Another Channex incident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you bother to read through all of the report, you will find that an important factor was the cockpit "gradient," in other words, CRM related. Check it out at
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/apr01/gjeap.htm)
http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/bulletin/apr01/gjeap.htm)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Got to agree with Hogg, having never carried out a take-off in the Simulator without experiencing Engine failure/fire/severe damage or any other serious malfunction, my experience is that when one of the Donkeys do decide to give up for real just after rotation is that you get on with what we are trained to do and that includes getting the A/C back on the ground safely. No press coverage and no heroics involved just another day in the office that was unfortunately cut short resulting in a large beverage ( or three ! ) at 8am.
Well done anyway to the Channex Crew.
Well done anyway to the Channex Crew.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good work Dave and whoever was in the right seat. CRM obviously played it's part in bringing a satisfactory conclusion.
(I've only just heard of this incident as I've been on a well deserved holiday)
One further point, the news report on the original post said that there were three crew onboard. Is this just standard press inaccuracy or was there another poor soul onboard? An enginner catching a lift perhaps?
barcode
Still nothing from you since your ridiculous comments on 8th June. Are you still trying to get your brain in gear...!!
(I've only just heard of this incident as I've been on a well deserved holiday)
One further point, the news report on the original post said that there were three crew onboard. Is this just standard press inaccuracy or was there another poor soul onboard? An enginner catching a lift perhaps?
barcode
Still nothing from you since your ridiculous comments on 8th June. Are you still trying to get your brain in gear...!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Barcode
i've read everyone's carefully worded responses and i would love to hear what you have to say. Perhaps as some lads wrote you did get the PFO from ChanEx and that's why you are sore....well get over it!!!!
State your case or shut up......the fact that you have not responded says volumes to me.
The fact that ChanEx over ran a runway doesn't make them cowboys does it????
A BA 747-400 over ran the runway 24 in Shannon,an Aer Lingus MD11 over ran the same runway only at the opposite end...
United B767 over ran the runway in Glasgow
Cathy Pacific did the same in Hong Kong....
see my drift.....alot of airlines have done the same.....does this make half the world's airlines COWBOYS???? nah don't think so....
But then there are some bad losers in this world especially if you did the heave ho from ChanEx....
Myself i dealt with them a flight dispatcher in Ireland before heading west and joining UAL.....have to say they are a very professional outfit and would advise the likes of "Barcode" who might need a real job instead of his Microsoft flight simulator to put a lid on it.....
Good luck to the guys....
i've read everyone's carefully worded responses and i would love to hear what you have to say. Perhaps as some lads wrote you did get the PFO from ChanEx and that's why you are sore....well get over it!!!!
State your case or shut up......the fact that you have not responded says volumes to me.
The fact that ChanEx over ran a runway doesn't make them cowboys does it????
A BA 747-400 over ran the runway 24 in Shannon,an Aer Lingus MD11 over ran the same runway only at the opposite end...
United B767 over ran the runway in Glasgow
Cathy Pacific did the same in Hong Kong....
see my drift.....alot of airlines have done the same.....does this make half the world's airlines COWBOYS???? nah don't think so....
But then there are some bad losers in this world especially if you did the heave ho from ChanEx....
Myself i dealt with them a flight dispatcher in Ireland before heading west and joining UAL.....have to say they are a very professional outfit and would advise the likes of "Barcode" who might need a real job instead of his Microsoft flight simulator to put a lid on it.....
Good luck to the guys....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Barcode
just checking out your profile....
there's NOTHING there...what have you got to hide....perhaps it's the reason that you are an Anorak at the viewing area flying your microsoft flight simulator in an F27 with 1 engine out........man get a life......
leave the flying to the real professionals
just checking out your profile....
there's NOTHING there...what have you got to hide....perhaps it's the reason that you are an Anorak at the viewing area flying your microsoft flight simulator in an F27 with 1 engine out........man get a life......
leave the flying to the real professionals
Guest
Posts: n/a
I started my flying career at Channex and they are a great outfit. I had 3 indicated engine fires with them (turned out to be faulty wiring)! I can assure you that it was not like the simulator as we did not have one!
Channex, in common with many freight operators, fly old aircraft that tend to get more problems than newer specimens. It is most unfortunate that Barcode and others look at Channex and think they are a shambles - nothing could be further from the truth. They were great employers and very professional. They have had a number of safety incidents but do not be fooled by that. They are operators of the highest standard but fly old aircraft in dreadful weather at night with limited avionics equipment. Anyone who has been on the inside will tell you that they have a high failure rate in training and demand the highest standard of their crews.
It is not good to read such misinformed comments from people who are not qualified to make a judgement on the company. I wish everyone there every success in the future and congratulate the crew on their skillful handling of a difficult sitation.
Channex, in common with many freight operators, fly old aircraft that tend to get more problems than newer specimens. It is most unfortunate that Barcode and others look at Channex and think they are a shambles - nothing could be further from the truth. They were great employers and very professional. They have had a number of safety incidents but do not be fooled by that. They are operators of the highest standard but fly old aircraft in dreadful weather at night with limited avionics equipment. Anyone who has been on the inside will tell you that they have a high failure rate in training and demand the highest standard of their crews.
It is not good to read such misinformed comments from people who are not qualified to make a judgement on the company. I wish everyone there every success in the future and congratulate the crew on their skillful handling of a difficult sitation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis, Hear hear. At last, someone who knows the truth and speaks common sense. I can vouch for the fact that the standards required of aircrew at Channex are as high as anywhere else, and that includes the military. The flying is routinely demanding, especially on the F27 fleet. Those who know nothing about Channex and their operations should keep it shut.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well said, we are talking about a top company who are extremely safety and quality minded.
Thumbs up to Dave and his FO for bringing the aircraft back safely as that is the most important part. And Barcode please go back to your local flying club.... they might be interested in your B.llsh.t!!
------------------
I'd rather be flying...
Thumbs up to Dave and his FO for bringing the aircraft back safely as that is the most important part. And Barcode please go back to your local flying club.... they might be interested in your B.llsh.t!!
------------------
I'd rather be flying...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ducksoup et al,
The high failure rate in training I referred to is, as you rightly point out, as a result of a number of factors. My point was that Channex is not some shabby little airline where anything goes. They demand high standards, and, whether you agree with it or not, those who fail to meet those standards simply do not get through. I am not saying it is good or bad but it is how the system works.
I now fly a very modern, highly computerised, aircraft and which rescues you from a multitude of errors. Flying an old wood-burning F27 (or Herald as it was for me) in bad weather at night shows your failings for all the world to see. It is a very demanding operation and not for the faint-hearted.
As one of the few people on this thread with actual knowledge of the company as opposed to those with supposed 'inside information', I stand by my assertion that Channex are a top rate company who deserve better press than they have received here.
The high failure rate in training I referred to is, as you rightly point out, as a result of a number of factors. My point was that Channex is not some shabby little airline where anything goes. They demand high standards, and, whether you agree with it or not, those who fail to meet those standards simply do not get through. I am not saying it is good or bad but it is how the system works.
I now fly a very modern, highly computerised, aircraft and which rescues you from a multitude of errors. Flying an old wood-burning F27 (or Herald as it was for me) in bad weather at night shows your failings for all the world to see. It is a very demanding operation and not for the faint-hearted.
As one of the few people on this thread with actual knowledge of the company as opposed to those with supposed 'inside information', I stand by my assertion that Channex are a top rate company who deserve better press than they have received here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Genghis, couldn't agree more.
I worked at Channex and personally flew with Capt. David Maxwell on several occasions and found him to be of the highest standard, both as a flyer and as a bloke. Channex do operate older aircraft, youre at night, limited avionics(for all you guys who have never had the pleasure, have a look at your standby instrument panel next time you fly and they'll closely math the primary instruments we had on the 27), low down and always in the **** . Believe me it's busy.
They have the highest of training standards and trainers (many ex-mil), treated us well and never compromised on safety, it simply wasn't acceptable.
This kind of thing happens in this line of business but you learn from it and move on.
David did a great job and believe me as one who's flown with him, the outcome of that incident was never in doubt, well done lads.
I love flying the big shiny stuff now but will always remember my Channex days fondly.
Be good lads and lasses
PS. Who thinks Barcode needs his/her arse kicked?
I worked at Channex and personally flew with Capt. David Maxwell on several occasions and found him to be of the highest standard, both as a flyer and as a bloke. Channex do operate older aircraft, youre at night, limited avionics(for all you guys who have never had the pleasure, have a look at your standby instrument panel next time you fly and they'll closely math the primary instruments we had on the 27), low down and always in the **** . Believe me it's busy.
They have the highest of training standards and trainers (many ex-mil), treated us well and never compromised on safety, it simply wasn't acceptable.
This kind of thing happens in this line of business but you learn from it and move on.
David did a great job and believe me as one who's flown with him, the outcome of that incident was never in doubt, well done lads.
I love flying the big shiny stuff now but will always remember my Channex days fondly.
Be good lads and lasses
PS. Who thinks Barcode needs his/her arse kicked?
Guest
Posts: n/a
1 I fully agree with the positive remarks re Channex having seen much of their operation from the inside.
2 I hate to spoil a good story but, if you live on Guernsey, your newspapers are actually brought to you by another (somewhat similar)airline, under contract to Channex.
2 I hate to spoil a good story but, if you live on Guernsey, your newspapers are actually brought to you by another (somewhat similar)airline, under contract to Channex.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm really digusted with the neagtive comments made by various individuals on this subject and also overwhelmed by the amount of people whohave taken the time to put their ore in for Dave. I'm in the know, so to speak, at Chan-Ex and have been really impressed with all of their operation. Their safety record may have been tarnished by some incidents but few of these are as a direct result of crews making bad calls. They have really made an effort to boost my career and even when things haven't gone to plan for me they've always sorted me out with some kind of rescue plan. The company is really professional and despite the old ships they do the job in very tight conditions right down to the wire (minima wise - as do that other similar airline who fly to Gurnsey for us). So there!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looks like that moron Barcode has crawled out from under his rock again, making a pathetic attempt at trying to justify his earlier comments ->
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/014393.html
www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/Forum1/HTML/014393.html
