Cimber - Sterling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: At work
Age: 62
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cimber - Sterling
Rumours tells that Cimber - Sterling will report a net loss of DKK 58 millions for Q1 2009 and that they will lay off some engineers and cabin crew.
The 58 millon should be the result of minus 38 in Cimber and -20 in Sterling.
The 58 millon should be the result of minus 38 in Cimber and -20 in Sterling.
Well I am not surprised that the Steling part doesn't make any profit, all the other owners couldn't manage that either. The Sterling part is very small compared to many lowcost operators in and out of CPH. Billund is not any better with FR constantly expanding new routes there with more to come in the near future !? So to be honest I don't see much future in them
The Cimber part has been doing good and bad the last couple of years and I wouldn't be too worried about them having losses a couple of years in a row. Sterling is on a different AOC and set up as a seperate company so I'm more worried about Sterling's future in the short term.
The big question is how long Joergen Nielsen and co. want to keep investing money into this company? He is not used to financially operate bigger jets like the 737 and with this size of aircrafts money don't last long.
And correct as previously mentioned in the earlier post. They don't have much money in reserve compared to the big lowcost companies who not only know how to run this kind of business but also have ****loads of money.
Time wil tell.
The Cimber part has been doing good and bad the last couple of years and I wouldn't be too worried about them having losses a couple of years in a row. Sterling is on a different AOC and set up as a seperate company so I'm more worried about Sterling's future in the short term.
The big question is how long Joergen Nielsen and co. want to keep investing money into this company? He is not used to financially operate bigger jets like the 737 and with this size of aircrafts money don't last long.
And correct as previously mentioned in the earlier post. They don't have much money in reserve compared to the big lowcost companies who not only know how to run this kind of business but also have ****loads of money.
Time wil tell.
Rumours say they need to save around 70 mill D.KR and SAS have announced that only 4 of 22 wetlease aircraft will be kept on for this year. How many have QI got 4+ at least flying for SAS!? I would reckon only Blueone will be kept on as they are fullyowned by SAS and cheaper than QI.
Unless QI find some new work there will be a surplus of both pilots and cabin crew soon. They might be hiring at the moment but they have certainly shown in the past that they don't have any problems letting newly hired cabin crew go or pilots for that matter when needed!
Unless QI find some new work there will be a surplus of both pilots and cabin crew soon. They might be hiring at the moment but they have certainly shown in the past that they don't have any problems letting newly hired cabin crew go or pilots for that matter when needed!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Norway
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, quite impressive, since SAS have wetleased only 8 aircraft from Cimber. 4 of these are on long term lease, and will be continued. The last 4 aircraft are "Q400 replacements", and these 4 leases will be terminated by the end of 2009, with the first already terminated by the end of may.
Hangure,
Maybe I'm misreading your post!? But I wasn't saying all 22 aircrafts wetleased by SAS are provided by QI! I was just saying that QI have at least 4 or more aircraft flying for SAS and you say it's 8, which I am sure is correct as I'm not up to date on that one.
My concern for QI is that when SAS don't need them anymore as it sounds like - as SAS wants to get get rid of wetleasing already this year it means less production in Qi. Unless they find new work that will mean an overcapacity of crews
Maybe I'm misreading your post!? But I wasn't saying all 22 aircrafts wetleased by SAS are provided by QI! I was just saying that QI have at least 4 or more aircraft flying for SAS and you say it's 8, which I am sure is correct as I'm not up to date on that one.
My concern for QI is that when SAS don't need them anymore as it sounds like - as SAS wants to get get rid of wetleasing already this year it means less production in Qi. Unless they find new work that will mean an overcapacity of crews
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Well, lets roll, or "I fought the law, and WON"
epn.dk - Cimber-chef slipper gratis fra stunt
Let's roll guys I am invincible
or the SLV guys are......
Let's roll guys I am invincible
or the SLV guys are......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between the legs of a beautiful woman
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mafia methods ... SLV is ridiculous. They give you fines if you do not comply with the SID out of CPH.
But this is a freeride for Mr. Nielsen?!?!. I feel sick.
But this is a freeride for Mr. Nielsen?!?!. I feel sick.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: At work
Age: 62
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Surprise, after all.
No wonder as one of DCAA inspectors are partly employed by Cimber Sterling as F/O on B737.
So old William S [U]was[U] correct; Something rotten in the state of Denmark (Marcellus, Hamlet Scene 4)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: At work
Age: 62
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my dear...
It is getting worse!
There is two of a kind!
Though, I was refering to a female, ex Maersk-Sterling now working in DCAA operational department
There is two of a kind!
Though, I was refering to a female, ex Maersk-Sterling now working in DCAA operational department
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: All over
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wanna-Be-Airline Defines "Aerobatic"
Look at this PRESS RELEASE from the Flight Ops Manager...... I just wonder if the Simulators are approved for "Barrell Roll" , oh, of course it is a nomal procedure. !!!!! How stupid of me......
Tønderul er ikke kunstflyvning
Cimber Sterling påpeger faktuelle fejl i debatten om Jørgen Nielsens tønderul
Set i lyset af de indslag/artikler der for nylig er blevet bragt i diverse medier vedr. Jørgen Nielsens tønderul maj sidste år, vil Cimber Sterling præcisere et par oversete detaljer.
Ikke kunstflyvning
For det første er et tønderul ikke en kunstflyvningsmanøvre. Det er derimod en fløjet manøvre, man kan bruge til at genoprette normal flyvestilling, hvis voldsomme vinde eller turbulens har presset flyet ud i en unormal stilling. I et sådant tilfælde ville det være langt mere belastende for flyet at presse det tilbage i stedet for at lade flyet rulle hele vejen rundt. Alle piloter bliver trænet til denne manøvre i simulatoren, hvorimod man ikke bliver trænet til fx at udføre loops eller andre kunstflyvningsmanøvrer.Det er lovpligtigt, at en pilot skal kunne rette flyet op fra unormal flyvestilling. Og alle passagerfly skal kunne udføre denne manøvre uden overbelastning.
Flyet blev ikke overbelastet
For det andet, noterer vi os, at kritikken stammer fra en enkelt civilt uddannet pilot, der aldrig selv har fløjet i den flytype, som rullet er blevet udført i, og vi er i besiddelse af officielle papirer fra ATR-fabrikken, der klart afviser, at flyet på nogen måde skulle have været blevet belastet af omtalte manøvre. Det siger sig selv, at vi mener at have fat i den lange ende af sagkundskaben – og at netop dette perspektiv er udeladt i denne fortløbende diskussion af sagen.
Administrativ fejl
Det, der var Jørgen Nielsens fejl og baggrunden for SLV’s løftede pegefinger varikke udførelsen af den fløjne manøvre i sig selv, men at flyvningen ikke var karakteriseret som prøveflyvning.
Ved prøveflyvninger flyver man flyet ud til sit fulde potentiale og afprøver forskellige unormale situationer. Man slukker fx for motorerne og tester i øvrigt alle flyets systemer.
Jørgen Nielsener certificeret prøveflyvningspilot, men hans fejl i denne sag var ikke rullet i sig selv, men at selve flyvningen ”kun” var godkendt til en flyvning til Eindhoven og ikke en prøveflyvning. Altså af ren administrativ karakter.
I er meget velkomne til at komme tilbage med uddybende spørgsmål.
Med venlig hilsen
Søren Byrjalsen, Flyvechef ATR, Cimber Sterling
Kontakt: Søren Byrjalsen tlf: +45 20 99 05 57 for yderligere spørgsmål.
Se bilag side 2.
BILAG:
Baggrundsinfo fra ATR-fabrikken
ATR’s konklusion på rapporten:
5/ CONCLUSIONS :
Based on my past experience of “Air Shows Demos” as an Experimental Test Pilot serving Aerospatiale during 25 years (ATR 42, 72, Airbus, Concorde, Beluga etc.), I fail to see any unsafe or questionable situation in this CIMBER presentation that I could review in detail, thanks to the very powerful flight reconstitution tool operated by ATS.
In addition, I can add that I got the feeling that this presentation was very “dynamic” and carefully flown, certainly very impressive to observe from ground: No doubt it underlines the excellent flying qualities of the aircraft shown as of her Pilot.
Gilbert DEFER, retired,
Former ATR VP Flight Test (from 1983 to 1996)
ATR’s definition af et Barrel Roll/ Total turn:
A “total turn” (or barrel roll) is a continuous, slowly dynamic, fully controlled manoeuvre through which any aircraft (*) may vary its bank angle through 360°.
Starting from a steady high pitch climb initiated at high IAS (low AOA) and constant power, aircraft is banked continuously in one direction (left or right) without pitch inputs : vertical path is then controlled by the orientation of lift with varies according to bank angle.
During this motion, G load never reaches values below 1 and may be controlled to stay typically between 1.4 / 1.5 G by modulating rate of change of bank angle. In the meantime sideslip remains essentially zero. Altogether a “total turn” or “barrel roll” may be flown so smoothly that a glass full of water placed on any flat surface (cockpit pedestal or passenger seat table) will remain steady without any droplet of liquid leaving the glass; there is no need to play with power, and nx, ny, nz remain easily steady during the whole manoeuvre.
Eric DELESALLE
Test Active ATR VP Flight Test
Tønderul er ikke kunstflyvning
Cimber Sterling påpeger faktuelle fejl i debatten om Jørgen Nielsens tønderul
Set i lyset af de indslag/artikler der for nylig er blevet bragt i diverse medier vedr. Jørgen Nielsens tønderul maj sidste år, vil Cimber Sterling præcisere et par oversete detaljer.
Ikke kunstflyvning
For det første er et tønderul ikke en kunstflyvningsmanøvre. Det er derimod en fløjet manøvre, man kan bruge til at genoprette normal flyvestilling, hvis voldsomme vinde eller turbulens har presset flyet ud i en unormal stilling. I et sådant tilfælde ville det være langt mere belastende for flyet at presse det tilbage i stedet for at lade flyet rulle hele vejen rundt. Alle piloter bliver trænet til denne manøvre i simulatoren, hvorimod man ikke bliver trænet til fx at udføre loops eller andre kunstflyvningsmanøvrer.Det er lovpligtigt, at en pilot skal kunne rette flyet op fra unormal flyvestilling. Og alle passagerfly skal kunne udføre denne manøvre uden overbelastning.
Flyet blev ikke overbelastet
For det andet, noterer vi os, at kritikken stammer fra en enkelt civilt uddannet pilot, der aldrig selv har fløjet i den flytype, som rullet er blevet udført i, og vi er i besiddelse af officielle papirer fra ATR-fabrikken, der klart afviser, at flyet på nogen måde skulle have været blevet belastet af omtalte manøvre. Det siger sig selv, at vi mener at have fat i den lange ende af sagkundskaben – og at netop dette perspektiv er udeladt i denne fortløbende diskussion af sagen.
Administrativ fejl
Det, der var Jørgen Nielsens fejl og baggrunden for SLV’s løftede pegefinger varikke udførelsen af den fløjne manøvre i sig selv, men at flyvningen ikke var karakteriseret som prøveflyvning.
Ved prøveflyvninger flyver man flyet ud til sit fulde potentiale og afprøver forskellige unormale situationer. Man slukker fx for motorerne og tester i øvrigt alle flyets systemer.
Jørgen Nielsener certificeret prøveflyvningspilot, men hans fejl i denne sag var ikke rullet i sig selv, men at selve flyvningen ”kun” var godkendt til en flyvning til Eindhoven og ikke en prøveflyvning. Altså af ren administrativ karakter.
I er meget velkomne til at komme tilbage med uddybende spørgsmål.
Med venlig hilsen
Søren Byrjalsen, Flyvechef ATR, Cimber Sterling
Kontakt: Søren Byrjalsen tlf: +45 20 99 05 57 for yderligere spørgsmål.
Se bilag side 2.
BILAG:
Baggrundsinfo fra ATR-fabrikken
ATR’s konklusion på rapporten:
5/ CONCLUSIONS :
Based on my past experience of “Air Shows Demos” as an Experimental Test Pilot serving Aerospatiale during 25 years (ATR 42, 72, Airbus, Concorde, Beluga etc.), I fail to see any unsafe or questionable situation in this CIMBER presentation that I could review in detail, thanks to the very powerful flight reconstitution tool operated by ATS.
In addition, I can add that I got the feeling that this presentation was very “dynamic” and carefully flown, certainly very impressive to observe from ground: No doubt it underlines the excellent flying qualities of the aircraft shown as of her Pilot.
Gilbert DEFER, retired,
Former ATR VP Flight Test (from 1983 to 1996)
ATR’s definition af et Barrel Roll/ Total turn:
A “total turn” (or barrel roll) is a continuous, slowly dynamic, fully controlled manoeuvre through which any aircraft (*) may vary its bank angle through 360°.
Starting from a steady high pitch climb initiated at high IAS (low AOA) and constant power, aircraft is banked continuously in one direction (left or right) without pitch inputs : vertical path is then controlled by the orientation of lift with varies according to bank angle.
During this motion, G load never reaches values below 1 and may be controlled to stay typically between 1.4 / 1.5 G by modulating rate of change of bank angle. In the meantime sideslip remains essentially zero. Altogether a “total turn” or “barrel roll” may be flown so smoothly that a glass full of water placed on any flat surface (cockpit pedestal or passenger seat table) will remain steady without any droplet of liquid leaving the glass; there is no need to play with power, and nx, ny, nz remain easily steady during the whole manoeuvre.
Eric DELESALLE
Test Active ATR VP Flight Test
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack Pot - Your posts leaves the impression, that you are having a very hard time with Cimber and its management. The way you are arguing, makes the reader wonder, whether you were fired from Cimber or you simply failed to get the Cimber job you wanted really bad.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I never had anything to do with Cimber, but if the quoted press release is correct, my only comment is: Anyone claiming that a barrel roll is not an aerobatic maneuvre (Acc to ICAO SARPs and JAA JARs) needs to explain the logics applied, or otherwise loose any credibility!
The fact that the particular A/C in question can - by design - actually take it is NOT the point.
Cheers, (love aerobatics, btw :-)
Redbar1
The fact that the particular A/C in question can - by design - actually take it is NOT the point.
Cheers, (love aerobatics, btw :-)
Redbar1
Last edited by redbar1; 16th Jun 2009 at 22:24. Reason: spellling misteak :-)
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He rolled the damn aircraft. Skip the finer points of semantics. If I said that I performed an 8-point roll in a B737, I would strictly be doing a series of eight 45-degree banks. Legal?
CS-23:
(2) Propellerdriven
twinengined
aeroplanes in the commuter category that have a
seating configuration, excluding the pilot
seat(s), of nineteen or fewer and a maximum
certificated takeoff
weight of 8618 kg (19 000
lb) or less.
CS-23.3:
...(d) Commuter category operation is limited to
any manoeuvre incident to normal flying, stalls
(except whip stalls) and steep turns in which the
angle of bank is not more than 60°.
But wait! The ATR-42/72 has a MTOM of 18.600/22.800kg, and is turbine powered. In other words: Transport category, CS-25. Which means no aerobatic manoeuvres - defined in CS-23 as not more that 60deg. bank...
Furthermore, CS-25 states:
b. The maximum bank and pitch attitudes, which can be achieved without overpowering the automatic
pilot, should be limited to those necessary for the normal operation of the aeroplane;
NOTE: Typically ± 35° in roll +20° to –10° in pitch.
Other situations are considered to be non-normal, and hence you should not voluntarily enter a barrel roll.
I totally agree with the dunce saying that a barrel roll(-ish) manoeuvre must be flown if you are caught in a vwake vortex og otherwise end up un an undesirable aircraft state requiring a recovery. But this guy just ****** up and is too stupid to admit it...
CS-23:
(2) Propellerdriven
twinengined
aeroplanes in the commuter category that have a
seating configuration, excluding the pilot
seat(s), of nineteen or fewer and a maximum
certificated takeoff
weight of 8618 kg (19 000
lb) or less.
CS-23.3:
...(d) Commuter category operation is limited to
any manoeuvre incident to normal flying, stalls
(except whip stalls) and steep turns in which the
angle of bank is not more than 60°.
But wait! The ATR-42/72 has a MTOM of 18.600/22.800kg, and is turbine powered. In other words: Transport category, CS-25. Which means no aerobatic manoeuvres - defined in CS-23 as not more that 60deg. bank...
Furthermore, CS-25 states:
b. The maximum bank and pitch attitudes, which can be achieved without overpowering the automatic
pilot, should be limited to those necessary for the normal operation of the aeroplane;
NOTE: Typically ± 35° in roll +20° to –10° in pitch.
Other situations are considered to be non-normal, and hence you should not voluntarily enter a barrel roll.
I totally agree with the dunce saying that a barrel roll(-ish) manoeuvre must be flown if you are caught in a vwake vortex og otherwise end up un an undesirable aircraft state requiring a recovery. But this guy just ****** up and is too stupid to admit it...
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmonton:
See crossunder's previous post re certification JARs.
In the present verion of ICAO Annex 2, we find this definition:
"Acrobatic flight. Manoeuvres intentionally performed by an
aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal
attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed."
For good measure, here is something based on FAAs FAR91, found here on PPRUNE:
"FAR 91.303 defines aerobatic flight thusly: an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. Note that aerobatic flight is not demarcated by a specific pitch attitude or bank angle. (Aerobatic flight is often mistakenly thought to occur only when an aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank relative to the horizon. This 30/60 rule, which appears under FAR 91.307 (c), merely specifies the conditions under which parachutes must be worn by the occupants of an aircraft.) In the classical sense, the term aerobatics includes spinning, looping, and rolling an aircraft through 360 degrees of yaw, pitch, and roll."
Finally, for even better measure, from the syllabus of the Aerobatic Rating flight training, as presented in EASA Part FCL (NPA 17b):
"AMC to FCL.800:
FLYING TRAINING
4.1. Aerobatic manoeuvres
– Chandelle
– Lazy Eight
– Aileron Roll
– Barrel Roll
– Rudder Roll
– Loop and inverted loop
– Immelmann
– Split S
"
Hope this settles the nature of the barrel roll.
Cheers,
Redbar1
See crossunder's previous post re certification JARs.
In the present verion of ICAO Annex 2, we find this definition:
"Acrobatic flight. Manoeuvres intentionally performed by an
aircraft involving an abrupt change in its attitude, an abnormal
attitude, or an abnormal variation in speed."
For good measure, here is something based on FAAs FAR91, found here on PPRUNE:
"FAR 91.303 defines aerobatic flight thusly: an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight. Note that aerobatic flight is not demarcated by a specific pitch attitude or bank angle. (Aerobatic flight is often mistakenly thought to occur only when an aircraft exceeds 30 degrees of pitch or 60 degrees of bank relative to the horizon. This 30/60 rule, which appears under FAR 91.307 (c), merely specifies the conditions under which parachutes must be worn by the occupants of an aircraft.) In the classical sense, the term aerobatics includes spinning, looping, and rolling an aircraft through 360 degrees of yaw, pitch, and roll."
Finally, for even better measure, from the syllabus of the Aerobatic Rating flight training, as presented in EASA Part FCL (NPA 17b):
"AMC to FCL.800:
FLYING TRAINING
4.1. Aerobatic manoeuvres
– Chandelle
– Lazy Eight
– Aileron Roll
– Barrel Roll
– Rudder Roll
– Loop and inverted loop
– Immelmann
– Split S
"
Hope this settles the nature of the barrel roll.
Cheers,
Redbar1