View Full Version : G-monx

31st Mar 2002, 20:56
Today's Sunday Times runs a half page article alleging multiple problems with Monarch's A320 G-MONX. There is a detailed list, but I don't know how bad it is for three years of a heavily-used aircraft. The paper claims that the average number of safety alerts for 100+ seat aircraft is 7.7, and that NX has had 25, with G-MONS (A300) on 24 as was BA 320 G-BUSE, with Monarch A320 G-MONW coming fourth.

Now I don't want to stir anything, but there are no Boeings mentioned in the top four!

The one that I wouldn't have fancied was when passengers allegedly heard a spurious GPWS alert through an open flight deck door.

31st Mar 2002, 21:04
Can anyone give a link to the Sunday times websit and the article, someone mentioned it down the pub. I fly said aircraft and its always been a good ship!!! Bloody Journos again :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

31st Mar 2002, 21:17
No link, sorry - what I do have is a panicked call from my parents one of whom is due to ZB to ALC tomorrow - they want to know whether it is wise to travel Spotty M after all they have just read. I told them that in my view it is just fine.

As Cabin Crew (non ZB), I've tended to stand back from the Journo bashing in these forums (working on the theory that I don't have the technical knowledge either...) however as of today's Sunday Times article, I'm a signed up member of the anti-stupid-journo club.

The article struck me as poorly researched, sensationalist and ill-informed. It angered me, and that was before I had to try and calm down my parents. Beyond filling space with newsprint, I wonder what the point of publishing it was?

Bally Heck
31st Mar 2002, 23:25
Gentlemen Discover Gooooogle

Had to log on to get this gem of journalism. I of course would be the last person to criticise th newspaper which discovered the Hitler Diarys. Make up your own minds.

Revealed: the most jinxed jet in Britain

AN AIRBUS plane operated by Monarch Airlines has been identified as the British passenger jet with the worst record of safety incidents. It has a history of engine malfunctions, steering faults and false crash warnings.
The A320 aircraft, used for package holiday and regular flights to Europe, has been involved in 25 safety alerts in three years — more than three times the average.

Its troubled history has emerged in an Insight investigation that has for the first time identified the safety record of individual planes. Monarch also operates the jet that has clocked up the equal second highest number of dangerous or potentially dangerous incidents and the one that comes in fourth place.

At 2.15pm, last Friday the Monarch A320 jet, in its distinctive black and yellow livery, touched down at Luton airport. As the passengers disembarked, they looked tanned and relaxed after their holiday in Gibraltar.

The charter flight was five minutes ahead of schedule and it had a been a hassle-free journey. The weather had been fine and the congested air space above London had caused no problems.

However, as they filed off Monarch flight ZB065 the holidaymakers had unknowingly just flown on a jet with the highest number mechanical failures and problems over the past three years. G-MONX has been diverted six times and declared one mid-air emergency because of serious mechanical faults.

Bart Crotty, a former airworthiness inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, said last week: “Some planes just turn out to be lemons . . . Someone should perhaps be asking, ‘What the hell is going on with this plane?’ ” As 1.6m passengers left Britain by air this weekend, an analysis of the Civil Aviation Authority’s database of safety alerts between 1999 and 2001 shows that while many of the larger passenger jets had none, others had more than 20.

The alerts, known as mandatory occurrence reports, mainly detail mechanical problems, but also include incidents of air rage, collisions on the ground and severe turbulence. Since 1999 G-MONX has had more problems than any other large jet used by Britain’s top 10 airlines. All but two of the 25 alerts it has suffered relate to mechanical or electronic faults.

The aircraft has experienced repeated engine malfunctions, false crash alerts, steering failures and landing gear defects. Even the parking brake has broken.

In January 1999 there was suspected electrical burning on the flight. One of the pilots put on an oxygen mask as a precaution.

After taking off from the Canary Islands in July 1999, the pilot was unable to operate a wing system because of a hydraulic fault. The plane was checked by a mechanic in Lanzarote, took off again and then returned with the same fault.

The day after the hydraulic failure, the A320 left Lanzarote for the third time with a mechanical clean bill of health. Once again, it quickly aborted its flight and returned to Lanzarote with the same problem.

Two months later, the plane took off from Luton and the landing gear failed to retract. Minutes later the navigational displays also failed. The plane was again diverted.

After landing at Luton airport in January 2000 the nosewheel steering failed and the brakes started applying themselves. In a separate incident the next year, a pilot noted “steering (failed) each time the rudder pedals were used”.

In January 2000 the engine malfunctioned because of an oil leak and started to lose power after takeoff. Anxious passengers were told their flight was being aborted because of the engine problems. Two days later, the plane took off. Once again, it returned with the same mechanical failure.

In May 2000 the engine again malfunctioned and a mid-air emergency was declared.

On February 28, 2000, the first safety flaws emerged in the plane’s crash warning systems. As the crew prepared to land in Gibraltar in hazy weather, startled passengers in the front row of seats heard an audible electronic warning: “Pull up. Terrain. Pull up.”

The plane was in fact at a safe altitude of about 5,000ft. Cabin crew, however, reported the warnings caused “some degree of concern” among passengers.

There were three further false alerts last year. On another approach to Gibraltar, the emergency system warned at 300ft: “Terrain ahead (whoop whoop). Pull up.”

In the last incident, in November 2001, white smoke was seen billowing from a power unit on the plane while it was at Luton airport. Fire crews were called and the smoke was traced to an oil leak.

Crotty, who now works as an aviation consultant, said: “There are repeating items in four or five technical areas, which suggests someone isn’t getting it right when they (try to) rectify it.”

While insurance experts estimate that flying in a commercial jet is now 50 times safer than it was in the 1950s, regulators are increasingly concerned about the number of crashes caused by maintenance error.

Safety alerts can provide vital information for regulators and passengers. Concorde had a known history of burst tyres puncturing the fuel tank before the crash in Paris in 2000 in which one of the aircraft exploded, killing all 109 people on board.

Regulators are reluctant for the British safety reports to be scrutinised publicly. The CAA last week refused to release the database, saying: “It is not a public document.”

Insight, however, obtained access to the data and analysed more than 7,000 safety alerts on British-registered aircraft ranging from a 19-seat Gulfstream jet to a 550-seat Boeing 747.

Among the top 10 airlines, the average number of safety alerts for jets with a capacity of more than 100 passengers between 1999 and 2001 was 7.7.

The highest number of alerts was on G-MONX; second with 24 alerts was another Monarch Airlines plane, an A300, G-MONS; equal second was a British Airways A320, G-BUSE; and fourth was another Monarch A320, G-MONW.

Monarch has the highest number of average reports among the top airlines with 18.1 incidents per plane over the three-year period. Monarch says it is scrupulous about reporting all incidents and believes it may have a higher rate than other airlines because of this. It also points out that many incidents are beyond its control.

The CAA’s safety alert database logs about 50 maintenance errors a month. Some are more serious than others. On an Airtours flight leaving Gatwick on January 20, 2000, several passengers heard a bang and saw a panel fly off the plane’s engine. The plane landed safely but an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concluded that it was “highly probable” that a maintenance engineer had failed to secure the panel properly.

On a British Airways flight in August 1999, the flight controls “seized solid” and the pilot had to use extreme force to free them. BA had issued an engineering order for alterations that would have prevented the mid-air emergency but had not implemented it on the Boeing 747-136 because it was due to be retired from the fleet.

The CAA said last week that it had no safety concerns about Monarch Airlines. A spokesman for Monarch said it was always striving to improve its safety procedures and that it was wrong to judge safety alerts by quantity.

Passengers arriving at Luton on G-MONX were unfazed by the aircraft’s history. Mark Omelnitskai, 27, said: “Nothing happened on the flight to suggest it had a bad record. My attitude is that if the airline allows the plane to fly, I am happy with that.”

Hand Solo
31st Mar 2002, 23:34
What a load of utter garbage. But then it wouldn't really sell papers if they said 'despite occasional technical faults the aircraft has operated for x years without injury to passengers or crew'. I'm sure next week the Sunday Times will back this is up with a thorough, well researched report on 'dangerous incidents' affecting non-UK registered aircraft operating from Britain to countries without a mandatory reporting scheme. Not. Still you could always go on holiday on a Spanish coach. Or take the train. Or drive on a motorway on a holiday weekend.

31st Mar 2002, 23:55
It is jinxed I tell you !!!! Do not fly with this plane ! Do not fly with any aircraft that its registration starts with G-MONx !!! Do not fly with Monarch !

Just do not fly anywhere and stay home to buy our newspaper ! It will take care of all of your problems.....

What a load of bull... What genius wrote this story ? :mad:

For the ones reading this after a long flight, yes, it is SARCASM....

DX Wombat
1st Apr 2002, 05:54
My technical knowledge is EXTREMELY limited but even I know that Air Rage is not a mechanical fault. Or have they started thumping passengers with bits of engineering equipment spanners, screwdrivers etc?:eek: :confused:

1st Apr 2002, 06:01
At least our company has a structure to report problems,and keep PAX safety as the highest priority, how many unreported incidents from other operators go unreported??????
that is the Question RUMOUR MONGERS & SCARE MONGERS and SCUMBAG JOURNOS:mad: :mad: :mad:

Lou Scannon
1st Apr 2002, 08:26
Monarch seem to be shown up as a decent company that reports problems. I only wish that they were all that honest.

E cam
1st Apr 2002, 09:54
That's what you get for having a good safety culture with a well used ASR system. Maybe it would please The Times if we were to sweep these things under the carpet!:rolleyes:

Buzz Lightyear
1st Apr 2002, 10:26
If the uninitiated should take anything out of this article, it should be that Monarch (we) have an open and honest flight safety system. Our management have ALWAYS encouraged us to be open without fear of reprisal or recrimination and as long as I can remember have always been at great pains to stress that a decision taken on a dark and dirty night under pressure, can seem a lot different to that taken around a chief pilots table on a monday morning with a cup of coffee. I believe we have the highest safety standards imaginable and the climate within the copany will ensure that will prevail. I will sleep soundly knowing my family are going on holiday with spotty M.

1st Apr 2002, 10:27
Re msg from Lou Scannon 1st April 09.26

I could not agree with you more.
Many thanks for your very sensible and correct coments.

1st Apr 2002, 10:39
At least Monarch report incidents so ALL may learn.Rather different to my last company that somehow swept anything they considered dirty washing under the table. But that was a long time ago.

1st Apr 2002, 11:31
This kind of reporting is dishonest as well as irresponsible. It is dishonest, because, quote The CAA last week refused to release the database, saying: “It is not a public document.” unqoute
However the journalist then "obtained access" to the data.

It is irresponsible because they are undermining airline safety departments' efforts to encourage crews to submit safety reports within a blameless and open safety culture. They claimed to analyse the 7000 reports, but you cannot analyse anything if you have no idea how to put that information into context. It was simply sensationalised not analysed!

I have a scoop for the Sunday Times: Flying is not safe, it IS inherently dangerous! However, it has been turned into the safe mode of travel that the public take for granted by the brilliant and dedicated work of aircraft manufacturers, regulatory bodies, safety departments and not least all the airline crews and engineers who maintain a high level of safety reporting to ensure accidents are prevented.

I do not work for Monarch, but I would be livid at having the reputation of the company and my livelyhood threatened by this irresponsible slide into unresearched gutter journalism.

The people at Monarch fly passengers to their destinations safely, because they understand how to operate within a dangerous environment professionally. Maybe the Sunday Times should try being responsible some time.

DX Wombat
1st Apr 2002, 14:41
As someone who is only a passenger, may I say that I would FAR sooner all minor perceived faults were reported and checked. I don't care if I am delayed as a result I just want to arrive at my destination safe and still breathing. I make sure my car is properly maintained but I have to rely on the airlines to do the same for the aircraft I fly in. I may not have aircraft technical knowledge, but I use highly specialised life-support and monitoring systems on a daily basis and I would hate to think that as a result of someone being unhappy about the perfomance of a piece of equipment and sending it for checking, it was deemed that our equipment was faulty and unsafe. I worry more about things like a short article I read some years ago, in which an airline operating locally was criticised for abysmal maintenance of their aircraft. If I remember rightly, one engine part was so badly worn that the people making the inspection expressed surprise that the aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky! Great! They fly over my house. Carry on reporting your faults and acting on them, it is reassuring not off-putting.:)

1st Apr 2002, 14:53
There isn't an airline out there that doesn't have a dog somewhere. Be gratefull that Monarch's people write the stuff up so that considered technical opinion can determine whats a real problem, and what isn't. I wonder if the journalist thought to enquire what the Flight Hours / Cyles per incident for this aircraft might have been. If its flying it's butt off relative to the rest of the Worlds fleet then it's exposed to more opportunity to fail - thats why God invented Reliability Analysis.

Niaga Dessip
1st Apr 2002, 18:57
What a plonker the person who wrote this, or more importantly, his editor. Take a collection of aircraft, of course one will have had the most incidents. Why not use the same energy and discover which aircraft has been involved in the fewest number of incidents, if either scenario were valid or important. Get a life! This irresponsibility has again let their side down badly, which is sad. I am not in the news industry but my work has from time to time has brought me into contact with some journo who are the usual mix of good, bad and ugly you find in any profession.
I agree with those who feel that Monarch have come out of this rather well. I have flown with them and would be pleased to do so again.

I remain, as ever, Niaga Dessip:p

1st Apr 2002, 19:11
Perhaps one or more of you guys who wrote the excellent responses above could forward them to the Times (without reference to the journo prat perhaps) and include a link to this discussion. Any enlightenment on their part would be a welcome move!

1st Apr 2002, 19:32
The Times report mentioned above was produced by the "Insight" team ........ they can be emailed at ....

[email protected]

The Insight team has produced some outstanding reports in the past and I'm sure would treat any constructive remarks/criticism in a positive way so send them your views

1st Apr 2002, 20:14
OK Done. Light blue touch paper, stand clear..............

Desk Driver
2nd Apr 2002, 06:47
Not being a pilot or engineer I of course stand to be corrected.
But, I would think when your approaching a runway at the bottom of a 'kin big rock and you get a GPWS warning. I'd say that was working would'nt you?

2nd Apr 2002, 09:09

I suspect all unreported incidents go unreported..
:D :D

2nd Apr 2002, 09:34
Mr Desk Driver, I am a pilot and an engineer..... and yes, you do stand to be corrected. ;)

Firstly, the GPWS does not know that if it is flying over steeply rising ground, when in the future that rising ground will cease. Thus it can be fooled and regularly is around certain areas approaching some airports. The mountains south of Dublin airport are a good example.

Also many aircraft including buses are fitted with Enhanced GPWS which also uses topographical data on disk to warn of terrain ahead. If as in the case of the new Athens airport the data was incorrect, then aircraft will again receive false warnings until the problem is corrected.

You can also receive false warnings from aircraft passing legally a thousand feet below in the hold or passing under the aircraft on an airway.

I would not want to comment about any particular instant such as GMONX into GIB (unlike The Sunday Times) until I knew all the facts. Because when you make an assumption .......... it ain't necessarily so !! (sounds like a good line for a song :D )

2nd Apr 2002, 10:27
I can see it now, All Engineering/Flight crew management bonus' will be based on the number of ASRs/MORs,etc filed.


Stand by for a massive influx of CHIRP reports!

This is based on experience of an airline that dished out bonus' to it's CERTIFYING management for:-
1. The least number of Technical delays. Read; "just pen it off and get it away".
2. The number of deferred (MEL) defects cleared. Read; "just clear it and then we'll raise it again when it comes back".

It takes a strong character to buck the system!!:mad:

2nd Apr 2002, 11:35
It's a question of stats, really - in any population with a constant probability of some event (i.e. a technical failure report), you won't see all of them having 2.5 failures. One (in theory) will have none, most will have a few, one will be a total dog. (this is what stats folk call the Bell Curve, nowt to do with Bell helicopters) G-MONX is obviously the one at the shitty end of the graph; either because of chance or because the Airbus lineworkers had a bad day. The former is much more likely! All praise to Monarch for being honest, after all a fault's only a problem if no-one fixes it. (but the spurious GPWS must have set the pax crazy...)

(edited to correct factual inaccuracy)

Desk Driver
2nd Apr 2002, 11:46

Let me explain my orginal (somewhat tongue in cheek) post

The Times Jorno insinuated that it was not working because it gave a warning at 500 ft on approach to GIB. My point was if yo're aiming at the base of the rock of Gibraltar where the threshold is, I would assume that when the GPWS gives a warning it was infact working correctly and that it should not be classed as a fault as it is letting you know that your heading for a big rock which is it's job.

However I'm no pilot or engineer, you are and I accept your views & point about assumption.

2nd Apr 2002, 11:52
The problem may be that the original article stated that the GPWS went off at 5000 feet, not 500; and even at Gibraltar that sounds pretty spurious (but feel free to correct me as I've never been there)

Desk Driver
2nd Apr 2002, 12:00
Sorry I read it at 500' not 5000 feet.


Does that fact that the aircraft is descending to 0' at the base of the rock (or there abouts) become a factor?

I'm desk bound so what do I know?

2nd Apr 2002, 13:02
with reference to the gpws problems these occurred when gmonx was upgraded to egpws fit and there were some errors in the database from the supplier,so the system saw the rock in front of the acft and not just off to the left.....we filled in the asrs our r&d and management then could pull all data and get problem sorted....just what the safety system is supposed to do......but then thats not a story for the insight team.
I shall be making a consumer choice about what paper I now buy on a Sunday.....

2nd Apr 2002, 14:37
I know this is stating the obvious, but just got to get it off my chest. Where in our democracy is the right of reply? As stated earlier in the thread, Monarch have come out well, but how does Joe PAX find this out? Picture the scenario.. nervous PAX, just booked his family holiday with aforesaid airline. Reads newspaper, knee jerk reaction, changes airline or cancels holiday. Despite my interest in Aviation, I am not the worlds most relaxed passenger and flew last year on MONX to ALC and back (uneventfully). If I had read the article prior to travelling, it would merely have heightened my nervousness and tension - knowing the full story as detailed in this forum would have had a reverse effect - but when will we see a statement in the Sunday Times from Monarch stating their defence? Its not fair.

2nd Apr 2002, 14:41
Statement in Response to an Article Which Appeared in the Sunday Times on 31 March

Monarch Airlines was very disappointed to read the article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 31st March, which we believe to be fundamentally flawed and irresponsible.

In order to fully understand the issues covered in the article, one has to understand the purpose of the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) system. MORs are filed by an airline whenever an event, whether minor or serious, occurs during an aircraft’s operation. These reports are filed with the CAA in order to share this information with the rest of the airline industry. MORs are filed by the operator themselves and not the CAA. Safety is the number one priority at Monarch, and as a responsible airline, we encourage our pilots to file MORs. We believe that by feeding back as much information as we possibly can, we are assisting the aviation industry with the objective of improving the UK’s exceptionally high safety standards.

We believe that this is one of the reasons why our level of MOR reporting appears higher than other airlines, and it is disappointing to see that the result of our vigilance is such a damaging article written by a journalist who has no expertise in these matters, and has ignored advice given to him by the CAA.

The Sunday Times had a lengthy conversation with the CAA prior to the publication of the article. The CAA is the government-appointed regulator of the UK’s aviation industry and made the following points:

Firstly, they advised that analysing MORs in this way is meaningless and inadvisable, as these reports are subjective and should be judged by the nature of the incident and not the number filed. MORs also cover incidents which are beyond the control of an airline. For example Air Traffic Control incidents, medical emergencies, disruptive behavior by passengers, and turbulence would all be recorded as MORs.

Secondly, the CAA expressed the view that the Sunday Times’ statistical analysis was fundamentally flawed, as it has been conducted over a short period of time, and is a crude comparison, benchmarking Monarch with airlines which have a lower utilisation rate and different fleet size. The Sunday Times were told that meaningful comparisons cannot be made in this way and Monarch Airlines is surprised to see the newspaper chose to ignore this advice from the very publisher of the information, and the UK’s aviation industry regulator.

Thirdly, the CAA advised the Sunday Times that Monarch Airlines has an extremely good safety record. The CAA conducted its annual safety audit of Monarch in January, and it received a very complimentary report. It must also be stressed that MOR reporting is only a small part of an airline’s safety management system.

Fourthly, the CAA stressed to the Sunday Times that this article would be detrimental to the aviation industry as is likely to deter airlines from volunteering to file MORs if they were to be judged by the number submitted. The CAA aims to encourage airlines to report MORs, and Monarch fully supports this objective. Monarch Airlines finds it disappointing and concerning that the Sunday Times chose to ignore the advice of the CAA in this matter, and believes that the publication of this article is detrimental to safety within the UK aviation industry.

Monarch Airlines has no concerns with the aircraft mentioned (G-MONX). All of our aircraft are maintained in accordance with the industry’s strict safety regulations, and Monarch Airlines always complies fully with all directives from the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers of our aircraft. We would not permit an aircraft to operate unless we were completely satisfied that it meets all the required stringent safety regulations.

Many of the faults mentioned with regard to this aircraft are minor reoccurring faults which were fully investigated and rectified at the time. These minor occurrences will have artificially inflated the number of MORs reported in relation to this aircraft.

For example, four of the MORs filed are related to the enhanced ground proximity warning system. This was a brand new piece of optional safety equipment and the vast majority of airlines had chosen not to install it. Monarch Airlines, being vigilant and pioneering with regard to safety, opted to install the equipment ahead of it being required. Due to navigational considerations, this early version could occasionally generate a spurious warning when approaching a few specific airfields. Clearly this is a minor fault and in no way compromises the safety of our passengers. However, being a responsible airline, we filed these as MORs. This example serves to demonstrate that it is not possible to judge an airline or an aircraft by the number of MORs it has filed.


Monarch Airlines believes this article is fundamentally flawed and unbalanced. The style of writing and the choice of language used is designed to be alarmist and the journalist is clearly trying to prey on the fears of many travellers. The article also ignores the strong advice given to them from the UK’s industry regulators.

More significantly we believe the publication of the feature is irresponsible, as in the long run, it will serve to compromise the safety of the UK’s aviation industry by deterring many UK airlines from reporting MORs. This is clearly not in the interest of Sunday Times readers or the general public, and we are surprised that the newspaper chose to publish it despite being advised against doing so by the CAA.

2 April 2002

2nd Apr 2002, 15:42
Subject Closed!!! and well said!

2nd Apr 2002, 16:23
All those in support of Monarch's response say Aye!!


The article says it all and I'm sure is echoed by everyone reading this thread.

I personally would expect better from the Times. Publishing this onesided, alarmist excuse for journalism should at censored by the CAA.


2nd Apr 2002, 16:39
Well posted BJ!

2nd Apr 2002, 17:30
Spot on, of course, but is it going to get the same amount of coverage in next week's Sunset Times? I doubt it. No self respecting journo would ever let the truth get in the way of a good story (or a 3rd rate one, for that matter).

2nd Apr 2002, 18:07
Nice reply from Spotty M management, i trust it will be published next week. LMAO.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/laser.gif All Insight journos please line up..

2nd Apr 2002, 18:11
This is PPRuNe at its best and as it should be. Some heat, but a lot of light.

2nd Apr 2002, 19:38
Well said one and all. What alarms me is that if it had not been for the demise of one well known old Great Grandma, this 'sensational' article would probably have been on the front page.

Desk Driver
3rd Apr 2002, 06:56
If it would'nt play straight in to the hands of the papers I'd say SUE THE BASTARDS!

What a brilliant response from MONARCH. Well done!

Whiskey Zulu
3rd Apr 2002, 13:50
Bacon Juice, do you know if Monarch's response was or will be printed in any newspapers? Or was it just 'released' to the press?

3rd Apr 2002, 19:18
There goes my cover ---this shiny new BB (nice) has taken to reporting my login instead of the worthy alias:

Call me Systemsguy (post-edit)

------------------MESSAGE FOLLOWS:

Let's head this thing for the high ground, guys and gals! (or at least for a flat spot...)

I propose that we of the Pprune community establish an ongoing competition for the "Howitzer Prize in Journalism", which periodically and noisily memorializes the aviation press stories that most resemble "shooting a mouse with a cannon".

Not only does this give a constructive vent for the heat that stupid, inacurate, overblown and deceptive reporting deservedly attracts from the professional aviation community, it also creates an open-ended megaphone for giving back in kind.

By issuing a press release now and then with our democratically (har) arrived-at list of the 10 (or whatever) most irresponsible aviation news stories of the year, the existence of the Pprune Howitzer will promote more evenhanded print discussion of these topics and may just bring a little heat to bear on the pulp personalities who thus disgrace themselves in regard to the standards of 'professional journalists'.

On the theory that "some papers will print just about anything", the PPHA should be able to garner enough ink that the word gets out - in a manner that brings deserved credit to aviation and appropriate shame to those perfidious scribes who deliberately get things wrong for personal gain.

Like a well-placed flea, a pro-active press channel doesn't have to be a very big thing to have quite a pronounced effect. If more than three folks feel this would be constructive, and if Capt. P does not object, I will volunteer to do some grunt work to actually get the process lit & encourage others to participate. As a one-time editor and publisher, I know a bit about how and where things are in that swamp; as an aviator since roughly puberty, I would be happy to help level the field a bit.

9th Apr 2002, 09:42
Just had my annual exposure to the Monarch product for a spot of Easter sun (300-600 LGW-ALC) and it was a pleasure as ever (all things being relative). Great to have a widebody and great to see the MON cabin staff in fine form in the teeth of myriad provocations. And an LGW check-in so fast I thought I'd gone to the wrong airport.

(Do any ALC flights EVER arrive or leave on time?)

As a regular scanner of the MORs, I would confirm the enormous inconsistency in reporting - although I've never analysed whether it's a carrrier-specific thing. Always a mad mix of the fantastically trivial (which surely can't be mandatory), the run of the mill, and the mildly alarming.

9th Apr 2002, 10:00
All the flights i've operated to ALC with Spotty M recently have always run on time!!!!
You get more MOR's filed, when the company culture is an open and condusive to reporting problems/incidents. @ Spotty M that is what we have. :) :) Looking on PPrune, it is obvious this system/work culture does not exist at many companies, hence less MOR/ASR's filed.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

9th Apr 2002, 10:41
Based on the amount of heat and light generated on Pprune by poor journalism I am surprised that arcniz's suggestion has not received more support or, at least discussion. If this BB can be organised to counter the destructive effects of such shoddy reporting, I think it should be done. For what my support is worth I would certainly give it willingly. Perhaps a forum committed to the promotion of good aviation journalism should be started.

The Chinook thread has been extremely valuable in that contributors provided information such, as addresses, facts and arguments, which made it easier for lazy people like me to actually DO something useful instead of just moaning about it. Perhaps a Press forum could provide a similar useful service.

13th Apr 2002, 13:29
An update to this topic, the CAA's jumped in on Monarch's side. :)
CAA letter to Sunday Times in Response to Article Published 31 March 2002
Letter which appears on CAA's website dated 3 April 2002:
From Mike Bell, Acting Group Director Safety Regulation

Your article 'Revealed: The Most Jinxed Jet in Britain' - 31 March 2002, takes a very simplistic approach to UK civil aviation safety.

Any judgement on the safety of an aircraft or airline based solely on the number of incident reports filed is flawed. Safety performance cannot be assessed without having each occurrence report reviewed and graded by experts, taking into account the number of hours flown by an aircraft.

Since its inception in 1976, the UK's occurrence reporting scheme has been recognised throughout the world as being one of the leading sources of safety data. Vital information from that data has led to significant safety improvements.

The UK industry’s willingness to register these reports with CAA reflects the existence of the strong safety culture that underpins the overall safety performance of the UK aviation community – a record that is one of the best in the world.

Those of us responsible for civil aviation safety in the UK hope that industry is in no way deterred by your article from filing reports as this would have extremely detrimental implications for the effectiveness of the occurrence reporting scheme, and potentially for aviation safety in the UK.

13th Apr 2002, 14:28
I stopped reading the Sunday Times long ago.

It used to be a newspaper of very high standing. It has steadily descended towards the sensational and inaccurate and can no longer be relied upon as a newspaper of authority and integrity.

But then look who owns it.

14th Apr 2002, 20:26
Hey, M Mouse, it's still good for lighting barbeques or soaking up the oil leaking from the sump of your car!

But read the tatty rag, Never!