Cypriot airliner crash - the accident and investigation
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are two articles posted on the Cyprus Mail Internet edition today. Both discuss the litigation already commenced, with a suit filed in the U.S. courts on 27 January.
More law experts to meet Helios relatives
By John Leonidou
RELATIVES OF the Helios crash victims will be meeting with officials from two of the world’s leading aviation law firms next Wednesday in what looks to be another class action launched against the major companies involved in the crash.
A class action suit is already heading for civil courts in the US. The US-based legal team was in Cyprus yesterday informing clients about recent developments surrounding the case.
Aviation law specialist Stephan Eriksson of Advokatfirman Stephan Eriksson in Stockholm yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that he would be coming to Cyprus on Monday to speak with the relatives, along with a team of experts made up by a historic joint-venture of two of the world’s leading aviation law firms.
“I am currently working with two of the biggest aviation litigation firms in the world, Miami-based Podhurst Orseck and New York-based Kreindler & Kreindler. These two rival firms have decided to team up for the first time and send a team to Cyprus to meet with the Helios victims’ relatives”, said Eriksson.
He added, “They will be arriving on the island next Monday along with officials of a leading crash reconstruction firm and a Boeing 737 specialist. We will hold a presentation for the relatives next Wednesday, where we will try and give them some technical information that they need before talking some law with them. As far as we know, there is need for information from the relatives and we intend to give them that information.”
Although not confirmed by Eriksson, reports suggest that the teaming up of the two leading firms could only mean one thing – a massive criminal law suit is to be filed against Boeing.
Kreindler & Kreindler, for example, only undertake large law suits and in the past have represented the largest group of families of passengers killed in the July 1996 TWA Flight 800 disaster off Long Island, New York. They went on to file the first suit in October 1996 against the airline and manufacturer.
They were also the leading law firm in the Pan Am Lockerbie disaster. Their seven-year effort resulted in the largest total recovery for a single disaster in the history of aviation. The firm still continues to pursue claims on behalf of the families against the Libyan government.
They were also involved in the Avianca disaster of 1991 and the Korean Airlines disaster of 1983.
A reliable legal source told the Cyprus Mail that it was hardly surprising that other American firms would be interested in joining the race, especially companies that see a chance to take legal action against such a major firm like Boeing.
“It has now got to the stage where it has become a cut-throat business. We now see local law firms, international law firms and local firms working with international law firms and they are all trying to get in on this event.”
Meanwhile the head of Helios Victims’ Relatives Committee Nicolas Yiasoumis confirmed to the Cyprus Mail that “they are aware of their arrival and they will be meeting them.”
Yiasoumis added that the relatives were allowed to join any law firm that they wanted. He was not sure about the legal status of the same parties participating in two separate cases.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
US lawyers return for Helios lawsuit update
By Alexia Saoulli
TRIAL LAWYERS from two American law firms representing the families of Helios Airways victims in last summer’s tragic crash, yesterday confirmed they had instigated litigation proceedings against Boeing.
Owen, Patterson & Owen, Girardi & Keese and Servicios Legales de Mesoamerica are three firms who have filed civil action claims against Boeing, Helios Airways Inc, Libra Holidays Group Public Ltd and Olympic Airlines as well as any other parties believed to be responsible for last summer’s tragic air accident involving a Boeing 737, which left 115 passengers and six crew dead.
Speaking to reporters at a press conference, Greg Owen of Owen, Patterson & Owen said its purpose was to communicate to all interested parties the recent developments in the case and to provide written documentation pertaining to the civil action which had been filed in a US court last month.
Specifically on January 27 a wrongful death and survival action was filed in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Owen said the parties had 30 days to respond but that Boeing had already filed its general appearance with the court and denied all charges. Both sides have asked for jury trials, he said. Whether the case goes to trial or not, the lawyers’ 50 clients could be awarded millions of pounds worth of damages if the court rules in their favour.
Owen said: “We made three promises to the victims’ families. One, that that we would file a lawsuit in the US to bring the defendants to justice. Two, that we would force Boeing to take steps to fix their aircraft, whether it takes one or 10 years to do… they have openly stated they know there is a problem with their warning system and are recalling planes. And three, we would seek adequate compensation for the victims’ families.”
The lawyer said they had already kept two out of three promises and that all that remained was the issue of compensation, pointing out that among other things it was their aim to secure enough money to ensure the education and welfare of orphaned children was taken care of.
Owen said the court would only hear evidence relevant to the case, “what caused the accident on this particular day”.
Vincent Carter, a principal in Girardi & Keese added: “Through this action we will have access to documents and witnesses… new venues of thought and possibilities of how the accident happened may arise and we will follow those avenues.”
They were answering questions regarding whether or not the Civil Aviation Authority would be held responsible for the August 14 crash. Grief stricken relatives looking for answers have blamed lax Civil Aviation Authority inspections for contributing to the crash that occurred just 40 kilometres from Athens.
But “right now in this current investigation we don’t see it (the Civil Aviation Authorities responsibility)”, said Owen.
According to Carter it was not uncommon for lawsuits to be resolved in a year, however, this case was likely to take longer as it involved over one hundred deaths.
“Litigation like this should take about two years,” he said.
Owen said the firms would be available for contact around the clock until all claims were resolved. A local number has been set up for this purpose, which he said is “open 24-hours to help with the litigation”.
“Anyone can call at any time. Current clients, lawyers, the media and we’ll get back to you immediately,” he said.
The number is 99250122
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
More law experts to meet Helios relatives
By John Leonidou
RELATIVES OF the Helios crash victims will be meeting with officials from two of the world’s leading aviation law firms next Wednesday in what looks to be another class action launched against the major companies involved in the crash.
A class action suit is already heading for civil courts in the US. The US-based legal team was in Cyprus yesterday informing clients about recent developments surrounding the case.
Aviation law specialist Stephan Eriksson of Advokatfirman Stephan Eriksson in Stockholm yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that he would be coming to Cyprus on Monday to speak with the relatives, along with a team of experts made up by a historic joint-venture of two of the world’s leading aviation law firms.
“I am currently working with two of the biggest aviation litigation firms in the world, Miami-based Podhurst Orseck and New York-based Kreindler & Kreindler. These two rival firms have decided to team up for the first time and send a team to Cyprus to meet with the Helios victims’ relatives”, said Eriksson.
He added, “They will be arriving on the island next Monday along with officials of a leading crash reconstruction firm and a Boeing 737 specialist. We will hold a presentation for the relatives next Wednesday, where we will try and give them some technical information that they need before talking some law with them. As far as we know, there is need for information from the relatives and we intend to give them that information.”
Although not confirmed by Eriksson, reports suggest that the teaming up of the two leading firms could only mean one thing – a massive criminal law suit is to be filed against Boeing.
Kreindler & Kreindler, for example, only undertake large law suits and in the past have represented the largest group of families of passengers killed in the July 1996 TWA Flight 800 disaster off Long Island, New York. They went on to file the first suit in October 1996 against the airline and manufacturer.
They were also the leading law firm in the Pan Am Lockerbie disaster. Their seven-year effort resulted in the largest total recovery for a single disaster in the history of aviation. The firm still continues to pursue claims on behalf of the families against the Libyan government.
They were also involved in the Avianca disaster of 1991 and the Korean Airlines disaster of 1983.
A reliable legal source told the Cyprus Mail that it was hardly surprising that other American firms would be interested in joining the race, especially companies that see a chance to take legal action against such a major firm like Boeing.
“It has now got to the stage where it has become a cut-throat business. We now see local law firms, international law firms and local firms working with international law firms and they are all trying to get in on this event.”
Meanwhile the head of Helios Victims’ Relatives Committee Nicolas Yiasoumis confirmed to the Cyprus Mail that “they are aware of their arrival and they will be meeting them.”
Yiasoumis added that the relatives were allowed to join any law firm that they wanted. He was not sure about the legal status of the same parties participating in two separate cases.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
US lawyers return for Helios lawsuit update
By Alexia Saoulli
TRIAL LAWYERS from two American law firms representing the families of Helios Airways victims in last summer’s tragic crash, yesterday confirmed they had instigated litigation proceedings against Boeing.
Owen, Patterson & Owen, Girardi & Keese and Servicios Legales de Mesoamerica are three firms who have filed civil action claims against Boeing, Helios Airways Inc, Libra Holidays Group Public Ltd and Olympic Airlines as well as any other parties believed to be responsible for last summer’s tragic air accident involving a Boeing 737, which left 115 passengers and six crew dead.
Speaking to reporters at a press conference, Greg Owen of Owen, Patterson & Owen said its purpose was to communicate to all interested parties the recent developments in the case and to provide written documentation pertaining to the civil action which had been filed in a US court last month.
Specifically on January 27 a wrongful death and survival action was filed in a Los Angeles Superior Court. Owen said the parties had 30 days to respond but that Boeing had already filed its general appearance with the court and denied all charges. Both sides have asked for jury trials, he said. Whether the case goes to trial or not, the lawyers’ 50 clients could be awarded millions of pounds worth of damages if the court rules in their favour.
Owen said: “We made three promises to the victims’ families. One, that that we would file a lawsuit in the US to bring the defendants to justice. Two, that we would force Boeing to take steps to fix their aircraft, whether it takes one or 10 years to do… they have openly stated they know there is a problem with their warning system and are recalling planes. And three, we would seek adequate compensation for the victims’ families.”
The lawyer said they had already kept two out of three promises and that all that remained was the issue of compensation, pointing out that among other things it was their aim to secure enough money to ensure the education and welfare of orphaned children was taken care of.
Owen said the court would only hear evidence relevant to the case, “what caused the accident on this particular day”.
Vincent Carter, a principal in Girardi & Keese added: “Through this action we will have access to documents and witnesses… new venues of thought and possibilities of how the accident happened may arise and we will follow those avenues.”
They were answering questions regarding whether or not the Civil Aviation Authority would be held responsible for the August 14 crash. Grief stricken relatives looking for answers have blamed lax Civil Aviation Authority inspections for contributing to the crash that occurred just 40 kilometres from Athens.
But “right now in this current investigation we don’t see it (the Civil Aviation Authorities responsibility)”, said Owen.
According to Carter it was not uncommon for lawsuits to be resolved in a year, however, this case was likely to take longer as it involved over one hundred deaths.
“Litigation like this should take about two years,” he said.
Owen said the firms would be available for contact around the clock until all claims were resolved. A local number has been set up for this purpose, which he said is “open 24-hours to help with the litigation”.
“Anyone can call at any time. Current clients, lawyers, the media and we’ll get back to you immediately,” he said.
The number is 99250122
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a further update on the lawsuits being filed in the States. I am not clear on why Olympic Airlines is named as a defendant, nor am I sure that the list of those named is complete.
Boeing faces US lawsuit over Helios crash
By Leo Leonidou
A TEAM of lawyers representing 11 victims of last August’s Helios Airways plane disaster have announced that the families have filed a lawsuit against Boeing in the United States.
In a press release issued yesterday, American law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein declared: “In co-operation with the Cyprus law firm Phoebus, Christos Clerides, N. Pirilides & Associates, of Nicosia and Limassol, the families of victims of the crash of Helios Flight 522 filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against The Boeing Company in the United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois.”
One hundred and fifteen passengers and six crew died on August 14, 2005,
when the Boeing 737-200 apparently flew without cabin pressure and then
crashed north of Athens.
“The investigation of the crash has reportedly found that the pressurisation system on the plane was not properly configured by the pilots at the time the aircraft took off from Larnaca,” the lawyers’ statement said.
However, Robert L. Lieff, founding partner of the American law firm, explained that “while there appears to have been negligence on the part of the Helios pilots, Boeing was also negligent and shares responsibility for the passengers’ deaths.”
Christos Clerides, whose firm will spearhead efforts to prosecute claims against Helios itself, is working in partnership with Lieff Cabraser in representing the families in pursuing Boeing and any other US manufacturers who may have contributed to the accident.
He told the Cyprus Mail that, “we are all confident and the timeframe, as we understand it, is that we’ll have further developments within the next two months. I am very pleased to take this step forward in achieving justice for my
clients and we intend to make sure that no responsible party escapes accountability for this horrible tragedy.”
Hans-Peter Graf, a former airline commander and investigator in charge at
the Swiss Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau who specialise in flight
operation and human factors, has been retained by Lieff Cabraser to work on
the case. Graf explained that, “the checklists that Boeing composed and
recommended for the 737 aircraft made it easy for crews to take off and fly
with the pressurisation system set incorrectly. The alerts and warnings
given to the crew were inexcusably vague and late. The design and
implementation of a superior system would have cost a minimal amount. Thus,
I am firmly convinced that Boeing and its partners played a substantial role
in this crash, and they could have prevented it with a proper design of the
crew alerting system.”
The complaint alleges that a series of design defects in the Boeing 737-200
led to the pilots’ failure to understand the nature of the problems they
were facing. Foremost among these was that the pressurisation warning horn
on the Boeing 737-200 emits the same sound used to alert pilots about
improper takeoff and landing configurations. The pilots’ confusion was
compounded by the fact that the very danger being warned of – low cabin air
pressure – impairs cognitive functions.
“If you are warning about a dangerous condition that impairs a pilot’s ability to think, it is common sense that you make that warning as clear as possible, and Boeing did not do that,” commented Lieff.
The complaint alleges that in 2003, Boeing communicated to 737 operators that “flight crews may not recognise the horn as an alert of excessive cabin
altitude.” Yet, Lieff said that, “Boeing took no corrective action in response to this potential safety hazard other than ask 737 operators to revise their manuals. Boeing could have eliminated the confusion from multiple uses of the same horn by using a vocal warning or a unique horn, through an inexpensive modification to the 737 pressurisation warning system.”
The action is the latest in a series of lawsuits in the pipeline following the tragedy. Two of the biggest aviation litigation firms, Podhurst and Orseck and New York-based Kreindler & Kreindler have teamed up together while Owen, Patterson & Owen, Girardi & Keese and Servicios Legales de Mesoamerica have filed civil action claims against Boeing, Helios, Libra Holidays and Olympic Airlines.
When asked why so many international law firms have become involved, Clerides said: “Unfortunately, the level of damages awarded by Cypriot courts doesn’t match up to the levels awarded by US courts. The relatives are seeking not only monetary compensation but also want to get to the root cause of the accident. They believe that Boeing, as the aircraft’s manufacturer, must take some of the responsibility.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Boeing faces US lawsuit over Helios crash
By Leo Leonidou
A TEAM of lawyers representing 11 victims of last August’s Helios Airways plane disaster have announced that the families have filed a lawsuit against Boeing in the United States.
In a press release issued yesterday, American law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein declared: “In co-operation with the Cyprus law firm Phoebus, Christos Clerides, N. Pirilides & Associates, of Nicosia and Limassol, the families of victims of the crash of Helios Flight 522 filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against The Boeing Company in the United States District Court in Chicago, Illinois.”
One hundred and fifteen passengers and six crew died on August 14, 2005,
when the Boeing 737-200 apparently flew without cabin pressure and then
crashed north of Athens.
“The investigation of the crash has reportedly found that the pressurisation system on the plane was not properly configured by the pilots at the time the aircraft took off from Larnaca,” the lawyers’ statement said.
However, Robert L. Lieff, founding partner of the American law firm, explained that “while there appears to have been negligence on the part of the Helios pilots, Boeing was also negligent and shares responsibility for the passengers’ deaths.”
Christos Clerides, whose firm will spearhead efforts to prosecute claims against Helios itself, is working in partnership with Lieff Cabraser in representing the families in pursuing Boeing and any other US manufacturers who may have contributed to the accident.
He told the Cyprus Mail that, “we are all confident and the timeframe, as we understand it, is that we’ll have further developments within the next two months. I am very pleased to take this step forward in achieving justice for my
clients and we intend to make sure that no responsible party escapes accountability for this horrible tragedy.”
Hans-Peter Graf, a former airline commander and investigator in charge at
the Swiss Aircraft Accidents Investigation Bureau who specialise in flight
operation and human factors, has been retained by Lieff Cabraser to work on
the case. Graf explained that, “the checklists that Boeing composed and
recommended for the 737 aircraft made it easy for crews to take off and fly
with the pressurisation system set incorrectly. The alerts and warnings
given to the crew were inexcusably vague and late. The design and
implementation of a superior system would have cost a minimal amount. Thus,
I am firmly convinced that Boeing and its partners played a substantial role
in this crash, and they could have prevented it with a proper design of the
crew alerting system.”
The complaint alleges that a series of design defects in the Boeing 737-200
led to the pilots’ failure to understand the nature of the problems they
were facing. Foremost among these was that the pressurisation warning horn
on the Boeing 737-200 emits the same sound used to alert pilots about
improper takeoff and landing configurations. The pilots’ confusion was
compounded by the fact that the very danger being warned of – low cabin air
pressure – impairs cognitive functions.
“If you are warning about a dangerous condition that impairs a pilot’s ability to think, it is common sense that you make that warning as clear as possible, and Boeing did not do that,” commented Lieff.
The complaint alleges that in 2003, Boeing communicated to 737 operators that “flight crews may not recognise the horn as an alert of excessive cabin
altitude.” Yet, Lieff said that, “Boeing took no corrective action in response to this potential safety hazard other than ask 737 operators to revise their manuals. Boeing could have eliminated the confusion from multiple uses of the same horn by using a vocal warning or a unique horn, through an inexpensive modification to the 737 pressurisation warning system.”
The action is the latest in a series of lawsuits in the pipeline following the tragedy. Two of the biggest aviation litigation firms, Podhurst and Orseck and New York-based Kreindler & Kreindler have teamed up together while Owen, Patterson & Owen, Girardi & Keese and Servicios Legales de Mesoamerica have filed civil action claims against Boeing, Helios, Libra Holidays and Olympic Airlines.
When asked why so many international law firms have become involved, Clerides said: “Unfortunately, the level of damages awarded by Cypriot courts doesn’t match up to the levels awarded by US courts. The relatives are seeking not only monetary compensation but also want to get to the root cause of the accident. They believe that Boeing, as the aircraft’s manufacturer, must take some of the responsibility.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Glyfada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't bet on it, BOAC.
I spoke with Tsolakis last week, after Cypriot lawyers had told me they weren't expecting any kind of investigation report (factual, preliminary or final) before August.
Tsolakis denied it would take him that long but stated that there was indeed a further postponement of his report until the end of June "give or take a few days - NOT weeks".
He complained about the lack of staff for the compilation of his 600-page draft and about problems with the coroner's report that had to be sorted out.
Personally, I think he's stuck with gaps or inconsistencies in the DFDR data (notably, glaring evidence of an initial bleeds-off-takeoff configuration and no sign of cabin O2-masks Master Caution light anytime after the Cab Alt Horn sounded at FL120 - certainly not at FL160, when crew contacted Helios Maintrol about aircon electrics and E-bay cooling, for another 7 mins up to FL290 - when they contacted ATC for the last time).
Nevertheless, the chief investigator bragged about Boeing's block revisions of B737 flight crew procedures regarding the pressurisation mode selector in AUTO (preflight NC) and the cabin altitude horn (new cabin altitude or configuration NNC added to QRH sections 0 and 15).
These checklist revisions issued on February 17, were in response to Tsolakis' recommendations in early September. And he's still got "two more safety recommendations for further SOP amendments which Boeing has not yet heeded," he said, adding that there are "more recommendations for the manufacturer to come in his final report".
Needless to say, the lawyers of the bereaved Cypriot families are having a field day over all this, confident that their case against Boeing is rock-solid.
I spoke with Tsolakis last week, after Cypriot lawyers had told me they weren't expecting any kind of investigation report (factual, preliminary or final) before August.
Tsolakis denied it would take him that long but stated that there was indeed a further postponement of his report until the end of June "give or take a few days - NOT weeks".
He complained about the lack of staff for the compilation of his 600-page draft and about problems with the coroner's report that had to be sorted out.
Personally, I think he's stuck with gaps or inconsistencies in the DFDR data (notably, glaring evidence of an initial bleeds-off-takeoff configuration and no sign of cabin O2-masks Master Caution light anytime after the Cab Alt Horn sounded at FL120 - certainly not at FL160, when crew contacted Helios Maintrol about aircon electrics and E-bay cooling, for another 7 mins up to FL290 - when they contacted ATC for the last time).
Nevertheless, the chief investigator bragged about Boeing's block revisions of B737 flight crew procedures regarding the pressurisation mode selector in AUTO (preflight NC) and the cabin altitude horn (new cabin altitude or configuration NNC added to QRH sections 0 and 15).
These checklist revisions issued on February 17, were in response to Tsolakis' recommendations in early September. And he's still got "two more safety recommendations for further SOP amendments which Boeing has not yet heeded," he said, adding that there are "more recommendations for the manufacturer to come in his final report".
Needless to say, the lawyers of the bereaved Cypriot families are having a field day over all this, confident that their case against Boeing is rock-solid.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane View: Thanks for the information about the report. I also heard that it had been postponed until the end of June. I would assume that a 600-page draft must include the 500 or so pages that the coroner submitted, plus many pages for the FDR readout, so I don’t understand his complaint about lack of staff. I would think that his report, without these addenda, would only run to 20 pages or so. Someone, please correct me if I’m wrong.
Also, I don’t think that the case against Boeing is all that “rock-solid.” With 5000 planes in production over 30 years, this seems to be the first one that didn’t do what it was supposed to do. I have sifted through American and European incident reports going all the way back to 1978, where pressurization problems caused the pilots to lower altitude or land, but these incidents didn’t cause the plane to crash. In fact, most of the incidents referred to failure of a particular part, such as outflow valve, cabin pressure controller, or open door or faulty seal. The other failures during climb or cruise were due to pilots’ failure to reconfigure after a bleeds-off takeoff.
I have also carefully looked through the checklists, past and present, and the instructions seem pretty clear and straightforward and always have. In fact, even though the recently revised checklist specifically states that the pressurization mode selector should be set to “Auto,” if pilots elect to do a bleeds-off takeoff, they will still have to reconfigure the bleeds, and that is what has been overlooked, even though it has been on the non-normal checklist from the beginning, with a revision in 2002 as per the following incident report of the Canadian Transport Safety Board http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...1/a00p0101.asp
I still think that an unrelated, recurring electrical problem is at fault here, and that the pressurization failure was secondary, albeit fatal. As Poljot suggested earlier, was there also a problem with the pilots’ oxygen supply? If the bottles weren’t erroneously filled with nitrogen, then perhaps they were empty. I hope that at least one of the 600 pages of the investigation report will cover this.
Also, I don’t think that the case against Boeing is all that “rock-solid.” With 5000 planes in production over 30 years, this seems to be the first one that didn’t do what it was supposed to do. I have sifted through American and European incident reports going all the way back to 1978, where pressurization problems caused the pilots to lower altitude or land, but these incidents didn’t cause the plane to crash. In fact, most of the incidents referred to failure of a particular part, such as outflow valve, cabin pressure controller, or open door or faulty seal. The other failures during climb or cruise were due to pilots’ failure to reconfigure after a bleeds-off takeoff.
I have also carefully looked through the checklists, past and present, and the instructions seem pretty clear and straightforward and always have. In fact, even though the recently revised checklist specifically states that the pressurization mode selector should be set to “Auto,” if pilots elect to do a bleeds-off takeoff, they will still have to reconfigure the bleeds, and that is what has been overlooked, even though it has been on the non-normal checklist from the beginning, with a revision in 2002 as per the following incident report of the Canadian Transport Safety Board http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/...1/a00p0101.asp
I still think that an unrelated, recurring electrical problem is at fault here, and that the pressurization failure was secondary, albeit fatal. As Poljot suggested earlier, was there also a problem with the pilots’ oxygen supply? If the bottles weren’t erroneously filled with nitrogen, then perhaps they were empty. I hope that at least one of the 600 pages of the investigation report will cover this.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the latest article online from the Cyprus Mail:
An eerie echo of the Helios crash
By John Leonidou
AIRLINE manufacturers Boeing were fully aware long before last Summer’s Helios Airways crash that warning signals over cabin pressurisation problems could be confusing to the crew, according to emails from the company seen by the Sunday Mail.
Helios Airways flight ZU 522 crashed into a mountainside just north of Athens on August 14, 2005, killing all 121 passengers on board. Though the official accident report is still pending, there are strong indications the pilots were confused over warning signals indicating a gradual loss of pressure in the cockpit. Not realising there was a problem, they eventually passed out, leaving the plane to fly on auto-pilot until it finally crashed three hours later.
“Had there been a proper warning system that would have alerted the crew directly to the problem then it is my belief that the whole tragedy would have been avoided,” a Boeing pilot told the Sunday Mail this week.
Two and a half years earlier, a Norwegian airliner experienced almost identical problems to the Helios Airways plane. On November 29, 2002 a Braathen Airline Boeing 737-700 was forced to descend and make an emergency landing just after takeoff after pressurisation problems similar to those in the Helios case. The Braathen pilots, however, realised the problem and brought the plane down safely, and the company immediately reported the problem to Boeing.
In their report to Boeing customer service headquarters in Seattle, Braathens said the pressurisation problem “was not the ‘normal’ ‘rushing air’ associated with a rapid decompression, because the leakage was not of a rapid type”.
Preliminary investigations into the Helios crash show a slow decompression leak resulted in the pilots passing out.
In the Braathens incident, just as in the Helios tragedy, the problem was compounded by confusion over warning signals: “The warning horn [for high cabin altitude] is the same that is used for the takeoff warning, both with intermittent aural warnings. This led the flight-crew to not identify cabin altitude problems at once.”
Replying on December 9, 2002, Boeing said it had received “an increased number of reports of flight crews not configuring the pressurisation panel correctly”. But it also admitted it had received “similar comments from a number of airlines” regarding the confusing warning signals, adding, they would be proposing an optional system to fix the problem in about two or three years.
“The high cabin altitude warning horn itself has not changed since the 737 first delivered in 1967,” Boeing said. “However, in response to your comments and similar comments from a number of airlines, we are considering development of a limited crew messaging system for the 737NG.”
According to David Learmount of Flight International, as well as two Boeing pilots, this system has yet to be introduced, although Boeing did send out a circulate a “reminder” to flight crews about the difference between warning alarms for incorrect takeoff configurations and cabin altitudes – after the Helios Airways tragedy of August 14, 2005.
Several teams of foreign lawyers have offered to represent victims of the accident in suing Boeing in the US courts.
A BOEING 737 pilot, who wished to remain anonymous, yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that the problems experienced by the Norwegian airliner were “not identical, but very similar” to those on Helios. He insisted the tragedy could have been avoided had Boeing installed proper alarms to warn the crew of pressurisation problems in the cabin.
“From what we know so far about what went wrong with Helios, it appears that the pack and bleed switches were in fact on, but that the pressurisation switch was on manual. This is not identical to what happened in the other flight, but very similar, and had there been a proper warning system that would have alerted the crew directly to the problem, I believe the whole tragedy would have been avoided.”
The pilot said he wasn’t surprised that Boeing had not changed the alarm system after receiving the letter from the Norwegian airliner.
“To change this alarm system is not as simple as some may think. It is not just a matter of changing a few buttons, but changing the whole philosophy of the airplane, which would basically mean retraining all Boeing crew around the world – and that as you can imagine will not be easy.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
An eerie echo of the Helios crash
By John Leonidou
AIRLINE manufacturers Boeing were fully aware long before last Summer’s Helios Airways crash that warning signals over cabin pressurisation problems could be confusing to the crew, according to emails from the company seen by the Sunday Mail.
Helios Airways flight ZU 522 crashed into a mountainside just north of Athens on August 14, 2005, killing all 121 passengers on board. Though the official accident report is still pending, there are strong indications the pilots were confused over warning signals indicating a gradual loss of pressure in the cockpit. Not realising there was a problem, they eventually passed out, leaving the plane to fly on auto-pilot until it finally crashed three hours later.
“Had there been a proper warning system that would have alerted the crew directly to the problem then it is my belief that the whole tragedy would have been avoided,” a Boeing pilot told the Sunday Mail this week.
Two and a half years earlier, a Norwegian airliner experienced almost identical problems to the Helios Airways plane. On November 29, 2002 a Braathen Airline Boeing 737-700 was forced to descend and make an emergency landing just after takeoff after pressurisation problems similar to those in the Helios case. The Braathen pilots, however, realised the problem and brought the plane down safely, and the company immediately reported the problem to Boeing.
In their report to Boeing customer service headquarters in Seattle, Braathens said the pressurisation problem “was not the ‘normal’ ‘rushing air’ associated with a rapid decompression, because the leakage was not of a rapid type”.
Preliminary investigations into the Helios crash show a slow decompression leak resulted in the pilots passing out.
In the Braathens incident, just as in the Helios tragedy, the problem was compounded by confusion over warning signals: “The warning horn [for high cabin altitude] is the same that is used for the takeoff warning, both with intermittent aural warnings. This led the flight-crew to not identify cabin altitude problems at once.”
Replying on December 9, 2002, Boeing said it had received “an increased number of reports of flight crews not configuring the pressurisation panel correctly”. But it also admitted it had received “similar comments from a number of airlines” regarding the confusing warning signals, adding, they would be proposing an optional system to fix the problem in about two or three years.
“The high cabin altitude warning horn itself has not changed since the 737 first delivered in 1967,” Boeing said. “However, in response to your comments and similar comments from a number of airlines, we are considering development of a limited crew messaging system for the 737NG.”
According to David Learmount of Flight International, as well as two Boeing pilots, this system has yet to be introduced, although Boeing did send out a circulate a “reminder” to flight crews about the difference between warning alarms for incorrect takeoff configurations and cabin altitudes – after the Helios Airways tragedy of August 14, 2005.
Several teams of foreign lawyers have offered to represent victims of the accident in suing Boeing in the US courts.
A BOEING 737 pilot, who wished to remain anonymous, yesterday told the Cyprus Mail that the problems experienced by the Norwegian airliner were “not identical, but very similar” to those on Helios. He insisted the tragedy could have been avoided had Boeing installed proper alarms to warn the crew of pressurisation problems in the cabin.
“From what we know so far about what went wrong with Helios, it appears that the pack and bleed switches were in fact on, but that the pressurisation switch was on manual. This is not identical to what happened in the other flight, but very similar, and had there been a proper warning system that would have alerted the crew directly to the problem, I believe the whole tragedy would have been avoided.”
The pilot said he wasn’t surprised that Boeing had not changed the alarm system after receiving the letter from the Norwegian airliner.
“To change this alarm system is not as simple as some may think. It is not just a matter of changing a few buttons, but changing the whole philosophy of the airplane, which would basically mean retraining all Boeing crew around the world – and that as you can imagine will not be easy.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must admit I haven't read the whole of this thread but,
It seems to me that we pilots are not very good at identifying, facing up to and dealing with the obvious dangers of hypoxia for all the well known and accepted reasons.
Surely there should be a case for providing both pilots with an automatic drop down O2 system, similar to the system that the pax have.
Yes it would be expensive and difficult to retrofit and a million other excuses BUT it should hopefully provide the crew with auto O2 when they most need it.
We just then need someway of automatically clamping the mask onto his or her face......solutions, please. Not blame.
It seems to me that we pilots are not very good at identifying, facing up to and dealing with the obvious dangers of hypoxia for all the well known and accepted reasons.
Surely there should be a case for providing both pilots with an automatic drop down O2 system, similar to the system that the pax have.
Yes it would be expensive and difficult to retrofit and a million other excuses BUT it should hopefully provide the crew with auto O2 when they most need it.
We just then need someway of automatically clamping the mask onto his or her face......solutions, please. Not blame.
Also, I don’t think that the case against Boeing is all that “rock-solid.” With 5000 planes in production over 30 years, this seems to be the first one that didn’t do what it was supposed to do. I have sifted through American and European incident reports going all the way back to 1978, where pressurization problems caused the pilots to lower altitude or land, but these incidents didn’t cause the plane to crash. In fact, most of the incidents referred to failure of a particular part, such as outflow valve, cabin pressure controller, or open door or faulty seal. The other failures during climb or cruise were due to pilots’ failure to reconfigure after a bleeds-off takeoff.
I have also carefully looked through the checklists, past and present, and the instructions seem pretty clear and straightforward and always have. In fact, even though the recently revised checklist specifically states that the pressurization mode selector should be set to “Auto,” if pilots elect to do a bleeds-off takeoff, they will still have to reconfigure the bleeds, and that is what has been overlooked, even though it has been on the non-normal checklist from the beginning
I have also carefully looked through the checklists, past and present, and the instructions seem pretty clear and straightforward and always have. In fact, even though the recently revised checklist specifically states that the pressurization mode selector should be set to “Auto,” if pilots elect to do a bleeds-off takeoff, they will still have to reconfigure the bleeds, and that is what has been overlooked, even though it has been on the non-normal checklist from the beginning
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Rose by Any Other Name ...
A-Jet plan to replace Helios
By Jean Christou
HELIOS AIRWAYS is to cease flying but not trading, while its parent company Libra Holidays Group (LHG) intends to replace it with a new charter airline named A-Jet.
Still reeling after tragic crash that killed 121 passengers and crew north of Athens last August, Helios has been unable to fully recover and has caused multi-million in losses to LHG, which is listed on the Cyprus Stock Exchange.
The Helios crash cost Libra at least £5 million plus another £18 million the group wrote off in goodwill as a result of the accident, which resulted in group losses up until the end of October 2005 of £23.69 million compared to a profit of £2.58 million in the same period in 2004.
In relation to the £5 million Helios loss, LHG said it was contemplating suing third parties
But the company, one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said yesterday it is ready to create a new charter airline, which will use the aircraft and resources of Helios.
Libra chief executive Andreas Drakos told the Cyprus Mail yesterday it had applied for a licence for the creation of a new airline A-Jet.
“It’s not exactly ready yet,” he said but added that the company intended to make an announcement within days.
“We have been going through the normal processes of obtaining a licence for some time now,” Drakos said denying reports in Phileleftheros yesterday that they were bypassing normal procedures.
Drakos said Helios would remain on the books as a trading company but cease flying.
“Helios will remain as a company, a subsidiary of Libra to support the investigating committee and to pursue claims against third parties but cease carrying out operations,” Drakos said.
He said A-Jet would be mainly carrying out charter flights, unlike Helios, which also operated scheduled flights.
“Our business as a group is to bring people (tourists) in from the UK and Europe. This will be a new company,” he said.
An announcement from the Civil Aviation Department yesterday said that in January this year an application had been submitted by representatives of Helios to transfer the assets of the company to a company A-Jet.
“This application was rejected by the Department of Civil Aviation, because it was not compatible with the relevant European regulations,” said the announcement.
It said that last month the Department then received an application from the company A-Jet for a licence, along with the relevant documents.
“The technical aspects of the application is being examined by the Department of Civil Aviation, while for the legal aspects are the subject of a letter to the Attorney-general’s Office for his opinion” said the announcement.
It added that just because a process had begun for a licence did not imply the outcome would be successful or within a specified time period.
“This depends whether all of the technical and other conditions have been satisfied and also relevant EU regulations,” the Civil Aviation Department said, adding that it was handling the case with responsibility and having in mind the public interest and sensitivity.
Results of the Helios crash investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
By Jean Christou
HELIOS AIRWAYS is to cease flying but not trading, while its parent company Libra Holidays Group (LHG) intends to replace it with a new charter airline named A-Jet.
Still reeling after tragic crash that killed 121 passengers and crew north of Athens last August, Helios has been unable to fully recover and has caused multi-million in losses to LHG, which is listed on the Cyprus Stock Exchange.
The Helios crash cost Libra at least £5 million plus another £18 million the group wrote off in goodwill as a result of the accident, which resulted in group losses up until the end of October 2005 of £23.69 million compared to a profit of £2.58 million in the same period in 2004.
In relation to the £5 million Helios loss, LHG said it was contemplating suing third parties
But the company, one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said yesterday it is ready to create a new charter airline, which will use the aircraft and resources of Helios.
Libra chief executive Andreas Drakos told the Cyprus Mail yesterday it had applied for a licence for the creation of a new airline A-Jet.
“It’s not exactly ready yet,” he said but added that the company intended to make an announcement within days.
“We have been going through the normal processes of obtaining a licence for some time now,” Drakos said denying reports in Phileleftheros yesterday that they were bypassing normal procedures.
Drakos said Helios would remain on the books as a trading company but cease flying.
“Helios will remain as a company, a subsidiary of Libra to support the investigating committee and to pursue claims against third parties but cease carrying out operations,” Drakos said.
He said A-Jet would be mainly carrying out charter flights, unlike Helios, which also operated scheduled flights.
“Our business as a group is to bring people (tourists) in from the UK and Europe. This will be a new company,” he said.
An announcement from the Civil Aviation Department yesterday said that in January this year an application had been submitted by representatives of Helios to transfer the assets of the company to a company A-Jet.
“This application was rejected by the Department of Civil Aviation, because it was not compatible with the relevant European regulations,” said the announcement.
It said that last month the Department then received an application from the company A-Jet for a licence, along with the relevant documents.
“The technical aspects of the application is being examined by the Department of Civil Aviation, while for the legal aspects are the subject of a letter to the Attorney-general’s Office for his opinion” said the announcement.
It added that just because a process had begun for a licence did not imply the outcome would be successful or within a specified time period.
“This depends whether all of the technical and other conditions have been satisfied and also relevant EU regulations,” the Civil Aviation Department said, adding that it was handling the case with responsibility and having in mind the public interest and sensitivity.
Results of the Helios crash investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a bit of a follow-up to the rebranding of Helios from today's Cyprus Mail Internet edition:
Libra: Ajet plan will not affect our finances
By Jean Christou
LIBRA Holidays Group (LHG) yesterday sought to assure shareholders that the creation of a new airline Ajet and the reassigning of Helios Airways aircraft to the new charter company would have not affect the group’s financial situation.
“In any case, this issue involves in-house restructuring of two wholly owned subsidiaries of the Group and has no financial consequences to the Group whatsoever,” an LHG announcement to the Cyprus Stock Exchange said yesterday.
LHG said that due to the serious problems that Helios Airways encountered just after the tragic air accident in August 2005, in which 121 people lost their lives, “Helios considered to pass its operations to Ajet Airways Ltd ('ajet') which was registered on January 20, 2006 and is owned 100 per cent by Libra Holidays Group Public Ltd,” the company said.
It said that under the presumption that all necessary approvals and consents were issued by the relevant authorities, the lease agreements of the aircraft operated by Helios would be reassigned to Ajet, which will operate basically as charter flight airline.
”Due to the presumption as aforesaid, there has been no announcement yet since the Libra Holidays Group waited to first obtain the said licences and just then to proceed with the related announcement,” LHG said.
The Helios crash cost Libra at least £5 million plus another £18 million the group wrote off in goodwill as a result of the accident, which resulted in group losses up until the end of October 2005 of £23.69 million compared to a profit of £2.58 million in the same period in 2004.
In relation to the £5 million Helios loss, LHG, one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said it was contemplating suing third parties.
Helios will remain as a company and a subsidiary of Libra to pursue the claims and also to support the investigating committee into the crash.
The Civil Aviation Department said on Monday it had received the application for a licence from Ajet and that both the technical and legal aspects were being examined.
Results of the Helios crash investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Keep in mind that the investigation report is due at the end of June, not April. Helios and Libra have been sued in the U.S. courts, but I don't know if they have filed an Answer yet, of if they intend to.
Libra: Ajet plan will not affect our finances
By Jean Christou
LIBRA Holidays Group (LHG) yesterday sought to assure shareholders that the creation of a new airline Ajet and the reassigning of Helios Airways aircraft to the new charter company would have not affect the group’s financial situation.
“In any case, this issue involves in-house restructuring of two wholly owned subsidiaries of the Group and has no financial consequences to the Group whatsoever,” an LHG announcement to the Cyprus Stock Exchange said yesterday.
LHG said that due to the serious problems that Helios Airways encountered just after the tragic air accident in August 2005, in which 121 people lost their lives, “Helios considered to pass its operations to Ajet Airways Ltd ('ajet') which was registered on January 20, 2006 and is owned 100 per cent by Libra Holidays Group Public Ltd,” the company said.
It said that under the presumption that all necessary approvals and consents were issued by the relevant authorities, the lease agreements of the aircraft operated by Helios would be reassigned to Ajet, which will operate basically as charter flight airline.
”Due to the presumption as aforesaid, there has been no announcement yet since the Libra Holidays Group waited to first obtain the said licences and just then to proceed with the related announcement,” LHG said.
The Helios crash cost Libra at least £5 million plus another £18 million the group wrote off in goodwill as a result of the accident, which resulted in group losses up until the end of October 2005 of £23.69 million compared to a profit of £2.58 million in the same period in 2004.
In relation to the £5 million Helios loss, LHG, one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said it was contemplating suing third parties.
Helios will remain as a company and a subsidiary of Libra to pursue the claims and also to support the investigating committee into the crash.
The Civil Aviation Department said on Monday it had received the application for a licence from Ajet and that both the technical and legal aspects were being examined.
Results of the Helios crash investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Keep in mind that the investigation report is due at the end of June, not April. Helios and Libra have been sued in the U.S. courts, but I don't know if they have filed an Answer yet, of if they intend to.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some interesting new developments reported by the Cyprus Mail this morning.
Cyprus ‘blamed’ for Helios crash
By By Elias Hazou
Leaked report cites Civil Aviation failings, Helios maintenance and human error
A US FEDERAL Aviation report commissioned by the government reportedly points the finger at Cyprus’ Civil Aviation authorities with regard to the Helios Airways disaster last August that claimed the lives of all 121 people onboard.
News of the report, described as “top secret,” was broken yesterday by Greek daily To Vima. According to the paper’s sources, the FAA found fault with the Cypriot Civil Aviation Agency for inadequate checks on the airline prior to the crash.
The very existence of the FAA’s probe came as a surprise; but in the wake of the revelation yesterday, commentators said it tied in with the government’s pledge last year to seek the help of American experts.
The main investigation, under Greece’s chief air investigator Akrivos Tsolakis, is nearing completion and should be made public by summer, the latest information suggests.
The FAA report is said to be particularly damning of both Cypriot Civil Aviation authorities and Helios Airways. According to To Vima, it draws attention to the airline’s “problematic maintenance team” and mentions the now-famous issue of the decompression switch.
It is believed that before the doomed flight, maintenance crew who had conducted a pressurisation check left the control in manual instead of automatic, so the aircraft did not pressurise as it gained altitude. But the crew failed to notice the setting in their pre-take-off checks, and the post-take-off checks require no further confirmation of the pressurisation control selection.
In the case of Helios flight ZU-522, this was further compounded by the fact that the pressurisation warning alarm on the Boeing 737-200 emits the same sound used to alert pilots of improper takeoff and landing configurations. It is now thought the pilots’ confusion was worsened still by the fact that the very danger being warned of – low cabin air pressure – would have already impaired cognitive functions.
Citing its sources, the Greek paper said co-pilot Pambos Charalambous was the first to lose consciousness in the cockpit, presumably due to the onset of hypoxia, or low oxygen in the blood.
In short, the above scenario—assuming it’s true—would confirm experts’ initial assessment that the accident was a combination of human error and technological failure.
In its Airline safety review 2005 published this January, Flight International said:
“The Helios 737-300 that crashed in Greece was one of the intermediate generation of jets, with a part digital, part electro-mechanical flightdeck.
“This configuration, however, seems unlikely to be relevant to the accident cause. Early reports from the investigator suggest the accident sequence began when the flightcrew failed to set the pressurisation controls correctly during pre-start checks, and this omission was compounded by their failure to recognise warnings that the cabin was not pressurising as the aircraft climbed.
“Chief investigator Akrivos Tsolakis looks likely to comment, however, on the fact that many other incidents of failure to pressurise have occurred in 737s, but in those cases crews recognised the warnings in time.”
But the FAA’s findings went a step further, apparently exonerating Helios’ former chief engineer—a British national. Alan Irwin had been employed by the airline on a short-term contract, but shortly after the crash, reports emerged that he was at loggerheads with the company over the cause of the disaster.
Irwin is thought to be the last person to have spoken to the flight crew.
To Vima said yesterday that chief investigator Tsolakis had incorporated all or most of the FAA’s conclusions in his own probe.
The leaked FAA report takes matters in a new direction, somewhat deflecting attention away from Boeing, which is being sued in the United States by relatives of the victims.
The families and friends of the deceased hold the aircraft manufacturer at least partly liable, arguing that disaster could have been avoided had Boeing taken steps to eradicate the confusion over the decompression warning.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Cyprus ‘blamed’ for Helios crash
By By Elias Hazou
Leaked report cites Civil Aviation failings, Helios maintenance and human error
A US FEDERAL Aviation report commissioned by the government reportedly points the finger at Cyprus’ Civil Aviation authorities with regard to the Helios Airways disaster last August that claimed the lives of all 121 people onboard.
News of the report, described as “top secret,” was broken yesterday by Greek daily To Vima. According to the paper’s sources, the FAA found fault with the Cypriot Civil Aviation Agency for inadequate checks on the airline prior to the crash.
The very existence of the FAA’s probe came as a surprise; but in the wake of the revelation yesterday, commentators said it tied in with the government’s pledge last year to seek the help of American experts.
The main investigation, under Greece’s chief air investigator Akrivos Tsolakis, is nearing completion and should be made public by summer, the latest information suggests.
The FAA report is said to be particularly damning of both Cypriot Civil Aviation authorities and Helios Airways. According to To Vima, it draws attention to the airline’s “problematic maintenance team” and mentions the now-famous issue of the decompression switch.
It is believed that before the doomed flight, maintenance crew who had conducted a pressurisation check left the control in manual instead of automatic, so the aircraft did not pressurise as it gained altitude. But the crew failed to notice the setting in their pre-take-off checks, and the post-take-off checks require no further confirmation of the pressurisation control selection.
In the case of Helios flight ZU-522, this was further compounded by the fact that the pressurisation warning alarm on the Boeing 737-200 emits the same sound used to alert pilots of improper takeoff and landing configurations. It is now thought the pilots’ confusion was worsened still by the fact that the very danger being warned of – low cabin air pressure – would have already impaired cognitive functions.
Citing its sources, the Greek paper said co-pilot Pambos Charalambous was the first to lose consciousness in the cockpit, presumably due to the onset of hypoxia, or low oxygen in the blood.
In short, the above scenario—assuming it’s true—would confirm experts’ initial assessment that the accident was a combination of human error and technological failure.
In its Airline safety review 2005 published this January, Flight International said:
“The Helios 737-300 that crashed in Greece was one of the intermediate generation of jets, with a part digital, part electro-mechanical flightdeck.
“This configuration, however, seems unlikely to be relevant to the accident cause. Early reports from the investigator suggest the accident sequence began when the flightcrew failed to set the pressurisation controls correctly during pre-start checks, and this omission was compounded by their failure to recognise warnings that the cabin was not pressurising as the aircraft climbed.
“Chief investigator Akrivos Tsolakis looks likely to comment, however, on the fact that many other incidents of failure to pressurise have occurred in 737s, but in those cases crews recognised the warnings in time.”
But the FAA’s findings went a step further, apparently exonerating Helios’ former chief engineer—a British national. Alan Irwin had been employed by the airline on a short-term contract, but shortly after the crash, reports emerged that he was at loggerheads with the company over the cause of the disaster.
Irwin is thought to be the last person to have spoken to the flight crew.
To Vima said yesterday that chief investigator Tsolakis had incorporated all or most of the FAA’s conclusions in his own probe.
The leaked FAA report takes matters in a new direction, somewhat deflecting attention away from Boeing, which is being sued in the United States by relatives of the victims.
The families and friends of the deceased hold the aircraft manufacturer at least partly liable, arguing that disaster could have been avoided had Boeing taken steps to eradicate the confusion over the decompression warning.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Cyprus Mail has certainly been busy today. Here is another interview with the management of the new airline, A-jet or ajet, or whatever, which will now be 80% charter operation. In one day, we've gone from total charter to 80%. Life is certainly interesting.
‘New airline is not Helios in disguise’
By Leo Leonidou
LIBRA HOLIDAYS GROUP (LHG), one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said yesterday that its new charter airline, ajet, was not Helios in disguise but “a completely different business model.”
Speaking to the Cyprus Mail yesterday, Managing Director of the new airline, Bryan Field said “the important thing is that it’s not just a name change”.
Helios Airways will remain as a subsidiary of LHG but without any operations while awaiting the results of the Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) probe into last August’s crash north of Athens which killed 121 passengers and crew. The results of the investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
“As part of LHG’s strategy to strengthen its position in the market as the number one specialist to Cyprus, LHG are pleased to announce the launch of ajet airways,” a press release stated.
Andreas Drakou, Chief Executive of LHG, said ajet will “strengthen our position in the air charter market primarily in the UK and Europe.
“More than 80 per cent of our business will be on a chartered basis leaving only some routes on a partly scheduled basis due to high demand from our UK customer base.”
“We expect that this effort will continue contributing positively to the overall Cyprus tourist industry with some 250,000 return passengers in our first year increasing to around 500,000 by 2008.”
Field, who has over 30 years experience with British Airways and was a former director of BA’s CitiExpress, explained that the decision was taken to create a different type of airline in the spring of 2005.
“When LHG bought Helios, they bought a scheduled airline, but what they really need is a charter airline which is better suited to their leisure operations.
“After last August’s accident, plans were put on hold but we decided in December that UK tour operators had stuck with us and this encouraged us. There was a future, provided we could build a good, strong company.”
Seats will be sold on a no-frills basis, online through ajet.com. It will be a ticketless system, which makes travel easier and cheaper for the customer.
“The start-up cost is relatively low,” Field said. “A big overhaul has taken place and we have kept costs as low as possible. We want to learn to walk before we can run and want a year of consolidation. Our aim is to get ajet up and running and profitable in the first 12 months and will then look to start expanding when the leased plane comes back, which will give us a 50 per cent capacity increase.”
Ajet currently have two Boeing 737-800s and will take delivery of a third in May, at which point one of the existing two will be leased out for one year to a UK carrier.
The airline is to start operating on March 25. Field said the company is confident that it will receive an air operator’s certificate and operating license and will demonstrate that it is a competent operator.
He added that the Helios investigation outcome shouldn’t be pre-judged.
“All carriers worldwide will learn from this. Helios wasn’t the first company to have an accident and won’t be the last.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
‘New airline is not Helios in disguise’
By Leo Leonidou
LIBRA HOLIDAYS GROUP (LHG), one of the biggest UK-based tour operators said yesterday that its new charter airline, ajet, was not Helios in disguise but “a completely different business model.”
Speaking to the Cyprus Mail yesterday, Managing Director of the new airline, Bryan Field said “the important thing is that it’s not just a name change”.
Helios Airways will remain as a subsidiary of LHG but without any operations while awaiting the results of the Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) probe into last August’s crash north of Athens which killed 121 passengers and crew. The results of the investigation are not due out at least until the end of April.
“As part of LHG’s strategy to strengthen its position in the market as the number one specialist to Cyprus, LHG are pleased to announce the launch of ajet airways,” a press release stated.
Andreas Drakou, Chief Executive of LHG, said ajet will “strengthen our position in the air charter market primarily in the UK and Europe.
“More than 80 per cent of our business will be on a chartered basis leaving only some routes on a partly scheduled basis due to high demand from our UK customer base.”
“We expect that this effort will continue contributing positively to the overall Cyprus tourist industry with some 250,000 return passengers in our first year increasing to around 500,000 by 2008.”
Field, who has over 30 years experience with British Airways and was a former director of BA’s CitiExpress, explained that the decision was taken to create a different type of airline in the spring of 2005.
“When LHG bought Helios, they bought a scheduled airline, but what they really need is a charter airline which is better suited to their leisure operations.
“After last August’s accident, plans were put on hold but we decided in December that UK tour operators had stuck with us and this encouraged us. There was a future, provided we could build a good, strong company.”
Seats will be sold on a no-frills basis, online through ajet.com. It will be a ticketless system, which makes travel easier and cheaper for the customer.
“The start-up cost is relatively low,” Field said. “A big overhaul has taken place and we have kept costs as low as possible. We want to learn to walk before we can run and want a year of consolidation. Our aim is to get ajet up and running and profitable in the first 12 months and will then look to start expanding when the leased plane comes back, which will give us a 50 per cent capacity increase.”
Ajet currently have two Boeing 737-800s and will take delivery of a third in May, at which point one of the existing two will be leased out for one year to a UK carrier.
The airline is to start operating on March 25. Field said the company is confident that it will receive an air operator’s certificate and operating license and will demonstrate that it is a competent operator.
He added that the Helios investigation outcome shouldn’t be pre-judged.
“All carriers worldwide will learn from this. Helios wasn’t the first company to have an accident and won’t be the last.”
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Rebranding Saga Continues ...
Not sure if we can look forward to daily reports on the Helios rebranding saga, but it will be quite interesting to follow. Here is today's article on the Cyprus Mail Internet edition:
Government says no green light for new airline
By John Leonidou
COMMUNICATIONS Minister Haris Thrasou yesterday denied claims that Helios Airways would soon be operating under the name of ajet.
Libra Holdings Group (LHG) which is one of the biggest UK-based tour operators and which owns Helios, had announced on March 13 that it was ready to create a new charter airline, which will use the aircraft and resources of Helios.
Last August, an Helios Airways flight bound for Athens crashed into mountainside just north of the Greek capital killing all 121 passengers and crew members on board.
Still reeling after tragic crash, Helios has been unable to fully recover and has caused multi-million in losses to LHG, which is listed on the Cyprus Stock Exchange.
Libra chief executive Andreas Drakos had previously told the Cyprus Mail that ajet would be mainly carrying out charter flights, unlike Helios, which also operated scheduled flights.
Thrasou yesterday described the announcement of Libra as “somewhat vague” adding that an operator’s licence had yet to be given to ajet.
“For any airline company to operate it is imperative that they have a certified operator’s licence, something which ajet has yet to obtain. Therefore there announcement is somewhat vague. They say that they are in the final stages of collecting the necessary licenses and that the whole procedure is set to finish very soon. They have said that until that time they will operate on temporary licences – but what temporary licences and how have A-Jet deduced that they are allowed to operate on temporary licences?
Speaking about media reports that an airplane would arrive on the island on Sunday under the livery of aet, Thrasou said that every airline is allowed to change the livery on its aircrafts if they want to.
“However, they cannot change their name to ajet”, said the Minister “and that is because Helios had sent a request to the Civil Aviation in January 2006 requesting that their fleet and company change to the name ajet but it was declined.
“Some time later, a new company arrived on the scene requesting the issue of an operator’s licence and operator’s certificate. That procedure began but there are still some loose legal terms that have to be looked into before anything can be issued. In fact we have requested the help of the Attorney-General to aid us on a few of the matters.”
He added that the whole matter is still in the shadow of the tragedy of Helios flight ZU 522 and that it wasn’t possible to simply write off a company that is currently being investigated because of air crash.
The Director of the Civil Aviation Department Leonidas Leonidou supported Thrasou’s comments, adding that a plane under the name ajet had requested to take off from Cyprus recently but was refused permission from the Civil Aviation.
“They are allowed to plan flights but it was one thing to plan flights and another thing to actually execute flights. In this case, the plane did not have the necessary credentials and was not allowed to leave.”
Meanwhile, in a press conference yesterday, DISY deputy Giorgos Georgiou said that Helios was attempting to weave itself out of the investigation by converting their company to A-Jet. He added that the government was also taking unprecedented measures to make sure that nothing was being done to stop Helios from being written off.
Giorgiou also noted that the government’s “guilty silence” was a clear indication that the requests for ajet, which would be operating with the Helios fleet, would be approved in the near future.
The Managing Director of the new airline, Bryan Field told the Cyprus Mail on Wednesday that its new charter airline was not Helios in disguise but “a completely different business model.”
He added that Helios Airways would remain a subsidiary of LHG but without any operations while awaiting the results of the Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) probe into last August’s air crash.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Government says no green light for new airline
By John Leonidou
COMMUNICATIONS Minister Haris Thrasou yesterday denied claims that Helios Airways would soon be operating under the name of ajet.
Libra Holdings Group (LHG) which is one of the biggest UK-based tour operators and which owns Helios, had announced on March 13 that it was ready to create a new charter airline, which will use the aircraft and resources of Helios.
Last August, an Helios Airways flight bound for Athens crashed into mountainside just north of the Greek capital killing all 121 passengers and crew members on board.
Still reeling after tragic crash, Helios has been unable to fully recover and has caused multi-million in losses to LHG, which is listed on the Cyprus Stock Exchange.
Libra chief executive Andreas Drakos had previously told the Cyprus Mail that ajet would be mainly carrying out charter flights, unlike Helios, which also operated scheduled flights.
Thrasou yesterday described the announcement of Libra as “somewhat vague” adding that an operator’s licence had yet to be given to ajet.
“For any airline company to operate it is imperative that they have a certified operator’s licence, something which ajet has yet to obtain. Therefore there announcement is somewhat vague. They say that they are in the final stages of collecting the necessary licenses and that the whole procedure is set to finish very soon. They have said that until that time they will operate on temporary licences – but what temporary licences and how have A-Jet deduced that they are allowed to operate on temporary licences?
Speaking about media reports that an airplane would arrive on the island on Sunday under the livery of aet, Thrasou said that every airline is allowed to change the livery on its aircrafts if they want to.
“However, they cannot change their name to ajet”, said the Minister “and that is because Helios had sent a request to the Civil Aviation in January 2006 requesting that their fleet and company change to the name ajet but it was declined.
“Some time later, a new company arrived on the scene requesting the issue of an operator’s licence and operator’s certificate. That procedure began but there are still some loose legal terms that have to be looked into before anything can be issued. In fact we have requested the help of the Attorney-General to aid us on a few of the matters.”
He added that the whole matter is still in the shadow of the tragedy of Helios flight ZU 522 and that it wasn’t possible to simply write off a company that is currently being investigated because of air crash.
The Director of the Civil Aviation Department Leonidas Leonidou supported Thrasou’s comments, adding that a plane under the name ajet had requested to take off from Cyprus recently but was refused permission from the Civil Aviation.
“They are allowed to plan flights but it was one thing to plan flights and another thing to actually execute flights. In this case, the plane did not have the necessary credentials and was not allowed to leave.”
Meanwhile, in a press conference yesterday, DISY deputy Giorgos Georgiou said that Helios was attempting to weave itself out of the investigation by converting their company to A-Jet. He added that the government was also taking unprecedented measures to make sure that nothing was being done to stop Helios from being written off.
Giorgiou also noted that the government’s “guilty silence” was a clear indication that the requests for ajet, which would be operating with the Helios fleet, would be approved in the near future.
The Managing Director of the new airline, Bryan Field told the Cyprus Mail on Wednesday that its new charter airline was not Helios in disguise but “a completely different business model.”
He added that Helios Airways would remain a subsidiary of LHG but without any operations while awaiting the results of the Air Accident Investigation and Aviation Safety Board (AAIASB) probe into last August’s air crash.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2005
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: tinos greece
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truth or Fiction?
Here's a second article today from the Cyprus Mail.
US denies Helios report
THE US Embassy in Cyprus has categorically denied recent media reports in Greece that the U.S. Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) has issued a secret report that partially blames the Cypriot Civil Aviation Department for last August’s Helios air crash.
An announcement issued last night said, “This is false. There is no US-government report on the Helios crash. The government of Greece has final responsibility for investigating the crash and publishing the accident assessment.”
According to Greek daily To Vima, the FAA report was said to have been particularly damning of both Cypriot Civil Aviation authorities and Helios Airways whilst it also pointed to the airline’s “problematic maintenance team”.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Communications also issued an announcement yesterday denying that they handed information on the Helios crash to any US governing bodies.
US denies Helios report
THE US Embassy in Cyprus has categorically denied recent media reports in Greece that the U.S. Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) has issued a secret report that partially blames the Cypriot Civil Aviation Department for last August’s Helios air crash.
An announcement issued last night said, “This is false. There is no US-government report on the Helios crash. The government of Greece has final responsibility for investigating the crash and publishing the accident assessment.”
According to Greek daily To Vima, the FAA report was said to have been particularly damning of both Cypriot Civil Aviation authorities and Helios Airways whilst it also pointed to the airline’s “problematic maintenance team”.
Meanwhile, the Ministry of Communications also issued an announcement yesterday denying that they handed information on the Helios crash to any US governing bodies.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The attempt by Helios to rebrand at such a sensitive time is surprising and miscalculated.Assuming no major surprises in the final report,the crash aircraft was by all accounts fully serviceable.In the immediate aftermath,there was a lot of media frenzy about shoddy maintenance and disgruntled and cold passengers.I think this has been proven a red herring.The crew seemingly crashed a perfectly serviceable aircraft.By all accounts,the engineer left the pressurization mode switch in MAN because the checklist instructed him to do so.He can NOT be held accountable.The investigation has uncovered sporadic and unsatisfactory vigilance of airline operations by the Cypriot CAA but can this failing be directly connected to the probable cause?Its a major failing for sure,but unrelated to probable cause.
A lawsuit has been filed against Boeing and it will be interesting to see if they can make it stick.I have serious doubts.Boeing's reminder to pilots that an intermittent horn whilst airborne can only mean excessive cabin altitude is not an admission of design ambiguity,but rather a reminder of the obvious.The checklist design issue is not quite so transparent;omission of specific challenge and response items relating to the configuration of the pressurization panel is problematic,but must be balanced by the fact that there was one checklist item that encompassed the configuration of the airconditioning and pressurization panel as a whole.Boeing's decision to now include the setting of the pressurization mode selection as a specific and separate checklist item might possibly be construed/mis-construed as proof of a voltaface.And the same might be said of the changes made to the AFTER TAKEOFF checklist.However,a manufacturer must be able to refine and finetune system and checklist design without having that revision used against them in a court of law.
The 737 was designed and certified in the 1960's;Boeing's later models are EICAS-equipped and warn the pilot of cabin altitude in excess of 10000 feet by displaying an EICAS message "CABIN ALTITUDE" accompanied by a intermittent siren.Cancelling the master warning/caution cancels the siren.Additionally,at 11000 feet,the cabin altitude controllers are bypassed and the outflow valve is closed automatically.It is a superior and safer design but does this make the 737 design unsafe?
A lawsuit has been filed against Boeing and it will be interesting to see if they can make it stick.I have serious doubts.Boeing's reminder to pilots that an intermittent horn whilst airborne can only mean excessive cabin altitude is not an admission of design ambiguity,but rather a reminder of the obvious.The checklist design issue is not quite so transparent;omission of specific challenge and response items relating to the configuration of the pressurization panel is problematic,but must be balanced by the fact that there was one checklist item that encompassed the configuration of the airconditioning and pressurization panel as a whole.Boeing's decision to now include the setting of the pressurization mode selection as a specific and separate checklist item might possibly be construed/mis-construed as proof of a voltaface.And the same might be said of the changes made to the AFTER TAKEOFF checklist.However,a manufacturer must be able to refine and finetune system and checklist design without having that revision used against them in a court of law.
The 737 was designed and certified in the 1960's;Boeing's later models are EICAS-equipped and warn the pilot of cabin altitude in excess of 10000 feet by displaying an EICAS message "CABIN ALTITUDE" accompanied by a intermittent siren.Cancelling the master warning/caution cancels the siren.Additionally,at 11000 feet,the cabin altitude controllers are bypassed and the outflow valve is closed automatically.It is a superior and safer design but does this make the 737 design unsafe?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have a perfectly servicable aircraft airborne with the outflow valve open. Happens all the time. Warning horn sounds to alert the crew. Two options for this horn, 1 take off config, well they were airborne, 2 pressurisation! You might think that this would be worth checking, but no 'they were confused'! Sounds like total incompetence to me. Of course Boeing and the airline will have to face months of litigation. Another crew c..k up.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
d246
You are quite correct, dead right.
The unthinkable has happened.
If, by design, 'just in case' this scenario were to happen, an automatic drop down O2 mask were to appear in front of a pilot and he then reasoned that he had better put it on, just in case, then the pilot would suddenly not only have saved his own life, but the aeroplane and all of the passengers.
Would not this 'yet to to be tried' new system of auto drop down O2 for pilots too be worth considering or do we need yet more proof that pilots are quite capable of making extremely basic mistakes in a well known 'gotchya' enviornment of lack of O2?
Has drop down O2 for pliots ever been considered or maybe it is used on some aeroplanes?
And if not? Why not?
Sorry to keep banging on about it, but......
You are quite correct, dead right.
The unthinkable has happened.
If, by design, 'just in case' this scenario were to happen, an automatic drop down O2 mask were to appear in front of a pilot and he then reasoned that he had better put it on, just in case, then the pilot would suddenly not only have saved his own life, but the aeroplane and all of the passengers.
Would not this 'yet to to be tried' new system of auto drop down O2 for pilots too be worth considering or do we need yet more proof that pilots are quite capable of making extremely basic mistakes in a well known 'gotchya' enviornment of lack of O2?
Has drop down O2 for pliots ever been considered or maybe it is used on some aeroplanes?
And if not? Why not?
Sorry to keep banging on about it, but......
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drop down oxygen masks for pilots.....?
How about an active warning you can't ignore...
But seriously, I have made exactly that same mistake on a 737.... Got airborne from a Scandinavian station after a nightstop where the 3rd party engineers had closed the outflow valve in manual to keep the weather out. As I was NHP setting up the flight deck from the LHS I missed the green [MANUAL] light on the pressurisation panel as it is not at all conspicuous and even less so when viewed at an acute angle. The FO also missed it when he came in from the cold. Only a pressurisation [AUTO-FAIL] triggers anything on recall, merely being selected to [MANUAL] triggers nothing.
We got airborne and thankfully noticed due to sensitive ears. Company SOP's would have also called for a check at 10,000'.
The 737 Master Caution system is truly appalling. There are warning lights & captions scattered all over the flight deck instead of being gathered in one place and the Master Warning only illuminates to inform the subject area of the warning. From there you have to go-find what triggered it. Some warnings that lie (allegedly) within the pilot's primary visual field have no attention getter at all - Fire Detector [FAULT] light for instance.
In the sad case of Helios with a preoccupation in dealing with an Equipment-Cooling issue, an [OVERHEAD] warning caused by a the critical [PASS OXY-ON] is in precisely the same zone as the warning of [EQUIP-COOLING OFF] and so can be overlooked with relative ease.
And as for the bloody horn! Most often heard in descent as the throttles close with the gear up, one's first reaction is to cancel it. Shame that one audio warning is designed to convey three different messages.
There is so much we have learnt and now understand about human cognitive processes and abilities. It is appalling that the 737-3/4/5 have not been subject to the simple modifications that would help out a pair of below-average pilots who might be having a bad day.
Good luck to the families going after Boeing.
How about an active warning you can't ignore...
But seriously, I have made exactly that same mistake on a 737.... Got airborne from a Scandinavian station after a nightstop where the 3rd party engineers had closed the outflow valve in manual to keep the weather out. As I was NHP setting up the flight deck from the LHS I missed the green [MANUAL] light on the pressurisation panel as it is not at all conspicuous and even less so when viewed at an acute angle. The FO also missed it when he came in from the cold. Only a pressurisation [AUTO-FAIL] triggers anything on recall, merely being selected to [MANUAL] triggers nothing.
We got airborne and thankfully noticed due to sensitive ears. Company SOP's would have also called for a check at 10,000'.
The 737 Master Caution system is truly appalling. There are warning lights & captions scattered all over the flight deck instead of being gathered in one place and the Master Warning only illuminates to inform the subject area of the warning. From there you have to go-find what triggered it. Some warnings that lie (allegedly) within the pilot's primary visual field have no attention getter at all - Fire Detector [FAULT] light for instance.
In the sad case of Helios with a preoccupation in dealing with an Equipment-Cooling issue, an [OVERHEAD] warning caused by a the critical [PASS OXY-ON] is in precisely the same zone as the warning of [EQUIP-COOLING OFF] and so can be overlooked with relative ease.
And as for the bloody horn! Most often heard in descent as the throttles close with the gear up, one's first reaction is to cancel it. Shame that one audio warning is designed to convey three different messages.
There is so much we have learnt and now understand about human cognitive processes and abilities. It is appalling that the 737-3/4/5 have not been subject to the simple modifications that would help out a pair of below-average pilots who might be having a bad day.
Good luck to the families going after Boeing.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 68
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC - I've just scanned through the present thread and I also followed the other 51 pages at the time of the accident and I can't see anything which relates to a possible new way of dealing with hypoxia.
Would not a drop down O2 system be of use to the pilots as well as the passengers? Some time in the future.............
Nice simple question, what do you think?
Many is the time I've been flying and had to force myself to understand what the pressurisation presentation is showing me; especially when it's abnormal and one is climbing at 1500' a minute and really haven't got too long to work it out before one's brain fades away...............
Whereas an O2 mask dangling in front of me might be a good clue to do something about it.
Only trying to help and think out of the box.
Would not a drop down O2 system be of use to the pilots as well as the passengers? Some time in the future.............
Nice simple question, what do you think?
Many is the time I've been flying and had to force myself to understand what the pressurisation presentation is showing me; especially when it's abnormal and one is climbing at 1500' a minute and really haven't got too long to work it out before one's brain fades away...............
Whereas an O2 mask dangling in front of me might be a good clue to do something about it.
Only trying to help and think out of the box.