Aurela (Operating for Monarch) off the runway at BHX [Archive]

elgnin

21st Sep 2012, 15:26

There are any number of reasons why this has happened from human error to mechanical failure of sort. It is 3-6 months too soon for anyone to speculate why.

Why are you thanking Monarch in a sarcastic manner? An aircraft operating for them has encountered an incident, cause unknown, no-one hurt, 2 hour suspension to operations, things now back to normal with some delays as a result - how is that the fault of Monarch??

One pax is quoted on the BBC as stating "it's the oldest aircraft I have ever flown on" - as if aircraft age/state/condition is the cause - what has that got to do with an incident the cause of which is unknown. The flight had taken place and landed - age of the aircraft is irrelevant.

ATIS

21st Sep 2012, 15:28

BBC reports Monarch have suspended the use of Aurela

hetfield

21st Sep 2012, 15:34

Well, it looks like 2.605m were not enough for a 737....

Groundbased

21st Sep 2012, 15:34

There's been an extensive discussion on the Airlines Airports and Routes forum about Monarch's arrangements for covering the summer timetable with Aurela and Air Explore,

Regardless of the specifics of this event it hasn't been a PR success for Monarch given the Tenerife ( I think) situation made the national news as well.

Agaricus bisporus

21st Sep 2012, 15:38

What on earth is Monarch doing subbing out to a LITHUANIAN company?
If I'd (been desperate enough to have) bought a ticket on Monarch I'd be mighty displeased to see I had to ride in that!

What is the world coming to?

oxenos

21st Sep 2012, 15:44

Thunderbirdsix.
Like you I thought that a lot of people would be disappointed it wasn't Ryanair, but obviously they are getting their digs in anyway.

Road_Hog

21st Sep 2012, 15:48

Why are you thanking Monarch in a sarcastic manner? An aircraft operating for them has encountered an incident, cause unknown, no-one hurt, 2 hour suspension to operations, things now back to normal with some delays as a result - how is that the fault of Monarch?? Perhaps you want to bother reading my post correctly and what I was replying to before you start spouting off. I replied to this question from another poster, "Did anyone see the landing? Did it overrun or just skid off?" You'll notice that the comment was in speech marks, i.e. I was quoting someone else, it was not my comment. So I was in no way being sarcastic, but even so, I felt it was a fair comment from someone that was on the plane.

DaveReidUK

21st Sep 2012, 15:49

BBC reports Monarch have suspended the use of Aurela

Said as much in the Monarch press release, which also tells us that the aircraft "left the runway whilst taxiing to the terminal".

Burpbot

21st Sep 2012, 15:49

To be fair had it been Ryanair, most people would say oh another one!!:}

Fansfail

21st Sep 2012, 15:54

the godfather . scene from the horse's head in bed . francis ford coppola - YouTube

elgnin

21st Sep 2012, 16:02

Fair point, I concede that I missed the quotation marks and as such should not have attributed them to you - apologies that that appears to have lit your fuse.

andrewruk

21st Sep 2012, 16:17

BBC News24 presenter asked the question 'Why didn't the pilot just put the engines into reverse?'.

Presumably this is just a case of reversing the terminals on the starter motors. :ugh:

FSXPilot

21st Sep 2012, 16:20

Has Weaver managed to get a job flying 737s?

Grenville Fortescue

21st Sep 2012, 16:24

And there I was believing Monarch drivers didn't enjoy playing in the rough! ;)

Anthony Supplebottom

21st Sep 2012, 16:39

Why is Aurela of Lithuania operating for MON
This was a cost-saving measure.

Has Weaver managed to get a job flying 737s?
No, as he failed the Aurela aptitude test (http://www.3smartcubes.com/pages/tests/child_aptitude_test/child_aptitude_test_instructions.asp).

Dawdler

21st Sep 2012, 16:48

Monarch do seem to be having trouble recently with their sub-contractors.

Rob Courtney

21st Sep 2012, 17:03

The Daily Mails Coverage of the incident is hilarious, it would be interesting to know who their "aviation" source was

Terrified tourists evacuated from plane after it overshot the runway and skidded onto grass at Birmingham Airport | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206672/Terrified-tourists-evacuated-plane-overshot-runway-skidded-grass-Birmingham-Airport.html)

Burnie5204

21st Sep 2012, 17:07

According to BBC news, who in turn say they got it from MON, this is the same aircraft that was involved in the TFS incident last month

mat777

21st Sep 2012, 17:28

The Daily Mails Coverage of the incident is hilarious, it would be interesting to know who their "aviation" source was

Terrified tourists evacuated from plane after it overshot the runway and skidded onto grass at Birmingham Airport | Mail Online

They really do know how to sensationalise.....

Though having flown Monarch several times to the Canaries, and viewed them as a fairly premium airline similar to, say, Thompson/Tui, what in the hell were they thinking by leasing shonky Lithuanian sheds??? How does that even begin to fit their airline profile??

DaveReidUK

21st Sep 2012, 17:51

Only the Mail could manage to combine

"Terrified tourists evacuated"

and

"There was no shouting, no panicking - people were just laughing. It was all very British."

in the same article.

Andrew Bowyer

21st Sep 2012, 17:56

WHYEYEMAN

21st Sep 2012, 17:57

You get what you pay for. Monarch that is, not the poor pax who were expecting a Monarch flight!

Artie Fufkin

21st Sep 2012, 17:57

Re The Daily Mail's article, was this actually a hilarious and ironic self parody perhaps?

'It is lucky nobody got hurt - if the plane was coming in at speed, it's a dangerous way to come into land.

:)

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 17:57

Am amazed that a Company like Monarch could have a Ratner moment like this.

If I had booked Monarch (an airline which I hold in high esteem) and a Lithuanian aircraft turned up I would not be at all impressed. I gather this isn't just an ad hoc sub charter due an a/c outage but a planned used of another operator.

When will these Companies understand that if you leave operational decisions to accountants based purely on the bottom line they surely will end up in the mud or even worse?

Lizz

21st Sep 2012, 18:04

Just back from BHX collecting my daughter who was on the Monarch service from Nice. She took a pic within 30 seconds of the plane coming to a stop which appears to show the slats not deployed. Is it unusual for the slats to be retracted so quickly in a situation such as this?

I've just noticed they weren't out watching ITV news, do we know if they were ever out?

Alycidon

21st Sep 2012, 18:04

severe injuries to the airline's reputation, thank goodness nobody was actually hurt.

750XL

21st Sep 2012, 18:05

Why does everyone seem to be so shocked at Monarch daring to use a Lithuanian based airline?

I've dealt with Aurela many times, and while not the finest aircraft in the sky they do the job and usually do it well. Interior wise they aren't too bad, at least not for a -300.

Virtually all airlines, certainly UK charters at least, sub-charter in various aircraft, even BA have been doing it recently.

Groundbased

21st Sep 2012, 18:10

I'm interested in this one, as I was on this aircraft a couple of times last month.

Firstly flagging up that I am pax, not aviation in any way.

From the perspective of what I paid for it was a rubbish product, and I have written to Monarch to express my dissatisfaction. Although there is no reason that an old well maintained aircraft should present any greater degree of risk its not impressive to turn up and find a 24 yr old 300 that has seen better days. That's a separate matter.

I had no problem with the operation of the flight which from my limited pax perspective seemed fine.

Have I got anything to say that is relevant to this incident? I don't think so, except to note that on the flights I was on reverse was never used on landing. Whether this was operational or because it was inoperative I couldn't say. I've no idea whether you could defer reverser issues (if they were present) this long anyway as it was a month ago when I travelled.

hetfield

21st Sep 2012, 18:11

I've dealt with Aurela many times, and while not the finest aircraft in the sky they do the job and usually do it well. Interior wise they aren't too bad, at least not for a -300.

Virtually all airlines, certainly UK charters at least, sub-charter in various aircraft, even BA have been doing it recently.Hopefully you are SLF...

Have you ever had a look behind the curtain concerning airline culture, flight crew training, flight crew standards?

Small airlines can't hardly compete in these safety related areas.

Okay, forget about AF....

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 18:13

She took a pic within 30 seconds of the plane coming to a stop which appears to show the slats not deployed. Is it unusual for the slats to be retracted so quickly in a situation such as this?

Flaps retracted in after landing checks? If the slats were not deployed for landing this would be a non normal to say the least!

On the B737 have had at least one case where a cable to nose wheel steering failed which stopped us going anywhere - but we avoided the grass - just one possibility?

From Wiki:-

On 12 July 2012, Monarch announced that it was to wet-lease two B737-300s from Aurela and Small Planet Airlines as well as two B737-400s from Air Explore and Air Italy from the end of July to be able to offer additional flights during the peak leisure travel season in the UK.

babymike737

21st Sep 2012, 18:13

indeed!:rolleyes:

redED

21st Sep 2012, 18:14

Just back from BHX collecting my daughter who was on the Monarch service from Nice. She took a pic within 30 seconds of the plane coming to a stop which appears to show the slats not deployed. Is it unusual for the slats to be retracted so quickly in a situation such as this?

At our company the slats/flaps are retracted leaving the runway. If they have similar SOPs this would explain the lack of slats deployed.

Flightmech

21st Sep 2012, 18:15

Takes me back to the 90's when I booked to go to Orlando on Virgin and a Translift DC-8 trundled up to the gate. Fine machine nevertheless!

750XL

21st Sep 2012, 18:24

Hopefully you are SLF...

Have you ever had a look behind the curtain concerning airline culture, flight crew training, flight crew standards?

Small airlines can't hardly compete in these safety related areas.

I'm not SLF no, operational.

I'm fully aware of what happens behind the scenes and from what I've seen at Aurela there's nothing that would worry me anymore than jumping on a LOCO or charter flight. Granted, their aircraft are getting on and tech a fair amount, but that's all part of the game.

Andrew Bowyer

21st Sep 2012, 18:28

redED

That is my point. One is used to the slats and flaps being retracted whilst taxiing- for the slats to be retracted when my daughter took her pic within 30 seconds of the aircraft coming to rest seems unusual. No speculation here, just facts.

Lizz

21st Sep 2012, 18:30

At our company the slats/flaps are retracted leaving the runway. If they have similar SOPs this would explain the lack of slats deployed.

When you say leave the runway... :E

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 18:35

One is used to the slats and flaps being retracted whilst taxiing

Please define "taxiing"

Andrew Bowyer

21st Sep 2012, 18:48

I would take taxiing after landing to be either on the runway or en-route to the terminal. I understand what you are driving at but I repeat - is it normal for slats to be retracted less than 30 seconds after coming to a stop following an "incident"? Perhaps other professionals could voice an opinion.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 18:58

Different airlines have different procedures with respect to when the after landing checks are commenced. It is quite feasible that, assuming the aircraft was going to clearly vacate at the far end of the runway, the aircraft would be down to taxi speed (circa 20kts) well before the end of the runway in which case the checks (which include retracting flaps) could be initiated then.

With other operators the procedure is not to initiate the after landing checks until the runway has been vacated. It obviously takes a little time for the flaps and slats to retract but I see nothing sinister in the fact that they are retracted - all normal operation.

If the landing had been performed with no slats (a possible failure but extremely unlikely as there is more than one way of deploying slats via standby hydraulics) this would be a "non normal" situation requiring running of the non normal checks etc together with most probably (once again depends on individual airline policy) an emergency declared.

moist

21st Sep 2012, 19:03

Flaps are normally retracted when the captain stows the speedbrake after landing. This should be done as you turn off the runway, but sometimes this is done just as soon as you put power on to start taxiing, so maybe just a little earlier.
The after landing checks come later.
Mind you, if you skid off, or drive yourself off onto the grass, you'd not be thinking at that moment, oh let's retract the flaps would you? You'd be busy thinking "I may have just lost my job"!!!

hetfield

21st Sep 2012, 19:04

@moist

Spot on:D

speke2me

21st Sep 2012, 19:11

Not a pilot, sorry. But from what I can gather, this incident was caused by cost cutting. Nobody will know until the final report, but it seems obvious.

My industry suffers the same. It ought to be addressed.

To the Monarch pilot who posted earlier, saying it was 'not a Monarch pilot' on that flight, I would say that's not a good thing to state. Whatever company you fly for, then you should be ensuring the safety of whatever contractor they use. 'turning a blind eye' is not such an option in the job you do?

Sorry if my post is offensive to some, just my thoughts..

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 19:25

In principle there is nothing wrong with a company sub-chartering a flight to another operator but I see a difference where this is done from necessity when, for example, an aircraft goes unserviceable and it is the only sensible option to get passengers to their destination as compared to subbing a series of flights which clearly Monarch have done in this case.

The question I would like to ask is whether the passengers were informed about a different operator when booking their flights? If so, they have little to complain about. If not then that is a different matter.

From a customer care point of view I think it is a very short sighted tactic. If I book to fly with a particular carrier I expect to get their level of customer care and safety in every respect.

Serenity

21st Sep 2012, 19:30

Love the posts that start, not a pilot!! Or I don't work in aviation but....

It's not cost cutting. Monarch have new aircraft on order, the chartered aircraft were just filling in until they arrive.
Monarch are a respected company for both their airline and engineering within the aviation industry. They would not risk any of this by using an unsafe airline.
Apart from which there is a European blacklist and any airline not reaching European safety standards is banned from operating from our airspace.

This was a minor incident, which has been blown out of all proportion by the media. There have been far worse incidents where safety or aircraft damage has been caused recently. All in Europe.
Suggest the wannabes do a little more research and approach the forum with a little more knowledge. Otherwise sit back, observe and learn!

750XL

21st Sep 2012, 19:32

From a customer care point of view I think it is a very short sighted tactic. If I book to fly with a particular carrier I expect to get their level of customer care and safety in every respect.

Why exactly?

Food and drinks service on board will be the same as all other Monarch flights and they'll be a few Monarch cabin crew on board to ensure customer service levels are maintained. The only difference between flying on a Monarch aircraft and an Aurela one is the interior, which while it may be older, is probably just as comfortable.

BDandD

21st Sep 2012, 19:34

Speke2me, this is not about cost cutting. All the UK charter airlines fleets are based on the winter programme which is obviously smaller than the summer programme. If the airline fleet was based on the summer programme you would have pilots and aircraft sitting around in winter burning up your profits and very rapidly go bust. Previously it was possible to use UK base airlines to pick up the extra flying lines for the summer, but in the past few years that spare capacity has gone away (XL, Astreus, Globespan etc) so you have to go to Europe. It's not ideal, but at the end of the day you have to use what's available. In this case it looks as though Monarch was using Aurela, who in fairness, up until now, seem to have a pretty good safety record.

Lets not make a drama out of a crisis, based on one incident.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 19:35

Monarch are a respected company for both their airline and engineering within the aviation industry. They would not risk any of this by using an unsafe airline.

Serenity, I agree with you completely!

However although this incident is relatively trivial the media coverage with passengers saying "It's the oldest aircraft I have ever travelled on" will not be good for Monarch's credibility.

It's one thing for an airline to meet the minimum regulatory requirements but another that they are who one would choose to travel with!

Mr Angry from Purley

21st Sep 2012, 19:43

There are 2 chartered aircraft operating out of EMA on Monarch flights presently, one is a Air Italy B733 and a Small Planet B733. They also operated out of BHX. Its an unusual tactic these days, we're more familiar with Canadian aircraft coming to the UK for the Summer etc.
Why do Monarch do it, summer only contracts, make you're money then retreat for the winter.
At least these airlines comply with easa standards which should offer a crumb of comfort. If you've sub chartered the Omega B707's then you're game for a laugh...

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 19:48

Why exactly?

Food and drinks service on board will be the same as all other Monarch flights and they'll be a few Monarch cabin crew on board to ensure customer service levels are maintained. The only difference between flying on a Monarch aircraft and an Aurela one is the interior, which while it may be older, is probably just as comfortable.

750XL, call me illogical but there is, with respect, a difference.

When I buy a brand it speaks something to me about why they do what they do. Flying on a clapped out Lithuanian a/c, however safe etc, is just not the same as on a Monarch badged and operated machine. I understand the reasons for doing it but, in my opinion, it's a bad business move.

I repeat my earlier question - when passengers booked these flights were they aware that they would be flown by a Lithuanian airline?

DavidWoodward

21st Sep 2012, 20:05

Takes me back to the 90's when I booked to go to Orlando on Virgin and a Translift DC-8 trundled up to the gate. Fine machine nevertheless!

I'd have done a backflip! I'd love to fly in a DC-8.

WindSheer

21st Sep 2012, 20:08

I pick and choose who I fly with...being very much in the know!
If I booked with an airline and was shifted onto a bag of :mad: of another carrier purely for profeteering.....I would never fly with them again!

There are many others that will be feeling the same about this one and it will cost Monarch largely in the pocket, even though it is a small incident.

It has brought the sub-leasing to the surface and not necessarily the intricate details of the 'derailment'.....not good!!

West of London

21st Sep 2012, 20:15

It is nothing new. Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I caught the Dan Air shuttle from Manchester to Gatwick, plane said Dan Air on the outside but the signs in the cabin and the booklets etc in the seat back where in no language I could recognise.
Flight to Gatwick was fine, I had a business meeting there and caught the same plane back. Very shortly after take off from Gatwick there was a loud and quite violent engine failure and we returned to Gatwick. Turned out, or so a uniformed Dan Air employee that was a fellow passenger told me, the plane and engines were made in Rumania, the plane was flown by Rumanians but the passenger cabin crew were Dan Air.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 20:19

It is nothing new.

True - but that doesn't mean it makes good business sense when an incident such as that at BHX today occurs.

Momoe

21st Sep 2012, 20:21

When I buy a brand it speaks something to me about why they do what they do

It's an airline, it's branded as an airline - Monarch are a charter airline, Aurela are a charter airline - so they do what they do, which is get people from A-B in planes?

Bad business move or not, Monarch have been leasing planes from Aurela since 2009, Aurela are an EASA compliant airline so the maintenance should be on par with other EASA companies.

Clapped out aircraft is an ill-considered statement considering that the media have quoted this forum on countless occasions - your opinion or fact? Proof required methinks.
IF, and it is a big if, this is fact, then it's a bad business move by Monarch.

You are illogical if you assume that because a Lithuanian plane goes off piste whilst being flown on a UK charter it's clapped out because it's certainly not a rational or logical conclusion.

I've booked flights with one airline and travelled on another, just like the majority of the folk travelling I was just glad that a flight was available.

I'll see what the report says

Agaricus bisporus

21st Sep 2012, 20:23

Wet runway, pax reported a "rally slide off the runway" No sign of damaged tyres which would hardly cause that anyway. Turned long after reversers would be stowed.
Shonky Lithuanian subcharter. Go figure.

That's taking cost cutting to stupid levels. Own goal Monarch!

Glad I don't own Monarch shares, companies can do serious damage to themselves with incident(s) like that.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 20:24

Momoe, I willa accept that my use of the term "clapped out" may be inappropriate but correct me if I am wrong that this was a Boeing 737-300?

Apart from that correction I stand by any remarks I have made.

From Wiki:-

In 2012, Aurela began to operate several routes for Monarch Airlines due to Monarch opening new routes and not having sufficient fleet. Routes such as Birmingham to Málaga It was noticed that Aurela used 1 Boeing 737-300 without "Aurela" across the body of the aircraft, but maintaining the rest of their livery while operating Monarch Flights.

deepknight

21st Sep 2012, 20:29

I once bought a well-known brand of washing machine. When it went wrong, the chap who fixed it said "oh, this is one of those the company sub-contracted to eastern europe. The only bit of company XXX is the badge on the front.' Did I demand a public enquiry? No, of course not, because I'd bought it because it was fifty quid cheaper than the next one.
Hands up all those who, when they booked their flight from Birmingam to Nice, made their decision based on the price of the ticket.
I'm getting a little tired, after 30 years in UK charter, of people who want 34-inch seat pitch, personal taxis to the airport and the :mad: Waldof Astoria to stay in when they get a delay, but whose first action when deciding to take a break is to google "cheap holidays".

Groundbased

21st Sep 2012, 20:34

fireflybob - when I booked there was no indication that the flight would be operated by another airline/aircraft.

I'm sure there is something in the tiny smallprint that says this may occur, but this is clearly a case where the subbed aircraft were going to be based at BHX for the season, so Monarch absolutely knew when taking bookings that this would be the case.

You are correct that it is a 737-300 of some 24 years vintage, not that that in itself is a problem to me. It is not what I expected/paid for when I booked.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 20:39

when I booked there was no indication that the flight would be operated by another airline/aircraft.

So clearly (no pun intended) a lack of transparency.

One of the things that consumers are looking for more and more is transparency so this is very "down trend" thinking.

By the way, deepknight, methinks washing machines don't normally get airborne but your similarity there reminds me of the Colgan accident in the USA where the aircraft was clearly marked as "Continental" but unbeknown to the passengers was operated by a third party. This clearly didn't happen here (although one wonders why the airline name isn't on the aircraft as far as I can tell from the photos and also pointed out on Wiki). Legislation has been introduced in the USA to prevent this from happening.

Momoe

21st Sep 2012, 20:45

Stop inferring that the age of the aircraft has any relevancy, it's just as like to be the age/experience of the pilot

As I said it's an EASA compliant airline, lifed components will be replaced on schedule and all Maint. schedules followed, you know as well as I do that the plane will be like Trigger's broom.
I don't know how many cycles the aircraft has done or total hours, I also don't know whether it was a tech issue or pilot error and nor do you.

As stated in the previous post, Aurela has been providing planes to Monarch since 2009, bad business move or good business sense - 3 years is a long time in aviation and Monarch haven't suffered unduly.

renort

21st Sep 2012, 20:48

I'm not second guessing the cause of this excursion, but you can draw conclusions on yet another crass decision by the pinheaded nitwits on the top floor - penny wise, pound foolish.
Monarch crew, engineers, ops guys and pensioners deserve better, so do the punters.

Groundbased

21st Sep 2012, 20:49

Deepknight, here was my reasoning for purchasing this flight:

I needed to travel to the south of france but I didn't specifically have to go to Nice, although it was nearest to the place I needed to be. I could have used other airports in that region or even just over in to Spain as I was going to have to drive a way anyway.

My choices were to take Ryanair to Montpellier from Birmingham or drive to Gatwick and take easy jet, both roughly around half the price I actually paid Monarch. In both cases the extra driving was a drag/cost.

Not a problem thought I, here is Monarch who will fly me direct from Birmingham to Nice which is closest to where I want to go, for about 250 quid return, they are a quality airline and have a good reputation, I've been with them before and know what to expect.

That wasn't the experience I got when I turned up on the day.

TartinTon

21st Sep 2012, 20:56

ffbob...the subcharters were because the opportunity that presented itself due to the demise of Baby did not provide Monarch with enough time to source aircraft of their own AND train crews to operate them. Despite popular and armchair expert opinion there are not aircraft just sitting around waiting for airlines to pick them up at "aircraft'R'us" and the crewing process will take a minimum of 6 months. Monarch stated at the time that these wet-leases were for a maximum of 12 weeks. Come clock change in Oct they all go with the EMA programme operated on Monarch owned and operated aircraft.

Nice to see renort here with the usual anti-Monarch bullsh*t...off you go son..

Nickbat

21st Sep 2012, 20:57

On the subject of wet-leasing, there can be some upsides. A couple of years ago I was booked on Easyjet from LGW to SKG. At the gate I expected to be shepherded onto a regular A319. Much to my surprise, though, we boarded a B757 - painted in Easy's colours, but operated by Air Finland, with the full complement of Finnish flight and (delightful) cabin crew...

Complaining never entered my head!;)

TartinTon

21st Sep 2012, 20:58

ffbob...ALL passengers on any wet-leased aircraft were notified that Monarch were not the operator of the aircraft....fact, not conjecture.

Mr A Tis

21st Sep 2012, 20:59

Slight point of order It's an airline, it's branded as an airline - Monarch are a charter airline, Aurela are a charter airline

This was not a charter, but a ZB scheduled flight.

The only reason Monarch are chartering these aircraft is because it decided to start new services without the equipment or staff to operate them.

A few years ago I booked with Thomson on a new "scheduled" service, it was subbed out on a 35 year old B737-200. I declined to fly & have never flown with Thomson since.

Yes passengers have a choice, please don't assume that just because you fly Ryanair or Monarch you are paying peanuts - some are, but many are paying top dollar for flights !!
The pricing by Monarch on some MAN-BCN services have been so high, I've been travelling with KLM on that route.(*via AMS of course)

guyleedsutd

21st Sep 2012, 21:00

Well said deep knight people love moaning but expect quality for a pitence if you want a safe and quality experience don't book cheap

Groundbased

21st Sep 2012, 21:00

Not fact Tartin, because I wasn't

Mercenary Pilot

21st Sep 2012, 21:00

All European airlines maybe EASA compliant but dont believe for one minute that all European Aviation Authorities are as through as the UK's own CAA because it just isn't true.

flying lid

21st Sep 2012, 21:03

Monarch, Aurela, naw lad, allways fly

YORKSHIRE AIRWAYS

Yorkshire Airlines - YouTube

Bloomin good service !!

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 21:05

ALL passengers on any wet-leased aircraft were notified that Monarch were not the operator of the aircraft....fact, not conjecture.

TartinTon, can I ask at what stage the passengers were informed? At the time of booking?

Dannyboy39

21st Sep 2012, 21:07

It is nothing new. Back in the late 1980s or early 1990s I caught the Dan Air shuttle from Manchester to Gatwick, plane said Dan Air on the outside but the signs in the cabin and the booklets etc in the seat back where in no language I could recognise.
Absolutely its nothing new. I once flew AGP-LTN on a Futura 737 on behalf of Monarch. Flight and cabin crew all Spanish; in-flight meals definitely not English (whatever it was!). I think the crew weren't totally familiar with LTN as we went pretty much the full length rather than the typical Taxiway Charlie turnoff (landing 26), having to make a 360 degree turn at the end of 08. Never had to do that before.

renort

21st Sep 2012, 21:07

Hi Tartin, so TFS major tech delay, followed by the Air Explore skipper giving his Mayday over the PA to the pax, now this. What a great business decision. Why not use Titan in the first place? You know the reason, so do I. If MON have any pax left on these routes after 12 weeks it'll be a miracle.

Tableview

21st Sep 2012, 21:16

I used this service about 3 weeks ago. Early in the morning I saw that the outbound had not left BHX, in fact it left 3 hours late. The check staff at NCE were either misinformed or suffering from terminal stupidity as they stated that the flight would operate on time - a little difficult when it was still on the ground 2 hours flying time away.

In the end it was operated by a Titan Airways 757, (although the boarding pass said 'Aegean Airways') clean, comfortable, and with an outstanding crew of native English speakers, who made it enjoyable despite the 3 hour delay. Ironically the BMI Baby service took off 10 minutes ahead of the ZB. I'd booked the ZB even though it was more expensive and I would have preferred WW, as the timing, if kept, would have allowed me to make better use of my day

I know a couple of people who've used the service and, less fortunately, ended up on Aurela and both stated that it was 'an experience best forgotten'. A pity as Monarch were a good airline but seem to have taken on more than they can handle and in order to attempt to rectify this they've scraped the bottom of the barrel.

deepknight

21st Sep 2012, 21:26

Groundbased: I wasn't refering to your particular case, but to the general frenzy amongst the travelling public to get the cheapest flight/holiday possible and then to complain when it doesn't provide five star service. Besides, if it was originally planned to use a Monarch aircraft on the service but it went tech, would you have refused to get on the sub-charter just because it wasn't a Monarch aircraft?
The charter world is a high-cost, low margin world. For evey £100 the companies get in, they're lucky if they make £5 profit. They buy in third party operators to cover the work that makes no sense to cover with a hull of their own. And are we really so sure this crew was in error, just hours after the event? 'Slats were in...landed fast...down to cost cutting...' All of us, BA, Virgin, Tompson, Monarch, TCX, Easy... have had incidents that don't look so comforting in the cold light of day. If I could have my time again, I'd come back as director general of the hindsight department.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 21:32

Besides, if it was originally planned to use a Monarch aircraft on the service but it went tech, would you have refused to get on the sub-charter just because it wasn't a Monarch aircraft?

deepknight, to me that's quite a different issue - one accepts that ad hoc charters may happen to any airline due to a/c becoming unserviceable etc.

But this is a series of planned sub charters. From the information on this thread there seems to be some disagreement as to whether the passengers were informed at the time of booking.

I hear everything you say about tight margins in the charter industry but, as a customer, am not too interested. If I book to fly on XXX airline then that is the airline I expect to fly on unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Burpbot

21st Sep 2012, 21:34

The stupidity of the press on this one is outstanding! As are most of the comments on here!

I bet this is not quoted in any press article!!

Stop and think! It can't be that dangerous if it's survived 24 years of intensive commercial operations!! I think a bulk of baby's fleet was older, but that's ok british ;)

I would sure as hell prefer to be on a well maintained 24 year plus airframe with a well trained crew! Than on a brand new jet operated by a loco with a pay to fly crew, operating on a flag of convenience!

Now which English speaking county do the aformentioned use along with most of the worlds large leasing companies??

Scott C

21st Sep 2012, 21:35

For those that keep badgering on about how they expect this, that and the other from Monarch, all it makes me think is... Stuck-up snob!

If the airlines didn't hire in these extra aircraft, they could potentially lose business by not being able to provide enough flights, ticket prices may be higher if they had to by aircraft rather than leasing (Defeating the point of low cost airline) and ultimately, if the airline is not making a profit, then it'll go bust, so it'd be game over anyway!!

The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320.

If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 21:40

If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.

So is Monarch defined as a "low-cost airline" now?

Dawdler

21st Sep 2012, 21:43

I think the clue is in the term "wet leased" there may not have been any Monarch staff on the aircraft at all. Monarch have been wet leasing aircraft for years. Some time ago, we were booked on a Monarch flight to Faro. Instead of the Airbus, we were shepherded on to a an ancient (even then) Tri-Star. The Icelandic crew were fine but the the aircraft was knackered. We arrived on time, which is more than could be said about the return flight. They kept us waiting twelve hours as they used "our" designated aircraft to replace one that had gone tech at Malaga which should have flown to Goa.

The relevance of the aircraft ownership at Birmingham does not carry too much weight. Someone cocked up and in the fullness of time we shall find out who that was. This particular aircraft has had a chequered life since it has been working for Monarch, but hey! It could have been Algerian!

Jinkster

21st Sep 2012, 21:43

Maybe a case of 180kts to 2nm - OTP!

We'll see, it will all come out in the wash!

Agaricus bisporus

21st Sep 2012, 21:47

Deepknight buddy, if I saw a Lithuanian registration on what I thought was a Monarch flight I would most certainly not get on it. I've worked for cowboy outfits and know how well they cover up their atrocities and how little even our own much vaunted CAA will do even in the face of certain information over a period of years. EASA approval shmoozle. It a bureaucratic rubber stamp and means very little in practice. The Cork crash operator was one such, wasn't it?
There's no way I'd choose to fly an airline like Aurela. I might have to if I was flying within E Europe but not anywhere there was a choice.
Companies have an amazing way of retaining their character over decades and this was an old Soviet operator. Think Polish governmental flight. That's enough for me. I'd rather walk.

Scott C, if you really think someone is a stuck up snob because he objects to getting a Trabant when he paid for a Vauxhall then I begin to see what the C stands for. Jeez! Your understanding of aviation is clearly minimal - if even that - if all you think that matters of an airline is getting there on time and the service. There's a wee bit more to the of running an airline than that you may be surprised to learn.
Don't give up your day job!
Thankfully you can't do too much damage as a DJ after all.It's not much like flying in that respect. :ugh:

geriatrix

21st Sep 2012, 21:57

I booked and was due to travel to Holguin on the Cubana Illuyshin II-96 a while back, but due to their machine being out of service for a while actually travelled on a Euro Atlantic Airways 767 (?).

Not sure if I won or lost there. :-)

fokker1000

21st Sep 2012, 22:01

Dannyboy39,
I guess you mean 180 turn on the RWY or you'd be pointing the same way you started! :8

Flightmech

21st Sep 2012, 22:01

Surely the CAA have been to BHX previously and performed a SAFA inspection of said outfit ;-)

FERetd

21st Sep 2012, 22:02

Scott C (aged 21) Quote:-

"The level of service is the same and the end result is the same - you get to your destination. The only thing that is different is the fact you are on a 737 instead of an A320."

Ahhh, so young, such a lot to learn.

"you get to your destination" - even if it does mean a bit of 4x4 off road travel.

The level of service is not the priority.

west lakes

21st Sep 2012, 22:04

Flightmech

21st Sep 2012, 22:13

A question, in all the photos it shows that the slats & flaps were retracted to a clean wing!
Is it possible this was done as part of the shut down procedure after entering the grass?
Seems to me that any discussion about slats is a red herring

Not so sure. If I'd just departed the hard stuff i'm not sure if bringing the flaps up would be the first thing I thought of in the first 30 seconds

charliemouse

21st Sep 2012, 22:21

Not a pilot but...:}

I am a marketing and branding professional.

A "Brand" is put simply "a promise". In this instance the brand is Monarch and the promise on their website is: "Customer care and service lie at the heart of the Group’s business approach". Nowhere does it say "fancy new aircraft guaranteed". If you put monarch into Google, the first 2 words the company are paying for after their name are "cheap flights". So unless you are a little hard of thinking, you can work out it's going to be a budget flight with trimmings. I cannot see how the customers got anything but the brand promise right up until the plane went "Rallying" (sic). Sure it's a PR own goal to use older planes when the "general public" are used to new and cheap elsewhere - but that is their business decision and they will have to live with the PR consequences. It is however, just PR. It has nothing to do with operations as long as they are using subbies working within current EU legislation.

Ironically if you want fancy new aircraft you should have gone down the road to Luton and gone low cost Easyjet. However,I seem to remember this can happen to the Pikeys brand new planes too?

While this is all fascinating stuff I fail to see how it relevant to the thread unless there is some far deeper issue such as flying an aircraft with tech issues that should have kept it on the ground.

As usual - it's a few months early to publish the report but all very good fun (since everyone walked away, which I believe is still a good landing...)

Squealing Pig

21st Sep 2012, 22:23

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/dft_avsafety_pdf_030178.pdf

Happened at the other end of the runway but might have similarity as the Southern end was a concrete surface at the time just like the Northern end still is now, IIRC there was a NOTAM out for a while afterwards warning of slippery when wet.

Serenity

21st Sep 2012, 22:27

Every airline sub charters flights out to other companies. Whether due to technical or scheduling problems, everyone does it. Even BA and Easyjet sub flights out!!
There are just not many UK companies who have spare aircraft available for a couple months at a time!
Could easily have happened to a company working for BA, Easy or Jet2.

kinteafrokunta

21st Sep 2012, 22:27

Those terrible Chinese pilots in Monarch....they went of therunway! Really poorly trained with an equally maintained airplane. Should ban them from BHX.

fireflybob

21st Sep 2012, 22:39

Some interesting comments from passengers about Aurela here:-

Monarch Airlines Passenger Reviews and Monarch Airlines Customer Trip Reports (http://www.airlinequality.com/Forum/monarch.htm)

davidjohnson6

22nd Sep 2012, 00:43

Nobody was hurt, aircraft remained substantially intact - maybe a bit of mud and grass in the landing gear. Most serious thing for passengers was they had to use wheeled steps and a bus to the terminal rather than walking directly onto an airbridge to disembark.

In 2 weeks time, will people really remember this ?

PAXboy

22nd Sep 2012, 01:41

StandbyFlowControlMonarch said the plane was being taxied to the terminal when "one set of wheels left the taxi way bringing the aircraft to a stop"

Gotta love the Monarch PR understatement!Yep, coz they haven't yet factored in Pax with camera phones and access to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and all the rest whilst still on the a/c, waiting to egress. Tell the truth first time - it's cheaper.

As to the slats retracted question: IF their procedure called for retraction as soon as 'taxi from runway' starts, they might have thought that they had it all under control and moved the lever. By the time they came to rest (stopped swearing) and shut down, the slats could have run all the way in??

CargoOne

22nd Sep 2012, 02:00

Groundbased

You are correct that it is a 737-300 of some 24 years vintage, not that that in itself is a problem to me. It is not what I expected/paid for when I booked.

So when you've paid Monarch, you've obviously expected to get a Monarch's own 25 years old 757 or 23 years old A300 or 20 year old A320 instead of "old" 24 years old Lithuanian 737? Get a live man!

strake

22nd Sep 2012, 04:00

If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.

Um...not quite true.
The last time I booked with BA from BOD (a month ago), I ended up on a Titan Airways flight.
Jolly good though.

Grenville Fortescue

22nd Sep 2012, 04:18

Get a live man!
Can one assume that what you actually meant was 'get a life'?

I think if one is brutally honest then many of us simply object to the fact that this overrun is, well, very un-British! When our own chaps muck-up we feel justified in castigating their actions, vociferously if need be, because these are 'our boys' and they deserve a dollop of chastisement as well as a good ribbing.

We feel less comfortable 'abusing' foreigners and so prefer it when they commit their faux pas elsewhere!

But, this could just be me. ;)

22nd Sep 2012, 05:52

Nobody was hurt, aircraft remained substantially intact - maybe a bit of mud and grass in the landing gear.

Well.....it looks like the terrain there starts to slope down. I would hazard that if they'd been a few knots faster then this may have been a substantially different outcome. The report will reveal all. The Skytrax link a few post ago doesn't make good reading - it does make you wonder about the decision making process for these sub-charters.

beamer

22nd Sep 2012, 06:20

Ask anyone who works at BHX and they will offer you a Lithuanian anecdote this summer !

nb Buses to the terminal nothing unusual at Brum :E

Groundbased

22nd Sep 2012, 06:27

Cargo One

I am live. I think we are confusing a number of things here.

I said the age of the aircraft wasn't a problem to me (in terms of its liklihood to complete the flight safely). As someone else mentioned if it was I could have booked with easy and gone on one of their shiny new jets.

We shouldn't confuse this operational issue with the discussion about sub chartering aircraft. We haven't got the full facts and report will come in time which will clarify etc. There is not necessarily any connection between the aircraft age, the operator and the airline in this incident.

In terms of the sub chartering think about it like this. If you wanted to travel from London to Manchester and for whatever reason you determined that driving was the best way. You don't have a car so you visit a car hire website where they provide you with a range of prices to compare based around what you are looking to do and make some statements about being able to deliver quality at a good price. You've seen cars about with their stickers on that look pretty good so you book. When you arrive to collect the car they give you the keys to a T reg Allegro in the corner away from the shinier stuff and move on to the next customer. What do you do?

In terms of marketing someone else mentioned that all the "brand" is just a promise. I guess that's true, but people will unquestionably vote with their feet if a company does not at least reasonably consistently deliver an experience that is commensurate with the picture it paints with its brand. I'm not asking for anything from Monarch. I expressed my dissatisfaction with what they had delivered, and in future I will travel with a company that delivers something closer to what it promises when presenting its brand.

Things have changed. Some people, I suppose, would like to go back to a situation where only rich people flew about the place, but that's not an industry with many jobs in it as far as I can see.

Dannyboy39

22nd Sep 2012, 06:42

I guess you mean 180 turn on the RWY or you'd be pointing the same way you started! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif

I knew that! At the time of writing, my head was in a spin after watching my team put in a dreadful performance!

if I saw a Lithuanian registration on what I thought was a Monarch flight I would most certainly not get on it. I've worked for cowboy outfits and know how well they cover up their atrocities and how little even our own much vaunted CAA will do even in the face of certain information over a period of years. EASA approval shmoozle.
Quite a statement. Care to elaborate? Libelous?

tchaikovsky

22nd Sep 2012, 06:46

I think this thread is better off in the spotters/enthusiasts/wannabe section.

Absolutely its nothing new. I once flew AGP-LTN on a Futura 737 on behalf of Monarch. Flight and cabin crew all Spanish; in-flight meals definitely not English (whatever it was!). I think the crew weren't totally familiar with LTN as we went pretty much the full length rather than the typical Taxiway Charlie turnoff (landing 26), having to make a 360 degree turn at the end of 08. Never had to do that before.

Do you really think familiarity dictates when a pilot will vacate his aircraft from the runway? We (pilots) are provided with aerodrome charts which tell us the length of runway available for landing. We are also provided with a set of tables telling us what distance will be required to stop the aircraft using retardation devices available.

This is a bit of a non event. The quality of the contributions to this thread confirm that. Yes, this incident did have potential to be a different ending, but this is also the case with the tens of other daily occurrences that happen (check out avherald.com!). The reason it made the news is simply because it caused the closure of the runway.

Is it good PR for MON? Probably not.

DaveReidUK

22nd Sep 2012, 07:20

This is a bit of a non event. The quality of the contributions to this thread confirm that.

I agree.

Seven pages in, and it's still being referred to as a runway overrun, not least by the idiots at Avherald.

A and C

22nd Sep 2012, 09:06

How long have you been in aviation ? by now you should know that any part of the airport is called the runway by the press.

Herr Bus

22nd Sep 2012, 09:07

Or you could have ended up on a 20 year old BA 737 or 767.The age of the aircraft does not matter.It is how it is maintained. :eek:

FlyboyUK

22nd Sep 2012, 09:22

The 15 threshold end of the runway is ungrooved concrete which has the potential to be slippery when wet. The position of the aircraft from the photos looks like it may have gone into the grass during the turn onto the A taxiway. Perhaps they took the turn too fast and slipped off the side? I suspect the flaps/slats were retracted during the after landing checks as they turned off the runway and would fit with this theory.

This senario happened at the other end a few years ago with a well established UK operator when the 33 threshold area was also concrete. That end of the runway has since been covered in asphalt.

A look at google earth clearly shows the concrete areas (dont bother with apple maps, the image is very old!)

trackfpa320

22nd Sep 2012, 09:37

Incidents such as this may well be a manifestation of the corporate culture within an airline and especially in its day to day operations. This incident may be regarded by some as insignificant, but next time the outcome may be different. As mentioned earlier in this post there are a number of EASA aviation authorities who are falling well short in the oversight of their operators,training providers and TRTO's.

I speak from experience. I have witnessed first hand such an operation.

Rushed approaches and unstable landings on a daily basis with no reporting. Level busts, no reporting. Despatching outside the MEL a regular accepted practice. No regard to flight time limitations; easier just to change your report time. Flap overspeeeds every week, no reports and no tech log entries.Taking off over weight, no reporting. No active flight data monitoring and an ineffective flight safety department; just an office and a desk. Little or no adherance to company SOPs. The list goes on. The worst perpetrator; the flight ops director himself.

To cap it all, operating a pay to fly scheme with low houred cadet pilots.

EASA land a level playing field ?

A and C

22nd Sep 2012, 09:49

Recently due to compliance with EASA Norway found that there was no CAMO' s in the country for some classes of aircraft, in theory aircraft owners could contract in a CAMO from any EASA state.

The Norwegian authority's took the view that they would only let this work be contracted to CAMO's in some EASA states, as you might guess all of Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands, The UK and some others were on the list. I will leave you all to ponder who were not on the list !

To me this indicates that EASA is not a level plying field and those airworthiness authority's who wish to uphold high standards know who is and more importantly who is not up to scratch.

FERetd

22nd Sep 2012, 09:57

Herr Bus Quote:- "Or you could have ended up on a 20 year old BA 737 or 767.The age of the aircraft does not matter.It is how it is maintained. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif"

Very true, of course.

Equally important, but not mentioned much in this thread, are the operator's requirements as stated in the Ops Manual parts A and D.

What are the operator's crew experience, qualification, training and recency requirements? Bearing in mind that the regulations are the lowest acceptable legal standard.

Most legacy carriers exceed the regulatory requirements by some margin, but what of the Locos?

FullWings

22nd Sep 2012, 10:23

It's been some time since I last operated one but SOP on our 73's was to clean up on vacating the runway, normally signalled by stowing the speedbrake. For an RTO and/or runway excursion, the flaps were run fully *out* to aid those using the overwing exits, should an evacuation be required.

Looking at the photos, if it was just a taxi speed issue, they must have been going pretty fast or had very little braking action to get the whole aircraft off the hard surface. Grass stops you fairly quickly as the tyres sink into the ground, especially when wet...

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2012, 10:55

The 15 threshold end of the runway is ungrooved concrete which has the potential to be slippery when wet.

That was my intial thoughts as soon as I saw the thread having had a couple "oh heck" moments on it as well.

It isn't the first or the last plane to slide on it. Its not part of the live runway could they not put some shell grip or something similar on it preferably in a none grey colour.

On another note its a bit of a sod to see planes which are lined up on it as well if they have a light colour scheme.

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2012, 11:19

EGBB 211350Z 36006KT 8000 -RA SCT006 BKN012 11/10 Q1014=
EGBB 211320Z 36007KT 9000 -RA BKN006 BKN008 11/11 Q1014=
EGBB 211250Z 01006KT 9999 -RA SCT006 BKN008 11/11 Q1014=

My theory,

Wind from the north and associated fun in the flare due to the terminal.

Puts it down near T1 doesn't make Bravo or has never planned for it, one up the chuff already talking to tower trys to help expediting to A1 goes for the turn and goes straight.

Could have happened to anyone that hadn't been on that section of runway before when its wet.

silverstrata

22nd Sep 2012, 11:25

Firefly

When I buy a brand it speaks something to me about why they do what they do. Flying on a clapped out Lithuanian a/c, however safe etc, is just not the same as on a Monarch badged and operated machine. I understand the reasons for doing it but, in my opinion, it's a bad business move.

Precisely. Airlines should be much more careful about who they sub flights out to.

I was flying a beaten up old 737 and we were subbed to Lufhansa, Air France, TAP, Swiss Air - you name it, we did it. But I felt sorry for the passengers who had paid premium rate expecting a fantastic service, and ended up flying on the world's oldest 737 with the world's most junior crew.

If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.

Nonsense. I have done subs for BA, with rickety old aircraft. In fact, all of the BA turboprop fleet were flown by Manx Airlines and Business Air at one point - and they certainly were not BA aircraft or crews. Is this still happening? Does BA still run these Scottish flights through third-party operators?

mcdhu

22nd Sep 2012, 11:50

But surely an operator such as MON would have "audited" aureola before committing to them. Wonder what they found?

hec7or

22nd Sep 2012, 12:15

Despite popular and armchair expert opinion there are not aircraft just sitting around waiting for airlines to pick them up at "aircraft'R'us" and the crewing process will take a minimum of 6 months.

apart from the bmibaby aircraft and crews

Facelookbovvered

22nd Sep 2012, 12:28

A lot of people had raised eyebrows when Monarch agreed to sub lease capacity with Aureloa & small planet.

There is a world of difference between what Easyjet, BA,LS & ZB do when they find themselves short of crew due sickness or aircraft after ramp damage (BA 734 ) and in rent in the likes of Titan Airways to keep the show on the road. What ZB have done here is put a program on sale knowing full well that they have neither the crews or the aircraft to fly that program.

It would be premature to prejudge what went wrong at BHX and the crew and their adherence to SOP may well be exonerated,but we sometimes forget that in the UK the majority of operators have very high standards of SOP compliance and that in some parts of Europe it's still the wild wild west, the pilots that have been around know this only too well!

Thankfully no one was hurt, but that could equally have been the end of R14 at LBA where Monarch might have not so easily been able brush this under the carpet!!

SAS-A321

22nd Sep 2012, 12:40

Monarch are not the only one who leases in Eastern European planes to fly for them.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/8/9/2153986.jpg

Weary

22nd Sep 2012, 12:44

Some interesting points being made - and a lot of hogwash as well.

Don't remember anybody making a comment about Stabilized Approaches yet.

Methinks this had more than just a little to do with it ;)

And a PR spin doctor, given a choice, would much rather have to deal with a taxying accident, rather than a landing accident.

However, the position of the aircraft definitely supports the latter, rather than the former.

DaveReidUK

22nd Sep 2012, 13:01

Puts it down near T1 doesn't make Bravo or has never planned for it, one up the chuff already talking to tower trys to help expediting to A1 goes for the turn and goes straight.

That may turn out to be true, but I haven't read anything in any of the reports to suggest that he landed long. On the contrary, witness statements seems to indicate nothing untoward until he reached the exit.

In fact the only thing that's beyond dispute is that he failed to accomplish the 90° turn onto the Alpha taxiway, for whatever reason.

Still, it's always good to leave a bit for the AAIB guys to do ...

Tailwheels_r_us

22nd Sep 2012, 13:23

Still, it's always good to leave a bit for the AAIB guys to do ...Best comment yet on this thread! :D:D:D

DavidWoodward

22nd Sep 2012, 13:27

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2012, 13:56

it was only a theory and was meant to come away from they must have had a knackard aircraft, poor training etc etc.

Not long as such within the zone just nearer T1 than maybe the crew would have wished. It can be a tad interesting from the north at certain wind speeds.

And that end is pretty well known for being slippy as hell when wet but its not mentioned on the charts. Even in a sub 15 ton TP I have seen lost steering and the day saved with a huge blast of beta reverse at less than 15nts when bravo was shut.

So my post was more in sympathy for the crew. I have no doudt it will be down to multiple factors leading to the incident which will land on the PIC's shoulders but I for one can understand what may have got them. And by the grace of god go I after my "oh heck" moment.

cockygashandlazy

22nd Sep 2012, 14:33

Jock,

Well done mate, I applaud your efforts to deflect this discussion away from obnoxious narcissism and self-pride; and direct it to towards humility, realism and information based on facts.

Aurela - EASA operator, as is smartlynx (pictured above, not that they have anything to do with this).

JQKA

22nd Sep 2012, 14:38

:confused: guys should I be surprised about some posts here?
Have friend in Aurela so in Small Planet both Lithuanian operator, flying B737-300.
Let' say fisrt of all that i'm agree wih you all they are Easa qualified but believe me or not, there is nothing standard!!!:ugh: No call out at all, poor SOP, old russian style Cpt and very very poor english (can't understand at all how they pass nowadays the ELP test!!!!) and last but not least maintenance!! It sucks! believe me!
I've been in contact and still right now with these guys and they told me a lot of creepy stuff..anyway they have got even a lot of problem with SAFA, but they still survived till when??..nobody knows!
The after landing procedures as someone said, start upon vacating the runway after Cpt retract Speedbrake and in any case it must take even less than 30".
Usually in EGBB aircraft are able to vacate at B but the aircraft is at the end of the Rwy and the actually metar at that time, was not so bad, but guys you have to know that in these kind of Operator, they really don't know how to flare, VRef that usually is 3 times corrected so as to be increased ( they are very careful about that and afraid) and in the same time they maybe don't understand properly what is the LDA calculation!
And what about Autobrakes!!!?? even in Rwy with more than 14thd feet thay use pos.2..do you believe that!!! but is the truee.
Air Italy is an Italian Operator and it mustn't been compared with these Lithuanian Operator..Air Italy have a strict SOP and well organized company with qualified and prepared Pilots!
The shame and only fault is with Monarch and other West European company that decrease safety margin leasing from East and increasing they pocket with money!:=:=:=..They really have to think about that!
And forgettable in short time!! :rolleyes: i don't think so and what if there was even a catastrophic event??...Monarch will lose face, money, and they operation!!

FlyboyUK

22nd Sep 2012, 14:48

"It isn't the first or the last plane to slide on it. Its not part of the live runway could they not put some shell grip or something similar on it preferably in a none grey colour. "

I believe the runway is going to be completely resurfaced as part of the extension works, so the concrete should be covered over with asphalt

spottilludrop

22nd Sep 2012, 15:09

Surely until the facts of the matter are published in a official report its hardly appropiate to be casting aspertions AFAIK the airline concerned do not have a poor safety record, accidents can happen to the biggest and best of us

trackfpa320

22nd Sep 2012, 15:27

'anyway they have got even a lot of problem with SAFA'

These airlines are paranoid about SAFA inspections, however the SAFA only scratches the surface and will not find the operational shortcomings.

It will be very interesting to see how detailed the Monarch audit of this operator was. I would want to know how many flights had been observed by Monarch check pilots, how many simulator training details did they observe. Did they have the flight safety department visit the offices and check the systems in place, that reports had been followed up etc

I would also question the tour operators who are using and even basing these type of aircraft in places like the UK. There is no way I would put my family or friends on one of these carriers. The relevent aviation authorities can't give proper oversight in their own back yards, let alone 700 miles away.

The problem is that they are operating in the same sky as all of us.

FERetd

22nd Sep 2012, 16:12

Cockygashandlazy (thought you were a loco at first) Quote:-

"Aurela - EASA operator,as is smartlynx...."

Ohh well, that's all right then, isn't it? What could possibly go wrong?

Grenville Fortescue

22nd Sep 2012, 16:40

Question: What sort of on-going, in-situ 'line' checks (if any) do British airline companies apply to their sub-contractors to ensure that (presumably) pre-determined and contractual standards of safety and professionalism are being complied with?

listria

22nd Sep 2012, 18:51

Sounds like you're getting your can opener ready on some worms there Grenville...

mad_jock

22nd Sep 2012, 19:12

I wonder how many people have written replys then deleted them thinking I better not.

silverstrata

22nd Sep 2012, 20:04

Track:

These airlines are paranoid about SAFA inspections, however the SAFA only scratches the surface and will not find the operational shortcomings.

That's true. SAFA only care that the paperwork is correct. If the paperwork is all in order, you can crash as much as you like.

Tableview

22nd Sep 2012, 20:07

That sounds very much like ISO 9000. They award you for adhering stringently to a set of procedures. The fact that the procedures may be deeply flawed or inappropriate does not seem to matter.

JQKA

22nd Sep 2012, 20:31

That's true. SAFA only care that the paperwork is correct. If the paperwork is all in order, you can crash as much as you like.

:=:=
Not truee Safa inspect not only documents, but dealing with all the fuselage structure mostly as well as missing parts!
And this type of aircraft like it would be an old 737cl operated by Aurela it shows clearly, as told from internal friends, missing bolds and screw and fuselage bent due the pressurisatio life cycles!:\

RealFish

22nd Sep 2012, 21:47

Some more pics at;

bhxflightguide (sorry the link wont copy)

From photo 4/4 the suggestion that someone made a few posts back, of a burst tyre, does not seem to follow.

The photos do not show the tracks made by the a/c's excursion...or the orphanage that the captain narrowly avoided as he bravely fought to regain control. :\

Momoe

22nd Sep 2012, 21:49

In reply to Grenville Fortescue,

Wouldn't wet lease imply that Monarch have sub'd Aurela for this route/flight, as such are they under any obligation to do in situ line checks?

Cabin service maybe, but querying maintenance and crew professionalism might raise hackles, how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)

mercurydancer

22nd Sep 2012, 22:07

Thank heaven for a little bit of common sense!

renort

22nd Sep 2012, 22:24

Who cares if you "raise a few heckles" - it says Monarch on the ticket, MON on the departure screens and despite what some have said, some pax on here have confirmed they were unaware they were being farmed out to a subchartered unit, as such, if these airlines want to take a contract, they must accept the scrutiny of the lessee, but seems some were too focused on the commercial "opportunity" to worry about any potential downsides.

Interestingly if this had been a genuine MON aircraft that went farming off the end, this thread would have probably been 3/4 pages max, with a few 'grace of god' 'could happen to anyone' comments and it would have died a death at the first 'let's wait for the report'. As it is this has raised some far reaching questions which will affect this type of operation in future.

Grenville Fortescue

23rd Sep 2012, 07:15

.. how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)

Momoe thanks for the reply.

One of course would not feel overly enamoured as part of an alliance if 'colleague' airlines were looking over one's shoulder as it were but .. I am wondering (even under a wet lease or ACMI arrangement) whether there would be any mileage in periodic 'line' assessments of the actual service being provided - maintenance, flight deck and cabin.

Worst case scenario is that a particular company meets all the requirements on paper but in practice operates with a number of glaring anomalies which possess the potential to endanger passengers.

fmgc

23rd Sep 2012, 09:44

whether there would be any mileage in periodic 'line' assessments of the actual service being provided - maintenance, flight deck and cabin

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this isn't done? In fact I think that you will find that it is an EASA requirement for leases over 10 days (open to be corrected on time).

Momoe

23rd Sep 2012, 13:38

Renort,

It's hackles, heckles has another meaning entirely - please pay attention.

To rephrase the facts: some pax have advised that they weren't aware that the flight
was being subbed, this doesn't make it fact - it just means that they were unaware.
Until it's proven, it's not 'confirmed'.

Whether it's Monarch or Aurela or even BA, it's a taxiway excursion on a known problem area. There might be a lot more cause for concern if there were injuries or damage but it appears that it'll buff out fine.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by folk with their own personal axe to grind.

DaveReidUK

23rd Sep 2012, 14:11

some pax have advised that they weren't aware that the flight was being subbed, this doesn't make it fact

Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?

JQKA

23rd Sep 2012, 14:39

I know it is not just the policy that take many airlines
but this is the reality, many ,if not 85% of companies, do not warn the passengers that the flight is operated by another company.

JQKA

23rd Sep 2012, 14:43

Of course none leave the operation to another Company before is made one, if not more than one, flight audit and then sign a wet lease contract between them.

Momoe

23rd Sep 2012, 17:02

In reply to DR,

Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?

It was implied that Monarch not advising pax that the flight would be subbed was fact, some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This doesn not prove that Monarch didn't advise them, unless anyone knows otherwise?

Whiskey Zulu

23rd Sep 2012, 18:23

Monarch sent an email to ALL pax to advise them. Whether they opened it is another matter, as they may have deleted it thinking it was the weekly offers email.

As with all 4 wet leases, Aurela's Maintenance facility, records, operations manuals and cabin operations were fully audited, prior to confirmation of the wet lease contracts. Though the aircraft actually being leased wasn't available (flying) during the audit period. They were found to be fully compliant with EASA/EU OPS and audit flights were conducted, again prior to confirmation of the wet lease.

FACT!

fireflybob

23rd Sep 2012, 18:35

Monarch sent an email to ALL pax to advise them. Whether they opened it is another matter, as they may have deleted it thinking it was the weekly offers email.

Whiskey Zulu, thanks for that information.

Question I would like to ask is when were they sent the email? Had the decision to sub charter been made by the time of booking and if so were the passengers made aware then?

If I have booked a flight and then get an email a couple of days before the flight and I am not happy with the new travel arrangements it may be difficult to arrange travel with another company. Also if a passenger elects not to travel for this reason, will they get a full refund of the fare including taxes and charges etc?

DaveReidUK

23rd Sep 2012, 20:12

some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This does not prove that Monarch didn't advise them

OK, understood.

It sounded like you were saying that all passengers must have been aware of the arrangement, but I see that's not what you meant.

renort

23rd Sep 2012, 21:07

Heckles, Hackles, whatever.

I can imagine the UK airline that this summer refused to use Aurela, are feeling rather vindicated in that decision, even if it does mean paying a bit more to use another option.

Turnberry

23rd Sep 2012, 21:57

Jet 2, Thomas Cook and FlyBe have all used Aurela B733s over the last few years.

The incident sounds pretty similar to what Britannia/Thomson did with one of their B763s at LGW a few years ago (exiting 26L in the rain).

mad_jock

24th Sep 2012, 06:55

Maybe this is a fall out of the pax compensation rules. Companys using any legal airframe they can get.

Most of the subs I have done have been for max three days when an aircraft is AOG.

Most of the time its been "get there ASAP your going......."

Even had one where the CP turned up at the aircraft door while it was getting put to bed after he had gone tech on the stand next door. 30 mins later we were on our way with thier Hostie down the back as company rep. And she was more worried about the bar than what we were doing in the front.

Picasa

24th Sep 2012, 10:29

So all this slating of Monarch and Aurela - can I presume that no British carrier (BA, TOM or VS) have ever had the misfortune to have an incident to one of their own units?
And if they had, presumably everyone that has commented on the appalling decision by MON to use Aurela would ever fly with that British airline again?

Just wondering.....!

Mr Angry from Purley

24th Sep 2012, 18:40

Let's hope for Monarch Aurela haven't been flogging their crews on double AGP's etc with min rest inbetween...

Momoe

25th Sep 2012, 10:34

I'd be more concerned as to how Monarch are covering the flights now that they've suspended the arrangement with Aurela.

OT anyone?

AirMedManUK

25th Sep 2012, 11:56

Flying the BHX - AGP route this coming weekend and was due on the sub'd 733 - Monarch tell me that they are using one of their own 320's (at least on the Sunday AGP - BHX)

gcal

25th Sep 2012, 16:04

BA at LGW have certainly used Monarch and Astreus in the past for subs, the BCN route (discontinued but due to start again in Feb...yippeee!!).
As a pax, and aside from the poor legroom, Monarch was pretty good and served the BA product pretty well.
I like Monarch but find their website too fiddly, too complicated, and generally opt out half way through - EZY is streets ahead (and they have 6 not 2 flights a day LGW/BCN).
I do remember that my stepfather flew with Pancho Villa and was offered the job of top captain at the fledgling Monarch - he turned it down as he didn't think the company would last!!!!!!!!!

750XL

25th Sep 2012, 20:38

Yesterday Thomas Cook used 8 separate subcharters to cover their own fleets failings...

RoyHudd

26th Sep 2012, 00:41

750XL. Your point is?.....

trackfpa320

26th Sep 2012, 19:19

Picasa

'And if they had, presumably everyone that has commented on the appalling decision by MON to use Aurela would ever fly with that British airline again?'

Well that will not be a problem as Monarch themselves moved swiftly; in a press release following the incident stated that they will not be using Aurela any more.

I wonder how many other UK airlines will take a look at who they are subchartering ?

lets play a game and see the names of similar operations that have worked in this interesting world. Here are a few just to get us started.

Air Scotland Greek registered I think
TBA Tristar registered ?
Air Ops
Omega 707 somewhere in Africa ?
Smart Lynx
Small Planet
Viking

My starter for ten.....

Picasa

27th Sep 2012, 11:46

trackfpa320 - whats your point? Because it is not registered in Kingsway, London it must be dodgy?
G-reg a/c have had the misfortune to suffer incidents in the past (not to distant past as well)

Not that I disagree with you regarding some of the more obscure airlines and their registration.

trackfpa320

28th Sep 2012, 06:31

I have no problem with other nationalities or registrations, per se. I do have grave concerns about certain regulators not performing satisfactory oversight of their operators; especially when they are operating in a third party country some distance from home. Should the local authority have more involvement and oversight with these style of operations ? I think they should.

Many aviation authorities require financial stabilty and enough rescources to maintain a safe operation. ( Pilots, engineers, spares, training capacity etc etc). If you look at this style of operator, just think how many have been and gone. Take a look at some of the operators 'based' in the UK right now, do you think all of them would pass a full UK CAA AOC audit ?

Monarch choose to use an operator, however due to this incident they have now decided to stop using them. Should they have picked up shortcomings in this operation before; maybe. I bet you Monarch will be looking much much closer at sub charter operations from now on don't you?

I don't think any corporate body (Airline OR tour operator) should be allowed to abdicate their responsibilites when it comes to sub chartering.
Just because an operation is based within the EASA region is not a good enough answer, it is NOT a level playing field.

Unless something changes in regulation and oversight, this senario will just be repeated and sadly the ending maybe far more serious. That's just my opinion.

Burnie5204

29th Sep 2012, 05:34

I bet you Monarch will be looking much much closer at sub charter operations from now on don't you?

So are the CAA judging by the team of inspectors that turned up on Wednesday night to inspect one of MONs subchartered aircraft at EMA

FERetd

29th Sep 2012, 11:20

trackfpa320 Quote "I have no problem with other nationalities or registrations. I do have grave concerns about certain regulators not performing satisfactory oversight of their operators..."

If you do have "grave concerns" about certain regulators (understandably), then you should have serious problems with the nationalities and registrations that those regulators administer.

Your concerns would not be unwarranted.

BOMB-DOCTOR

30th Sep 2012, 06:59

. Small airlines can't hardly compete in these safety related areas.

Het field,

I am not sure I agree with you, Even small airlines believe that they can be leaders in Aviation Safety.

Titan Airways receives Innovation in Safety Management Award (http://www.titan-airways.com/news/titan-airways-receives-innovation-in-safety-management-award.html)

FougaMagister

30th Sep 2012, 11:17

One of my colleagues (well used to landing in BHX himself) was positioning back from NCE to BHX on that very flight, and told me the following:

- the approach was stable, although it looked a bit fast over the threshold
- long flare, touchdown abeam the fire station
- he expected quite a bit of reverse... which didn't come (autobrake only)
- as the aircraft neared the end of the runway, it started a turn but a vibration was felt (which he suspects may have been the nosewheel skidding on the wet runway)
- he then saw grass under the wings, and the 737 came to a stop
- only then were flaps retracted and APU started

The ambiance inside was reminiscent of a country fair! So much for Daily Mail :mad: tales of "terrified passengers"... :rolleyes:

As far as the operator is concerned, some comments on this thread are borderline xenophobic and only serve to show some posters' ignorance about commercial aviation beyond their own borders. Why would Aurela be usafe just because they're from Lithuania? Are only UK AOC airlines safe then? The Cold War mentality is still alive and well apparently... My mate is a frequent flyer on this route, familiar with NCE approaches (where he is based), and told me, some time before the incident, that he was often impressed by how precisely Aurela crews would obviously hand-fly the VOR A 04L or visual 04L approach in NCE - not always the most straightforward of approaches.

This is not to say that regulatory supervision was up to scratch; it may well not have been - although there is no reason why flying a 24-year old 737-300 is any less safe than on Monarch's own 757s or A300-600Rs of roughly the same vintage.

As far as subcontracting goes, I'm sure Monarch did their homework as is mandatory. A few years ago, my outfit temporarily used an LY-reg freighter on one of our routes, and one of our captains jumpseated on a number of sectors to observe their operation, SOPs etc. before giving the go-ahead.

Regarding mentioning the actual operator on the booking, it's only fair (when not only to cover last-minute AOG) and I notice most legacy airlines on which I fly (AF, KLM, LH, LOT) do so on the boarding pass even when the flight is operated by a subsidiary.

Cheers :cool:

cockygashandlazy

30th Sep 2012, 12:40

Hear, hear!

trackfpa320

30th Sep 2012, 17:02

I don't know Birmingham that well, can you tell me where the fire station is located; in particular with regard to the touch down zone markers on the runway in use ?

lederhosen

30th Sep 2012, 18:03

One possible scenario would be throttles not completely closed and therefore difficulty selecting reverse.

mad_jock

30th Sep 2012, 18:14

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-87D4F54C086F76C98B608B3AD8C4F65F/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/NON_AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGBB_2-1_en_2012-05-03.pdf

There is the aerodrome chart.

Doors to Automatic

1st Oct 2012, 08:25

I don't know Birmingham that well, can you tell me where the fire station is located; in particular with regard to the touch down zone markers on the runway in use ?

It is quite a way in, abeam a point I would estimate to be some 3500ft past the threshold to Runway 33.

Even so, this still leaves at least 4000 feet of runway before the end, which should be ample time to stop for an aircraft of this size given sufficient use of brakes and reverse.

Weary

1st Oct 2012, 22:54

given sufficient use of brakes and reverse.

That would be MAX manual brakes then, as anything else would be proportionally negated by any reverse thrust.

But - somebody mentioned that the reversers were not actually used...........

Oh dear :uhoh:

Andrew Bowyer

2nd Oct 2012, 08:23

Just a slight diversion but my daugther, who was a pax on this service, has just had a full refund paid into her bank account by Monarch without her having to fire a letter in anger. Pleasing in times of poor customer service.

pedrobaltic

2nd Oct 2012, 09:15

FougaMagister - finally some sense and balance :ok:

mad_jock

2nd Oct 2012, 09:34

So what would be a sensible speed to attempt a 90 degree corner in this type of aircraft?

Smudger

2nd Oct 2012, 09:42

Normal operation, about 15 knots in the dry, much more would be uncomfortable for the pax and would put unnecessary strain on the landing gear.

criss

2nd Oct 2012, 10:32

One can always learn from 'professionals' in this forum. New lessons - Lithuania is a 3rd world African country, and Small Planet is ridden with Soviet captains.

Beats me how you find time to make up all this BS when you always complain your schedules are so cramped.

Doors to Automatic

2nd Oct 2012, 11:54

That would be Autobrakes MAX then

Manual brakes would also work?

Weary

2nd Oct 2012, 12:43

Quite right Doors - I've ammended my post !

VC10man

2nd Oct 2012, 17:00

I always thought that Lithuania was a Baltic state, now I am told it is in Africa. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/eek.gif
You learn something new every day!!!:D

FougaMagister

4th Oct 2012, 11:45

Some interesting pictures here:
ASN Aircraft accident 21-SEP-2012 Boeing 737-35B LY-SKA (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=149246)
Due to its position and orientation, looks like the aircraft skidded off the (wet) runway during the turn to the A1 taxiway.

Cheers :cool:

Doors to Automatic

4th Oct 2012, 12:57

Are there any reliable reports about the touchdown out yet? How fast was it going, where did it touch down etc?

SanjiUK

5th Oct 2012, 23:04

Question I would like to ask is when were they sent the email? Had the decision to sub charter been made by the time of booking and if so were the passengers made aware then?
If I have booked a flight and then get an email a couple of days before the flight and I am not happy with the new travel arrangements it may be difficult to arrange travel with another company. Also if a passenger elects not to travel for this reason, will they get a full refund of the fare including taxes and charges etc?

First time posting.

I booked a Monarch flight (ZB7448) to Malaga from EMA on the 23rd of May – the date of departure the 17th September 2012.

I received an email on the 10th September entitled ‘Important, not long before you fly’ which gave me all the spiel about hand luggage dimensions.

The next email I received was during the afternoon on the 14th September, 2 days before I departed, informing me of the change of aircraft, but failing to mention the carrier and up until that point I had no reason believe flight ZB7448 wasn’t going to be a Monarch plane.

I did my own investigation that evening and discovered that the flight was going to be operated by Small Planet Airways and this aircraft had been operating this route since the beginning of September, but Monarch waited until 2 days before I flew to inform me of the change of aircraft and still omitted to name the carrier in the email.

During the next day I contacted Monarch via their Facebookpage to enquire about departing from Manchester on an aircraft that was going to be a Monarch plane, and I was told they don't do refunds and there would be charges and any difference in flight prices – when I had calculated these charges together, it was a ridiculous amount of money to pay out.

Would I have booked the flight in the first place if I had been told I was going to end up on a wet-lease Lithuanian old crate, with a dilapidated interior, a reduction of on-board services and a cabin crew who nobody could understand? No, I wouldn’t and Monarch knew that too, so I believe this is why they withheld this information.

I’m so incensed by this that I’m about to write to the CAA, EU, EASA and anyone else who will listen, because I believe that Monarch breached the EU directive, article 11, by not informing me earlier of the carrier.

I would also appreciate any comments regarding the legal and safety aspects of having a cabin crew giving a safety briefing in poor English that could not be understood by the passengers, and according to my video, it lasted 96 seconds from start to finish.

Finally, I’d just like to say, that the flight home was like sitting in an overcrowded oven for three hours. It was unbearably hot, cramped and at one point I could smell aviation fuel tainting the air in the cabin.

It's not an experience I would wish to repeat in a hurry. :sad:

Thank you for reading and any advice.

Slik

6th Oct 2012, 11:06

In reply to Fireflybob, I booked flights with Monarch and wasn't told of any other operators being used, checked in on line and still no mention that it wasn't Monarch. Only 36 hours before my flight did they send an e-mail saying it was another operator (unspecified). After reading the horror stories about these leased planes, I contacted Monarch and finally got through to customer services director who told me that the plane I was due to fly on was Aurela on 21 September and that all rumours about the plane were exagerated. I kicked up and got transferred to another flight as I refused to fly on this heap. At least (given there were no casualties) I can now complain with the words "told you so" but it could have been so much worse. Monarch are deceiving passengers by not telling them until the very last minute that it will be another airline when its probably too late to do anything about it.

Uplinker

22nd Oct 2012, 00:42

Although I have read most of this thread, I cannot be ars*d to read the last few pages, so apologies if this has already been raised; but what if the crew suffered brake failure after landing and after cleaning up whilst taxying forward on the runway at around 10 knots, and then not being able to slow down enough for the turn at the end?

Just a thought.

22nd Oct 2012, 08:15

You do the memory items for loss of braking and switch to the back up system (takes about 2 seconds on the 'bus). Ultimately you just apply the parking brake.

I would be very surprised if this is loss of braking due to failure (but I accept it may be). I suspect it is more loss of braking ability due to too much energy being taken into the turn to exit the runway. Physics will always win.

Burnie5204

22nd Oct 2012, 10:55

Well there has certainly been a change...

At EMA we're still seeing the Air Italy Group and the Small Planet aircraft but as well as the voices of the wet lease crews we've come to recognise there is now a profoundly british voice in the flight deck on every flight and from what I can gather its the captains.

Rhino power

22nd Oct 2012, 13:05

All Monarch flights from EMA on the current schedule have been by foreign operators.
First we had Avion Express A319 LY-VEU, then Small Planet B733 LY-FLJ which was joined by Air Italy B734 I-AIMR, this was replaced for one days flights by Air Italy B738 EI-IGN. LY-FLJ and I-AIMR are the current incumbents, although i understand the schedule drops to one aircraft this month.

Burnie5204

22nd Oct 2012, 15:54

Correct - to a monarch liveried A321

The comment was more on how all MON flights operated by the 2 wet lease companies are being accompanied by MON Captains

chocolateracer

22nd Oct 2012, 18:37

The comment was more on how all MON flights operated by the 2 wet lease companies are being accompanied by MON Captains

As in on the jump seat?????

Cough

22nd Oct 2012, 20:02

You do the memory items for loss of braking and switch to the back up system (takes about 2 seconds on the 'bus). Ultimately you just apply the parking brake.

Correct, for an Airbus. This is a Boeing...

sAx_R54

22nd Oct 2012, 21:55

....and they told me a lot of creepy stuff....

@JQKA

And you being aware of this "creepy stuff", have done what about it?

Burnie5204

22nd Oct 2012, 22:20

@chocolateracer

No, from the flying seats

editted to remove specific reference to left seat

fmgc

23rd Oct 2012, 20:25

Burnie5204

How can a Monarch (a British registered airline that does not operate 737s) Captain be sitting in the LHS of a Lithuanian registered 737?

Just out of interest are you an ATCer, Pilot, something else to do with aviation or a spotter?

Burnie5204

23rd Oct 2012, 20:29

Not a clue but they had MON ID

and I work on the ramp.

fmgc

23rd Oct 2012, 20:34

So just to get this straight, you are saying that a Monarch Captain is operating in the LHS of a Lithuanian 737? Not sitting in the jumpseat auditing the flight but actually operating from the LHS?

Burnie5204

23rd Oct 2012, 20:57

Given that from the ground I could only see 2 people in the cockpit, heard the British voices from the flightdecks on the radios and they were all 4-ring captains I believe they were in at least one of the 2 flying seats.

22/04

23rd Oct 2012, 21:51

Totally speculive, so don't sue but ex Baby crew hired short term?

Burnie5204

24th Oct 2012, 12:44

Back to all foreign accents in both flightdecks again today, supposedly the 4 British Captains were only in the cockpits on Sunday and its been the original wet lease crew voices we've come to recognise again since then.

24th Oct 2012, 15:07

@ Cough.

Yes I'm aware we're talking about a Boeing here - I was adding the procedure for the 'bus for context. What's the procedure on a Boeing for loss of braking? I assume there's a backup or is just a case of applying the parking brake? :eek:

BOAC

24th Oct 2012, 15:23

Independent hydraulics plus an accumulator, so a 'Total loss' is very unlikely. If it were somehow to happen you need to find some soft grass somewhere to............................oh, wait a minute.........................:uhoh:

No 'parking brake' as such, the lever merely 'latches' the applied pressure.

fmgc

24th Oct 2012, 17:42

Burnie5204

I think that you must be mistaken, no Monarch Captain would be operating a Lithuanian B737. There might be one on the jumpseat overlooking but certainly would not be transmitting on the radio let alone sitting at the controls.

rog747

24th Oct 2012, 17:46

goodness this is like emmerdale

the MON plot thickens

Burnie5204

24th Oct 2012, 18:05

Nope, there were definately british captains, who swapped off and on at the end of the first V sector (so 4 of them by my reckoning) when the rest of the crews stayed the same, who were definately talking on the radio taking clearances, taxi instructions, headings, etc. on both the Air Italy Group AND the Small Planet a/c....

So unless both wet lease airlines happen to have 2 british captains on the books, AND both companies happen to have scheduled both those captains to fly on the same day despite the rest of the crews from both companies operating both V sectors AND despite not having scheduled those captains to fly on any day of the 2 months of operation so far or on the 3 days since.

I dont presume to know what was going on, why they were there or how they came to be there I'm just telling you what I saw

fmgc

24th Oct 2012, 21:31

Burnie5204

So now you are saying that they are British Captains not Monarch ones even though you claim that you saw one if their IDs which showed Monarch?

How do you suppose that a Monarch pilot could legally operate a 737 (which Monarch don't operate) which is registered in a completely different country for a completely different airline.

You obviously have no idea whatsoever of the legalities of licensing, type ratings, operator specific proficiency checks or line proficiency checks and what is required to operate an aeroplane for a specific operator under that operator's AOC.

Maybe one or more of the wet lease airlines has a Brit or a few Brits flying for them, but they are not Monarch pilots operating those aeroplanes, I can absolutely assure you of that.