Secret European Safety Blacklist published in UK?(merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacklist
Airline blacklist stays secret
By Sheila Barter
BBC News Online
Five airlines which have such poor safety records they have been banned in some countries are having their identities kept secret in an information black hole.
Flash Airlines, whose plane crashed in Egypt on Saturday, was only one of six airlines whose safety standards were considered so poor they were banned or restricted in a European country in 2002.
But 133 French passengers boarded the doomed jet unaware that it had failed a Swiss safety test and remained banned from Swiss airspace.
And future passengers who want to know the names of the five other banned airlines face a seemingly impossible task, even though these names are not officially secret.
The information is held on a vast database in France and the Netherlands. National governments know, but passengers and - crucially - even tour operators can find out only if a government decides to reveal the information.
"Protocol is for the countries which imposed the actions to talk about it,
UK Department of Transport
"The public has no way of knowing which airlines they are," says David Learmount, of Flight International Magazine.
"Yes they should know, but who should tell them?"
The information is not classified as confidential - but it is not obtainable, it seems.
No names
The UK's Department of Transport confirmed to BBC News Online that in 2002 - the last year for which figures are available - the Swiss had imposed four bans or restrictions, and the Belgians and Dutch one each.
But the names of the firms were not being revealed in the UK.
"Information is shared between member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), but it is for the state taking the action to put out any information," a Department of Transport spokeswoman said.
It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information, but we have to have regard for certain criteria
Jude Mariadassou
ECAC
"It's a combination of protocol and legal restrictions relevant to the problem in that particular country."
Switzerland, for example, has strict business confidentiality rules. A total of 23 aircraft are currently banned from flying over Switzerland, but - citing these confidentiality rules - the Swiss civil aviation body would not reveal their names to the Tribune de Geneve newspaper.
It is "shocking" that their names are not known, said the paper, arguing that people could be risking their lives without knowing.
The testing system - known as Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) - is administered by the Dutch-based Joint Aviation Authorities on behalf of the ECAC.
Testing procedures
Thousands of tests are carried out on hundreds of airlines every year. Some find no faults or only minor ones.
A handful each year, however, turn up such serious problems that the entire airline has its permission to fly revoked or limited.
But at this point the information falls into the void. ECAC passes the information to its 41 member governments, insisting it is up to them to decide whether to make the information public.
But in practice, disclosure has never happened. Even Flash's Swiss ban was revealed only after the plane had crashed.
"It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information," said Jude Mariadassou, deputy executive secretary at ECAC.
"But we have to have regard for certain criteria - for example making sure the information is understood and not misunderstood, to maintain equal treatment amongst everyone.
"There are also commercial aspects, and because different states have different legal systems we need a certain degree of clarity."
I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel
Nelly Maes
European parliament air safety rapporteur
ECAC and the airline body International Air Transport Association (IATA) also warn that too much disclosure could stop airlines co-operating in testing programmes.
IATA, for example, is granted access to many flight data recorders, using the information to help pilots learn from incidents or mistakes.
"It is very important that the whole matter remains confidential, " says IATA spokesman William Gaillard, "or we will never get hold of these recordings - they will be erased. It is very important to learn from mistakes."
But campaigners argue that the public has the right to know about airline safety records - especially when one country has such major concerns that it has banned an airline altogether.
Euro campaign
"I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel," says Belgian Green MEP Nelly Maes, the European Parliament's rapporteur on foreign aircraft safety.
"This of course includes an airline's safety record."
Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel - it's elementary. So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important
William Gaillard
IATA
Ms Maes, pressing for the EU to publish an annual report on airlines' records, accuses the European Commission and Council of dragging their feet on the issue, by citing the same concerns about commercial sensitivity,
"Frankly their position loses credibility by the day," she says.
IATA says all tour operators should demand copies of charter firms' independent safety audits, and passengers should choose tour operators which name the charter firms in their brochures - to avoid using firms which simply grab the cheapest charter firm available a few days before the flight is due.
"It's about the right of consumers to know," says IATA's William Gaillard. "Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel and certain information about it - it's elementary.
"So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...pe/3372339.stm
Published: 2004/01/06 13:07:49 GMT
By Sheila Barter
BBC News Online
Five airlines which have such poor safety records they have been banned in some countries are having their identities kept secret in an information black hole.
Flash Airlines, whose plane crashed in Egypt on Saturday, was only one of six airlines whose safety standards were considered so poor they were banned or restricted in a European country in 2002.
But 133 French passengers boarded the doomed jet unaware that it had failed a Swiss safety test and remained banned from Swiss airspace.
And future passengers who want to know the names of the five other banned airlines face a seemingly impossible task, even though these names are not officially secret.
The information is held on a vast database in France and the Netherlands. National governments know, but passengers and - crucially - even tour operators can find out only if a government decides to reveal the information.
"Protocol is for the countries which imposed the actions to talk about it,
UK Department of Transport
"The public has no way of knowing which airlines they are," says David Learmount, of Flight International Magazine.
"Yes they should know, but who should tell them?"
The information is not classified as confidential - but it is not obtainable, it seems.
No names
The UK's Department of Transport confirmed to BBC News Online that in 2002 - the last year for which figures are available - the Swiss had imposed four bans or restrictions, and the Belgians and Dutch one each.
But the names of the firms were not being revealed in the UK.
"Information is shared between member states of the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC), but it is for the state taking the action to put out any information," a Department of Transport spokeswoman said.
It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information, but we have to have regard for certain criteria
Jude Mariadassou
ECAC
"It's a combination of protocol and legal restrictions relevant to the problem in that particular country."
Switzerland, for example, has strict business confidentiality rules. A total of 23 aircraft are currently banned from flying over Switzerland, but - citing these confidentiality rules - the Swiss civil aviation body would not reveal their names to the Tribune de Geneve newspaper.
It is "shocking" that their names are not known, said the paper, arguing that people could be risking their lives without knowing.
The testing system - known as Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) - is administered by the Dutch-based Joint Aviation Authorities on behalf of the ECAC.
Testing procedures
Thousands of tests are carried out on hundreds of airlines every year. Some find no faults or only minor ones.
A handful each year, however, turn up such serious problems that the entire airline has its permission to fly revoked or limited.
But at this point the information falls into the void. ECAC passes the information to its 41 member governments, insisting it is up to them to decide whether to make the information public.
But in practice, disclosure has never happened. Even Flash's Swiss ban was revealed only after the plane had crashed.
"It's not a case of us not wanting to disclose the information," said Jude Mariadassou, deputy executive secretary at ECAC.
"But we have to have regard for certain criteria - for example making sure the information is understood and not misunderstood, to maintain equal treatment amongst everyone.
"There are also commercial aspects, and because different states have different legal systems we need a certain degree of clarity."
I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel
Nelly Maes
European parliament air safety rapporteur
ECAC and the airline body International Air Transport Association (IATA) also warn that too much disclosure could stop airlines co-operating in testing programmes.
IATA, for example, is granted access to many flight data recorders, using the information to help pilots learn from incidents or mistakes.
"It is very important that the whole matter remains confidential, " says IATA spokesman William Gaillard, "or we will never get hold of these recordings - they will be erased. It is very important to learn from mistakes."
But campaigners argue that the public has the right to know about airline safety records - especially when one country has such major concerns that it has banned an airline altogether.
Euro campaign
"I have long campaigned for greater openness and transparency in making public all relevant information about airlines, so that passengers can make an informed choice when deciding on their means of travel," says Belgian Green MEP Nelly Maes, the European Parliament's rapporteur on foreign aircraft safety.
"This of course includes an airline's safety record."
Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel - it's elementary. So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important
William Gaillard
IATA
Ms Maes, pressing for the EU to publish an annual report on airlines' records, accuses the European Commission and Council of dragging their feet on the issue, by citing the same concerns about commercial sensitivity,
"Frankly their position loses credibility by the day," she says.
IATA says all tour operators should demand copies of charter firms' independent safety audits, and passengers should choose tour operators which name the charter firms in their brochures - to avoid using firms which simply grab the cheapest charter firm available a few days before the flight is due.
"It's about the right of consumers to know," says IATA's William Gaillard. "Consumers would want to know the name of the hotel and certain information about it - it's elementary.
"So why not have the same information about the airline? It's just as important."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...pe/3372339.stm
Published: 2004/01/06 13:07:49 GMT
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the point of harmonization if you aren't going to share info?
For that matter I wonder if info between the USA and EU is shared. Some entire countries have become Category II which is considered a safety risk and bans them from increasing service to the USA untill deficiencies are fixed. The Dominican Republic is one which I think got on the list when a 727 of the then state airline with a broken starter performed a 2 engine takeoff with PAX abord and airstarted the 3rd.... (Having done 2 engine ferries on 727 I am a little skeptical of the story, I suspect they did it empty and then came back to the gate and left the suspect engine running,but you never know)
Sometimes different offices of the FAA don't share info (Think oversite of valujet) so I guess I can't be too critical, except that appears there isn't even a venue to share the info.
Cheers
Wino
For that matter I wonder if info between the USA and EU is shared. Some entire countries have become Category II which is considered a safety risk and bans them from increasing service to the USA untill deficiencies are fixed. The Dominican Republic is one which I think got on the list when a 727 of the then state airline with a broken starter performed a 2 engine takeoff with PAX abord and airstarted the 3rd.... (Having done 2 engine ferries on 727 I am a little skeptical of the story, I suspect they did it empty and then came back to the gate and left the suspect engine running,but you never know)
Sometimes different offices of the FAA don't share info (Think oversite of valujet) so I guess I can't be too critical, except that appears there isn't even a venue to share the info.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Liverpool, UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a regular pax, I'm astounded to learn that such information exists but is not publicly available.
Sure, there may be some will say that making the public privvy to such information may result in scaremongering; to that I would say that we passengers should have the right to make our own minds up
We should duly be concerned about flying with any airline that has been banned for any reason, and I personally would avoid any such airline. Yes, we're opening a can of worms here, but I'm sure that some of the pax on the Flash Airlines flight may have chosen not to travel had they known what we now know. Sadly, it's now too late for them.
If the current legislation fails to protect us, then we must have the right to protect ourselves. I find this witholding of important information absolutely shocking but, sadly, I am not surprised one bit.
Sure, there may be some will say that making the public privvy to such information may result in scaremongering; to that I would say that we passengers should have the right to make our own minds up
We should duly be concerned about flying with any airline that has been banned for any reason, and I personally would avoid any such airline. Yes, we're opening a can of worms here, but I'm sure that some of the pax on the Flash Airlines flight may have chosen not to travel had they known what we now know. Sadly, it's now too late for them.
If the current legislation fails to protect us, then we must have the right to protect ourselves. I find this witholding of important information absolutely shocking but, sadly, I am not surprised one bit.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see that other countries within the ECAC(?) may wish to hide for all sorts of reasons but what about the open society in the UK. Could not someone like BALPA or a similar organisation mount a legal challenge to get this vital data into the public domain. No state secrets involved here, or are there? Is this what decides ministers which airline to use when RAF or BA is not available or convenient. This must absolutely be challenged.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report does not say that the Department for Transport have been asked about airlines that the UK has banned. It may that is asked they would be prepared to give this information. As I understand it this information would not particularly help travellers from the UK as the airlines concerned obviously do not operate to or from the UK.
The article concentrates on information that the UK receives from other states. It appears that the information is exchanged on the understanding that it remains the property of the originating state. The UK is not in a position to make that information public. If the UK did not respect this rule it may lose access to the information concerned.
The article concentrates on information that the UK receives from other states. It appears that the information is exchanged on the understanding that it remains the property of the originating state. The UK is not in a position to make that information public. If the UK did not respect this rule it may lose access to the information concerned.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise for appearing flippant in such a serious matter, but I do find some amusement in the report that the names of FIVE airlines are kept on a 'vast database'.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We must understand, that failing a safety test might happen, even to so-called "safe airlines". As a matter of fact, even safe airlines may receive temporarily bans, but of course they are going to fix the issue the fastest way possible. Often they are happy that someone found something, because often it`s not very easy to find safety relevant issues on an aircraft.
What might be the problem here is, that the public would misunderstood such information. If, for example, a BA jet has some deficiencies and this would become public, some journalists and most of the people out there would be very sceptical towards BA and this would become a commercial issue, even BA can definitely be regarded as a safe airline (regarding mechanical issues). People would tend to look at the whole airline just because of one incident.
Of course, if an airline stays banned from a certain territory there`s no need to hide information, but what the Swiss authorities also stressed was that the ban was outspoken because of a check in 2002, and because Flash never applied for landing rights in Switzerland, there was no further check, so the issus may have vanished.
What might be the problem here is, that the public would misunderstood such information. If, for example, a BA jet has some deficiencies and this would become public, some journalists and most of the people out there would be very sceptical towards BA and this would become a commercial issue, even BA can definitely be regarded as a safe airline (regarding mechanical issues). People would tend to look at the whole airline just because of one incident.
Of course, if an airline stays banned from a certain territory there`s no need to hide information, but what the Swiss authorities also stressed was that the ban was outspoken because of a check in 2002, and because Flash never applied for landing rights in Switzerland, there was no further check, so the issus may have vanished.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: South East UK
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise for appearing flippant in such a serious matter, but I do find some amusement in the report that the names of FIVE airlines are kept on a 'vast database'.
I'll try to believe that this is not another cheap shot in the long line of cheap shots at journalism which tiresomely appear on this forum. I'm sure the reporter knows full well that the vast database contains the results of the thousands of detailed inspections conducted under the SAFA programme each year, and that she simply assumed that readers would have the intelligence to conclude the same without being spoon-fed.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 42
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The names of airlines banned from the UK because of safety concerns are to be published by the transport secretary.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: England
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Transport Minister forthcoming announcement of operators refused licences by CAA
Following the widely reported story by the UK media (BBC Radio 5 news) that in response to a House of Commons question from a Conservative MP in the wake of the recent B737 disaster in Egypt that the UK government will disclose the names of banned operators to the UK , but not those banned by other European states ,can we expect mass mis-information generated by the press due to this question and its subsequent answer?
How misleading will this information be out of context of the full details of the regulatory authority ruling in each case?
Should the other European governments follow the lead of the UK and name the operators they have banned?
As some airlines with the worst safety records are still operating into the UK , presumably after corrective actions were accepted , what does it take for a regulator to revoke an existing licence ?
Comments?
How misleading will this information be out of context of the full details of the regulatory authority ruling in each case?
Should the other European governments follow the lead of the UK and name the operators they have banned?
As some airlines with the worst safety records are still operating into the UK , presumably after corrective actions were accepted , what does it take for a regulator to revoke an existing licence ?
Comments?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Grobelling through the murk to the sunshine above.
Age: 60
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear Kalium, did I touch a nerve?
In the midst of so much doom and gloom in our industry, and indeed the World in general, I found a point of amusement.
The journalist in question would doubtless find some amusement in my professional abilities, were she to experience my landings. I would not hold this against her, and I suspect she would not concern herself unduly about my finding amusement in her phraseology.
Calm down.
In the midst of so much doom and gloom in our industry, and indeed the World in general, I found a point of amusement.
The journalist in question would doubtless find some amusement in my professional abilities, were she to experience my landings. I would not hold this against her, and I suspect she would not concern herself unduly about my finding amusement in her phraseology.
Calm down.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, for starters, looking back some time ago, which airlines were found, after landing at LHR after long range flights, with nearly dry tanks?
Why, it was good 'ole QF and MAS.
Three and a half tons remaining (on a B747-400) if memory serves.
Seems even the 'respectable' stub their toe every so often.
Nothing new really.
Why, it was good 'ole QF and MAS.
Three and a half tons remaining (on a B747-400) if memory serves.
Seems even the 'respectable' stub their toe every so often.
Nothing new really.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Coventry, UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another, similar story from the beeb
HERE
Says that these 2 airlines operating into the UK that have been banned elsewhere are believed to be holiday charters. Also says the Government cannot name these airlines, that is up to the countries that banned them.
Looks like our "black list" will be with us tommorow though...
HERE
Says that these 2 airlines operating into the UK that have been banned elsewhere are believed to be holiday charters. Also says the Government cannot name these airlines, that is up to the countries that banned them.
Looks like our "black list" will be with us tommorow though...
Earlier on Wednesday, UK Transport Secretary Alistair Darling did announce that a list of airlines banned or rejected by the UK in the last three years would be published on Thursday morning.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Well, for starters, looking back some time ago, which airlines were found, after landing at LHR after long range flights, with nearly dry tanks?
For legal purposes this is not a matter. Even if you use your last drop of fuel to get into your parking position it`s legal, if nothing happened and you declared an emergency at the respective time, at least when using your final reserve.
One of the problem with Flash was the fuel planning BEFORE the flight, and this could lead to legal problems, because there are certain standards you HAVE TO follow. QF and MAS certainly followed this rules.
Well, for starters, looking back some time ago, which airlines were found, after landing at LHR after long range flights, with nearly dry tanks?
For legal purposes this is not a matter. Even if you use your last drop of fuel to get into your parking position it`s legal, if nothing happened and you declared an emergency at the respective time, at least when using your final reserve.
One of the problem with Flash was the fuel planning BEFORE the flight, and this could lead to legal problems, because there are certain standards you HAVE TO follow. QF and MAS certainly followed this rules.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so now we have the press who through their crazy reporting of "britains most dangerous aeroplane" managed to force the CAA to get the publication of MORs suppressed . This list should not be published as we cannot realy on the press to treat the information responsibly.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Skagness on the beach
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voeni,
I don't know about over there, but I believe here in the USA you must takeoff with enough fuel for your planned destination and be carrying 45 minutes of IFR reserves once you reach the patern. I could be wrong, but that is what I was once told.
I don't know about over there, but I believe here in the USA you must takeoff with enough fuel for your planned destination and be carrying 45 minutes of IFR reserves once you reach the patern. I could be wrong, but that is what I was once told.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
News from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3379773.stm
UK's airline blacklist published
A list of airlines from eight countries which are banned from flying in UK airspace have been published by the Department of Transport.
Safety concerns led to the public naming of bans covering all airlines operating from Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and Tajikistan.
It follows the Flash Airline crash in Egypt last week, and the revelation the airline had been banned by Switzerland.
The named companies have had a licence either reviewed or revoked since 2000.
They include Sierra Leone's Star Air and Air Universal, Cameroon Airlines, Albanian Airlines and Central Air Express which flies from DR Congo.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3379773.stm
UK's airline blacklist published
A list of airlines from eight countries which are banned from flying in UK airspace have been published by the Department of Transport.
Safety concerns led to the public naming of bans covering all airlines operating from Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and Tajikistan.
It follows the Flash Airline crash in Egypt last week, and the revelation the airline had been banned by Switzerland.
The named companies have had a licence either reviewed or revoked since 2000.
They include Sierra Leone's Star Air and Air Universal, Cameroon Airlines, Albanian Airlines and Central Air Express which flies from DR Congo.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: This way up
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.K. Names Airlines Refused Permits to Fly in Last Four Years
U.K. Names Airlines Refused Permits to Fly in Last Four Years
Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. has banned 11 airlines in the
last four years for failing to meet safety standards, according
to U.K. Transport Minister Tony McNulty.
Star Aid Ltd., of Sierra Leone; RAF-AVIA, of Latvia; Enimex,
of Estonia; Air Bosnia; Inter Trans Air, of Bulgaria; Air
Memphis, of Egypt; Cameroon Airlines; Albanian Airlines; Central
Air Express, of the Democratic Republic of Congo; Air Universal,
also of Sierra Leone; and Kyrgyzstan Airlines have been unable to
fly to the U.K. at some point since Jan. 1, 2000.
Airlines in Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and
Tajikistan are also banned from the U.K. because of inadequate
safety regulation, McNulty said in a written answer to a
parliamentary question e-mailed to Bloomberg.
Since Jan. 1, 2000, ``a number of airlines have had
applications for permits turned down, or would have had an
application turned down if one had been received, because of
failure to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation
standards or other concerns,'' McNulty said.
The government said it hadn't received an application tooperate in the U.K. by Flash Airlines, which operated the
Egyptian Boeing Co. 737-300 charter plane that crashed on
Saturday killing all 148 on board.
Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. has banned 11 airlines in the
last four years for failing to meet safety standards, according
to U.K. Transport Minister Tony McNulty.
Star Aid Ltd., of Sierra Leone; RAF-AVIA, of Latvia; Enimex,
of Estonia; Air Bosnia; Inter Trans Air, of Bulgaria; Air
Memphis, of Egypt; Cameroon Airlines; Albanian Airlines; Central
Air Express, of the Democratic Republic of Congo; Air Universal,
also of Sierra Leone; and Kyrgyzstan Airlines have been unable to
fly to the U.K. at some point since Jan. 1, 2000.
Airlines in Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Liberia and
Tajikistan are also banned from the U.K. because of inadequate
safety regulation, McNulty said in a written answer to a
parliamentary question e-mailed to Bloomberg.
Since Jan. 1, 2000, ``a number of airlines have had
applications for permits turned down, or would have had an
application turned down if one had been received, because of
failure to meet International Civil Aviation Organisation
standards or other concerns,'' McNulty said.
The government said it hadn't received an application tooperate in the U.K. by Flash Airlines, which operated the
Egyptian Boeing Co. 737-300 charter plane that crashed on
Saturday killing all 148 on board.