Crash-Cork Airport
Moonwalker at post 175 raises perhaps the most interesting question I have seen so far on here.
What time did they commence their duty, and how was their work pattern in the hours and days leading up to yesterday morning?
You seem to imply you know the answer Moonwalker?
What time did they commence their duty, and how was their work pattern in the hours and days leading up to yesterday morning?
You seem to imply you know the answer Moonwalker?
rabcnesbitt
I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners. The contract is always between the passenger and the airline under whose code the ticket is issued, full stop. Ticket agents are just that - they issue tickets on behalf other airlines, without any legal responsibility, but this does not appear to be the case here.
Re quote, you need to put the tag "quote" in square brackets ("[" and "]"), and finish with "/quote" in square brackets. To add the name, type after quote "=" followed by the name between quote marks: quote="name"
I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners. The contract is always between the passenger and the airline under whose code the ticket is issued, full stop. Ticket agents are just that - they issue tickets on behalf other airlines, without any legal responsibility, but this does not appear to be the case here.
Re quote, you need to put the tag "quote" in square brackets ("[" and "]"), and finish with "/quote" in square brackets. To add the name, type after quote "=" followed by the name between quote marks: quote="name"
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Laos,Kenya,Czech republic,IOM , Eire , France,CAR,Libya...etc..
Age: 50
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things taken out of context here : RE the BHD incident .
When you say the pilot was asked to go have a look and see if he could get into BHD , it was not a request to bust minima but to depart and see if the weather would improve by the time they get there ...there's a difference !
The Van Air SOP's are following every aspect of EU-OPS and the pilots are NOT encouraged to disregard the regulations and Ops manual , on the contrary ... hence the consequences to individuals who did . That's all I have to say besides asking everyone to refrain from making incendiary statements without knowing what they are talking about .
When you say the pilot was asked to go have a look and see if he could get into BHD , it was not a request to bust minima but to depart and see if the weather would improve by the time they get there ...there's a difference !
The Van Air SOP's are following every aspect of EU-OPS and the pilots are NOT encouraged to disregard the regulations and Ops manual , on the contrary ... hence the consequences to individuals who did . That's all I have to say besides asking everyone to refrain from making incendiary statements without knowing what they are talking about .
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners. The contract is always between the passenger and the airline under whose code the ticket is issued, full stop. Ticket agents are just that - they issue tickets on behalf other airlines, without any legal responsibility, but this does not appear to be the case here.
You can call David Kendrick at the CAA in London and he will tell you.
Wake up and smell the coffee I'm going to open this can of worms and its going to stink big time. I told all the authorities months/years ago that they were an accident looking for a place to happen.
They even got MORs for trying to land at RAF Warton thinking it was Blackpool (3 go-arounds I was told). You have to be blind not to know when you are not at Blackpool - no miniture Eiffel Tower at the end of the runway.
As I said Manx2 can't be done on this but I'm sure they are now busy making sure the books look perfect.
The truth will out!!!!
Here is a tit-bit
thanks for your reply!
Well, I can´t say anything against manx2.com, as they treated me fair all the time...
and I don´t have any information about any unlawfull or questionable operation.
Except...
on my last flight to Belfast they asked me to "look and see" whether an approach would be posible, or not...
It ended up with me shooting the approach without proper WX-information, but with sufficient actual visibility.
As a result of it, I was fired by VanAir!
As far as I see the case, my co-pilot blackmailed me in the company!!
The company was looking for a reason to fire me...
that´s what another co-pilot told me later!
The getthereitis is endemic.
BTW thanks for the posting lesson.
Also before anyone says anything CAA authorised Post Holder (retired)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: just over there
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the circle to land theory is a bit foolish since you need 1500m visibility to perform that and they were in low vis conditions. They were on the CATII ILS from what I heard the IAA guy say but he mentioned that they didn't contact the runway but rather crashed abeam the runway...so must have been off centre line...pilot error or faulty instrumentation...sad really...
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oslo
Age: 59
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The picture posted by The Blimp: is that a feathered propeller (left side)? The right engine misses all the propeller blades, and if you look right above it, that grey streak, isn't that the left, feathered propeller?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The minimum DH for Cat I is 200' and for Cat II is 100. But that's not what I was saying. If you check publications such as the UK AIP it clearly states that the minimum permissible cloudbase for commencing the approach is 0' and that it's the RVR which triggers the approach ban (usually 550m for Cat I and off the top of my head, 300m for Cat II. I find that an awful lot of inexperienced pilots fresh out of their CPL/IR believe that the cloudbase is the limiting factor on an approach ban, when in fact it is not.
As I say, a very common misconception.
Originally Posted by rabcnesbitt
Now Manx2 do not have an AOC the NM number they use has IATA questioning its system. Manx2 are not an airline, do not have nor ever did have and AOC. Since when did a travel agent get involved with the AAIB?
Last time I checked, EU-OPS minimum requirements for a commercial air operator license are the full-time employment of three suitably qualified post holders, one each for flight ops, maintenance & safety & security, plus a proof of adequate funding.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Somewhere in the Irish Sea
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of sections from Manx2's website - Terms & Conditions - that may help clarify the legal status:
"Definitions
As you read these Terms and Conditions, please note that:
"We", "our", "ourselves" and "us” means VanAir Europe AS (see also definition of "Carrier") or FLM Aviation.; and
"Carrier" Van Air Europe, FLM Aviation, or Flightline BCN (see also definition of "we, "our", "ourselves" and "us");
The following conditions apply to all carriage of passengers by our operators:
(a) We shall be liable to you in the event of an accident resulting in your death or other bodily injury whilst on board an aircraft operated by us or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."
Therefore liability rests with the operator not Manx2, hence their tag as a virtual airline.
"Definitions
As you read these Terms and Conditions, please note that:
"We", "our", "ourselves" and "us” means VanAir Europe AS (see also definition of "Carrier") or FLM Aviation.; and
"Carrier" Van Air Europe, FLM Aviation, or Flightline BCN (see also definition of "we, "our", "ourselves" and "us");
The following conditions apply to all carriage of passengers by our operators:
(a) We shall be liable to you in the event of an accident resulting in your death or other bodily injury whilst on board an aircraft operated by us or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."
Therefore liability rests with the operator not Manx2, hence their tag as a virtual airline.
Last edited by Manxman11; 11th Feb 2011 at 08:20. Reason: Spelling
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm... To obtain a IATA/ICAO designator, you must have a CAA issued commercial air operator license, which is verified before the designator is awarded. If somehow this is not the case here, I envision a pretty big can of thin wriggly things with the lid slowly rising...
Last time I checked, EU-OPS minimum requirements for a commercial air operator license are the full-time employment of three suitably qualified responsible managers, one each for flight ops, maintenance & safety & security, plus a proof of adequate funding.
Last time I checked, EU-OPS minimum requirements for a commercial air operator license are the full-time employment of three suitably qualified responsible managers, one each for flight ops, maintenance & safety & security, plus a proof of adequate funding.
BTW when a company boss comes to you as a pilot and asks if you can have a look and see it is a euphemism for bust minimums we need this flight to get in. Personally I would have told him to go play with himself but that's me, my pax and crews always walked away from their flights. Keep bending the rules and eventually you get caught out. Is it worth lives?
Again everything is going to the investigators, the local CAAs and the press. These people need not have died.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a note to say I knew the FO on this plane, trained with him at Cabair and regardless of what happened, he was a lovely bloke and a good pilot. He had his career ahead of him and he will be missed. A sad day for all involved.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hang on, let me check the FMS...
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we lay the 'no more than 2 approaches' rule to rest please.
There is NO CAA/JAR OPS/EU OPS regulation regarding this, period.
There is also no danger in shooting 3, 4, even 10 approaches to minimums, as long as you adhere to the published approach, you will have all the required and safe terrain clearance you need.
Yes, it some airlines (like mine), it is company SOP that we only carry out two, unless there is an improvement in the wx, then we can carry out a third. But it’s also SOP in my company to have my uniform jacket buttoned up, SOP's are not always safety orientated.
The no more than two approaches rule in my company is there for passenger comfort.
There is NO CAA/JAR OPS/EU OPS regulation regarding this, period.
There is also no danger in shooting 3, 4, even 10 approaches to minimums, as long as you adhere to the published approach, you will have all the required and safe terrain clearance you need.
Yes, it some airlines (like mine), it is company SOP that we only carry out two, unless there is an improvement in the wx, then we can carry out a third. But it’s also SOP in my company to have my uniform jacket buttoned up, SOP's are not always safety orientated.
The no more than two approaches rule in my company is there for passenger comfort.
Originally Posted by Manxman11
Couple of sections from Manx2's website - Terms & Conditions - that may help clarify the legal status...
From the emerging picture it seems whatever the actual cause will turn out to be, the wider implications will hopefully be far reaching.
Getting back to the event, regardless of the above I'm still not convinced that the accident was simply the result of low visibility/bust minimums. That usually results in lots of broken twigs and branches marking out the silhouette of level wings, or if they are luckier deep furroughs in a field, marked with bits and pieces of the shorn off landing gear. An airplane will only become inverted (unintentionally) after a loss of one wing or torque imbalance. Cartwheeling after a wingtip strike will result in severe damage to both nose and tailplane, not evident on the wreckege.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some "previous" worth T.I.C
I recall in some detail two previous Metro accidents that I was and am involved with, both in bad weather, one involving Flightline.
The first was October 10, 2001, when Flightline lost an aircraft EC-GDV nr Valencia FIR . Probable cause of electrical failure due to electrical storm and loss of control. Ten died. There was insufficient insurance cover on the aircraft for the families.
The second, was May 7th, 2005, when Transair lost an aircraft VH-TFU in fog on approach to Lochhart River, in Northern Queensland. The ATSB report makes for very interesting reading. Litigation is ongoing in State Court in Chicago, Illionis, on behalf of the families on the basis that the GPWS failed to perform as designed (i.e. last line of defense against CFIT).
I can guarantee that the Irish AAIU will do a superlative job with this tragedy, I have been impressed by Leo Murray and his team and their work in recent years. If there are systemic safety deficiencies within manx2 and/or Flightline, then those will be identified and remedied.
From experience, I can also suggest that Flightline/AOC holder will be subject to close and detailed scrutiny by EU regulators in Brussels.
The first was October 10, 2001, when Flightline lost an aircraft EC-GDV nr Valencia FIR . Probable cause of electrical failure due to electrical storm and loss of control. Ten died. There was insufficient insurance cover on the aircraft for the families.
The second, was May 7th, 2005, when Transair lost an aircraft VH-TFU in fog on approach to Lochhart River, in Northern Queensland. The ATSB report makes for very interesting reading. Litigation is ongoing in State Court in Chicago, Illionis, on behalf of the families on the basis that the GPWS failed to perform as designed (i.e. last line of defense against CFIT).
I can guarantee that the Irish AAIU will do a superlative job with this tragedy, I have been impressed by Leo Murray and his team and their work in recent years. If there are systemic safety deficiencies within manx2 and/or Flightline, then those will be identified and remedied.
From experience, I can also suggest that Flightline/AOC holder will be subject to close and detailed scrutiny by EU regulators in Brussels.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moggiee,
Please accept my apologies, you are of course correct, the height limitations on the approaches are of course DH.
But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing. So, ATC tend to be inclined to interpret this minimum as a cloud base minimum, and will not expect you to commence an approach if such conditions prevail. They are not police however, and will not attempt to stop you making an approach. At the end of the day, it is the pilot's decision, ATC will assist with as much relevant/pertinent information as is required.
Likewise with RVR values, they are limiting factors in the decision as to whether or not to commence the approach. I should have been more specific about this in my original post. If the RVR is below the required minimum for the runway and the Category of approach, this will be passed to the pilot and an approach would not be expected, however it is the pilot's decision and he can still elect to fly the approach to DH if so desired. As I mentioned previously, I have seen this happen. Unlike the scenario in the paragraph above, however, an approach in these conditions would result in some paperwork.
This is at odds with UK Absolute Minima legislation and procedures. There is nothing to stop the pilot descending below 1000' if RVR values are below minima for the approach, but as mentioned previously, a measure of professional responsibility is expected.
Please accept my apologies, you are of course correct, the height limitations on the approaches are of course DH.
But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing. So, ATC tend to be inclined to interpret this minimum as a cloud base minimum, and will not expect you to commence an approach if such conditions prevail. They are not police however, and will not attempt to stop you making an approach. At the end of the day, it is the pilot's decision, ATC will assist with as much relevant/pertinent information as is required.
Likewise with RVR values, they are limiting factors in the decision as to whether or not to commence the approach. I should have been more specific about this in my original post. If the RVR is below the required minimum for the runway and the Category of approach, this will be passed to the pilot and an approach would not be expected, however it is the pilot's decision and he can still elect to fly the approach to DH if so desired. As I mentioned previously, I have seen this happen. Unlike the scenario in the paragraph above, however, an approach in these conditions would result in some paperwork.
This is at odds with UK Absolute Minima legislation and procedures. There is nothing to stop the pilot descending below 1000' if RVR values are below minima for the approach, but as mentioned previously, a measure of professional responsibility is expected.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing.
Also there is a difference between cloud base (the lowest cloud) and cloud ceiling.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners.
As for the T&C of MAnx2, I find them rather bizarre as the passenger as a partner to the contract apparently is in no position to ever find out who he has entered into a contract with. Because at no point he is told who will actually operate the flight although, according to the T&C, the operator is the partner to the contract. At least in my jurisdiction, this uncertainty would void the contract.