cherry but I disagree with you. An engine failure, fire (a contained one!) or any other regularly practiced emergency is only a big deal to those whom have trouble doing them correctly in a simulated environment. The actual emergency in the aeroplane (or practiced) is without a doubt easier to handle than a simulator induced one.
It sounds like the CREW handled this one well, I bet they also handle their 6 monthly checks well and weren´t terribly phased by this event.
We gotta get tougher in the simulator etc to stop others not as proficient ´getting thru´ regardless of economics!

9th Jun 2001, 20:42
fourpaddles, G-CEXF is like GCEXE a 500 series F27 but with the "small" 532 engines.

9th Jun 2001, 22:03
My information is the First officer was the handling pilot on his first handling trip of line training apparently Dave took control when the aircraft was level downwind.An uncontained turbine failure is not to my mind a run of the mill failure, but this was dealt with well by the crew working as a crew.

freightdoggy dog
9th Jun 2001, 22:35
Barcode you are IMHO an arse.

Flaps 40, all aircrew at Channex go thro an initial and yearly Mass + Balance/ Loading course specific to A/C type. It was one of the recommendations from the C.A.A.

Well done David, good job. P.S will it do a trip Buddyboy?

10th Jun 2001, 00:31
I don't want to sidetrack the original point of this thread but Ellion, believe me, the real life event does feel very different during and after. It is something a simulator just cannot reproduce.

11th Jun 2001, 14:09
If you bother to read through all of the report, you will find that an important factor was the cockpit "gradient," in other words, CRM related. Check it out at

I Kid
12th Jun 2001, 11:02
Got to agree with Hogg, having never carried out a take-off in the Simulator without experiencing Engine failure/fire/severe damage or any other serious malfunction, my experience is that when one of the Donkeys do decide to give up for real just after rotation is that you get on with what we are trained to do and that includes getting the A/C back on the ground safely. No press coverage and no heroics involved just another day in the office that was unfortunately cut short resulting in a large beverage ( or three ! ) at 8am.

Well done anyway to the Channex Crew.

Capt Daniel Eagleburger
12th Jun 2001, 11:34
Well done to ALL of the crew. You both walked away (most important)and the aircraft is in one piece.
'Nuff said!!

Top Loadie
14th Jun 2001, 01:08
Good work Dave and whoever was in the right seat. CRM obviously played it's part in bringing a satisfactory conclusion.
(I've only just heard of this incident as I've been on a well deserved holiday)
One further point, the news report on the original post said that there were three crew onboard. Is this just standard press inaccuracy or was there another poor soul onboard? An enginner catching a lift perhaps?

Still nothing from you since your ridiculous comments on 8th June. Are you still trying to get your brain in gear...!!

14th Jun 2001, 10:46
i've read everyone's carefully worded responses and i would love to hear what you have to say. Perhaps as some lads wrote you did get the PFO from ChanEx and that's why you are sore....well get over it!!!!
State your case or shut up......the fact that you have not responded says volumes to me.
The fact that ChanEx over ran a runway doesn't make them cowboys does it????
A BA 747-400 over ran the runway 24 in Shannon,an Aer Lingus MD11 over ran the same runway only at the opposite end...
United B767 over ran the runway in Glasgow
Cathy Pacific did the same in Hong Kong....
see my drift.....alot of airlines have done the same.....does this make half the world's airlines COWBOYS???? nah don't think so....
But then there are some bad losers in this world especially if you did the heave ho from ChanEx....
Myself i dealt with them a flight dispatcher in Ireland before heading west and joining UAL.....have to say they are a very professional outfit and would advise the likes of "Barcode" who might need a real job instead of his Microsoft flight simulator to put a lid on it.....
Good luck to the guys....

14th Jun 2001, 10:51
just checking out your profile....
there's NOTHING there...what have you got to hide....perhaps it's the reason that you are an Anorak at the viewing area flying your microsoft flight simulator in an F27 with 1 engine out........man get a life......
leave the flying to the real professionals

Genghis McCann
14th Jun 2001, 23:15
I started my flying career at Channex and they are a great outfit. I had 3 indicated engine fires with them (turned out to be faulty wiring)! I can assure you that it was not like the simulator as we did not have one!

Channex, in common with many freight operators, fly old aircraft that tend to get more problems than newer specimens. It is most unfortunate that Barcode and others look at Channex and think they are a shambles - nothing could be further from the truth. They were great employers and very professional. They have had a number of safety incidents but do not be fooled by that. They are operators of the highest standard but fly old aircraft in dreadful weather at night with limited avionics equipment. Anyone who has been on the inside will tell you that they have a high failure rate in training and demand the highest standard of their crews.

It is not good to read such misinformed comments from people who are not qualified to make a judgement on the company. I wish everyone there every success in the future and congratulate the crew on their skillful handling of a difficult sitation.

15th Jun 2001, 16:55
Genghis, Hear hear. At last, someone who knows the truth and speaks common sense. I can vouch for the fact that the standards required of aircrew at Channex are as high as anywhere else, and that includes the military. The flying is routinely demanding, especially on the F27 fleet. Those who know nothing about Channex and their operations should keep it shut.

16th Jun 2001, 00:21
Agreed--top company and professional to boot. Chanex beat most of the others hands down.

18th Jun 2001, 13:45
Well said, we are talking about a top company who are extremely safety and quality minded.

Thumbs up to Dave and his FO for bringing the aircraft back safely as that is the most important part. And Barcode please go back to your local flying club.... they might be interested in your B.llsh.t!!

I'd rather be flying... :)

18th Jun 2001, 19:20

High training failure rate?

Does that indicate high standards or crap training?

Genghis McCann
19th Jun 2001, 02:59
Ducksoup et al,

The high failure rate in training I referred to is, as you rightly point out, as a result of a number of factors. My point was that Channex is not some shabby little airline where anything goes. They demand high standards, and, whether you agree with it or not, those who fail to meet those standards simply do not get through. I am not saying it is good or bad but it is how the system works.

I now fly a very modern, highly computerised, aircraft and which rescues you from a multitude of errors. Flying an old wood-burning F27 (or Herald as it was for me) in bad weather at night shows your failings for all the world to see. It is a very demanding operation and not for the faint-hearted.

As one of the few people on this thread with actual knowledge of the company as opposed to those with supposed 'inside information', I stand by my assertion that Channex are a top rate company who deserve better press than they have received here.

19th Jun 2001, 21:50
Genghis, couldn't agree more.
I worked at Channex and personally flew with Capt. David Maxwell on several occasions and found him to be of the highest standard, both as a flyer and as a bloke. Channex do operate older aircraft, youre at night, limited avionics(for all you guys who have never had the pleasure, have a look at your standby instrument panel next time you fly and they'll closely math the primary instruments we had on the 27), low down and always in the **** . Believe me it's busy.

They have the highest of training standards and trainers (many ex-mil), treated us well and never compromised on safety, it simply wasn't acceptable.

This kind of thing happens in this line of business but you learn from it and move on.

David did a great job and believe me as one who's flown with him, the outcome of that incident was never in doubt, well done lads.

I love flying the big shiny stuff now but will always remember my Channex days fondly.

Be good lads and lasses

PS. Who thinks Barcode needs his/her arse kicked?

19th Jun 2001, 21:57
Those of us customers in the Channel Islands who rely on Channel Express feel that it and its operating crews are competent and do an excellent job in getting our newspapers etc to the islands in what are sometimes pretty bad weather conditions.

20th Jun 2001, 11:28
1 I fully agree with the positive remarks re Channex having seen much of their operation from the inside.
2 I hate to spoil a good story but, if you live on Guernsey, your newspapers are actually brought to you by another (somewhat similar)airline, under contract to Channex.

20th Jun 2001, 21:19
I'm really digusted with the neagtive comments made by various individuals on this subject and also overwhelmed by the amount of people whohave taken the time to put their ore in for Dave. I'm in the know, so to speak, at Chan-Ex and have been really impressed with all of their operation. Their safety record may have been tarnished by some incidents but few of these are as a direct result of crews making bad calls. They have really made an effort to boost my career and even when things haven't gone to plan for me they've always sorted me out with some kind of rescue plan. The company is really professional and despite the old ships they do the job in very tight conditions right down to the wire (minima wise - as do that other similar airline who fly to Gurnsey for us). So there!!

Top Loadie
24th Jun 2001, 22:02
Looks like that moron Barcode has crawled out from under his rock again, making a pathetic attempt at trying to justify his earlier comments ->
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/014393.html (http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/014393.html)