Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Watchdog slams BA's safety'

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • bloodnok
    replied
    Originally posted by strawsonh
    May i point out that British Airways has only ever had one major crash where fatalities have occured and this was in the 1970s. It has had its fair share of incidents in the past but that is to be expected given the size of its fleet and age. Comparing it to other airlines of a similar size e.g. Air France it is quite obvious that BA has maintained a very high safety record. This can only reflect the high quality and techniques of its engineering department.


    so i take it the british airtours accident at manchester doesn't count then?....even though they were part of british airways.

    Leave a comment:


  • kevinwm
    replied
    Originally posted by strawsonh
    May i point out that British Airways has only ever had one major crash where fatalities have occured and this was in the 1970s. It has had its fair share of incidents in the past but that is to be expected given the size of its fleet and age. Comparing it to other airlines of a similar size e.g. Air France it is quite obvious that BA has maintained a very high safety record. This can only reflect the high quality and techniques of its engineering department.
    Agree with you're comment hole heatedly
    I get bit fed up with people comparing BA to the so called low cost carriers then to slate BA over non maintenance problem's.
    Last edited by kevinwm; 10th January 2006, 09:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • andrewm
    replied
    redsuqare what exactly is your profession?

    Leave a comment:


  • redsquare
    replied
    wysiwyg,

    You are right, the main problem with non-precision approaches I've encountered is the reluctance to Go Around especially after doing an orbit to lose altitude and then mess it up a la Gulfair 320.

    On the side, all RYRs aircraft since 2003 are CATIIIB equipped, however for commonality are only(!) CATIIIA approved. The CATIIIA is good enough I guess and never came across CATIIIB conditions ie below 200m RVRs. We need more CATII airfields before anything else.

    Regards,
    bluesquare

    PS for clarity, I highly regard BA and its crews, no suggestion from me about anything other than being 1st class.

    edited for spelling..doh

    Leave a comment:


  • strawsonh
    replied
    BA Past Safety record

    May i point out that British Airways has only ever had one major crash where fatalities have occured and this was in the 1970s. It has had its fair share of incidents in the past but that is to be expected given the size of its fleet and age. Comparing it to other airlines of a similar size e.g. Air France it is quite obvious that BA has maintained a very high safety record. This can only reflect the high quality and techniques of its engineering department.

    Leave a comment:


  • wysiwyg
    replied
    Still not sure why non-precision is to be considered so much more risky than an ILS. After all the lack of precision is more than catered for by considerably higher minima. I guess what you're really getting at is operating to places where approaches are poorly written procedural ones with little or no radar cover. In that case that is where our professionalism and training should take over and if we can't justify and descent when below the local MSA then the only way is up. With regard to non-precision approaches, life would have been much more straightforward if Ryanair had chosen an aeroplane that not only was capable of Track and Flight Path Angle but could also couple the autoflight system to it as well (or even present a pseudo ILS on the PFD and fly that fully coupled!) like easyJet can but that's a whole different argument...

    But...BA aircraft operate their fair share of 'dodgy' approaches too, Funchal, Corfu, Innsbruk, JFK (Carnarsie), to name just a few.

    Leave a comment:


  • kevinwm
    replied
    Originally posted by redsquare
    Skymonster, I agree that the decision not to return to base was not to do with maintenance but crew decisions. However, 3 recent 747 engine failures is worrying no matter which way you lok at it. With regard to the decisions of the crew, there are two outstanding RYR reports to be published, however, it should be noted that RYR and BA operations are far different specifically regarding airport approach infrastructure. Without excusing any event, BA ops normally result in ILS approaches, something which is often not the case at RYR therefore the higher likelihood of incidents.

    Regards
    How many other airlines have suffered engine failures?, or are you saying BA are they only company to experience this problem's cause that s what it sound like
    Yet again the press like to sensationalize the ordinary ,last week on this forum , there was the thread BA 747 engine explosion@JFK , then when you read the true fact it suffered a engine Surge a problem that is caused not by the lack of maintenance and the Lax story , again a engine Surge
    As for worrying , I would only be worrying if the aircraft had crashed

    Leave a comment:


  • redsquare
    replied
    wysiwyg: As you know, non precision approaches carry significantly more risk than ILS's. Ryanair crews with between 4 and 6 sectors a day, often with many non precision approaches complete far more sectors than the vast majority of BA crews with long haulers doing what, maybe between 6 and 8 trips a month.

    For example, one of RYR's main bases, Rome Ciampino currently has no ILS but a dodgy, steep VOR/DME regularly used in 7kt tailwinds with a shortish runway, not easy in a heavy -800 never mind the circle-to-land to RWY 15...fun. Check out all the others with an ILS on one end and nothing or an NDB at the other if your lucky e.g. Szczecin,Tampere,Toulon,Tours Loire Valley,Trieste,Bydgoszcz, Gdask, Blackpool,Bergerac, Ancona, La Rochelle, Rzeszw, Wroclaw, Rodez, Poitiers, Lodz etc. Bags of fun during winter.

    Basically, what I'm trying to say is that RYR and BA are vastly different operations in terms of airports (or airfields ha ha) with one op more likely to cause problems (but doesen't)

    PS Sorry for the late reply, the day job gets in the way. Home early every night my backside.
    Last edited by redsquare; 9th January 2006, 01:52.

    Leave a comment:


  • wysiwyg
    replied
    Originally posted by redsquare
    ...Without excusing any event, BA ops normally result in ILS approaches, something which is often not the case at RYR therefore the higher likelihood of incidents...
    Whoa there!!! What are you trying to say with that sentence? I've worked for companies making many more non-precision approaches than the average Ryanair flight and I have never found them to be a concern. I trust your not trying to say it's just Ryanair pilots flying non-precision approaches...

    Leave a comment:


  • redsquare
    replied
    Skymonster, I agree that the decision not to return to base was not to do with maintenance but crew decisions. However, 3 recent 747 engine failures is worrying no matter which way you lok at it. With regard to the decisions of the crew, there are two outstanding RYR reports to be published, however, it should be noted that RYR and BA operations are far different specifically regarding airport approach infrastructure. Without excusing any event, BA ops normally result in ILS approaches, something which is often not the case at RYR therefore the higher likelihood of incidents.

    Regards

    Leave a comment:


  • Skymonster
    replied
    exmpa - agree with you on both points, particularly in respect of the A319 incident where not only did the crew elect to continue to destination but the a/c was not pulled for detailed investigation for several days until external parties intervened. None the less, the original asertion that the decision to continue to destination was symptomatic of a maintenance culture problem within BA was incorrect.

    Andy

    Leave a comment:


  • exmpa
    replied
    Likewise, the A319 incident MAY (again we don't know because we don't have the report yet) have had a cause routed in maintenance, or it may not. But again, the decision to continue the flight - which you implied was the real problem - is not maintenance related but was a crew decision.
    The point of issue in this case is the engineering action after the event (or lack of it). The failure was serious (potentially disastrous in some circumstances) but it is perceived that the subsequent company investigation may have been inadequate and the aircraft returned to service before the cause had been properly determined. As you correctly say:

    the decision to continue the flight - which you implied was the real problem - is not maintenance related but was a crew decision
    The circumstances relating to the decision to continue to destination are unclear. We shall have to wait for the AAIB to report for that aspect to be resolved. However it is worth noteing that the policy of most scheduled carriers is that in-flight defects should be carried to destination if it is safe and prudent to do so.

    exmpa

    Leave a comment:


  • PMN
    replied
    Originally posted by Skymonster
    how about talking about Ryanair crew decision making...
    Is this line referring to a specific incident or have I completely missed something?

    Paul

    Leave a comment:


  • Skymonster
    replied
    Originally posted by redsquare
    Back to BA, the 3 engine transatlantic run and A319 incident are to do with maintenance especially the 3 engine job. Losing an engine a 100ft always has a reason but both incidents as of yet don't have reports so we'll wait and see.
    No, yet again you are wrong. I repeat your original comment...

    Originally posted by redsquare
    Scary recent examples including the 3 engine 747 trans-atlantic flight and subsequent fuel emergency and the similar A319 flight where the instruments failed and then the crew continuing the flight is ridiculous.
    The three-engined flight had NOTHING to do with maintenance. Maybe, MAYBE there was a maintenance related issue with the engine failure in the first place but as you rightly point out, the report hasn't been published yet so we don't know that.

    The subsequent decision by the crew to continue the flight - you linked the "3 engine 747 trans-atlantic flight" (not the original engine failure, which as we've already agreed the cause of which is unpublished as yet) with maintenance problems - WAS NOT a maintenance issue but was a CREW DECISION, allowed under SOPs, and unrelated to the CAUSE of the original engine failure.

    Engine failures happen, period. 99% of these failures to not make the news. In the case of the 747 out of LAX, you are implying that something that was relatively routine and un-newsworthy (an engine failure) suddenly became newsworthy because of a maintenance issue - well it didn't, it became newsworthy because of a crew decision, and in fact despite the fact that the crew decision was valid within the airline's SOPs.

    Likewise, the A319 incident MAY (again we don't know because we don't have the report yet) have had a cause routed in maintenance, or it may not. But again, the decision to continue the flight - which you implied was the real problem - is not maintenance related but was a crew decision.

    Now, having decided that both of the BA incidents you highlighted only became issues of notoriey because of crew decisions, and seeing as you're so keen to defend Ryanair (not that I particularly have a problem with Ryanair in this respect), how about talking about Ryanair crew decision making...

    Andy

    Leave a comment:


  • redsquare
    replied
    MINIDOH,

    I don't know what you've apparantly seen but if it is a breach of maintenance regulations then I urge you contact the relevent authorities asap with any edvidence. You have a massive responsibility! I know from first hand experience (not going to give myself away here) that what you are talking is pure rubbish. Show proof please.

    Grey Area is right, be very careful, Ryanair has a very active legal department and will not hesitate to act because of the regular tyraids of lies.

    Back to BA, the 3 engine transatlantic run and A319 incident are to do with maintenance especially the 3 engine job. Losing an engine a 100ft always has a reason but both incidents as of yet don't have reports so we'll wait and see. A similar engine failure last leek out of JFK adds fuel to the fire. Co-incidently, BA and Ryanair both have heavy engine maintenance done at GE in Wales.

    The 757 with control problems was due to the flaps not being refitted proberly after maintenance causing it to get worse as they were extended asymmetrically on the approach.

    At the end of the day, BA has an outstanding record and I for one would not hesitate in using them over many others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cking
    replied
    Getting back to the original thread quickly!!!!. This report was covered in "Flight International" about a month ago, so it's hardly new. I think it was covered in the Times last week on what is known as a slow news week!
    Incidently the same issue of "Flight" had an artical about a report by the same "Watchdog" that criticised another british carrier for incorrect loading their aircraft. That didn't make the papers, slow news day or not!

    Rgds Cking

    Leave a comment:


  • PMN
    replied
    Originally posted by Skymonster
    I know you've now said this was meant in jest, but this is urban myth anyway. Given the size of the airline and the harsh environmental conditions in which Aeroflot sometimes have to operate, they have for many years had a pretty good record. Very few Aeroflot incidents in the past are attributed to maintenance or airplane airworthiness, and what accidents they have suffered have been predominantly weather or aircrew related.

    Andy
    I know. I was simply being sarcastic

    Paul
    Last edited by PMN; 4th January 2006, 17:46.

    Leave a comment:


  • Grey Area
    replied
    I hope some of you have unequivocal evidence to back up your assertions about Ryanair, just in case their legal folk take it into their heads to do the same thing to Key Publishing as they did to PPrune.

    Do be careful, chaps!

    GA
    Last edited by Grey Area; 4th January 2006, 16:57.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bmused55
    replied
    Originally posted by MINIDOH
    I have already talked about the issues with Ryanair aircraft. You claim there are no shortcuts taken, yet I have seen with my own eyes evidence of poor maintenence. There IS a difference between cheap and expensive maintenence. I am not claiming that every Ryanair flight is unsafe, but if you know so much about Ryanair then you will know what im talking about. Having seen the "lets do it next week" attitude in action I will never agree that Ryanair have high standards of maintenence. I was shocked when I saw what I saw, and it isnt just me who thinks their maintenence can be a bit iffy at times.
    I'm glad I'm not the only one then.

    Anybody remember my associate "bob"? well he was recently on loan to them to sort some maintenance issues out. Walked out within 5 hours of arriving at the office (he wouldn't tell me where it was). He said, and I quote:

    Their method of thought and approach to maintenance is shoddy. I've seen better logs in africa

    Leave a comment:


  • MINIDOH
    replied
    I have already talked about the issues with Ryanair aircraft. You claim there are no shortcuts taken, yet I have seen with my own eyes evidence of poor maintenence. There IS a difference between cheap and expensive maintenence. I am not claiming that every Ryanair flight is unsafe, but if you know so much about Ryanair then you will know what im talking about. Having seen the "lets do it next week" attitude in action I will never agree that Ryanair have high standards of maintenence. I was shocked when I saw what I saw, and it isnt just me who thinks their maintenence can be a bit iffy at times.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X