Unsafe
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Dublin, Ireland
Simplistic is right, perhaps like your way of thinking?
Air France What?....
Please explain more clearly your thinking and reasoning behind such a remark, so it may be debated etc, and not make sweeping judgements.
P206
Air France What?....
Please explain more clearly your thinking and reasoning behind such a remark, so it may be debated etc, and not make sweeping judgements.
P206
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
Safety is a quantity. There's no such thing as "safe" or "unsafe". I believe France's blacklist is numerically based (i.e. events per 1000 flights, or some like measure).
But I could be proven wrong... Show me the numbers.
But I could be proven wrong... Show me the numbers.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
From: where I shouldn’t be
If safety was determined as per events per thousand flights then it would be a statistic and not a quantity. I think it is rather the global picture of the airline or operation. A determination will be based on type of equipment, age, maintenance programs, engineers – and their background, flight crew –and their background, routes etc.
I remember a list of "safe" and "not so safe" airlines a few years back, were CX got a lousy rating due to the fact that their operating out of Kai Tak, thus increasing the chance of an incident.
Airlines ops with home base in known countries of bad maintenance standards will be ramp checked more often than others though every one will be checked eventually. Depending on type and severity of the infraction(s) a grounding will be spoken. If such incident reoccurs in addition to other, already known factors of non-compliance the airline may be banned from the airspace.
Countries (not only France) are no publicizing their lists as a service to pax and in coordination with other aviation authorities.
I remember a list of "safe" and "not so safe" airlines a few years back, were CX got a lousy rating due to the fact that their operating out of Kai Tak, thus increasing the chance of an incident.
Airlines ops with home base in known countries of bad maintenance standards will be ramp checked more often than others though every one will be checked eventually. Depending on type and severity of the infraction(s) a grounding will be spoken. If such incident reoccurs in addition to other, already known factors of non-compliance the airline may be banned from the airspace.
Countries (not only France) are no publicizing their lists as a service to pax and in coordination with other aviation authorities.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
From: LGW
Unsafe
My understanding of how the blacklist is compiled is simple: The airlines listed have been found to have serious mechanical or other defects making it illegal for them to enter French airspace.
In my experience, having dealt with (formerly UK blacklisted) Sierra Leone registered airlines, the airline will only be placed on the blacklist if the causes of the defects found (such as shoddy maintenance) are not rectified immediately, or if defects are more than an incidental occurrence.
In my opinion, the blacklist does not tell the traveller anything about the safety of other airlines. Not being on the list is not a 'seal of approval'.
In my experience, having dealt with (formerly UK blacklisted) Sierra Leone registered airlines, the airline will only be placed on the blacklist if the causes of the defects found (such as shoddy maintenance) are not rectified immediately, or if defects are more than an incidental occurrence.
In my opinion, the blacklist does not tell the traveller anything about the safety of other airlines. Not being on the list is not a 'seal of approval'.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,581
Likes: 0
From: flyover country USA
By "events per 1000 flights" I simply mean identified discrepancies - wrong tires (oops tyres) - fuel leaks - bad coffee or whatever. There may be no harm done, but a pattern of poor operational control.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
From: Northumberland N55 W02
>In my opinion, the blacklist does not tell the traveller anything about the safety of other airlines. Not being on the list is not a 'seal of approval'.
Just as you should travel with the Airline that has just HAD its disaster, rather than ones who haven't had a crash recently but may well be due one . . .
Just as you should travel with the Airline that has just HAD its disaster, rather than ones who haven't had a crash recently but may well be due one . . .
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
From: Timbuktu
No doubt the French authorities feel they have sufficient control over standards at the French national airline - whereas they may have none with delinquent foreign carriers.
The ultimate sanction of a ban is unlikely in any carriers home state. Other methods of 'control' are usually imposed well before such a ban would be required.
Of course, there are some states which are in fact delinquent also!
The ultimate sanction of a ban is unlikely in any carriers home state. Other methods of 'control' are usually imposed well before such a ban would be required.
Of course, there are some states which are in fact delinquent also!
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Europe
Blacklist
Input data of blacklists are reports from previous own SAFA Ramp Inspections and occasionally data from SAFA Ramp Inspections performed by other participating SAFA-States (basically all ECAC member states). Each country then evaluates the findings by a kind of Delphi Method (thus based on qualitative expert opinions). Theoretically SAFA is non-discriminatory. SAFA Ramp Inspection Reports strictly apply only to individual aircraft, that's why it is very hard to argue based on which evidence an airline as such should be banned, except a pattern of non-compliance can be shown in time. Confidence is key in aviation. Once the authorities find evidence that an airline is not taking swift corrective action when a non-compliance (regulatory, technical, operational etc.) has been identified, these authorities decide to prevent continuation of operations.
SAFA Ramp Inspections are random checks and are methodologically limited. Limitations are: time during turn-around is short, technical inspection external only etc. Advantages are (for experienced inspectors): direct observation of crew behavior and flight preparation management, unannounced. As the Flash Airline banning by Swiss Inspectors showed some years ago, SAFA methodology can be effective and actually prevent an accident by preventing an airline/charter to continue operation.
Blacklists are a political move, in my opinion, and not a safety device. Blacklists simply list those carriers, which lost their operating license in a determined country. The information content is nil. Only the format is new.
It is logically inconsistent to infer that an airline not listed on the blacklist would be safe, first we do not know whether this airline has ever been SAFA ramp inspected and second we do not know whether this banned airline has taken corrective action and didn't communicate it to the banning authority. That's why a white list as the italians publish makes more logical sense, but there the problems are the same, only inversely. To be on the white list doesn't mean the airline is STILL safe (if it ever was, because many SAFA Ramp Inspections are performed by not experienced inspectors or cover documentation only), since, as we all should know, airworthiness depends on continuous efforts and is not a static situation.
Finally, one word to the publishing of lists by CAAs at all: Publishing these lists undermines the no-blame approach for aviation safety, the civil aviation community has tried to preserve so far. Why should airlines/individuals continue cooperation with authorities, if they risk legal action of public denigration?
One more very final remark: safety is not a national issue, but an issue of sound financial management in the companies and thorough flight preparation (taking into account local specialties, which exist everywhere, not only in Africa).
SAFA Ramp Inspections are random checks and are methodologically limited. Limitations are: time during turn-around is short, technical inspection external only etc. Advantages are (for experienced inspectors): direct observation of crew behavior and flight preparation management, unannounced. As the Flash Airline banning by Swiss Inspectors showed some years ago, SAFA methodology can be effective and actually prevent an accident by preventing an airline/charter to continue operation.
Blacklists are a political move, in my opinion, and not a safety device. Blacklists simply list those carriers, which lost their operating license in a determined country. The information content is nil. Only the format is new.
It is logically inconsistent to infer that an airline not listed on the blacklist would be safe, first we do not know whether this airline has ever been SAFA ramp inspected and second we do not know whether this banned airline has taken corrective action and didn't communicate it to the banning authority. That's why a white list as the italians publish makes more logical sense, but there the problems are the same, only inversely. To be on the white list doesn't mean the airline is STILL safe (if it ever was, because many SAFA Ramp Inspections are performed by not experienced inspectors or cover documentation only), since, as we all should know, airworthiness depends on continuous efforts and is not a static situation.
Finally, one word to the publishing of lists by CAAs at all: Publishing these lists undermines the no-blame approach for aviation safety, the civil aviation community has tried to preserve so far. Why should airlines/individuals continue cooperation with authorities, if they risk legal action of public denigration?
One more very final remark: safety is not a national issue, but an issue of sound financial management in the companies and thorough flight preparation (taking into account local specialties, which exist everywhere, not only in Africa).
