G-monx
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: near EGKK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a pilot or engineer I of course stand to be corrected.
But, I would think when your approaching a runway at the bottom of a 'kin big rock and you get a GPWS warning. I'd say that was working would'nt you?
But, I would think when your approaching a runway at the bottom of a 'kin big rock and you get a GPWS warning. I'd say that was working would'nt you?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Desk Driver, I am a pilot and an engineer..... and yes, you do stand to be corrected. 
Firstly, the GPWS does not know that if it is flying over steeply rising ground, when in the future that rising ground will cease. Thus it can be fooled and regularly is around certain areas approaching some airports. The mountains south of Dublin airport are a good example.
Also many aircraft including buses are fitted with Enhanced GPWS which also uses topographical data on disk to warn of terrain ahead. If as in the case of the new Athens airport the data was incorrect, then aircraft will again receive false warnings until the problem is corrected.
You can also receive false warnings from aircraft passing legally a thousand feet below in the hold or passing under the aircraft on an airway.
I would not want to comment about any particular instant such as GMONX into GIB (unlike The Sunday Times) until I knew all the facts. Because when you make an assumption .......... it ain't necessarily so !! (sounds like a good line for a song
)
Firstly, the GPWS does not know that if it is flying over steeply rising ground, when in the future that rising ground will cease. Thus it can be fooled and regularly is around certain areas approaching some airports. The mountains south of Dublin airport are a good example.
Also many aircraft including buses are fitted with Enhanced GPWS which also uses topographical data on disk to warn of terrain ahead. If as in the case of the new Athens airport the data was incorrect, then aircraft will again receive false warnings until the problem is corrected.
You can also receive false warnings from aircraft passing legally a thousand feet below in the hold or passing under the aircraft on an airway.
I would not want to comment about any particular instant such as GMONX into GIB (unlike The Sunday Times) until I knew all the facts. Because when you make an assumption .......... it ain't necessarily so !! (sounds like a good line for a song
)
I can see it now, All Engineering/Flight crew management bonus' will be based on the number of ASRs/MORs,etc filed.
THE LESS FILED THE HIGHER THE BONUS!!!
Stand by for a massive influx of CHIRP reports!
This is based on experience of an airline that dished out bonus' to it's CERTIFYING management for:-
1. The least number of Technical delays. Read; "just pen it off and get it away".
2. The number of deferred (MEL) defects cleared. Read; "just clear it and then we'll raise it again when it comes back".
It takes a strong character to buck the system!!
THE LESS FILED THE HIGHER THE BONUS!!!
Stand by for a massive influx of CHIRP reports!
This is based on experience of an airline that dished out bonus' to it's CERTIFYING management for:-
1. The least number of Technical delays. Read; "just pen it off and get it away".
2. The number of deferred (MEL) defects cleared. Read; "just clear it and then we'll raise it again when it comes back".
It takes a strong character to buck the system!!
It's a question of stats, really - in any population with a constant probability of some event (i.e. a technical failure report), you won't see all of them having 2.5 failures. One (in theory) will have none, most will have a few, one will be a total dog. (this is what stats folk call the Bell Curve, nowt to do with Bell helicopters) G-MONX is obviously the one at the ****ty end of the graph; either because of chance or because the Airbus lineworkers had a bad day. The former is much more likely! All praise to Monarch for being honest, after all a fault's only a problem if no-one fixes it. (but the spurious GPWS must have set the pax crazy...)
(edited to correct factual inaccuracy)
(edited to correct factual inaccuracy)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: near EGKK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hector_Pascal
Let me explain my orginal (somewhat tongue in cheek) post
The Times Jorno insinuated that it was not working because it gave a warning at 500 ft on approach to GIB. My point was if yo're aiming at the base of the rock of Gibraltar where the threshold is, I would assume that when the GPWS gives a warning it was infact working correctly and that it should not be classed as a fault as it is letting you know that your heading for a big rock which is it's job.
However I'm no pilot or engineer, you are and I accept your views & point about assumption.
Let me explain my orginal (somewhat tongue in cheek) post
The Times Jorno insinuated that it was not working because it gave a warning at 500 ft on approach to GIB. My point was if yo're aiming at the base of the rock of Gibraltar where the threshold is, I would assume that when the GPWS gives a warning it was infact working correctly and that it should not be classed as a fault as it is letting you know that your heading for a big rock which is it's job.
However I'm no pilot or engineer, you are and I accept your views & point about assumption.
The problem may be that the original article stated that the GPWS went off at 5000 feet, not 500; and even at Gibraltar that sounds pretty spurious (but feel free to correct me as I've never been there)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: near EGKK
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I read it at 500' not 5000 feet.
BUT.
Does that fact that the aircraft is descending to 0' at the base of the rock (or there abouts) become a factor?
I'm desk bound so what do I know?
BUT.
Does that fact that the aircraft is descending to 0' at the base of the rock (or there abouts) become a factor?
I'm desk bound so what do I know?
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: london
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with reference to the gpws problems these occurred when gmonx was upgraded to egpws fit and there were some errors in the database from the supplier,so the system saw the rock in front of the acft and not just off to the left.....we filled in the asrs our r&d and management then could pull all data and get problem sorted....just what the safety system is supposed to do......but then thats not a story for the insight team.
I shall be making a consumer choice about what paper I now buy on a Sunday.....
I shall be making a consumer choice about what paper I now buy on a Sunday.....
Nice-but-dim
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Rural Yorkshire
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know this is stating the obvious, but just got to get it off my chest. Where in our democracy is the right of reply? As stated earlier in the thread, Monarch have come out well, but how does Joe PAX find this out? Picture the scenario.. nervous PAX, just booked his family holiday with aforesaid airline. Reads newspaper, knee jerk reaction, changes airline or cancels holiday. Despite my interest in Aviation, I am not the worlds most relaxed passenger and flew last year on MONX to ALC and back (uneventfully). If I had read the article prior to travelling, it would merely have heightened my nervousness and tension - knowing the full story as detailed in this forum would have had a reverse effect - but when will we see a statement in the Sunday Times from Monarch stating their defence? Its not fair.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: little acorns, big trees grow.
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monarch have issued the following press release today:
Statement in Response to an Article Which Appeared in the Sunday Times on 31 March
Monarch Airlines was very disappointed to read the article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 31st March, which we believe to be fundamentally flawed and irresponsible.
In order to fully understand the issues covered in the article, one has to understand the purpose of the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) system. MORs are filed by an airline whenever an event, whether minor or serious, occurs during an aircraft’s operation. These reports are filed with the CAA in order to share this information with the rest of the airline industry. MORs are filed by the operator themselves and not the CAA. Safety is the number one priority at Monarch, and as a responsible airline, we encourage our pilots to file MORs. We believe that by feeding back as much information as we possibly can, we are assisting the aviation industry with the objective of improving the UK’s exceptionally high safety standards.
We believe that this is one of the reasons why our level of MOR reporting appears higher than other airlines, and it is disappointing to see that the result of our vigilance is such a damaging article written by a journalist who has no expertise in these matters, and has ignored advice given to him by the CAA.
The Sunday Times had a lengthy conversation with the CAA prior to the publication of the article. The CAA is the government-appointed regulator of the UK’s aviation industry and made the following points:
Firstly, they advised that analysing MORs in this way is meaningless and inadvisable, as these reports are subjective and should be judged by the nature of the incident and not the number filed. MORs also cover incidents which are beyond the control of an airline. For example Air Traffic Control incidents, medical emergencies, disruptive behavior by passengers, and turbulence would all be recorded as MORs.
Secondly, the CAA expressed the view that the Sunday Times’ statistical analysis was fundamentally flawed, as it has been conducted over a short period of time, and is a crude comparison, benchmarking Monarch with airlines which have a lower utilisation rate and different fleet size. The Sunday Times were told that meaningful comparisons cannot be made in this way and Monarch Airlines is surprised to see the newspaper chose to ignore this advice from the very publisher of the information, and the UK’s aviation industry regulator.
Thirdly, the CAA advised the Sunday Times that Monarch Airlines has an extremely good safety record. The CAA conducted its annual safety audit of Monarch in January, and it received a very complimentary report. It must also be stressed that MOR reporting is only a small part of an airline’s safety management system.
Fourthly, the CAA stressed to the Sunday Times that this article would be detrimental to the aviation industry as is likely to deter airlines from volunteering to file MORs if they were to be judged by the number submitted. The CAA aims to encourage airlines to report MORs, and Monarch fully supports this objective. Monarch Airlines finds it disappointing and concerning that the Sunday Times chose to ignore the advice of the CAA in this matter, and believes that the publication of this article is detrimental to safety within the UK aviation industry.
Monarch Airlines has no concerns with the aircraft mentioned (G-MONX). All of our aircraft are maintained in accordance with the industry’s strict safety regulations, and Monarch Airlines always complies fully with all directives from the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers of our aircraft. We would not permit an aircraft to operate unless we were completely satisfied that it meets all the required stringent safety regulations.
Many of the faults mentioned with regard to this aircraft are minor reoccurring faults which were fully investigated and rectified at the time. These minor occurrences will have artificially inflated the number of MORs reported in relation to this aircraft.
For example, four of the MORs filed are related to the enhanced ground proximity warning system. This was a brand new piece of optional safety equipment and the vast majority of airlines had chosen not to install it. Monarch Airlines, being vigilant and pioneering with regard to safety, opted to install the equipment ahead of it being required. Due to navigational considerations, this early version could occasionally generate a spurious warning when approaching a few specific airfields. Clearly this is a minor fault and in no way compromises the safety of our passengers. However, being a responsible airline, we filed these as MORs. This example serves to demonstrate that it is not possible to judge an airline or an aircraft by the number of MORs it has filed.
Conclusion
Monarch Airlines believes this article is fundamentally flawed and unbalanced. The style of writing and the choice of language used is designed to be alarmist and the journalist is clearly trying to prey on the fears of many travellers. The article also ignores the strong advice given to them from the UK’s industry regulators.
More significantly we believe the publication of the feature is irresponsible, as in the long run, it will serve to compromise the safety of the UK’s aviation industry by deterring many UK airlines from reporting MORs. This is clearly not in the interest of Sunday Times readers or the general public, and we are surprised that the newspaper chose to publish it despite being advised against doing so by the CAA.
2 April 2002
Monarch Airlines was very disappointed to read the article which appeared in the Sunday Times on 31st March, which we believe to be fundamentally flawed and irresponsible.
In order to fully understand the issues covered in the article, one has to understand the purpose of the Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) system. MORs are filed by an airline whenever an event, whether minor or serious, occurs during an aircraft’s operation. These reports are filed with the CAA in order to share this information with the rest of the airline industry. MORs are filed by the operator themselves and not the CAA. Safety is the number one priority at Monarch, and as a responsible airline, we encourage our pilots to file MORs. We believe that by feeding back as much information as we possibly can, we are assisting the aviation industry with the objective of improving the UK’s exceptionally high safety standards.
We believe that this is one of the reasons why our level of MOR reporting appears higher than other airlines, and it is disappointing to see that the result of our vigilance is such a damaging article written by a journalist who has no expertise in these matters, and has ignored advice given to him by the CAA.
The Sunday Times had a lengthy conversation with the CAA prior to the publication of the article. The CAA is the government-appointed regulator of the UK’s aviation industry and made the following points:
Firstly, they advised that analysing MORs in this way is meaningless and inadvisable, as these reports are subjective and should be judged by the nature of the incident and not the number filed. MORs also cover incidents which are beyond the control of an airline. For example Air Traffic Control incidents, medical emergencies, disruptive behavior by passengers, and turbulence would all be recorded as MORs.
Secondly, the CAA expressed the view that the Sunday Times’ statistical analysis was fundamentally flawed, as it has been conducted over a short period of time, and is a crude comparison, benchmarking Monarch with airlines which have a lower utilisation rate and different fleet size. The Sunday Times were told that meaningful comparisons cannot be made in this way and Monarch Airlines is surprised to see the newspaper chose to ignore this advice from the very publisher of the information, and the UK’s aviation industry regulator.
Thirdly, the CAA advised the Sunday Times that Monarch Airlines has an extremely good safety record. The CAA conducted its annual safety audit of Monarch in January, and it received a very complimentary report. It must also be stressed that MOR reporting is only a small part of an airline’s safety management system.
Fourthly, the CAA stressed to the Sunday Times that this article would be detrimental to the aviation industry as is likely to deter airlines from volunteering to file MORs if they were to be judged by the number submitted. The CAA aims to encourage airlines to report MORs, and Monarch fully supports this objective. Monarch Airlines finds it disappointing and concerning that the Sunday Times chose to ignore the advice of the CAA in this matter, and believes that the publication of this article is detrimental to safety within the UK aviation industry.
Monarch Airlines has no concerns with the aircraft mentioned (G-MONX). All of our aircraft are maintained in accordance with the industry’s strict safety regulations, and Monarch Airlines always complies fully with all directives from the regulatory bodies and the manufacturers of our aircraft. We would not permit an aircraft to operate unless we were completely satisfied that it meets all the required stringent safety regulations.
Many of the faults mentioned with regard to this aircraft are minor reoccurring faults which were fully investigated and rectified at the time. These minor occurrences will have artificially inflated the number of MORs reported in relation to this aircraft.
For example, four of the MORs filed are related to the enhanced ground proximity warning system. This was a brand new piece of optional safety equipment and the vast majority of airlines had chosen not to install it. Monarch Airlines, being vigilant and pioneering with regard to safety, opted to install the equipment ahead of it being required. Due to navigational considerations, this early version could occasionally generate a spurious warning when approaching a few specific airfields. Clearly this is a minor fault and in no way compromises the safety of our passengers. However, being a responsible airline, we filed these as MORs. This example serves to demonstrate that it is not possible to judge an airline or an aircraft by the number of MORs it has filed.
Conclusion
Monarch Airlines believes this article is fundamentally flawed and unbalanced. The style of writing and the choice of language used is designed to be alarmist and the journalist is clearly trying to prey on the fears of many travellers. The article also ignores the strong advice given to them from the UK’s industry regulators.
More significantly we believe the publication of the feature is irresponsible, as in the long run, it will serve to compromise the safety of the UK’s aviation industry by deterring many UK airlines from reporting MORs. This is clearly not in the interest of Sunday Times readers or the general public, and we are surprised that the newspaper chose to publish it despite being advised against doing so by the CAA.
2 April 2002
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: SW, UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All those in support of Monarch's response say Aye!!
Aye.
The article says it all and I'm sure is echoed by everyone reading this thread.
I personally would expect better from the Times. Publishing this onesided, alarmist excuse for journalism should at censored by the CAA.
FS
Aye.
The article says it all and I'm sure is echoed by everyone reading this thread.
I personally would expect better from the Times. Publishing this onesided, alarmist excuse for journalism should at censored by the CAA.
FS
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on, of course, but is it going to get the same amount of coverage in next week's Sunset Times? I doubt it. No self respecting journo would ever let the truth get in the way of a good story (or a 3rd rate one, for that matter).
All Insight journos please line up..
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said one and all. What alarms me is that if it had not been for the demise of one well known old Great Grandma, this 'sensational' article would probably have been on the front page.