Aurela (Operating for Monarch) off the runway at BHX
Some interesting comments from passengers about Aurela here:-
Monarch Airlines Passenger Reviews and Monarch Airlines Customer Trip Reports
Monarch Airlines Passenger Reviews and Monarch Airlines Customer Trip Reports
Nobody was hurt, aircraft remained substantially intact - maybe a bit of mud and grass in the landing gear. Most serious thing for passengers was they had to use wheeled steps and a bus to the terminal rather than walking directly onto an airbridge to disembark.
In 2 weeks time, will people really remember this ?
In 2 weeks time, will people really remember this ?
Paxing All Over The World
StandbyFlowControl
Yep, coz they haven't yet factored in Pax with camera phones and access to Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and all the rest whilst still on the a/c, waiting to egress. Tell the truth first time - it's cheaper.
As to the slats retracted question: IF their procedure called for retraction as soon as 'taxi from runway' starts, they might have thought that they had it all under control and moved the lever. By the time they came to rest (stopped swearing) and shut down, the slats could have run all the way in??
Monarch said the plane was being taxied to the terminal when "one set of wheels left the taxi way bringing the aircraft to a stop"
Gotta love the Monarch PR understatement!
Gotta love the Monarch PR understatement!
As to the slats retracted question: IF their procedure called for retraction as soon as 'taxi from runway' starts, they might have thought that they had it all under control and moved the lever. By the time they came to rest (stopped swearing) and shut down, the slats could have run all the way in??
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundbased
So when you've paid Monarch, you've obviously expected to get a Monarch's own 25 years old 757 or 23 years old A300 or 20 year old A320 instead of "old" 24 years old Lithuanian 737? Get a live man!
You are correct that it is a 737-300 of some 24 years vintage, not that that in itself is a problem to me. It is not what I expected/paid for when I booked.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you don't want to run the risk of being flown on a lease aircraft when booking with a low-cost airline...fly with a company such as BA.
The last time I booked with BA from BOD (a month ago), I ended up on a Titan Airways flight.
Jolly good though.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a live man!
I think if one is brutally honest then many of us simply object to the fact that this overrun is, well, very un-British! When our own chaps muck-up we feel justified in castigating their actions, vociferously if need be, because these are 'our boys' and they deserve a dollop of chastisement as well as a good ribbing.
We feel less comfortable 'abusing' foreigners and so prefer it when they commit their faux pas elsewhere!
But, this could just be me.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Nobody was hurt, aircraft remained substantially intact - maybe a bit of mud and grass in the landing gear.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo One
I am live. I think we are confusing a number of things here.
I said the age of the aircraft wasn't a problem to me (in terms of its liklihood to complete the flight safely). As someone else mentioned if it was I could have booked with easy and gone on one of their shiny new jets.
We shouldn't confuse this operational issue with the discussion about sub chartering aircraft. We haven't got the full facts and report will come in time which will clarify etc. There is not necessarily any connection between the aircraft age, the operator and the airline in this incident.
In terms of the sub chartering think about it like this. If you wanted to travel from London to Manchester and for whatever reason you determined that driving was the best way. You don't have a car so you visit a car hire website where they provide you with a range of prices to compare based around what you are looking to do and make some statements about being able to deliver quality at a good price. You've seen cars about with their stickers on that look pretty good so you book. When you arrive to collect the car they give you the keys to a T reg Allegro in the corner away from the shinier stuff and move on to the next customer. What do you do?
In terms of marketing someone else mentioned that all the "brand" is just a promise. I guess that's true, but people will unquestionably vote with their feet if a company does not at least reasonably consistently deliver an experience that is commensurate with the picture it paints with its brand. I'm not asking for anything from Monarch. I expressed my dissatisfaction with what they had delivered, and in future I will travel with a company that delivers something closer to what it promises when presenting its brand.
Things have changed. Some people, I suppose, would like to go back to a situation where only rich people flew about the place, but that's not an industry with many jobs in it as far as I can see.
I am live. I think we are confusing a number of things here.
I said the age of the aircraft wasn't a problem to me (in terms of its liklihood to complete the flight safely). As someone else mentioned if it was I could have booked with easy and gone on one of their shiny new jets.
We shouldn't confuse this operational issue with the discussion about sub chartering aircraft. We haven't got the full facts and report will come in time which will clarify etc. There is not necessarily any connection between the aircraft age, the operator and the airline in this incident.
In terms of the sub chartering think about it like this. If you wanted to travel from London to Manchester and for whatever reason you determined that driving was the best way. You don't have a car so you visit a car hire website where they provide you with a range of prices to compare based around what you are looking to do and make some statements about being able to deliver quality at a good price. You've seen cars about with their stickers on that look pretty good so you book. When you arrive to collect the car they give you the keys to a T reg Allegro in the corner away from the shinier stuff and move on to the next customer. What do you do?
In terms of marketing someone else mentioned that all the "brand" is just a promise. I guess that's true, but people will unquestionably vote with their feet if a company does not at least reasonably consistently deliver an experience that is commensurate with the picture it paints with its brand. I'm not asking for anything from Monarch. I expressed my dissatisfaction with what they had delivered, and in future I will travel with a company that delivers something closer to what it promises when presenting its brand.
Things have changed. Some people, I suppose, would like to go back to a situation where only rich people flew about the place, but that's not an industry with many jobs in it as far as I can see.
Last edited by Groundbased; 22nd Sep 2012 at 06:44.
I guess you mean 180 turn on the RWY or you'd be pointing the same way you started! 
if I saw a Lithuanian registration on what I thought was a Monarch flight I would most certainly not get on it. I've worked for cowboy outfits and know how well they cover up their atrocities and how little even our own much vaunted CAA will do even in the face of certain information over a period of years. EASA approval shmoozle.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: South East
Age: 46
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this thread is better off in the spotters/enthusiasts/wannabe section.
Do you really think familiarity dictates when a pilot will vacate his aircraft from the runway? We (pilots) are provided with aerodrome charts which tell us the length of runway available for landing. We are also provided with a set of tables telling us what distance will be required to stop the aircraft using retardation devices available.
This is a bit of a non event. The quality of the contributions to this thread confirm that. Yes, this incident did have potential to be a different ending, but this is also the case with the tens of other daily occurrences that happen (check out avherald.com!). The reason it made the news is simply because it caused the closure of the runway.
Is it good PR for MON? Probably not.
Absolutely its nothing new. I once flew AGP-LTN on a Futura 737 on behalf of Monarch. Flight and cabin crew all Spanish; in-flight meals definitely not English (whatever it was!). I think the crew weren't totally familiar with LTN as we went pretty much the full length rather than the typical Taxiway Charlie turnoff (landing 26), having to make a 360 degree turn at the end of 08. Never had to do that before.
This is a bit of a non event. The quality of the contributions to this thread confirm that. Yes, this incident did have potential to be a different ending, but this is also the case with the tens of other daily occurrences that happen (check out avherald.com!). The reason it made the news is simply because it caused the closure of the runway.
Is it good PR for MON? Probably not.
Last edited by tchaikovsky; 22nd Sep 2012 at 06:48.
This is a bit of a non event. The quality of the contributions to this thread confirm that.
Seven pages in, and it's still being referred to as a runway overrun, not least by the idiots at Avherald.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: england
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or you could have ended up on a 20 year old BA 737 or 767.The age of the aircraft does not matter.It is how it is maintained. 
Last edited by Herr Bus; 22nd Sep 2012 at 09:09.
The 15 threshold end of the runway is ungrooved concrete which has the potential to be slippery when wet. The position of the aircraft from the photos looks like it may have gone into the grass during the turn onto the A taxiway. Perhaps they took the turn too fast and slipped off the side? I suspect the flaps/slats were retracted during the after landing checks as they turned off the runway and would fit with this theory.
This senario happened at the other end a few years ago with a well established UK operator when the 33 threshold area was also concrete. That end of the runway has since been covered in asphalt.
A look at google earth clearly shows the concrete areas (dont bother with apple maps, the image is very old!)
This senario happened at the other end a few years ago with a well established UK operator when the 33 threshold area was also concrete. That end of the runway has since been covered in asphalt.
A look at google earth clearly shows the concrete areas (dont bother with apple maps, the image is very old!)
Last edited by FlyboyUK; 22nd Sep 2012 at 09:26.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: manchester
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incidents such as this may well be a manifestation of the corporate culture within an airline and especially in its day to day operations. This incident may be regarded by some as insignificant, but next time the outcome may be different. As mentioned earlier in this post there are a number of EASA aviation authorities who are falling well short in the oversight of their operators,training providers and TRTO's.
I speak from experience. I have witnessed first hand such an operation.
Rushed approaches and unstable landings on a daily basis with no reporting. Level busts, no reporting. Despatching outside the MEL a regular accepted practice. No regard to flight time limitations; easier just to change your report time. Flap overspeeeds every week, no reports and no tech log entries.Taking off over weight, no reporting. No active flight data monitoring and an ineffective flight safety department; just an office and a desk. Little or no adherance to company SOPs. The list goes on. The worst perpetrator; the flight ops director himself.
To cap it all, operating a pay to fly scheme with low houred cadet pilots.
EASA land a level playing field ?
I speak from experience. I have witnessed first hand such an operation.
Rushed approaches and unstable landings on a daily basis with no reporting. Level busts, no reporting. Despatching outside the MEL a regular accepted practice. No regard to flight time limitations; easier just to change your report time. Flap overspeeeds every week, no reports and no tech log entries.Taking off over weight, no reporting. No active flight data monitoring and an ineffective flight safety department; just an office and a desk. Little or no adherance to company SOPs. The list goes on. The worst perpetrator; the flight ops director himself.
To cap it all, operating a pay to fly scheme with low houred cadet pilots.
EASA land a level playing field ?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ditto for maintenance
Recently due to compliance with EASA Norway found that there was no CAMO' s in the country for some classes of aircraft, in theory aircraft owners could contract in a CAMO from any EASA state.
The Norwegian authority's took the view that they would only let this work be contracted to CAMO's in some EASA states, as you might guess all of Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands, The UK and some others were on the list. I will leave you all to ponder who were not on the list !
To me this indicates that EASA is not a level plying field and those airworthiness authority's who wish to uphold high standards know who is and more importantly who is not up to scratch.
The Norwegian authority's took the view that they would only let this work be contracted to CAMO's in some EASA states, as you might guess all of Scandinavia, Germany, The Netherlands, The UK and some others were on the list. I will leave you all to ponder who were not on the list !
To me this indicates that EASA is not a level plying field and those airworthiness authority's who wish to uphold high standards know who is and more importantly who is not up to scratch.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training etc
Herr Bus Quote:- "Or you could have ended up on a 20 year old BA 737 or 767.The age of the aircraft does not matter.It is how it is maintained. 
"
Very true, of course.
Equally important, but not mentioned much in this thread, are the operator's requirements as stated in the Ops Manual parts A and D.
What are the operator's crew experience, qualification, training and recency requirements? Bearing in mind that the regulations are the lowest acceptable legal standard.
Most legacy carriers exceed the regulatory requirements by some margin, but what of the Locos?
"Very true, of course.
Equally important, but not mentioned much in this thread, are the operator's requirements as stated in the Ops Manual parts A and D.
What are the operator's crew experience, qualification, training and recency requirements? Bearing in mind that the regulations are the lowest acceptable legal standard.
Most legacy carriers exceed the regulatory requirements by some margin, but what of the Locos?
It's been some time since I last operated one but SOP on our 73's was to clean up on vacating the runway, normally signalled by stowing the speedbrake. For an RTO and/or runway excursion, the flaps were run fully *out* to aid those using the overwing exits, should an evacuation be required.
Looking at the photos, if it was just a taxi speed issue, they must have been going pretty fast or had very little braking action to get the whole aircraft off the hard surface. Grass stops you fairly quickly as the tyres sink into the ground, especially when wet...
Looking at the photos, if it was just a taxi speed issue, they must have been going pretty fast or had very little braking action to get the whole aircraft off the hard surface. Grass stops you fairly quickly as the tyres sink into the ground, especially when wet...