Budget airline sewing a yarn?
Thread Starter
Budget airline sewing a yarn?
Here's the scenario... Flight is meant to go from Stansted this morning to a Spanish destination. Intended aircraft landed at Gatwick due to fog at Stansted. OK so far.
Passengers at Stansted are told that the aircraft can get out of Gatwick, but needs a "software update" to enable it to land at Stansted. Apparently, they're not sure if it can be done and they may have to bus the passengers down to gatwick.
Forgive my ignorance, simple GA pilot here, but what on earth could this software update be? Or, is it cheaper to use the bus and just baffle pax with B/S ?
Passengers at Stansted are told that the aircraft can get out of Gatwick, but needs a "software update" to enable it to land at Stansted. Apparently, they're not sure if it can be done and they may have to bus the passengers down to gatwick.
Forgive my ignorance, simple GA pilot here, but what on earth could this software update be? Or, is it cheaper to use the bus and just baffle pax with B/S ?
Maybe it is an ARINC thursday today? FMS databases get updated on a thursday. Databases are valid for four weeks. today could be such a day. The scheduled upload could have been planned on this thursday AT STANSTED. But they never made it to that airport. But even then, it sounds like a lame excuse. Flying with a database out of date is not impossible. Simply regard the FMS as unserviceable for the short hop (which will take place below RVSM airspace anyway) and problem solved.
Last edited by fox niner; 15th Nov 2012 at 09:37.
Thread Starter
Yes, that makes sense. So,it would seem to be in their favour to do the short hop to Stansted and then be able to update the systems, rather than use it as an excuse.
EDIT: Just been told they're heading to the coaches. Gatwick it is.
Ah well, at least they're going to get there. I guess some others will simply not fly as the days schedule slips .
EDIT: Just been told they're heading to the coaches. Gatwick it is.
Ah well, at least they're going to get there. I guess some others will simply not fly as the days schedule slips .
Last edited by AnglianAV8R; 15th Nov 2012 at 09:47.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to? Who would come up with a specific line like that if it wasn't true? get real! What advantage would the airline get from it? Makes no sense at all.
Knowing the trouble and difficulty it takes to get any kind of info to pax in an airport I think it's pretty impressive you've got that much, and for it to be so specific doubly so. That. to me, makes it convincingly true.
I'd have thought the term "software update" is a term well enough understood these days, and if you aren't thoroughly familiar with all the software and it's associated procedures on a modern airliner how are you in a position to doubt it's importance?
Why can't they? Use your imagination to think how many dozen reasons there might be...And as a non airline person how could you presume to even guess a tenth of them? Perhaps the bloke who does the updates is off shift, or the disks are at STN, or there are no couriers available, but why does it have to be bs?
:ugh
Knowing the trouble and difficulty it takes to get any kind of info to pax in an airport I think it's pretty impressive you've got that much, and for it to be so specific doubly so. That. to me, makes it convincingly true.
I'd have thought the term "software update" is a term well enough understood these days, and if you aren't thoroughly familiar with all the software and it's associated procedures on a modern airliner how are you in a position to doubt it's importance?
Why can't they? Use your imagination to think how many dozen reasons there might be...And as a non airline person how could you presume to even guess a tenth of them? Perhaps the bloke who does the updates is off shift, or the disks are at STN, or there are no couriers available, but why does it have to be bs?
:ugh
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to? Who would come up with a specific line like that if it wasn't true? get real! What advantage would the airline get from it? Makes no sense at all.
Today is indeed the start of 1212 AIRAC cycle, but that doesn't explain how the aircraft is planning to depart LGW for Spain, if it hadn't been updated (in STN.)
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simples...we were forced to 'extend' the FMC navigation database several times whilst I was flying for Kuwait Airways in my younger days, on the B727 fleet.
The way it was done, at least in those days, was to tell the database the current date was within the date range, and away we went!!
The database was then updated when we eventually got back to Kuwait.
Didn't like it then, and still don't, but never had to do it since!
The way it was done, at least in those days, was to tell the database the current date was within the date range, and away we went!!
The database was then updated when we eventually got back to Kuwait.
Didn't like it then, and still don't, but never had to do it since!
Last edited by EW73; 15th Nov 2012 at 10:15.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the Nav database a deferrable defect if out of date? (10 days?) If it is out of date for operation out of STN why is it useable out of LGW?
However, do agree with the frustration that all pax infer that any operational delay will involve the airline lying to them in order to save money.
However, do agree with the frustration that all pax infer that any operational delay will involve the airline lying to them in order to save money.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, AV8 is a clearly living example of how the customer is always right - pal, what is pompous about asking why you assume you're being lied to? Do you even know what pompous means? No, clearly not.
As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.
I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.
As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.
I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.
Why can't pax accept what they're told without assuming they're being lied to?
Lies about why an aircraft is late/broken/missing/never existed, and lies about why a flight is delayed/cancelled/rescheduled/overbooked are the most common and, unfortunately, are frequently driven by an ill-informed notion of not incurring extra costs in the form of claims by passengers and shippers.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, AV8 is a clearly living example of how the customer is always right - pal, what is pompous about asking why you assume you're being lied to? Do you even know what pompous means? No, clearly not.
As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.
I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.
You don't have to be so offensive about it though.
As others have made clear the "excuse" has a pretty convincing provenance.
I was just putting a more factually likely side of the story, that's all. Sorry if it isn't palatable.
You don't have to be so offensive about it though.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Polymer Records
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
old, not bold just because you have lied to pax, you shouldn't tarnish everyone with the same brush. Where I work, the truth is always told to the pax, admittedly in a diplomatic way, but its always the truth.
edited to add Its always the "I know you're lying. I used to work at an airport and know what goes on" which feels the most annoying, and gets laughed at the hardest behind the flight deck door.
edited to add Its always the "I know you're lying. I used to work at an airport and know what goes on" which feels the most annoying, and gets laughed at the hardest behind the flight deck door.
Last edited by Artie Fufkin; 15th Nov 2012 at 11:07.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Corporate communications as part of customer relations management is always designed to have minimum impact on finances and operations. If factual truth coincides with this prime directive, that's a nice benefit (as it is easier to communicate), but not strictly necessary.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MEL will allow dispatch with the navigation database out of date, certain criteria must be complied with, for instance the departure airport must be in the FMS and the first waypoint etc.. so it sounds like a yarn to me .. check the Boeing MEL..
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The moon
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the aircraft was downgraded to CAT I. Sometimes we have to do practise CAT II/III approaches due to some problem with the AFCS, and then an avionics engineer has to sign it off when enough approaches have been completed. We do not have avionics engineers at every base, but STN definitely would.
My theory is the aircraft was being flown to STN to get signed off by an engineer, STN was CAT II/II when they got there so they diverted as they could not perform an autoland. They are now returning empty to base and the aircraft will remain CAT I only. To keep it simple for the pax, they called it a "software update", which is not too far from reality when you think about it.
I could be completely wrong but it's the only good reason I can think off.
My theory is the aircraft was being flown to STN to get signed off by an engineer, STN was CAT II/II when they got there so they diverted as they could not perform an autoland. They are now returning empty to base and the aircraft will remain CAT I only. To keep it simple for the pax, they called it a "software update", which is not too far from reality when you think about it.
I could be completely wrong but it's the only good reason I can think off.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: A Virtual World!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a completely different reason
If it's the flight I think it is, then the diversion to Gatwick was because the aircraft was only Cat I capable and needed to do a Cat 3A approach at Stansted.
Maybe they hoped to position the aircraft to Stansted but I believe the fog at Stansted has been reluctant to clear.
Maybe they hoped to position the aircraft to Stansted but I believe the fog at Stansted has been reluctant to clear.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "software update" could very well be the chosen wording for something of a similar nature but less comprehensible by the average traveller.
Was it still foggy in Stansted? If so it is possible that the aicraft was not released for autoland following some previous maintenance action. That normally requires a practice autoland in good weather conditions before being released.
Or as the aircraft had diverted, its 48 hour validity of the ramp inspection could have expired and an engineer had to be shipped from Stansted.
Some MEL's can be signed of by the captain, but some requires the engineer to take some specific actions before release.
Software update... yes maybe, but you all assume it's the nav data base. It could have been related to any computer or control unit in the aircraft.
Remember there's different sort of lies. Many of them are not to harm people but to not worry them or to create misunderstandings. It 's to simplify the message for things that can't that be told without a detailed explanation on how an aircraft works.
Was it still foggy in Stansted? If so it is possible that the aicraft was not released for autoland following some previous maintenance action. That normally requires a practice autoland in good weather conditions before being released.
Or as the aircraft had diverted, its 48 hour validity of the ramp inspection could have expired and an engineer had to be shipped from Stansted.
Some MEL's can be signed of by the captain, but some requires the engineer to take some specific actions before release.
Software update... yes maybe, but you all assume it's the nav data base. It could have been related to any computer or control unit in the aircraft.
Remember there's different sort of lies. Many of them are not to harm people but to not worry them or to create misunderstandings. It 's to simplify the message for things that can't that be told without a detailed explanation on how an aircraft works.
Very unlikely to be an FMC Nav Database issue. The databases are updated well in advance of the due date because virtually all modern FMC's will hold an active and inactive database (which can be swopped over by a simple push of a line select button)