FlyGlobeSpan fined over ANO breach
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Central London
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyGlobeSpan fined over ANO breach
From the BBC website
BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Airline fined over faulty plane
Airline fined over faulty plane
Budget airline FlyGlobeSpan, which flew a faulty jet 3,000 miles from Liverpool to New York after it had been struck by lightning, has been fined £5,000.
Despite knowing two engine pressure radio indicators (EPRs) were out of action, Globespan Airways Ltd allowed the Boeing 757 to take off last June.
The crew found the failure on an earlier flight, but the plane was cleared to fly later the same day.
The company admitted two summonses under the Air Navigation Order 2005.
It admitted flying the plane without a valid certificate of air worthiness or a valid operator's certificate and was fined at London's Southwark Crown Court.
The Edinburgh-based airline Globespan Airways Ltd, which trades as FlyGlobeSpan, had breached Civil Aviation regulations by declaring the aircraft "serviceable" to fly later that day on a flight returning to the United States via Knock in Ireland.
The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Passing sentence, Recorder James Curtis QC said the EPRs allowed a pilot to monitor the thrust of each engine.
Although not "core" instrumentation - such data could be gleaned by using another type of gauge - it nevertheless provided an "extra layer of information" for the pilot.
He said: "I am told and I am satisfied that the failure of the EPRs on this flight did not render the aircraft unsafe and did not in any way endanger the public who were flying on that aircraft.
"In the event... that flight continued for some hours perfectly safely from JFK to Liverpool without any incident or difficulty.
"It rather placed extra burdens and pressures on the pilot and co-pilot to calculate manually the performance of the engines."
That meant "they were stretched more than ideally than they could have been in flying the plane safely, and fly safely they did".
Liverpool Airport
The plane took off from Liverpool Airport
The recorder said, on landing, a "proper and in-depth" investigation was carried out by the airline's contract engineers, Storm Aviation.
They could neither identify the cause of the failure nor correct it.
He said the responsible officer inspected the plane but "optimistically interpreted" the requirements needed to allow the plane to fly.
The recorder continued: "That was clearly a wrong decision."
The engineer, who in this case was the flight operations director, "reported to the new pilot, who was taking the plane over, that the aircraft complied with the air worthiness certificate and could be accepted for the flight."
The pilot also decided the plane could be flown safely, and the flight took off, breaking the law.
Mistake 'accepted'
Once in New York, the aircraft was again examined and, this time, the problem was rectified.
The recorder said that, since then, the plane had flown thousands of hours and millions of kilometres "perfectly safely and perfectly soundly".
He said he was satisfied that the airline had "shown every sign of unreserved acceptance of its mistake through its employees and to keep its operations beyond reproach."
In addition to a £2,500 fine on each breach, the company was ordered to pay £4,280 prosecution costs.
Speaking outside court, Rick Green, chief executive officer of the airline's parent company, Globespan Group, said: "Clearly, we are pleased with the outcome and empathetic that the judge saw it in the manner that we always believed it to be."
BBC NEWS | England | Merseyside | Airline fined over faulty plane
Airline fined over faulty plane
Budget airline FlyGlobeSpan, which flew a faulty jet 3,000 miles from Liverpool to New York after it had been struck by lightning, has been fined £5,000.
Despite knowing two engine pressure radio indicators (EPRs) were out of action, Globespan Airways Ltd allowed the Boeing 757 to take off last June.
The crew found the failure on an earlier flight, but the plane was cleared to fly later the same day.
The company admitted two summonses under the Air Navigation Order 2005.
It admitted flying the plane without a valid certificate of air worthiness or a valid operator's certificate and was fined at London's Southwark Crown Court.
The Edinburgh-based airline Globespan Airways Ltd, which trades as FlyGlobeSpan, had breached Civil Aviation regulations by declaring the aircraft "serviceable" to fly later that day on a flight returning to the United States via Knock in Ireland.
The prosecution was brought by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Passing sentence, Recorder James Curtis QC said the EPRs allowed a pilot to monitor the thrust of each engine.
Although not "core" instrumentation - such data could be gleaned by using another type of gauge - it nevertheless provided an "extra layer of information" for the pilot.
He said: "I am told and I am satisfied that the failure of the EPRs on this flight did not render the aircraft unsafe and did not in any way endanger the public who were flying on that aircraft.
"In the event... that flight continued for some hours perfectly safely from JFK to Liverpool without any incident or difficulty.
"It rather placed extra burdens and pressures on the pilot and co-pilot to calculate manually the performance of the engines."
That meant "they were stretched more than ideally than they could have been in flying the plane safely, and fly safely they did".
Liverpool Airport
The plane took off from Liverpool Airport
The recorder said, on landing, a "proper and in-depth" investigation was carried out by the airline's contract engineers, Storm Aviation.
They could neither identify the cause of the failure nor correct it.
He said the responsible officer inspected the plane but "optimistically interpreted" the requirements needed to allow the plane to fly.
The recorder continued: "That was clearly a wrong decision."
The engineer, who in this case was the flight operations director, "reported to the new pilot, who was taking the plane over, that the aircraft complied with the air worthiness certificate and could be accepted for the flight."
The pilot also decided the plane could be flown safely, and the flight took off, breaking the law.
Mistake 'accepted'
Once in New York, the aircraft was again examined and, this time, the problem was rectified.
The recorder said that, since then, the plane had flown thousands of hours and millions of kilometres "perfectly safely and perfectly soundly".
He said he was satisfied that the airline had "shown every sign of unreserved acceptance of its mistake through its employees and to keep its operations beyond reproach."
In addition to a £2,500 fine on each breach, the company was ordered to pay £4,280 prosecution costs.
Speaking outside court, Rick Green, chief executive officer of the airline's parent company, Globespan Group, said: "Clearly, we are pleased with the outcome and empathetic that the judge saw it in the manner that we always believed it to be."
Speaking outside court, Rick Green, chief executive officer of the airline's parent company, Globespan Group, said: "Clearly, we are pleased with the outcome and empathetic that the judge saw it in the manner that we always believed it to be."
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engineer, who in this case was the flight operations director, "reported to the new pilot, who was taking the plane over, that the aircraft complied with the air worthiness certificate and could be accepted for the flight."
How can this guy pass himself off as an engineer.
How can this guy pass himself off as an engineer.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: oop north
Age: 54
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can he pass himself of as a engineer itwilldoatrip? he was employed by storm aviation so anythings possible, i believe Monarch now have the contract to maintain the globespan 757/767,s which should be a relief for all concerned.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheesh- only £5K? I wonder how much they saved in Hotels for delayed passengers at either end/ crew disruption/ Airport fees etc?
Looks like a very commercially expedient decision to ignore the MEL and ANO...
do you think I would get away with it?
Looks like a very commercially expedient decision to ignore the MEL and ANO...
do you think I would get away with it?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainbow;
There is a differance between a one off dispensation for a maintenance flight and a commercial revenue earning flight.
What is the point of a MEL if you don't follow it ?
There is a differance between a one off dispensation for a maintenance flight and a commercial revenue earning flight.
What is the point of a MEL if you don't follow it ?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: oop north
Age: 54
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem was as i understand it no one gave anyone any dispensation to fly outside the scope of the MEL, nor was the aircraft returning to a main base, therefore the a/c was operating illegally, the MEL is there for very sound reasons
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today 17:09boaclhryulQuote:
I wonder what pressure the flight crew were under to accept the fault?
Couldn't tell, due to faulty pressure gauges...
I wonder what pressure the flight crew were under to accept the fault?
Couldn't tell, due to faulty pressure gauges...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South East
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rainboe,
I'm amazed at your attitude. The MEL is there not just to help aircraft to continue service without disrupting schedules but also to ensure safe and legal operation of the aircraft.
From memory one of the provisors for inop EPR ind on one engine is that the EPR / N1 is compared with the other operable engine aswell as having to trawl through performance charts for power/N1/altitude figures. The fact that the aircraft had no EPR and was ETOPs also add's to how bad the scenario was.
If Boeing, the FAA and the CAA thought flying with no EPR was acceptible on a twin EPR controlled aircraft/engine then they would have agreed to have this is the MEL. Other aircraft/engine combinations do use only N1 (in fact i believe the original DC10's were EPR controlled then this was removed with several mods) but they are designed to control to N1 settings aka A320/CFM and A320/V2500 (which has EPR but can revert to N1 control which the FADEC software looks after.
And what's this about the flight ops director also being the departing engineer... i would call that a clash of responsibilities... probably find he was the magistrate too. Most strange.
I'm amazed at your attitude. The MEL is there not just to help aircraft to continue service without disrupting schedules but also to ensure safe and legal operation of the aircraft.
From memory one of the provisors for inop EPR ind on one engine is that the EPR / N1 is compared with the other operable engine aswell as having to trawl through performance charts for power/N1/altitude figures. The fact that the aircraft had no EPR and was ETOPs also add's to how bad the scenario was.
If Boeing, the FAA and the CAA thought flying with no EPR was acceptible on a twin EPR controlled aircraft/engine then they would have agreed to have this is the MEL. Other aircraft/engine combinations do use only N1 (in fact i believe the original DC10's were EPR controlled then this was removed with several mods) but they are designed to control to N1 settings aka A320/CFM and A320/V2500 (which has EPR but can revert to N1 control which the FADEC software looks after.
And what's this about the flight ops director also being the departing engineer... i would call that a clash of responsibilities... probably find he was the magistrate too. Most strange.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the Hangar & on the Line
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality is there are numerous and hidden non-compliances
in daily aircraft maintenance & operations. Audits and reports
only catch the tip of these non-compliances.
The acceptance of all aircraft following maintenance has to be
from the aircraft commander in consultation with the AFM's
limitations, base or downroute.
Additionally, is the Flight Operations Director a B757/RB211
type rated EASA Part 66 B1.1 Engineer. Can anyone confirm?
in daily aircraft maintenance & operations. Audits and reports
only catch the tip of these non-compliances.
The acceptance of all aircraft following maintenance has to be
from the aircraft commander in consultation with the AFM's
limitations, base or downroute.
Additionally, is the Flight Operations Director a B757/RB211
type rated EASA Part 66 B1.1 Engineer. Can anyone confirm?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEL vs MMEL
They may have operated outside of the provisions of the MEL, but, the MEL is a company document approved by the Authority.
The MMEL may allow operation without EPR indications if N1 indications etc are available to the flightcrew.
In that case all they had to do was request approval to operate to the MMEL limitations and not the MEL to recover the aircraft to base, or, submit an amendment for approval by the Authority.
The MMEL may allow operation without EPR indications if N1 indications etc are available to the flightcrew.
In that case all they had to do was request approval to operate to the MMEL limitations and not the MEL to recover the aircraft to base, or, submit an amendment for approval by the Authority.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somerset
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am assuming, Rainboe, that you worked for BA. I worked for a UK Charter airline for 27 years and never once either felt the need, nor was put under any pressure to operate outside the terms of the MEL.
The MEL is provided by the manufacturer for soundly considered reasons. To consider yourself technically clever enough to ignore it seems somewhat foolhardy - perhaps even downright stupid!
The MEL is provided by the manufacturer for soundly considered reasons. To consider yourself technically clever enough to ignore it seems somewhat foolhardy - perhaps even downright stupid!