Unfair competitive advantage given by Turkish Authority?
aka Capt PPRuNe
Thread Starter
Unfair competitive advantage given by Turkish Authority?
I've just noticed an interesting point after reading an accident report (here) where a Turkish registered B737-800 suffered a tailstrike on take off due to errors in loading, including the use of standard pax weights (charter) of 70kg for adults and 30kg for children. I noticed on the next to last page of the report that the Turkish DGCA had approved a deviation from JAR-OPS 1.620 standard pax weights that we in the UK (and presumably all other JAR-OPS compliant carriers) are required to use, namely 76kg per adult and 35kg per child.
How can the Turkish DGCA be allowed to give one (if not all) of their charter carriers a competitive advantage over other non Turkish (but JAR-OPS regulated) carriers by allowing an already underestimated nominal pax weight to be reduced even further? Just using the figures for high density layout of a B737-700, of which I am familiar, and assuming an all adult capacity of 148 pax, the Turkish carrier would be able to assume 888kg less load than a UK carrier using the same a/c type.
I wonder why our CAA (and any other EU authority) would allow a foreign carrier to operate in competition with our own heavily regulated carriers when they are using such obvious distortions of the rules. Not only is this deviation from the regs a clear attempt to give their own carriers a competitive advantage but is also bordering on dangerous, as can be seen by the problems encountered in the report mentioned. It is of course only my opinion but have the Turkish DGCA allowed this assumption of lower pax weights because they know that the average Turkish citizen is lighter than their European counterpart and have our own authorities either not noticed this discrepancy or have they quietly agreed to not rock the boat by hoping it wouldn't be noticed by anyone else? Draft letter of query to the CAA would be appreciated.
I would hope that this can be debated without the usual xenophobic rhetoric that is usually triggered by the mere mention of a 'foreign' carrier. Anyone not heeding the previous sentence may find that their efforts in putting their posts on this thread are wasted as they may be removed.
How can the Turkish DGCA be allowed to give one (if not all) of their charter carriers a competitive advantage over other non Turkish (but JAR-OPS regulated) carriers by allowing an already underestimated nominal pax weight to be reduced even further? Just using the figures for high density layout of a B737-700, of which I am familiar, and assuming an all adult capacity of 148 pax, the Turkish carrier would be able to assume 888kg less load than a UK carrier using the same a/c type.
I wonder why our CAA (and any other EU authority) would allow a foreign carrier to operate in competition with our own heavily regulated carriers when they are using such obvious distortions of the rules. Not only is this deviation from the regs a clear attempt to give their own carriers a competitive advantage but is also bordering on dangerous, as can be seen by the problems encountered in the report mentioned. It is of course only my opinion but have the Turkish DGCA allowed this assumption of lower pax weights because they know that the average Turkish citizen is lighter than their European counterpart and have our own authorities either not noticed this discrepancy or have they quietly agreed to not rock the boat by hoping it wouldn't be noticed by anyone else? Draft letter of query to the CAA would be appreciated.
I would hope that this can be debated without the usual xenophobic rhetoric that is usually triggered by the mere mention of a 'foreign' carrier. Anyone not heeding the previous sentence may find that their efforts in putting their posts on this thread are wasted as they may be removed.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite frankly, I am not at all surprised.
It is positively a known fact that some regulatory authorities will 'look the other way' where their own national (not necessarily national owned, either) carriers are involved.
Case in point...TF registered aircraft.
Sometimes, it's not what you know, it's who you know.
To think otherwise, is not facing reality.
It is positively a known fact that some regulatory authorities will 'look the other way' where their own national (not necessarily national owned, either) carriers are involved.
Case in point...TF registered aircraft.
Sometimes, it's not what you know, it's who you know.
To think otherwise, is not facing reality.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danny,
In 1992 or so when I was working for Grand Airways, a VERY large part of their business was airborne tours over the grand canyon. The customers were almost entirerly Chinese strait off the airplane from Asia. For those flights we were allowed to use a much lower assumed weight for the flights filled with Chinese people than those that were mixed or all US citizens.
If this is done in the interest of safety I have no problem with it. OVER stating a passenger's weight can be just as dangerous as understating it, especially when partial main deck loads are balanced against cargo loads. (You won't be over weight, but you could conceivably be out of CG)
Assumed weights were just raised in America, and they are headed up again, in response to our waist lines.
OTOH Scientific American just told me its okay to be fat, soooo bring on the guiness.
Cheers
Wino
In 1992 or so when I was working for Grand Airways, a VERY large part of their business was airborne tours over the grand canyon. The customers were almost entirerly Chinese strait off the airplane from Asia. For those flights we were allowed to use a much lower assumed weight for the flights filled with Chinese people than those that were mixed or all US citizens.
If this is done in the interest of safety I have no problem with it. OVER stating a passenger's weight can be just as dangerous as understating it, especially when partial main deck loads are balanced against cargo loads. (You won't be over weight, but you could conceivably be out of CG)
Assumed weights were just raised in America, and they are headed up again, in response to our waist lines.
OTOH Scientific American just told me its okay to be fat, soooo bring on the guiness.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lightweight nips
In the world's best airline we used 84kg for adults on scheduled flights, 76kg for charters and 72kg if more than half of the punters were japs.
Nothing new about such reductions, Mr Fyne.
Nothing new about such reductions, Mr Fyne.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: U.K.
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only competitive edge I can see is that the aircraft could (possibly) have a paperwork "fix" and fly at a nominally lower take off weight and therefore attract lower en-route charges.
As I have never had problems getting the fuel on board to make it back from Turkey none stop, fuel loads can't be the reason and putting less fuel on the aircraft as the ZFW is apparantly lower is a waste of time as the aircraft will burn fuel at the rate appropriate to the aircrafts actual (not assumed)weight.
As I have never had problems getting the fuel on board to make it back from Turkey none stop, fuel loads can't be the reason and putting less fuel on the aircraft as the ZFW is apparantly lower is a waste of time as the aircraft will burn fuel at the rate appropriate to the aircrafts actual (not assumed)weight.
aka Capt PPRuNe
Thread Starter
In the world's best airline we used 84kg for adults on scheduled flights, 76kg for charters and 72kg if more than half of the punters were japs. Nothing new about such reduction
During my many flights to and from Turkey I never noticed that their citizens appeard any more diminutive than their European counterparts. Considering That turkey is also trying to become a member of the EU, shouldn't they at least be operating to the same standards as the rest of us required?
With regards to operating from Turkey to the UK, in mid-summer I remember there being a requirement to use an extremely sharp pencil when producing a manual loadsheet if we were to get all our pax AND their bags to their destination... at the same time. Whilst the performance of the NG 737's were an improvement, the classics were a nightmare. Has the Turkish DGCA allowed 737 classic operators to use the lower pax weights? If they have, then they have an advantage in theory. Of course, it would only take performance problem to prove the old adage that it is always cheaper to avoid an accident. As was pointed out in the accident report that brought this 'deviation' to light, the pax weights were a factor. Do we not try to prevent all the holes in the swiss cheese from lining up at the same time?
Even if the 'competitive' advantage was lower nav charges (assuming they declare lower RTOW's), it is still an advantage. As has been mentoned also, there is debate about increasing the assumed standard pax weights as we westerners have piled on the pounds since the original estimates were worked out all those years ago.
Pegasus Airline (the carrier related to the incident) were using above-mentioned lower weights.
They amended this since due to "JAA requirements" and are now using standard weights like any other airline.
They amended this since due to "JAA requirements" and are now using standard weights like any other airline.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there are other variants to be considered as well ... for instance you cast your eye along the ramp in, say, Stansted. Your eye falls upon an easyJet 737 and then upon a Ryanair 737. Two Aviation Authorities are involved here, but one seems to have conveyed a competitive advantage on one of these carriers in respect of, for example, the interpretation of the annual maximum number of flying hours a pilot can fly.
One aviation authority has a set of rules that applies to all operators, the other appears willing to "assess" the situation operator by operator. Does this lead to an "unfair" operating advantage, or is it just a pragmatic and flexible arrangement?
One aviation authority has a set of rules that applies to all operators, the other appears willing to "assess" the situation operator by operator. Does this lead to an "unfair" operating advantage, or is it just a pragmatic and flexible arrangement?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: EGPF
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadians have recently introduced a new set of notional weights: 91kg for a male and 76?Kg for a female in the summer months, with these increasing in the winter months. They have went up from 83kg and 69kg respectively. On a 767 seating approx 270 this equates to around a 2000kg increase in the traffic load. Now take a 738 with 189 seats, and use the Canadian weights. You would be looking at an average increase in traffic load of around 1300Kg per flight.
This can be applied in the reverse sense to this situation. By using the lower weights instead of the JAR notional weights, they are reducing the Traffic load by around 1300kg. This could then be the difference between having to tech stop enroute due to the higher ZFW or being able to carry a heavier fuel load to eliminate a tech stop.
This can be applied in the reverse sense to this situation. By using the lower weights instead of the JAR notional weights, they are reducing the Traffic load by around 1300kg. This could then be the difference between having to tech stop enroute due to the higher ZFW or being able to carry a heavier fuel load to eliminate a tech stop.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"The operator received an approval from the Turkish Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) in accordance with JAR-OPS 1.620 (g) to deviate from JAR-OPS 1.620 (70 kg for adults and 30 kg for children)."
My take on this, is that the operation was still conducted IN ACCORDANCE with JAR-OPS - the variation in pax weights is allowable if the dispensation, as provided for within JAR-OPS, is applied for, and approved.
That aside, the multiple mistakes made by the W & B people handling that flight are disgraceful to say the least, and were directly responsible for the accident.
Back to your thread title though, Danny. I can't see that there would be an "unfair competitive advantage" operating under this (JAR-OPS approved) dispensation, unless the aircraft was operating at max T/O or Max L Wt. In this instance, it was a long way below both.
My take on this, is that the operation was still conducted IN ACCORDANCE with JAR-OPS - the variation in pax weights is allowable if the dispensation, as provided for within JAR-OPS, is applied for, and approved.
That aside, the multiple mistakes made by the W & B people handling that flight are disgraceful to say the least, and were directly responsible for the accident.
Back to your thread title though, Danny. I can't see that there would be an "unfair competitive advantage" operating under this (JAR-OPS approved) dispensation, unless the aircraft was operating at max T/O or Max L Wt. In this instance, it was a long way below both.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAR-OPS 1.620(g): If an operator wishes to use standard mass values other than those contained in Tables 1 to 3 above (*), he must advise the Authority of his reasons and gain its approval in advance. He must also submit for approval a detailed weighing survey plan and apply the statistical analysis method given in Appendix 1 to JAR–OPS 1.620(g). After verification and approval by the Authority of the results of the weighing survey, the revised standard mass values are only applicable to that operator. The revised standard mass values can only be used in circumstances consistent with those under which the survey was conducted. Where revised standard masses exceed those in Tables 1–3, then such higher values must be used. (See IEM OPS 1.620(g).)
Do you think they did all that ?
(* table 1 says adults 76kg, children 35kg)
Do you think they did all that ?
(* table 1 says adults 76kg, children 35kg)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having spent some time working for a Turkish operator I can assure you that any operation in accordance with JARs is purely coincidental.
They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.
Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".
When the IVW, CAA, RLD and the other JAA national authorities actually do substanstive ramp checks on Turkish carriers you might see action taken against more than Onur !!
They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.
Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".
When the IVW, CAA, RLD and the other JAA national authorities actually do substanstive ramp checks on Turkish carriers you might see action taken against more than Onur !!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Do you think they did all that ?
Perhaps the Turkish DGCA needs investigating, to see whether all the requirements were complied with, BEFORE the approval was granted.
Hearsay, innuendo, and rumour is one thing - having people willing to make written, sworn statements, citing ACTUAL times, places, and occasions is another.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The unfair competetive advantage is given to all airlines operating more than 30 seats.
Why the heck does a passenger weigh say 84 kg when arriving with LH in Bremen, then he boards a C172 to fly to say Husum and turns into a 104kg man ?
The same guy returns in an Islander, now weighing 96kg and boards a Condor charter flight, now lost weight to a slim 76 kg.
Another thread covered the turkish 737 tailstrike in STR, during T/O !!! All pax in the back, all baggage in the rear hold.
Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.
Why the heck does a passenger weigh say 84 kg when arriving with LH in Bremen, then he boards a C172 to fly to say Husum and turns into a 104kg man ?
The same guy returns in an Islander, now weighing 96kg and boards a Condor charter flight, now lost weight to a slim 76 kg.
Another thread covered the turkish 737 tailstrike in STR, during T/O !!! All pax in the back, all baggage in the rear hold.
Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ISTANBUL
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just interesting Quotes below. Just wondering how you come up with democracy from this subject.
I was flying for Onur Air untill last year. Everything is according to JAA regulations. But very interesting ramp checks are carried out. They have asked an Onur Air crew to show their medical licenses. The crew shows the medical licenses approved by the hospital. Then they ask them if they have their reports from hospital with them.
Currently pilots from Germany, France,... are flying for Onur too.
I think it is time Turkish DGCA should start Ramp Checks to EU operators within Turkey. Will be interesting to watch the results.
Quote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having spent some time working for a Turkish operator I can assure you that any operation in accordance with JARs is purely coincidental.
They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.
Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was flying for Onur Air untill last year. Everything is according to JAA regulations. But very interesting ramp checks are carried out. They have asked an Onur Air crew to show their medical licenses. The crew shows the medical licenses approved by the hospital. Then they ask them if they have their reports from hospital with them.
Currently pilots from Germany, France,... are flying for Onur too.
I think it is time Turkish DGCA should start Ramp Checks to EU operators within Turkey. Will be interesting to watch the results.
Quote :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having spent some time working for a Turkish operator I can assure you that any operation in accordance with JARs is purely coincidental.
They will ignore, bend, break any and every regulation as the DGCA in Ankara is not remotely interested; getting tourists in to the country is all that matters.
Cabin crew, pilots and engineers are treated as feudal slaves;foreign crews who expect standards to be upheld are "trouble makers".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really annoying - and very much uncovering the real whatabouts - was the shortlived turkish ban on german aircraft when onur air was banned for security reasons. Lets face it - Turkey is NOT a democracy nor in any way handled as a healthy european would expect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's hardly fair to criticise the Turkish government for favouring Turkish carriers when other govt's, notably that of the USA, are so blatantly partisan.
When we've seen the end of "Fly America", Chapter 11, the Federal Security funding plus Boeing's subsidies -sorry research grants hen we can start on the Turks.
When we've seen the end of "Fly America", Chapter 11, the Federal Security funding plus Boeing's subsidies -sorry research grants hen we can start on the Turks.