Unfair competitive advantage given by Turkish Authority?

[Danny]

I've just noticed an interesting point after reading an accident report (here (http://www.bfu-web.de/berichte/02_ex007eub.pdf)) where a Turkish registered B737-800 suffered a tailstrike on take off due to errors in loading, including the use of standard pax weights (charter) of 70kg for adults and 30kg for children. I noticed on the next to last page of the report that the Turkish DGCA had approved a deviation from JAR-OPS 1.620 standard pax weights that we in the UK (and presumably all other JAR-OPS compliant carriers) are required to use, namely 76kg per adult and 35kg per child.

How can the Turkish DGCA be allowed to give one (if not all) of their charter carriers a competitive advantage over other non Turkish (but JAR-OPS regulated) carriers by allowing an already underestimated nominal pax weight to be reduced even further? Just using the figures for high density layout of a B737-700, of which I am familiar, and assuming an all adult capacity of 148 pax, the Turkish carrier would be able to assume 888kg less load than a UK carrier using the same a/c type.

I wonder why our CAA (and any other EU authority) would allow a foreign carrier to operate in competition with our own heavily regulated carriers when they are using such obvious distortions of the rules. Not only is this deviation from the regs a clear attempt to give their own carriers a competitive advantage but is also bordering on dangerous, as can be seen by the problems encountered in the report mentioned. It is of course only my opinion but have the Turkish DGCA allowed this assumption of lower pax weights because they know that the average Turkish citizen is lighter than their European counterpart and have our own authorities either not noticed this discrepancy or have they quietly agreed to not rock the boat by hoping it wouldn't be noticed by anyone else? Draft letter of query to the CAA would be appreciated.

I would hope that this can be debated without the usual xenophobic rhetoric that is usually triggered by the mere mention of a 'foreign' carrier. Anyone not heeding the previous sentence may find that their efforts in putting their posts on this thread are wasted as they may be removed.

[411A]

Quite frankly, I am not at all surprised.
It is positively a known fact that some regulatory authorities will 'look the other way' where their own national (not necessarily national owned, either) carriers are involved.

Case in point...TF registered aircraft.
Sometimes, it's not what you know, it's who you know.

To think otherwise, is not facing reality.

[Wino]

Danny,

In 1992 or so when I was working for Grand Airways, a VERY large part of their business was airborne tours over the grand canyon. The customers were almost entirerly Chinese strait off the airplane from Asia. For those flights we were allowed to use a much lower assumed weight for the flights filled with Chinese people than those that were mixed or all US citizens.

If this is done in the interest of safety I have no problem with it. OVER stating a passenger's weight can be just as dangerous as understating it, especially when partial main deck loads are balanced against cargo loads. (You won't be over weight, but you could conceivably be out of CG)

Assumed weights were just raised in America, and they are headed up again, in response to our waist lines.

OTOH Scientific American just told me its okay to be fat, soooo bring on the guiness.

Cheers
Wino

[ramrise40]

In the world's best airline we used 84kg for adults on scheduled flights, 76kg for charters and 72kg if more than half of the punters were japs.
Nothing new about such reductions, Mr Fyne.

[Engine overtemp]

The only competitive edge I can see is that the aircraft could (possibly) have a paperwork "fix" and fly at a nominally lower take off weight and therefore attract lower en-route charges.

As I have never had problems getting the fuel on board to make it back from Turkey none stop, fuel loads can't be the reason and putting less fuel on the aircraft as the ZFW is apparantly lower is a waste of time as the aircraft will burn fuel at the rate appropriate to the aircrafts actual (not assumed)weight.


:confused:

[Danny]

In the world's best airline we used 84kg for adults on scheduled flights, 76kg for charters and 72kg if more than half of the punters were japs. Nothing new about such reductionThat's precisely the point. We aren't talking about scheduled ops nor Far East ops. Your company is restricted to using 76kg per adult and 35kg per child for charter just as the rest of the airlines regulated by JAR-OPS.

During my many flights to and from Turkey I never noticed that their citizens appeard any more diminutive than their European counterparts. Considering That turkey is also trying to become a member of the EU, shouldn't they at least be operating to the same standards as the rest of us required?

With regards to operating from Turkey to the UK, in mid-summer I remember there being a requirement to use an extremely sharp pencil when producing a manual loadsheet if we were to get all our pax AND their bags to their destination... at the same time. Whilst the performance of the NG 737's were an improvement, the classics were a nightmare. Has the Turkish DGCA allowed 737 classic operators to use the lower pax weights? If they have, then they have an advantage in theory. Of course, it would only take performance problem to prove the old adage that it is always cheaper to avoid an accident. As was pointed out in the accident report that brought this 'deviation' to light, the pax weights were a factor. Do we not try to prevent all the holes in the swiss cheese from lining up at the same time?

Even if the 'competitive' advantage was lower nav charges (assuming they declare lower RTOW's), it is still an advantage. As has been mentoned also, there is debate about increasing the assumed standard pax weights as we westerners have piled on the pounds since the original estimates were worked out all those years ago.

[FLEXJET]

Pegasus Airline (the carrier related to the incident) were using above-mentioned lower weights.
They amended this since due to "JAA requirements" and are now using standard weights like any other airline.

[atse]

Well, there are other variants to be considered as well ... for instance you cast your eye along the ramp in, say, Stansted. Your eye falls upon an easyJet 737 and then upon a Ryanair 737. Two Aviation Authorities are involved here, but one seems to have conveyed a competitive advantage on one of these carriers in respect of, for example, the interpretation of the annual maximum number of flying hours a pilot can fly.

One aviation authority has a set of rules that applies to all operators, the other appears willing to "assess" the situation operator by operator. Does this lead to an "unfair" operating advantage, or is it just a pragmatic and flexible arrangement?

[Mark McG]

The Canadians have recently introduced a new set of notional weights: 91kg for a male and 76?Kg for a female in the summer months, with these increasing in the winter months. They have went up from 83kg and 69kg respectively. On a 767 seating approx 270 this equates to around a 2000kg increase in the traffic load. Now take a 738 with 189 seats, and use the Canadian weights. You would be looking at an average increase in traffic load of around 1300Kg per flight.
This can be applied in the reverse sense to this situation. By using the lower weights instead of the JAR notional weights, they are reducing the Traffic load by around 1300kg. This could then be the difference between having to tech stop enroute due to the higher ZFW or being able to carry a heavier fuel load to eliminate a tech stop.

[Kaptin M]

"The operator received an approval from the Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.620 (g) to deviate from JAR-OPS 1.620 (70 kg for adults and 30 kg for children)."

My take on this, is that the operation was still conducted IN ACCORDANCE with JAR-OPS - the variation in pax weights is allowable if the dispensation, as provided for within JAR-OPS, is applied for, and approved.

That aside, the multiple mistakes made by the W & B people handling that flight are disgraceful to say the least, and were directly responsible for the accident.

Back to your thread title though, Danny. I can't see that there would be an "unfair competitive advantage" operating under this (JAR-OPS approved) dispensation, unless the aircraft was operating at max T/O or Max L Wt. In this instance, it was a long way below both.

[Stratocaster]

JAR-OPS 1.620(g): If an operator wishes to use standard mass values other than those contained in Tables 1 to 3 above (*), he must advise the Authority of his reasons and gain its approval in advance. He must also submit for approval a detailed weighing survey plan and apply the statistical analysis method given in Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.620(g). After verification and approval by the Authority of the results of the weighing survey, the revised standard mass values are only applicable to that operator. The revised standard mass values can only be used in circumstances consistent with those under which the survey was conducted. Where revised standard masses exceed those in Tables 1–3, then such higher values must be used. (See IEM OPS 1.620(g).)

Do you think they did all that ?
:)

(* table 1 says adults 76kg, children 35kg)

[The Real Slim Shady]

Having spent some time working for a Turkish operator I can assure you that any operation in accordance with JARs is purely coincidental.

They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.

Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".

When the IVW, CAA, RLD and the other JAA national authorities actually do substanstive ramp checks on Turkish carriers you might see action taken against more than Onur !!

[Kaptin M]

Do you think they did all that ? What I think is irrelevant - according to the investigation :- "The operator received an approval from the Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)".
Perhaps the Turkish DGCA needs investigating, to see whether all the requirements were complied with, BEFORE the approval was granted.

Hearsay, innuendo, and rumour is one thing - having people willing to make written, sworn statements, citing ACTUAL times, places, and occasions is another.

[His dudeness]

The unfair competetive advantage is given to all airlines operating more than 30 seats.
Why the heck does a passenger weigh say 84 kg when arriving with LH in Bremen, then he boards a C172 to fly to say Husum and turns into a 104kg man ?
The same guy returns in an Islander, now weighing 96kg and boards a Condor charter flight, now lost weight to a slim 76 kg.



Another thread covered the turkish 737 tailstrike in STR, during T/O !!! All pax in the back, all baggage in the rear hold.

Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.

[guclu]

Just interesting Quotes below. Just wondering how you come up with democracy from this subject.

I was flying for Onur Air untill last year. Everything is according to JAA regulations. But very interesting ramp checks are carried out. They have asked an Onur Air crew to show their medical licenses. The crew shows the medical licenses approved by the hospital. Then they ask them if they have their reports from hospital with them.

Currently pilots from Germany, France,... are flying for Onur too.

I think it is time Turkish DGCA should start Ramp Checks to EU operators within Turkey. Will be interesting to watch the results.





Quote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having spent some time working for a Turkish operator I can assure you that any operation in accordance with JARs is purely coincidental.

They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.

Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Diabolo]

As you are an insider GUCLU should then remind us some incident like the one wich happend during Hajj 2002.
Was it a standart operation????

[dicksynormous]

Complete the following:

Turkey is to JAR as Liberia is to

a: accountability

B: transparancy

C: shipping flag of convenience

[Few Cloudy]

Anyway - doesn´t seem to be much of an operating advantage now - one tail to fix and some passengers to compensate...

[guclu]

Diabolo that was an incident with respect to human factors.

You attitude of asking question is great. Is that SOP in your company.

[ShotOne]

It's hardly fair to criticise the Turkish government for favouring Turkish carriers when other govt's, notably that of the USA, are so blatantly partisan.

When we've seen the end of "Fly America", Chapter 11, the Federal Security funding plus Boeing's subsidies -sorry research grants hen we can start on the Turks.

[You Gimboid]

Yes - and while we're here, what about the unfair competitive advantage enjoyed by Iberia in Spanish airspace? The shortcuts, vectoring of foreign traffic out of their way and queue-jumping at the holding points must save them mi££ions in fuel costs every year.

[jimbolayah]

Hi Danny,

I find your post kind of naive to be honest. You have all this experience and still you think everything is fair in aviation. Iam not claiming that your issue is not true, however like other forum posters stated. There are so many more charters, national airlines that enjoy this so called advantage over other "foreign"airlines. This may be the weight, or other good stuff like the vectors that iberia is getting over other foreign airlines.

So in my view there is no need to highlight Turkey, just because onur air is in the picture at the moment. Also may I remind you that airlines from countries like turkey,marrocco,asia,africa are always looked at closer then other european countries. Being a european carrier doesn't necessarely mean that, everything is honky dory, reffering to air holland being sponsered by drugs money, and holland excel run by "criminals" both dutch read european country.

Cheers jimbolayah

[Danny]

Oh, puleeze! Can we have a bit of mature debate here and not the usual "those nasty Spanish/French/(insert whatever) Air Traffic Controllers keep vectoring their aircraft in front of me" whinges. I've been flying all over Europe, Africa, Far East, North and South America and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I think I may have received some controlling that may be questionable. The vast majority of times most of you have no idea of the bigger picture that ATC has and to repeatedly whinge about them letting the locals in before you without any other evidence is little more than some kind of swagger about your percieved self importance.! :rolleyes:

My original post was about documented evidence of one regulatory authority giving at least one of its carriers a dispensation to use lighter than normal 'standard' pax weights. As was mentioned it may have given them some form of competitive advantage over competing carriers on the same routes with the same a/c types. As has been pointed out, this anomaly has now been removed and the Turkish DGAC have removed the dispensation.

Next time you think that ATC are mucking you about why don't you go up the tower or visit the control centre and get a real idea of how ATC really works. I am of course assuming that you are also fluent in the language of the country where you claim ATC deliberately try to mess you about. :rolleyes:

[swedish]

I have worked for several JAR operators over the EU and it is incorrect to claim Turkish carriers have such an advantage, or any operator / state. As has been indicated in other posts there are UK, Nordic, German, Irish and Italian companies that I have worked for who all use the 'charter' weights for scheduled flights, and indeed several use the intra-EU weights for intercontinental flights. Whats in the Ops manual Part A is by definition approved by the state, no matter how it disagrees with the text in JAR OPS 1. These operators continue to operate today with this lower weight approved and have not had it removed as appears to have happened in Turkey.

[The Real Slim Shady]

Swedish

If the carrier wishes to hold a JAR approval the OM A, and all the others for that matter, must be approved and accepted by the JAA national authority.

It cannot disagree with JAR Ops 1 or JAR FCL 1. It can be more restrictive but not less so.

Now I can assure you that my experience is that Turkish operators will interpret JARs liberally; don't expect your flightcrew to be trained or necessarily competent in comparison to European flightcrew.

That said, there are exceptions, but the people who are genuinely good and strive to maintain standards are not managers holding the purse strings and tearing up contracts.

My experience is that Atlas have a good reputation and Corendon are likely to follow suit; Inter Ekspres are bottom of the pile, Pegasus are slightly better etc etc.

Nevertheless, you will always find some good people in each company chipping away trying to raise the game.

Pilots and owners / managers are not the same. We, the crews tend to have things forced upon us if we want to keep our jobs.

[stagn8]

Might be a market opportunity here then for a set of scales to weigh passengers at check-in.... that would end the fuzziness around whether the plane is 1300kgs overweight (maybe 3+ tonnes if a widebody) and allow for more accurate fuel and trim calculations. If you fly SAA on the 340 for a long hop you get your hand baggage weighed as well so why not the pax themselves, since the technology is there ????

Certainly 70 odd kgs doesn;t seem a very accurate average these days, espec in the US..... But is there a will to do this or do we wait until an incident?

Wasn''t there a Merchantman or similar freighter once that crashed on take-off because the weight of the cattle on board was determined by weighing one cow and multiplying it by the number on board. The subsequent investigation discovered that the one that wasn't pregnant got weighed whilst most of the rest were a lot heavier.....net result more tonnage than could be carried. It might be myth but it's a good story !!