G-monx
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Valley Where the Thames Runs Softly
Age: 77
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-monx
G-MONX
Today's Sunday Times runs a half page article alleging multiple problems with Monarch's A320 G-MONX. There is a detailed list, but I don't know how bad it is for three years of a heavily-used aircraft. The paper claims that the average number of safety alerts for 100+ seat aircraft is 7.7, and that NX has had 25, with G-MONS (A300) on 24 as was BA 320 G-BUSE, with Monarch A320 G-MONW coming fourth.
Now I don't want to stir anything, but there are no Boeings mentioned in the top four!
The one that I wouldn't have fancied was when passengers allegedly heard a spurious GPWS alert through an open flight deck door.
Today's Sunday Times runs a half page article alleging multiple problems with Monarch's A320 G-MONX. There is a detailed list, but I don't know how bad it is for three years of a heavily-used aircraft. The paper claims that the average number of safety alerts for 100+ seat aircraft is 7.7, and that NX has had 25, with G-MONS (A300) on 24 as was BA 320 G-BUSE, with Monarch A320 G-MONW coming fourth.
Now I don't want to stir anything, but there are no Boeings mentioned in the top four!
The one that I wouldn't have fancied was when passengers allegedly heard a spurious GPWS alert through an open flight deck door.
Can anyone give a link to the Sunday times websit and the article, someone mentioned it down the pub. I fly said aircraft and its always been a good ship!!! Bloody Journos again 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No link, sorry - what I do have is a panicked call from my parents one of whom is due to ZB to ALC tomorrow - they want to know whether it is wise to travel Spotty M after all they have just read. I told them that in my view it is just fine.
As Cabin Crew (non ZB), I've tended to stand back from the Journo bashing in these forums (working on the theory that I don't have the technical knowledge either...) however as of today's Sunday Times article, I'm a signed up member of the anti-stupid-journo club.
The article struck me as poorly researched, sensationalist and ill-informed. It angered me, and that was before I had to try and calm down my parents. Beyond filling space with newsprint, I wonder what the point of publishing it was?
As Cabin Crew (non ZB), I've tended to stand back from the Journo bashing in these forums (working on the theory that I don't have the technical knowledge either...) however as of today's Sunday Times article, I'm a signed up member of the anti-stupid-journo club.
The article struck me as poorly researched, sensationalist and ill-informed. It angered me, and that was before I had to try and calm down my parents. Beyond filling space with newsprint, I wonder what the point of publishing it was?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen Discover Gooooogle
Had to log on to get this gem of journalism. I of course would be the last person to criticise th newspaper which discovered the Hitler Diarys. Make up your own minds.
Revealed: the most jinxed jet in Britain
AN AIRBUS plane operated by Monarch Airlines has been identified as the British passenger jet with the worst record of safety incidents. It has a history of engine malfunctions, steering faults and false crash warnings.
The A320 aircraft, used for package holiday and regular flights to Europe, has been involved in 25 safety alerts in three years more than three times the average.
Its troubled history has emerged in an Insight investigation that has for the first time identified the safety record of individual planes. Monarch also operates the jet that has clocked up the equal second highest number of dangerous or potentially dangerous incidents and the one that comes in fourth place.
At 2.15pm, last Friday the Monarch A320 jet, in its distinctive black and yellow livery, touched down at Luton airport. As the passengers disembarked, they looked tanned and relaxed after their holiday in Gibraltar.
The charter flight was five minutes ahead of schedule and it had a been a hassle-free journey. The weather had been fine and the congested air space above London had caused no problems.
However, as they filed off Monarch flight ZB065 the holidaymakers had unknowingly just flown on a jet with the highest number mechanical failures and problems over the past three years. G-MONX has been diverted six times and declared one mid-air emergency because of serious mechanical faults.
Bart Crotty, a former airworthiness inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, said last week: Some planes just turn out to be lemons . . . Someone should perhaps be asking, What the hell is going on with this plane? As 1.6m passengers left Britain by air this weekend, an analysis of the Civil Aviation Authoritys database of safety alerts between 1999 and 2001 shows that while many of the larger passenger jets had none, others had more than 20.
The alerts, known as mandatory occurrence reports, mainly detail mechanical problems, but also include incidents of air rage, collisions on the ground and severe turbulence. Since 1999 G-MONX has had more problems than any other large jet used by Britains top 10 airlines. All but two of the 25 alerts it has suffered relate to mechanical or electronic faults.
The aircraft has experienced repeated engine malfunctions, false crash alerts, steering failures and landing gear defects. Even the parking brake has broken.
In January 1999 there was suspected electrical burning on the flight. One of the pilots put on an oxygen mask as a precaution.
After taking off from the Canary Islands in July 1999, the pilot was unable to operate a wing system because of a hydraulic fault. The plane was checked by a mechanic in Lanzarote, took off again and then returned with the same fault.
The day after the hydraulic failure, the A320 left Lanzarote for the third time with a mechanical clean bill of health. Once again, it quickly aborted its flight and returned to Lanzarote with the same problem.
Two months later, the plane took off from Luton and the landing gear failed to retract. Minutes later the navigational displays also failed. The plane was again diverted.
After landing at Luton airport in January 2000 the nosewheel steering failed and the brakes started applying themselves. In a separate incident the next year, a pilot noted steering (failed) each time the rudder pedals were used.
In January 2000 the engine malfunctioned because of an oil leak and started to lose power after takeoff. Anxious passengers were told their flight was being aborted because of the engine problems. Two days later, the plane took off. Once again, it returned with the same mechanical failure.
In May 2000 the engine again malfunctioned and a mid-air emergency was declared.
On February 28, 2000, the first safety flaws emerged in the planes crash warning systems. As the crew prepared to land in Gibraltar in hazy weather, startled passengers in the front row of seats heard an audible electronic warning: Pull up. Terrain. Pull up.
The plane was in fact at a safe altitude of about 5,000ft. Cabin crew, however, reported the warnings caused some degree of concern among passengers.
There were three further false alerts last year. On another approach to Gibraltar, the emergency system warned at 300ft: Terrain ahead (whoop whoop). Pull up.
In the last incident, in November 2001, white smoke was seen billowing from a power unit on the plane while it was at Luton airport. Fire crews were called and the smoke was traced to an oil leak.
Crotty, who now works as an aviation consultant, said: There are repeating items in four or five technical areas, which suggests someone isnt getting it right when they (try to) rectify it.
While insurance experts estimate that flying in a commercial jet is now 50 times safer than it was in the 1950s, regulators are increasingly concerned about the number of crashes caused by maintenance error.
Safety alerts can provide vital information for regulators and passengers. Concorde had a known history of burst tyres puncturing the fuel tank before the crash in Paris in 2000 in which one of the aircraft exploded, killing all 109 people on board.
Regulators are reluctant for the British safety reports to be scrutinised publicly. The CAA last week refused to release the database, saying: It is not a public document.
Insight, however, obtained access to the data and analysed more than 7,000 safety alerts on British-registered aircraft ranging from a 19-seat Gulfstream jet to a 550-seat Boeing 747.
Among the top 10 airlines, the average number of safety alerts for jets with a capacity of more than 100 passengers between 1999 and 2001 was 7.7.
The highest number of alerts was on G-MONX; second with 24 alerts was another Monarch Airlines plane, an A300, G-MONS; equal second was a British Airways A320, G-BUSE; and fourth was another Monarch A320, G-MONW.
Monarch has the highest number of average reports among the top airlines with 18.1 incidents per plane over the three-year period. Monarch says it is scrupulous about reporting all incidents and believes it may have a higher rate than other airlines because of this. It also points out that many incidents are beyond its control.
The CAAs safety alert database logs about 50 maintenance errors a month. Some are more serious than others. On an Airtours flight leaving Gatwick on January 20, 2000, several passengers heard a bang and saw a panel fly off the planes engine. The plane landed safely but an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concluded that it was highly probable that a maintenance engineer had failed to secure the panel properly.
On a British Airways flight in August 1999, the flight controls seized solid and the pilot had to use extreme force to free them. BA had issued an engineering order for alterations that would have prevented the mid-air emergency but had not implemented it on the Boeing 747-136 because it was due to be retired from the fleet.
The CAA said last week that it had no safety concerns about Monarch Airlines. A spokesman for Monarch said it was always striving to improve its safety procedures and that it was wrong to judge safety alerts by quantity.
Passengers arriving at Luton on G-MONX were unfazed by the aircrafts history. Mark Omelnitskai, 27, said: Nothing happened on the flight to suggest it had a bad record. My attitude is that if the airline allows the plane to fly, I am happy with that.
Had to log on to get this gem of journalism. I of course would be the last person to criticise th newspaper which discovered the Hitler Diarys. Make up your own minds.
Revealed: the most jinxed jet in Britain
AN AIRBUS plane operated by Monarch Airlines has been identified as the British passenger jet with the worst record of safety incidents. It has a history of engine malfunctions, steering faults and false crash warnings.
The A320 aircraft, used for package holiday and regular flights to Europe, has been involved in 25 safety alerts in three years more than three times the average.
Its troubled history has emerged in an Insight investigation that has for the first time identified the safety record of individual planes. Monarch also operates the jet that has clocked up the equal second highest number of dangerous or potentially dangerous incidents and the one that comes in fourth place.
At 2.15pm, last Friday the Monarch A320 jet, in its distinctive black and yellow livery, touched down at Luton airport. As the passengers disembarked, they looked tanned and relaxed after their holiday in Gibraltar.
The charter flight was five minutes ahead of schedule and it had a been a hassle-free journey. The weather had been fine and the congested air space above London had caused no problems.
However, as they filed off Monarch flight ZB065 the holidaymakers had unknowingly just flown on a jet with the highest number mechanical failures and problems over the past three years. G-MONX has been diverted six times and declared one mid-air emergency because of serious mechanical faults.
Bart Crotty, a former airworthiness inspector for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the United States, said last week: Some planes just turn out to be lemons . . . Someone should perhaps be asking, What the hell is going on with this plane? As 1.6m passengers left Britain by air this weekend, an analysis of the Civil Aviation Authoritys database of safety alerts between 1999 and 2001 shows that while many of the larger passenger jets had none, others had more than 20.
The alerts, known as mandatory occurrence reports, mainly detail mechanical problems, but also include incidents of air rage, collisions on the ground and severe turbulence. Since 1999 G-MONX has had more problems than any other large jet used by Britains top 10 airlines. All but two of the 25 alerts it has suffered relate to mechanical or electronic faults.
The aircraft has experienced repeated engine malfunctions, false crash alerts, steering failures and landing gear defects. Even the parking brake has broken.
In January 1999 there was suspected electrical burning on the flight. One of the pilots put on an oxygen mask as a precaution.
After taking off from the Canary Islands in July 1999, the pilot was unable to operate a wing system because of a hydraulic fault. The plane was checked by a mechanic in Lanzarote, took off again and then returned with the same fault.
The day after the hydraulic failure, the A320 left Lanzarote for the third time with a mechanical clean bill of health. Once again, it quickly aborted its flight and returned to Lanzarote with the same problem.
Two months later, the plane took off from Luton and the landing gear failed to retract. Minutes later the navigational displays also failed. The plane was again diverted.
After landing at Luton airport in January 2000 the nosewheel steering failed and the brakes started applying themselves. In a separate incident the next year, a pilot noted steering (failed) each time the rudder pedals were used.
In January 2000 the engine malfunctioned because of an oil leak and started to lose power after takeoff. Anxious passengers were told their flight was being aborted because of the engine problems. Two days later, the plane took off. Once again, it returned with the same mechanical failure.
In May 2000 the engine again malfunctioned and a mid-air emergency was declared.
On February 28, 2000, the first safety flaws emerged in the planes crash warning systems. As the crew prepared to land in Gibraltar in hazy weather, startled passengers in the front row of seats heard an audible electronic warning: Pull up. Terrain. Pull up.
The plane was in fact at a safe altitude of about 5,000ft. Cabin crew, however, reported the warnings caused some degree of concern among passengers.
There were three further false alerts last year. On another approach to Gibraltar, the emergency system warned at 300ft: Terrain ahead (whoop whoop). Pull up.
In the last incident, in November 2001, white smoke was seen billowing from a power unit on the plane while it was at Luton airport. Fire crews were called and the smoke was traced to an oil leak.
Crotty, who now works as an aviation consultant, said: There are repeating items in four or five technical areas, which suggests someone isnt getting it right when they (try to) rectify it.
While insurance experts estimate that flying in a commercial jet is now 50 times safer than it was in the 1950s, regulators are increasingly concerned about the number of crashes caused by maintenance error.
Safety alerts can provide vital information for regulators and passengers. Concorde had a known history of burst tyres puncturing the fuel tank before the crash in Paris in 2000 in which one of the aircraft exploded, killing all 109 people on board.
Regulators are reluctant for the British safety reports to be scrutinised publicly. The CAA last week refused to release the database, saying: It is not a public document.
Insight, however, obtained access to the data and analysed more than 7,000 safety alerts on British-registered aircraft ranging from a 19-seat Gulfstream jet to a 550-seat Boeing 747.
Among the top 10 airlines, the average number of safety alerts for jets with a capacity of more than 100 passengers between 1999 and 2001 was 7.7.
The highest number of alerts was on G-MONX; second with 24 alerts was another Monarch Airlines plane, an A300, G-MONS; equal second was a British Airways A320, G-BUSE; and fourth was another Monarch A320, G-MONW.
Monarch has the highest number of average reports among the top airlines with 18.1 incidents per plane over the three-year period. Monarch says it is scrupulous about reporting all incidents and believes it may have a higher rate than other airlines because of this. It also points out that many incidents are beyond its control.
The CAAs safety alert database logs about 50 maintenance errors a month. Some are more serious than others. On an Airtours flight leaving Gatwick on January 20, 2000, several passengers heard a bang and saw a panel fly off the planes engine. The plane landed safely but an investigation by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch concluded that it was highly probable that a maintenance engineer had failed to secure the panel properly.
On a British Airways flight in August 1999, the flight controls seized solid and the pilot had to use extreme force to free them. BA had issued an engineering order for alterations that would have prevented the mid-air emergency but had not implemented it on the Boeing 747-136 because it was due to be retired from the fleet.
The CAA said last week that it had no safety concerns about Monarch Airlines. A spokesman for Monarch said it was always striving to improve its safety procedures and that it was wrong to judge safety alerts by quantity.
Passengers arriving at Luton on G-MONX were unfazed by the aircrafts history. Mark Omelnitskai, 27, said: Nothing happened on the flight to suggest it had a bad record. My attitude is that if the airline allows the plane to fly, I am happy with that.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of utter garbage. But then it wouldn't really sell papers if they said 'despite occasional technical faults the aircraft has operated for x years without injury to passengers or crew'. I'm sure next week the Sunday Times will back this is up with a thorough, well researched report on 'dangerous incidents' affecting non-UK registered aircraft operating from Britain to countries without a mandatory reporting scheme. Not. Still you could always go on holiday on a Spanish coach. Or take the train. Or drive on a motorway on a holiday weekend.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY-USA
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is jinxed I tell you !!!! Do not fly with this plane ! Do not fly with any aircraft that its registration starts with G-MONx !!! Do not fly with Monarch !
Just do not fly anywhere and stay home to buy our newspaper ! It will take care of all of your problems.....
What a load of bull... What genius wrote this story ?
For the ones reading this after a long flight, yes, it is SARCASM....
Just do not fly anywhere and stay home to buy our newspaper ! It will take care of all of your problems.....
What a load of bull... What genius wrote this story ?
For the ones reading this after a long flight, yes, it is SARCASM....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My technical knowledge is EXTREMELY limited but even I know that Air Rage is not a mechanical fault. Or have they started thumping passengers with bits of engineering equipment spanners, screwdrivers etc?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Passed the invisable wall
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least our company has a structure to report problems,and keep PAX safety as the highest priority, how many unreported incidents from other operators go unreported??????
that is the Question RUMOUR MONGERS & SCARE MONGERS and SCUMBAG JOURNOS
that is the Question RUMOUR MONGERS & SCARE MONGERS and SCUMBAG JOURNOS
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the uninitiated should take anything out of this article, it should be that Monarch (we) have an open and honest flight safety system. Our management have ALWAYS encouraged us to be open without fear of reprisal or recrimination and as long as I can remember have always been at great pains to stress that a decision taken on a dark and dirty night under pressure, can seem a lot different to that taken around a chief pilots table on a monday morning with a cup of coffee. I believe we have the highest safety standards imaginable and the climate within the copany will ensure that will prevail. I will sleep soundly knowing my family are going on holiday with spotty M.
ECAM, BUZZ, YEP!
At least Monarch report incidents so ALL may learn.Rather different to my last company that somehow swept anything they considered dirty washing under the table. But that was a long time ago.
At least Monarch report incidents so ALL may learn.Rather different to my last company that somehow swept anything they considered dirty washing under the table. But that was a long time ago.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This kind of reporting is dishonest as well as irresponsible. It is dishonest, because, quote The CAA last week refused to release the database, saying: It is not a public document. unqoute
However the journalist then "obtained access" to the data.
It is irresponsible because they are undermining airline safety departments' efforts to encourage crews to submit safety reports within a blameless and open safety culture. They claimed to analyse the 7000 reports, but you cannot analyse anything if you have no idea how to put that information into context. It was simply sensationalised not analysed!
I have a scoop for the Sunday Times: Flying is not safe, it IS inherently dangerous! However, it has been turned into the safe mode of travel that the public take for granted by the brilliant and dedicated work of aircraft manufacturers, regulatory bodies, safety departments and not least all the airline crews and engineers who maintain a high level of safety reporting to ensure accidents are prevented.
I do not work for Monarch, but I would be livid at having the reputation of the company and my livelyhood threatened by this irresponsible slide into unresearched gutter journalism.
The people at Monarch fly passengers to their destinations safely, because they understand how to operate within a dangerous environment professionally. Maybe the Sunday Times should try being responsible some time.
However the journalist then "obtained access" to the data.
It is irresponsible because they are undermining airline safety departments' efforts to encourage crews to submit safety reports within a blameless and open safety culture. They claimed to analyse the 7000 reports, but you cannot analyse anything if you have no idea how to put that information into context. It was simply sensationalised not analysed!
I have a scoop for the Sunday Times: Flying is not safe, it IS inherently dangerous! However, it has been turned into the safe mode of travel that the public take for granted by the brilliant and dedicated work of aircraft manufacturers, regulatory bodies, safety departments and not least all the airline crews and engineers who maintain a high level of safety reporting to ensure accidents are prevented.
I do not work for Monarch, but I would be livid at having the reputation of the company and my livelyhood threatened by this irresponsible slide into unresearched gutter journalism.
The people at Monarch fly passengers to their destinations safely, because they understand how to operate within a dangerous environment professionally. Maybe the Sunday Times should try being responsible some time.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who is only a passenger, may I say that I would FAR sooner all minor perceived faults were reported and checked. I don't care if I am delayed as a result I just want to arrive at my destination safe and still breathing. I make sure my car is properly maintained but I have to rely on the airlines to do the same for the aircraft I fly in. I may not have aircraft technical knowledge, but I use highly specialised life-support and monitoring systems on a daily basis and I would hate to think that as a result of someone being unhappy about the perfomance of a piece of equipment and sending it for checking, it was deemed that our equipment was faulty and unsafe. I worry more about things like a short article I read some years ago, in which an airline operating locally was criticised for abysmal maintenance of their aircraft. If I remember rightly, one engine part was so badly worn that the people making the inspection expressed surprise that the aircraft hadn't fallen out of the sky! Great! They fly over my house. Carry on reporting your faults and acting on them, it is reassuring not off-putting.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN,USA.
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't an airline out there that doesn't have a dog somewhere. Be gratefull that Monarch's people write the stuff up so that considered technical opinion can determine whats a real problem, and what isn't. I wonder if the journalist thought to enquire what the Flight Hours / Cyles per incident for this aircraft might have been. If its flying it's butt off relative to the rest of the Worlds fleet then it's exposed to more opportunity to fail - thats why God invented Reliability Analysis.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest England
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a plonker the person who wrote this, or more importantly, his editor. Take a collection of aircraft, of course one will have had the most incidents. Why not use the same energy and discover which aircraft has been involved in the fewest number of incidents, if either scenario were valid or important. Get a life! This irresponsibility has again let their side down badly, which is sad. I am not in the news industry but my work has from time to time has brought me into contact with some journo who are the usual mix of good, bad and ugly you find in any profession.
I agree with those who feel that Monarch have come out of this rather well. I have flown with them and would be pleased to do so again.
I remain, as ever, Niaga Dessip
I agree with those who feel that Monarch have come out of this rather well. I have flown with them and would be pleased to do so again.
I remain, as ever, Niaga Dessip
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps one or more of you guys who wrote the excellent responses above could forward them to the Times (without reference to the journo prat perhaps) and include a link to this discussion. Any enlightenment on their part would be a welcome move!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: western europe
Posts: 1,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
contact the times ............
The Times report mentioned above was produced by the "Insight" team ........ they can be emailed at ....
[email protected]
The Insight team has produced some outstanding reports in the past and I'm sure would treat any constructive remarks/criticism in a positive way so send them your views
[email protected]
The Insight team has produced some outstanding reports in the past and I'm sure would treat any constructive remarks/criticism in a positive way so send them your views