I´d advise for a little caution with that Austrianwings article.

First of all, Austrianwings does not enjoy the highest reputation as a news source. I´d liken it to the Daily Mail or similar.

Secondly, all this article does is *claim* that the name of Smartwings chief pilot has been found in Czech media. " Bereits kurz nach dem Vorfall wurde in Branchenkreisen sowie in tschechischen Medien immer wieder ein Name genannt: Pavel Vesely. " translates as: "Already shortly after the incident, circles and the Czech media repeatedly reported one name: P. V.". Nowhere in this article is it claimed that Austrianwings had achieved own investigation results:

"Mehrere Mailanfragen an die Smartwings-Pressestelle und an Pavel Vesely selbst, ob er tatsächlich der Pilot des betreffenden Fluges war, blieben bis dato unbeantwortet. Sollte Vesely der Pilot in Command gewesen sein, würde das generelle Fragen nach der Sicherheitskultur im Unternehmen aufwerfen."

...translates as: "Multiple email requests for information directed to Smartwings public relation and P. V. himself, asking whether or not he was indeed piloting the concerned flight remained unanswered until now. Should V. have been PIC, it would pose some general questions on the companies safety culture."

So, to sum it up, the quoted article makes much ado about very little except for rehashing some (as to now) rumours and is IMHO not furthering the issue at hand.

Comparing austrianwings with DM is just ridiculous.

Secondly, multiple email requests directed to Smartwings public relation and P. V. himself are showing clearly austrianwing's effort to shed some light on the dark.

I think I understand that the 'who the Cpt was' makes the situation 'even worse'. But it is so bad to start with, and "apparently" it is a Company problem, that in the end does not (should not) matter who was flying that day?

Then let me clarify my point.
There may be an "effort to shed some light", but did it come to fruition? Did Austrianwings find out anything on the issue it spreads rumours on? It would have befitted a reputable media house to wait until they had "hardened" their accusations instead of blaring them out as mere insinuations. Compare the title as well, bearing a question mark instead of a full stop. All those are signs of yellow press style journalism.

The same can be said for the anonymous quotations of supposed experts - a reputable publication would have at least stated that the name of the contribuant is known to them but not stated for some reason. Also, typically of Austrianwings, the article is not signed by any author, just "red" for redaction.

So again, Austrianwings is in my opinion not a reputable news outlet and should be in no ways considered authoritative when it comes to such an investigation.

Smartwings MEMO published by zdopravy.cz


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....32b869e903.jpg

For those not speaking Czech, the gist of the memo above is a request for Smartwings employees "not to comment on social networks and publish internal information on internet". It also says that "several gross violations" of the company policy prohibiting such behaviour are being investigated.

Hmm, yet they don't seem to take the opportunity to deny it happened. They only want to scare their personnel. Now that kind of behaviour makes me even more suspicious.

And if he is not, they do ?

Any source on the CVR being erased already? Or since the plane went back into ops is had been overwrote? Does EASA not go straight to the plane and pull the data when an illegal fuel landing is reported?

It's not a requirement to have the name of the PIC shown on the ATC flight plan.
Definitely the main problem of the whole occurence...

Don't shoot the messenger.
BTW it took the effort of an aviation website to uncover this incident.

Maybe its different in Hungary, but I know several countries that have laws in place forbidding to listen in on radio comms. Posting this stuff on a website would clearly be a breach IMO. And WHO can tell that this statement is a 100% the truth ? Or even 90%. (Apart from the failed donk, which seems to be a fact undisputed...)

Moreover and more of a problem is the pre-justice done. An inquiry board should not have the public opinion towering over them. (as it happens so often!)

Your second sentence does not make sense to me - you meant to un - cover ?

Never said that and never meant that. (that was more of an overreaction to make the "pull their (the crew) licenses lot" think a bit. I failed, I admit it)

Appreciate your sense of irony though.

Of course, thx.

Brilliant post!

Is it just me or are people completely missing the plot here.
A certified airline carried well over 100 passengers for several hundred miles in a twin with a failed engine and low fuel warnings, contrary to a truckload of regulations.
In response, posters want to focus on the perceived illegality of listening to A to G communications.

Nope. You are completely right. This thread has drifted aka "don't shoot the messenger": we do need whistleblowers as long as we have people working together for example at the Czech CAA and Smartwings in order to keep things swept under the carpet. See previous posts on "race to the bottom" subject.

EASA versus FAA

While FAA is very clear on OEI issues, are there similar EASA regulations?
Thx