I wonder how many people have written replys then deleted them thinking I better not.

That's true. SAFA only care that the paperwork is correct. If the paperwork is all in order, you can crash as much as you like.

That sounds very much like ISO 9000. They award you for adhering stringently to a set of procedures. The fact that the procedures may be deeply flawed or inappropriate does not seem to matter.

:=:=
Not truee Safa inspect not only documents, but dealing with all the fuselage structure mostly as well as missing parts!
And this type of aircraft like it would be an old 737cl operated by Aurela it shows clearly, as told from internal friends, missing bolds and screw and fuselage bent due the pressurisatio life cycles!:\

Some more pics at;

bhxflightguide (sorry the link wont copy)

From photo 4/4 the suggestion that someone made a few posts back, of a burst tyre, does not seem to follow.

The photos do not show the tracks made by the a/c's excursion...or the orphanage that the captain narrowly avoided as he bravely fought to regain control. :\

In reply to Grenville Fortescue,

Wouldn't wet lease imply that Monarch have sub'd Aurela for this route/flight, as such are they under any obligation to do in situ line checks?

Cabin service maybe, but querying maintenance and crew professionalism might raise hackles, how would you feel as an Air Croatia pilot if United or Air Canada raised questions about your professionalism? (Star Alliance)

Thank heaven for a little bit of common sense!

Who cares if you "raise a few heckles" - it says Monarch on the ticket, MON on the departure screens and despite what some have said, some pax on here have confirmed they were unaware they were being farmed out to a subchartered unit, as such, if these airlines want to take a contract, they must accept the scrutiny of the lessee, but seems some were too focused on the commercial "opportunity" to worry about any potential downsides.

Interestingly if this had been a genuine MON aircraft that went farming off the end, this thread would have probably been 3/4 pages max, with a few 'grace of god' 'could happen to anyone' comments and it would have died a death at the first 'let's wait for the report'. As it is this has raised some far reaching questions which will affect this type of operation in future.

Momoe thanks for the reply.

One of course would not feel overly enamoured as part of an alliance if 'colleague' airlines were looking over one's shoulder as it were but .. I am wondering (even under a wet lease or ACMI arrangement) whether there would be any mileage in periodic 'line' assessments of the actual service being provided - maintenance, flight deck and cabin.

Worst case scenario is that a particular company meets all the requirements on paper but in practice operates with a number of glaring anomalies which possess the potential to endanger passengers.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that this isn't done? In fact I think that you will find that it is an EASA requirement for leases over 10 days (open to be corrected on time).

Renort,

It's hackles, heckles has another meaning entirely - please pay attention.

To rephrase the facts: some pax have advised that they weren't aware that the flight
was being subbed, this doesn't make it fact - it just means that they were unaware.
Until it's proven, it's not 'confirmed'.

Whether it's Monarch or Aurela or even BA, it's a taxiway excursion on a known problem area. There might be a lot more cause for concern if there were injuries or damage but it appears that it'll buff out fine.
The whole thing is being blown out of proportion by folk with their own personal axe to grind.

Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?

I know it is not just the policy that take many airlines
but this is the reality, many ,if not 85% of companies, do not warn the passengers that the flight is operated by another company.

Of course none leave the operation to another Company before is made one, if not more than one, flight audit and then sign a wet lease contract between them.

In reply to DR,

Sorry, this doesn't make what fact ?

It was implied that Monarch not advising pax that the flight would be subbed was fact, some pax have advised that they weren't aware - This doesn not prove that Monarch didn't advise them, unless anyone knows otherwise?

Monarch sent an email to ALL pax to advise them. Whether they opened it is another matter, as they may have deleted it thinking it was the weekly offers email.

As with all 4 wet leases, Aurela's Maintenance facility, records, operations manuals and cabin operations were fully audited, prior to confirmation of the wet lease contracts. Though the aircraft actually being leased wasn't available (flying) during the audit period. They were found to be fully compliant with EASA/EU OPS and audit flights were conducted, again prior to confirmation of the wet lease.

FACT!

Whiskey Zulu, thanks for that information.

Question I would like to ask is when were they sent the email? Had the decision to sub charter been made by the time of booking and if so were the passengers made aware then?

If I have booked a flight and then get an email a couple of days before the flight and I am not happy with the new travel arrangements it may be difficult to arrange travel with another company. Also if a passenger elects not to travel for this reason, will they get a full refund of the fare including taxes and charges etc?

OK, understood.

It sounded like you were saying that all passengers must have been aware of the arrangement, but I see that's not what you meant.

Heckles, Hackles, whatever.

I can imagine the UK airline that this summer refused to use Aurela, are feeling rather vindicated in that decision, even if it does mean paying a bit more to use another option.

Jet 2, Thomas Cook and FlyBe have all used Aurela B733s over the last few years.

The incident sounds pretty similar to what Britannia/Thomson did with one of their B763s at LGW a few years ago (exiting 26L in the rain).

Maybe this is a fall out of the pax compensation rules. Companys using any legal airframe they can get.

Most of the subs I have done have been for max three days when an aircraft is AOG.

Most of the time its been "get there ASAP your going......."

Even had one where the CP turned up at the aircraft door while it was getting put to bed after he had gone tech on the stand next door. 30 mins later we were on our way with thier Hostie down the back as company rep. And she was more worried about the bar than what we were doing in the front.

So all this slating of Monarch and Aurela - can I presume that no British carrier (BA, TOM or VS) have ever had the misfortune to have an incident to one of their own units?
And if they had, presumably everyone that has commented on the appalling decision by MON to use Aurela would ever fly with that British airline again?

Just wondering.....!

Let's hope for Monarch Aurela haven't been flogging their crews on double AGP's etc with min rest inbetween...

I'd be more concerned as to how Monarch are covering the flights now that they've suspended the arrangement with Aurela.

OT anyone?

A320
 

Flying the BHX - AGP route this coming weekend and was due on the sub'd 733 - Monarch tell me that they are using one of their own 320's (at least on the Sunday AGP - BHX)

BA at LGW have certainly used Monarch and Astreus in the past for subs, the BCN route (discontinued but due to start again in Feb...yippeee!!).
As a pax, and aside from the poor legroom, Monarch was pretty good and served the BA product pretty well.
I like Monarch but find their website too fiddly, too complicated, and generally opt out half way through - EZY is streets ahead (and they have 6 not 2 flights a day LGW/BCN).
I do remember that my stepfather flew with Pancho Villa and was offered the job of top captain at the fledgling Monarch - he turned it down as he didn't think the company would last!!!!!!!!!

Yesterday Thomas Cook used 8 separate subcharters to cover their own fleets failings...

Subbing in....
 

750XL. Your point is?.....

Picasa

'And if they had, presumably everyone that has commented on the appalling decision by MON to use Aurela would ever fly with that British airline again?'

Well that will not be a problem as Monarch themselves moved swiftly; in a press release following the incident stated that they will not be using Aurela any more.

I wonder how many other UK airlines will take a look at who they are subchartering ?

lets play a game and see the names of similar operations that have worked in this interesting world. Here are a few just to get us started.

Air Scotland Greek registered I think
TBA Tristar registered ?
Air Ops
Omega 707 somewhere in Africa ?
Smart Lynx
Small Planet
Viking

My starter for ten.....

trackfpa320 - whats your point? Because it is not registered in Kingsway, London it must be dodgy?
G-reg a/c have had the misfortune to suffer incidents in the past (not to distant past as well)

Not that I disagree with you regarding some of the more obscure airlines and their registration.

I have no problem with other nationalities or registrations, per se. I do have grave concerns about certain regulators not performing satisfactory oversight of their operators; especially when they are operating in a third party country some distance from home. Should the local authority have more involvement and oversight with these style of operations ? I think they should.

Many aviation authorities require financial stabilty and enough rescources to maintain a safe operation. ( Pilots, engineers, spares, training capacity etc etc). If you look at this style of operator, just think how many have been and gone. Take a look at some of the operators 'based' in the UK right now, do you think all of them would pass a full UK CAA AOC audit ?

Monarch choose to use an operator, however due to this incident they have now decided to stop using them. Should they have picked up shortcomings in this operation before; maybe. I bet you Monarch will be looking much much closer at sub charter operations from now on don't you?

I don't think any corporate body (Airline OR tour operator) should be allowed to abdicate their responsibilites when it comes to sub chartering.
Just because an operation is based within the EASA region is not a good enough answer, it is NOT a level playing field.

Unless something changes in regulation and oversight, this senario will just be repeated and sadly the ending maybe far more serious. That's just my opinion.

So are the CAA judging by the team of inspectors that turned up on Wednesday night to inspect one of MONs subchartered aircraft at EMA

Grave concern.
 

trackfpa320 Quote "I have no problem with other nationalities or registrations. I do have grave concerns about certain regulators not performing satisfactory oversight of their operators..."

If you do have "grave concerns" about certain regulators (understandably), then you should have serious problems with the nationalities and registrations that those regulators administer.

Your concerns would not be unwarranted.

Even small airlines believe they can be leaders in safety
 

Het field,


I am not sure I agree with you, Even small airlines believe that they can be leaders in Aviation Safety.

Titan Airways receives Innovation in Safety Management Award

One of my colleagues (well used to landing in BHX himself) was positioning back from NCE to BHX on that very flight, and told me the following:

- the approach was stable, although it looked a bit fast over the threshold
- long flare, touchdown abeam the fire station
- he expected quite a bit of reverse... which didn't come (autobrake only)
- as the aircraft neared the end of the runway, it started a turn but a vibration was felt (which he suspects may have been the nosewheel skidding on the wet runway)
- he then saw grass under the wings, and the 737 came to a stop
- only then were flaps retracted and APU started

The ambiance inside was reminiscent of a country fair! So much for Daily Mail :mad: tales of "terrified passengers"... :rolleyes:

As far as the operator is concerned, some comments on this thread are borderline xenophobic and only serve to show some posters' ignorance about commercial aviation beyond their own borders. Why would Aurela be usafe just because they're from Lithuania? Are only UK AOC airlines safe then? The Cold War mentality is still alive and well apparently... My mate is a frequent flyer on this route, familiar with NCE approaches (where he is based), and told me, some time before the incident, that he was often impressed by how precisely Aurela crews would obviously hand-fly the VOR A 04L or visual 04L approach in NCE - not always the most straightforward of approaches.

This is not to say that regulatory supervision was up to scratch; it may well not have been - although there is no reason why flying a 24-year old 737-300 is any less safe than on Monarch's own 757s or A300-600Rs of roughly the same vintage.

As far as subcontracting goes, I'm sure Monarch did their homework as is mandatory. A few years ago, my outfit temporarily used an LY-reg freighter on one of our routes, and one of our captains jumpseated on a number of sectors to observe their operation, SOPs etc. before giving the go-ahead.

Regarding mentioning the actual operator on the booking, it's only fair (when not only to cover last-minute AOG) and I notice most legacy airlines on which I fly (AF, KLM, LH, LOT) do so on the boarding pass even when the flight is operated by a subsidiary.

Cheers :cool:

Hear, hear!

Fouga Magister
 

I don't know Birmingham that well, can you tell me where the fire station is located; in particular with regard to the touch down zone markers on the runway in use ?

One possible scenario would be throttles not completely closed and therefore difficulty selecting reverse.

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2012-05-03.pdf

There is the aerodrome chart.

It is quite a way in, abeam a point I would estimate to be some 3500ft past the threshold to Runway 33.

Even so, this still leaves at least 4000 feet of runway before the end, which should be ample time to stop for an aircraft of this size given sufficient use of brakes and reverse.